June 26, 2024 • 48 mins
After Georgia Congressman Mike Collins tweeted in support of frat guys harassing a Black woman with racist tropes… nothing really happened. Popular Information's Judd Legum explores why we need better stories about our democracy, the intersection of media complacency with corporate money, and what's at stake.
UPDATE: Congressman Collins feels the heat: https://popular.info/p/update-congressman-collins-feels
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
They will support people in power because they want access
to power.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There are no girls on the Internet. As a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm brigitad and this is
there are no girls on the Internet. As much as
I wish I could kind of ignore it, Yes, election
season is upon us. We're about one hundred and thirty
days out from the November election, and as it approaches,
(00:34):
I'm actually really wondering whether or not we can expect
that same kind of empty horse race political coverage that
doesn't so much inform as it does treat elections as
a game, not something you know, foundational to our democracy,
with big consequences for all of us. It's one of
the reasons why I read Popular Information, a newsletter about
(00:55):
democracy for people who give a damn, And as all
of my election related anxieties are coming to a head,
I set down Popular Information's founder, jud Legum, about where
we're at and where we might be headed. So Popular Information,
I have to tell you, is one of my favorite newsletters.
The about page says you are not a spectator and
(01:18):
democracy is not a game, but so much of what
is written about politics treat you that way.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
What do you mean by that, I just.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Think so much of the coverage of politics is premised
on the idea that citizens are sort of many political strategists,
and you should think about how, in sort of a
meadow way, of how your views might influence someone else's
(01:47):
views and the implications of that, rather than thinking about
what are the things that are important to me, what
do I believe in? What do I want to see
the future like, and what's the best path? You know,
we've abstracted politics so much that I think we've forgotten
(02:08):
what it's really about at its core. That's that's my
that's my fundamental belief.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
That's such a good point.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I agree, But it's so sad, and I think you're
right that I see that in the way stories are
reported or covered over and over again, that sometimes when
I read them, I think, like, what are the values here?
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Like?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Like, I do feel that we've sort of lost our
way a little bit in terms of how we are
trying to engage people in these larger stories about our
democracy and our country and our world and what their
role is in this right, Like, I'm just not invested
in these conversations about democracy and things that are so
important in these kind of gamified ways that are like, well,
(02:52):
this team said that, and so your reactive response should
be this, Like, I feel like it really minimizes what's
at stake here.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, you know, And I think just for example, like
one of the big topics in the news is the
Trump's criminal trial, which has been going on for a
few weeks now, and so much of the coverage is
focused on, well, how are his supporters feeling about it,
how is it impacting the presidential race, and is it
(03:20):
If it's not impacting the presidential race, maybe it was
a mistake to bring the case, but there's very there's
much less coverage on what is the fundamental conducted issue
and should that be legal or illegal? And if it's illegal,
should it be punished. I mean, that's the core question,
(03:43):
and the politics of it are something that we're gonna
find out about in November. But we spend a lot
of the time, like so much of our time between
now and November will be spent just trying to predict
exactly what's going to happen in November, and most of
(04:03):
that will just be wrong and wasted time. I mean,
that's what we do before every election.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
So true, I wonder have you ever have you seen
like polls that indicate that a lot of citizens aren't
really motivated by things like, oh, protecting democracy or fostering democracy.
That I wonder if we've sort of got if we're
sort of like giving people what they want in a
kind of way that's like, oh, people don't care about
you know, was this against the law or not?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Or is this threatening democracy or not?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
They care about something else, and so these stories that
are reported in this particular kind of way are sort
of giving them that thing that they want, which is like,
they don't care about things like protecting democracy necessarily, that's
not a motivating thing for them.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I think that it is true that sometimes people, and
I think the polling reflects this, are less concerned about issues,
whether that's democracy or are precise policy on taxes or
(05:10):
other important issues than they are on some of these
more cultural or personal questions. But I also think that
it's too much of a cop out to just say, well,
people are only interested in these things, and we're just
giving people what they want, Because what people are interested
(05:35):
in and what they think is important is dependent on
what they're reading and consuming and learning about and how
they're gaining an understanding of what's important and what's not important.
So for me, as somebody who who writes and is
dependent on people thinking they are interested in what I
(05:58):
am writing about, I am of course interested in what
people are interested in it and what they think. But
I'm also equally interested in is there a topic that
I know people are probably not yet interested in, but
can I figure out a way to explain it and
to present it to them in a way which they
(06:21):
will become interested in it? And I think that, from
the perspective of the media is an important role that
gets overlooked too much about the process of shaping what
is important and what isn't important. Not in a hectori way,
but can you present a story that people might not
(06:42):
have been aware of, and if they are aware of it,
they would be interested in if you tell it in
a compelling way.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
And I think that you do this in a very
particular kind of way, because there are so many stories
that come across my newsfeed or whatever about wrongdoing like
XYZ person, public figure, a elected official, whatever, has done
something bad or wrong, and something that you an angle
that you take that I really appreciate that is okay, Well,
(07:08):
this was a bad thing, whatever, whatever, But what are
the let's peel back the layers. What are the corporate
forces that are supporting this person and are they aligning
with their stated values or pledges or whatever that are
out in the world, Like, like, who are actually the
forces that are propping up this person to do XYZ
bad thing. That's something that I think that you do
(07:30):
better than almost anybody out there. And I wonder how
did you come to sort of seeing stories in this
way and taking that framing, well.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
For better or for worse. I've been looking through campaign
finance reports since I was I think eighteen years old.
I'm forty five now, so I've I've been doing.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
It for something that you were into.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Well, I just want to My first jobs in politics
was in the research department at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There were about five or six of us there and
we had one computer that we shared, but you could
print out, you know. One of the things you would
do at that time was create a book. And by
they still talk about books in the research world, but
(08:20):
they're no longer physical books. But at that time it
was a physical three whole punch book and you know,
whatever what you would do is just print out all
the campaign finance filings for that candidate and their opponent.
And you know, things have changed quite a bit, but
the role of corporate money over those decades has become
(08:41):
more and more important. And I also think that there
are especially the way in which we've sliced and diced
some of these congressional districts, and just the way demographs
have shaken out. There's people who are in districts where
they're never they're basically never going to lose, they're not competitive.
(09:02):
There's not that many competitive districts these days. There's not
that many competitive states these days. In the presidential election.
But everyone or almost everyone, to one extent or another,
requires kind of the buy in or relies on the
buy in from major corporations and other people who do
(09:26):
have a desire and a need to be viewed as
taking broadly acceptable social positions on social issues for the
rest of the world. And so that's a way to
bring a level or some semblance of accountability to those politicians,
(09:51):
or it should be. It's not not always, but at
the very least, I think the first step is understanding,
you know, yes, there's this congressman Mike Collins, who is
you know, saying extremely racist things online and you know,
praising people who are engaged in the ugliest, most disgusting
(10:16):
and racial stereotypes you could possibly imagine if you were
trying to come up with, you know, the worst one
you could, you wouldn't go too far away. But he's
not just existing in a vacuum. He's backed by these
you know, major corporations, American Airlines, Delta, all sorts of
(10:37):
folks who not only would you think reject this, but
really present themselves on a corporate level as being champions
of you know, equality and treating people fairly and equally
and in both their business as far as attracting customers,
and also they're recruiting, you know, bringing in the very
(10:57):
best employees, have have a real interest in being viewed
as somebody who welcomes you know, all sorts of people,
regardless of their race or anything else. And so yeah,
you can kind of I think it's useful for at
least at the start, for people to know what's going on,
where the money is flowing, and how that assists some
(11:22):
of these more radical forces that have taken a pretty
prominent role, you know, in our political system.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
So I got in touch with Judd after a pretty
upsetting moment earlier this summer. You might remember it. On
the campus of University of Mississippi sometimes called Ole Miss,
a group of thirty to sixty pro Palestinian student protesters gather.
The group is multiracial, and a group of counter protesters,
who are mostly white men, two of whom are wearing red,
(11:53):
white and blue American flag overalls with no shirt, are
taunting the pro Palestinian students. The whites students encircle a
black woman. It's journalism student Jayleen R.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Smith.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
They make monkey noises at her and scratch their under
arms while chanting like an ape. One calls her Lizzo.
They shout lock her up. It's heartbreaking, and as a
(12:28):
black woman who came of age protesting for lefty causes
like ending the war in Iraq in the heart of
the Deep South, North Carolina, I was Jayleen, and those
white Southern frat boys taunting and jeering at her, well,
I knew them too. It's like it's been twenty years
and nothing has changed. And that video actually harkened back
(12:50):
even further for me to the days of civil rights
sit ins and bus boycotts across the South. Two male
students were kicked out of their frat by Delta Data,
and a lot of people rightly denounce their behavior, but
not Georgia Congressman Republican Mike Collins. Mike Collins tweeted the
video of the protesters making monkey noises at Jalen, saying
(13:12):
ole miss is taken care of business. That business being
pretty obvious racism toward.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
A black woman.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
He tweeted that in May, and it is still up today,
and Collins didn't really even seem that bent out of
shape when he got pushed back when people called out
the fact that the young men in the video that
he reposted glorifying their behavior, are being blatantly racist toward
a black woman, Collins put out kind of a tepid statement, saying, quote, Frankly,
(13:41):
I did not believe that to be the focal point
of the video shared at the time, but I recognize
that there certainly seems to be some potentially inappropriate behavior
that none of us should see to glorify.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
And that was kind of it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Collins is not in danger of losing his seat in
Congress anytime soon, and it was like that was that
you know, little chance of any kind.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Of electoral repercussions.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
It kind of felt like the media just moved on
and didn't know what else they could possibly say about
this incident except jud for popular information. Judd looked into
what corporations and businesses donate money to Collins's campaign, and
he found that a lot of them had made these big,
flashy public pledges not to use their money to fund
(14:23):
divisive candidates, and a lot of them talked big public,
flashy games about things like diversity and inclusion.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
So would they be pulling their funding from Congressman Collins?
Not so much so talking about Collins?
Speaker 2 (14:38):
You know, I have to say, like the videos and
the imagery coming out of Old Miss, it hit me
on a really kind of visceral level. Like I was thinking, like, oh,
we're gonna see these images and history books or something
like like. That's the level that I felt those those
images and videos elicited. I don't, but you know, when
(14:59):
you know all already they're put out by this guy
who himself has written for like white supremacist media outlets.
Then Mike Collins is like, oh, oh, Miss is really
taking care of business. What was the reaction after Collins tweeted.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
This, well, I mean, I guess it depends on which
in what group. I think that there were some people
who were online who were certainly outraged by it. You said,
you said, you you you think that you might see
these images in a history book. It was almost as
(15:33):
if we were watching a history books. Like you felt
like you were watching something from the fifties or something
like that. Like it's hard to believe that it's this
is a this is a scene of life in a
college campus of any sword in twenty twenty four as
opposed to you know, nineteen forty four. But I think,
(15:53):
and again this goes back to where we started, the
discussion of how so much political coverage is driven by
what might be the implication in a future election. So
the fact that Mike Collins has a very red seat
and oftentimes I think doesn't even attract a I mean,
(16:16):
he is in his first term, but that particular district
doesn't always even attract a democratic challenger because people don't
want to waste their time. Uh, then therefore we're not
really going to spend time scrutinizing. My view is, no,
this is this is something that's you know, outrageous, and
(16:36):
let's look into it, and let's look into who this
guy is and who's backing him, because the implications are
much greater than one congressional seat. Meaning, if if this becomes,
you know, an acceptable level of discourse, you know that
(16:58):
things things full. I don't think things are going to
go in a good direction from there. I can't imagine
how that would things would end up going in a
good direction. So that's that's really what's motivating. That's really
what's motivating me. But I think the the overall reaction,
you know, from sort of a media perspective, is relatively muted.
(17:19):
I would say, I would say it's it's you know,
relative to what's happening.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Maybe I'm being naive and listeners are going to be like, wow,
what a Pollyanna. But I was genuinely surprised how it
does seem like this story kind of petered out, and
I think it is exactly what you're saying. That part
of it is just like, well, there's no real implications
for a future election here, so.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Like what else?
Speaker 2 (17:45):
What else is there that we could possibly talk about?
If that's the case. And I was genuinely surprised to
see how little traction it got, which is one of
the reasons I'm making this episode because I don't think
that's appropriate. But yeah, I think it goes back to
what you were saying, how when we have this dynamic
that treats politics and democracy as if it is a game,
(18:07):
and if the stakes are one way, there's not even
really any point of even engaging on some of these
issues that really go back to like right and wrong
and what kind of discourse do we want to have
from our elected officials and what kind of discourse is unacceptable.
We're not even really having those conversations in a lot
of cases.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, And I think the other part of it that
I think about sometimes is that it's a very shortsighted
view of the political discourse, Meaning, yeah, there might not
be implications in Mike College congressional district right now, but
politics can change pretty rapidly. You know. It wasn't that
long ago two thousand and eight when all of the
(18:48):
major Democratic candidates, all of them opposed same sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, you know, and you
almost forget that that happened, and you couldn't imagine it
happening today, like you couldn't have a Democratic presidential candidate
who opposed the same sex marriage. People would be like,
what are what are you talking about? Like this is
(19:09):
some sort of bizarro land, But it was really, you know,
fifteen years ago that that was not only something that
could happen, but it was essentially table stakes because people
thought that anything else was too radical. Not all people,
but the people who were running for president at that
time thought it was too radical. So yeah, Mike Collins
(19:31):
might be able to get away with this today. He
can pretty much say whatever he wants. But we don't
know what the future holds, and I don't think that
that should be an excuse if there is something that's
worth you know, exploring and unpacking and worth people's attention
from covering it. So that's that's kind of the I'm
(19:53):
less concerned about, you know, what are the immediate implications
of this story, and more about what's important what's not important,
and let's just start there. And you know, things will
shake out in ways that are are unpredictable, not always
in a in a great direction. You know, it'll be
things go in both directions. We've seen that. We've seen
(20:14):
that too. I think I think one when Obama was
was elected in two thousand and eight, there were a
lot of people saying, you know, the demographics of the
country are changing, and you know, Republicans are never going
to be competitive and presidential elections and et cetera, et cetera,
and you know that's clearly, you know, not the case.
So it's not that it's not that things are always
(20:37):
just going to get improved, but things are always changing
and changing in ways that we don't we can't always predict.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I think it really behooves us to take a long
view of the landscape. I feel like we're so at
least for me, I feel like having a very short term,
narrow view of things is encouraged and just in the
new cycle that we're in, social media moves so quickly,
and it can really do who of us to step
back and take a kind of a longer view of
all of this sometimes.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
For sure, for sure, And I you know, honestly, that's
one of the reasons why I like writing a newsletter
as opposed to before when I was editing a blog.
And it's just because I write one newsletter a day,
so that means that there's a whole bunch of stories
that occur during the day. Then I know people will
probably be interested in, but they'll either already know about
(21:26):
or will sort of just be old news by the
next morning. So you have to try to pick something.
I mean, it's not exactly long term think as opposed to,
you know, spending five years reading a book, but it's
a little bit better. You know that you have to
think of something that does this have a you know,
is this still going to be worth thinking about and
talking about, you know, in the morning.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
And I think that's a I appreciate at least having
that that perspective in that check on myself because I
think it is it is tempting to think about, well,
what's going to a people's interest in that moment, and
that that is what drives a lot of our a
(22:07):
lot of the discourse.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
This is something I feel viscerally because I make this podcast.
Sometimes there really is this pressure to just be reacting constantly,
just putting something into the feed that responds to the
thing that everybody is talking about, you know, just adding
your take into a sea of however many takes are
already out there. It's tempting, but does it really make
us any.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Smarter or more informed?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
You know, I think there's got to be a better
way and judge us too. I really appreciate that, you know,
as somebody who makes a podcast. Our show comes out
twice a week, and so many of the stories from
on the beginning of the week, I'm like, oh, everybody's
talking about this. By the time I'm ready to put
an episode out about it, it just feels like more chatter,
like everybody has already got their takes out, And I
(23:11):
guess I think there's a temptation to add to the
chatter of like, everybody's talking about this, let me do
an episode about it. But then you don't get to
give these stories a little bit of breathing room and
be like, well, what's going to be the story that
really does have longer term implications. It's so easy to
just crank out reactions and content, but it is harder
(23:31):
and I think more valuable to really spend some time
being like, well, if people have one story that they're
going to pour over today, what story should that be
and why? Like, I think you're really doing some of
that foundational work of nourishing people via media, which I
think is so important and done less and less these days.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Yeah, and it's an interest. It's difficult, but it's to
try to think about that, like, what are something that
is not getting a lot of attention that might get
attention if people just knew about it. But the reality
is there are so many stories, so many important stories
that are untold today. Because you've had with you know,
(24:13):
Google and Facebook and others sweeping up all the local
advertising revenue, you've had a really hollowing out of local journalism,
which used to be you know, there might have been
ten people covering a state house, you know, in Maryland
or wherever from Maryland. So that's what I bring it up.
But you know, it's a similar story at every state.
(24:35):
You might have had ten people and now you have one,
or you might have had fifty people and now you
have five. And that just means there's so many things
that are going on that people don't know about. So
it is important when you can to try to in
my view, or at least what I try to do,
(24:56):
is to try to find things that I think are
flying on to the radar a bit because I think
more and more that's what's happening and and this, and
the desire to kind of pile on or it's safer
to write about you know, it's it's safer to write
about Trump, for instance, you know, because because everyone's interested
(25:17):
in it, and there's nothing wrong. I mean, he maybe
our next president. It's not there's nothing wrong with that,
and it's appropriate to be interested in who's the next president.
But you know that there's going to be kind of
a baseline level of interest. You also know that it
is going to be difficult to break new ground because
(25:39):
there's so much that's already been said. So I think
that there may be more opportunities in down the ballot,
in localities, in states where really important things that are
happening that impact people's lives but are not getting that
same level of attention just because of where we are.
(26:02):
The dynamics of political media.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Don't even get me started, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Not that long ago, I was working for an advocacy organization,
and when Trump is in the White House, we definitely
leaned on that when we would send emails out to
our list, because every subject line got to be like,
what's Trump done?
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Now?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Trump is terrible?
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Trump is doing this and that and rightly, so, like
all of that stuff was true, but when Trump left office,
it was so we had like leaned on that so
hard that it was like we had trouble engaging people
or getting them interested when we didn't have Trump as
this like singular bad guy figure to use. And it
(26:48):
kind of made me think, like we really sort of
lost the plot here if we can only talk to
our community, our people when we are pointing to something
horrible that Trump has done legitimately, so, but like, there's
got to be a better way to engage people politically
than that that like actually speaks to their values or
you know, a shared future we want to see together.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
That's not just like you know, pointing to him as
a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
It's something that I really think that some of us
might have used as a crutch for a bit. And
now we're sort of like, oh, well, the media legacy
or the media landscape that that has given us is
really not so great.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Yeah, And at some point, you know, Trump will go away.
I'm not sure when that point will be, but at
some point that will happen. But that doesn't that won't
be the end of his style of politics. And he
wasn't the beginning of his style of politics. Either you know,
we had over many years the development of the Tea Party,
(27:51):
and one, you know, what Trump does very kind of
effectively a lot of the time at least is degrade
confidence and trust in institutions. I mean, that's that's that's
the whole game ultimately, you know, whether it's saying Barack
(28:12):
Obama was really born in Africa or saying the election
was actually stolen or saying all the prosecutors who are
going after him are corrupt. I mean, it's about undermining institutions.
But that process did not start with Trump. I mean,
this is something that has been funded at a very
high level with the Tea Party and with with other groups.
(28:35):
And once Trump, you know, kind of exit stage left,
it will continue. It will continue, and there may be
people who are who are were even more effective at
a kind of rallying support around some of these these topics.
So I do think it is a mistake to present
the problem as one of a specific personality. Uh and
(28:59):
what what other thing that I'll just sence I'm on
a little rant here. One other thing that I'll say
is I also think it's a problem that what is
now considered a moderate Pundit is actually some of the
most conservative people on pretty much every issue who don't
(29:22):
happen to like Trump stylistically and his style of politics.
So they're anti Trump, which is fine, but politically they
are not moderate. And if we come out of this,
if we come out of this in the example is
you know that Bill Crystal or whoever, you know, all
these folks who have kind of you know, are very
(29:44):
or you know that some people become anti Trump and
then they come back and they're pro Trump again.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
But there are a.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Group of people who are pretty consistently pro Trump. But
that does not make them moderate in any way. It
just means that they happen not to like Trump.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
It is so true, and it really in me it
goes back to what we were talking about earlier of
like I don't know when I think about where I
was politically and the political landscape and like two thousand
and seven, two thousand and eight, some of the people
that I feel like I'm being told like, oh, well,
that's a moderate voice.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
I like this.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I just can't believe where the ships have fallen, and
like where we are in terms of political discourse in
this country right now.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
It really terrifies me.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And yeah, I just I don't I when I think
about where we will be in the future, I genuinely
don't know.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I think it's it's.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Really wild how some of the most extreme voices and
names out there we kind of are meant to be like, oh, well,
they're not a Trumper, so they're kind of on the
right track, and it's like, no, they really aren't.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Like, well, like what has happened to our landscape here?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yeah, and it'll be interesting to see how that how
that shakes out.
Speaker 4 (30:59):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
You know, we're either five years away or a few
months away from the from the end of Trump. I
don't think he'll have another run in him after this
if he were to lose another time. But you know,
either way, you know they'll be there'll be a new
(31:21):
uh dynamic, And to be honest, I'm looking forward to
it because I think it as somebody you know, I
mentioned that, you know, I've been sort of involved in
politics in one way or the other for for most
of my adult life, and I think that the moment
we're in now is is definitely one of the most
(31:45):
exhausting moments because I just feel like the dynamics have
not changed for so long, Like what what's what's interesting
in in kind of invigorating is when you get sort
of new dynamics, new figures on the scene, new issues
at play, new kinds of debates. But today, you know,
(32:07):
we're engaged in a lot of the old kinds of debates.
So it can become a little exhausting, but it doesn't
make it. Of course, the stakes are still just as important.
So you kind of sold your own. But if things
do change one day soon, I won't be too upset about.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It, you and me both.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
More.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Given the kind of reporting that you do, what role
do you see corporate money and corporate funding and corporate
support having in where we are today, Like when it
comes to Collins, Like what brands and corporate dentities are
some of some of the folks who are supporting him
right now?
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Well, I think when you when you look at it,
a lot of his supporters are major corporations UH that
are based in Georgia, which is not so you have
folks UH like Delta Delta Airlines. You have folks like
(33:28):
Coca Cola UH, and then some of the other UH
national big national groups are who are based elsewhere at
and T Verizon. UH. One thing I thought was really
interesting about Coca Cola, and this of course goes back
to its kind of history and in Georgia specifically, which
(33:51):
is one of the you know, central UH, places where
the civil rights movement kind of was played out, and
Coca Cola has always had kind of a forward looking
perspective on those issues. And I think, really, you know,
(34:11):
for a whole variety of reasons that's based in Georgia.
I think it wants to make sure that it could
attract you know, the best black talent, the best talent overall,
but particularly a lot of the talent are going to
be black people, and so they've been pretty forward looking,
and they actually in twenty twenty one pledged and said,
(34:35):
we are not going to give any money to people
who are making these kind of outrageous comments on racial issues.
Like that is our pledge. And it fits in with
a lot of the other stuff they've done. And you
don't want to I don't want to diminish the fact
(34:56):
that they probably have done a lot of you know,
important work in this regard. But the thing that I
find disturbingly cynical is that Coca Cola and the other
corporations too never really want to be held accountable or
(35:16):
follow through on pledges like that. They are they want
the sort of pr win and they definitely want that reputation,
but they also want to stay on good terms with
somebody who is a congressman from their state who they
may need to get a meeting with, or you know,
(35:38):
might want to be able to bend a zier a
bit on an important issue. So you know, that's that's
where I see a much larger role if corporations are
really serious about this. I mean, that's the whole thing
(35:59):
with you know, whether you want to call it ESG
or DEI or whatever acronym you want to call it
around corporate social responsibility is there's a lot of criticism
from the right, but the reality is most of this
is just talk that many corporations are saying a lot
(36:22):
of stuff. They have a whole fancy website about, you know,
what they're going to be doing on climate in twenty
forty five, but they're not doing anything now, you know,
and now they're going in the wrong direction. So that's
I think a very you know, we'll have to see
how that that how that plays out that there's a
(36:45):
reason why it's a political battlefield right now is because
it's important and the right has has come back and
is trying to make it politically unpalatable for corporations take
any kind of position on political or social issues.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Yeah, I mean, given all that, like given that, we're
seeing things like DEI and like conclusion efforts, even the mildest,
the most toothless things being attacked and kind of made
politically reactive in these ways, Like where do you see
corporations and brands landing? And in some way that doesn't
matter where they land because you know, I have to
tell you I've taken like a tour of the Civil
(37:32):
Rights Museum in Atlanta, which they have an entire Coca
Cola wing, and the person who was giving us the
tour was from Coca Cola and was like very proud
to tell us what a big ally Coca Cola was
in the civil rights movement and how important that economic
economic flexing was to the civil rights movement and all
of that, and like here in twenty twenty four, haaven
(37:53):
then be like, well, we made this pledge, but what
are you.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Going to do? Like it is. It is very disappointing.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
But I guess, stepping back, like, do you think these
brands are going to really.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
Be engaged? Is it all just talk? And on some
level like does it matter?
Speaker 1 (38:13):
I think it. I mean, I think again it's the
short term. In the long term, I think short term,
there's very little in it for brands right now, and
that's why you sort of see or retrenching. The most
dramatic thing we saw happen was after January sixth, when
you did see a lot of corporations pledge to stop
(38:37):
donating to the members of Congress that voted against certifying
the election. But quickly we've also seen most of those
companies roll those back, or they did it for a
year or two years, and then they said that was enough,
and now we're going to donate to those companies again,
donate to those members of Congress again. Because the reality
(38:58):
is that right now the political environment is pretty it's
pretty evenly split. You know, maybe it's not completely evenly split,
but you don't if you want to appeal to everyone,
you know, it's pretty easy to make people upset. But
I do think that there's a broader trend where people
(39:20):
are much more conscious in their consumption. Maybe not right
now about the politics of the companies who are producing
the products that they're consuming, but people are much more interested,
for instance, in you know, if they're buying broccoli, like
where that broccoli came from. They're much more interested today
(39:41):
than they were ten years ago. They're much more interested
in how their T shirt was produced. Not everyone, but
many more people than were produced. But and I think
that if people are starting to engage in those kinds
of questions and think more critically about those kind of questions,
it is a natural step and certainly a step that
(40:01):
some people, although maybe not a critical massive people are
taking to think about what role is this company playing
in the political issues that I care about? How are
they using their influence? Because there is a path where
(40:23):
the companies sort of take a step back and say
we're not going to do anything. You know, we're not
going to donate the politicians, We're not going to engage
in lobbying. We're just going to focus on making our
widgets and selling our widgets, and we'll let other people
worry about politics. That's not really where they are right now.
Where most companies are right now is they will support
people in power because they want access to power. And
(40:48):
I do think that there is a point in the
foreseeable future when a critical massive consumer say that that
that is not good enough and that I'm going to
shift my consumption to corporations that either stay out of
it or corporations that more reflect my values. So I
do think that this process of, at least at the beginning,
(41:08):
kind of maybe just exposing the role that corporations play
in politics, you know, may may lead somewhere.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Maybe I won't be doing this work long enough to
see it, but it might. It's not hard to imagine
a world where you know, people are paying much closer
attention to these kinds of issues.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Well to that end, you know, in your in your
newsletter piece about what happened at Old Miss, I noticed that,
you know, you're like, oh, popular Information reached out to
H and T, Verizon Coke didn't hear back.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
How much of this worked for you is like being.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Willing to ask the ask the company an annoying question
and then being like, I'm We're not going to answer that,
Like how much of this is just being like, well, yes,
said x y Z publicly, What's what's the deal.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Where do you stand now?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
A lot of time doing that, and it is it is,
it is sometimes frustrating, and you don't always get an answer,
or if you do get an answer, it's it's sometimes
it's it's no comment. And I do think that people
are much less likely. People are much less likely to
weigh in now than they even were in twenty twenty one,
(42:22):
because there's been a concerted effort to try to present
this idea that corporations have gone woke and people and
they're guarding against the other side of it. So yeah,
that is a big part of it. But I also
think it's you know, important work. I mean, we were
the first people in the newsletter, was the first place
(42:44):
to report that any companies had decided to not to
stop donating to the members of Congress who who voted
not to certify on January sixth, and it's because you know,
we sent out the you know, inquiries to one hundred
and seventy seven companies, I think the first for the
first issue, and we heard back from four of them.
(43:06):
But those that four turned out to be you know,
fairly significant and helped create a dynamic where other companies
filed suit. So I think it's important to ask those questions,
and I think sometimes even when you don't get an answer,
it's important to know. It's important for the companies to
know that it's getting written about, and that it's going
(43:28):
to be and it's going to be discussed and talked about.
And I know that they companies do pay attention to this,
to this kind of reporting, and that's one of the
reasons why I stick with it. The other reason is
I know that you know, a lot of readers, you know,
appreciate it, and a lot of readers are looking for that,
(43:52):
you know, information. It's probably not the first thing on
the on the top of everyone's mind when they're you know,
in the grocery store, whatever they're doing, going about their day.
You know, people have you have to remind yourself when
you're working in a political space or the media space
that people have other things going on. They've got jobs
and lives and kids and all sorts of responsibilities, and
(44:14):
so they're not always going to be focused on this stuff.
But you know, for the people that are or or
or might be, you know, establishing this factual record I
think is worth some time.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
I think popular information has completely changed the culture around
how we think about who is funding what and our
role in it and all of that. So I completely agree,
And I guess one of my last questions is, first,
folks who are listening, who are like, I'm so checked
out on this, I don't even know, Like, how do
(44:51):
you stay engaged and not just sit out all of
this set out your democracy, especially when things are so
exhausting and everything seems so exhausting to keep up with.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Well, I think that's a tough question because I think
it is difficult enough to kind of keep your own
life on track and your own life in order. Sort
of taking in all these external things that might not
be happening in your front door is difficult, and I
(45:26):
think it's actually okay sometimes. I know this is maybe
like anathema to people who work in the political space,
but it's okay sometimes to like check out and just
focus on yourself. But I do think that the progress
in politics or things that are more can give you
(45:49):
some hope don't usually come in the form of this
one sort of dramatic event where everything is fixed to
get and everything is good to get. That's not the
way that it works. But I think that things that
can impact even one person's life, and or just having
(46:16):
someone feel like they're more understood or more valued. That
can be really important. And that's what I, you know,
try to try to focus on. And so I think
if you're feeling like what you're doing doesn't matter or
(46:40):
it's just pointless to be engaged, you know, your contribution
might just be explaining the importance of you know, let's say,
expanding the child tax credit to one person and getting
them to you know, maybe just understand, maybe not even
change their mind, but maybe just understand that issue and
(47:02):
why a lot of people rely on it and why
we have you know, a lot of kids who are
still living in poverty in the United States. That could
be I think that's that's like a contribution that you
can feel okay about. You know, it doesn't have to
be that you know, you've you've passed a major piece
of legislation, because that's that's something that that anyone really
(47:24):
could do these days. So so that's that's I think
when I'm thinking clearly, I think that's the kind of
thing that I try to focus on. And I think
probably the right the better attitude.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
H H.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech I
just want to say Hi. You can read just a
Hello at tangodi dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me for j Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed creative Jonathan Stricklet
as our executive producer. Tarry Harrison is our producer and
sound engineered. Michael Almato is our contributing producer. I'm your host,
(48:03):
Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
Review us on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
They will support people in power because they want access
to power.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There are no girls on the Internet. As a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm brigitad and this is
there are no girls on the Internet. As much as
I wish I could kind of ignore it, Yes, election
season is upon us. We're about one hundred and thirty
days out from the November election, and as it approaches,
(00:34):
I'm actually really wondering whether or not we can expect
that same kind of empty horse race political coverage that
doesn't so much inform as it does treat elections as
a game, not something you know, foundational to our democracy,
with big consequences for all of us. It's one of
the reasons why I read Popular Information, a newsletter about
(00:55):
democracy for people who give a damn, And as all
of my election related anxieties are coming to a head,
I set down Popular Information's founder, jud Legum, about where
we're at and where we might be headed. So Popular Information,
I have to tell you, is one of my favorite newsletters.
The about page says you are not a spectator and
(01:18):
democracy is not a game, but so much of what
is written about politics treat you that way.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
What do you mean by that, I just.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Think so much of the coverage of politics is premised
on the idea that citizens are sort of many political strategists,
and you should think about how, in sort of a
meadow way, of how your views might influence someone else's
(01:47):
views and the implications of that, rather than thinking about
what are the things that are important to me, what
do I believe in? What do I want to see
the future like, and what's the best path? You know,
we've abstracted politics so much that I think we've forgotten
(02:08):
what it's really about at its core. That's that's my
that's my fundamental belief.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
That's such a good point.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I agree, But it's so sad, and I think you're
right that I see that in the way stories are
reported or covered over and over again, that sometimes when
I read them, I think, like, what are the values here?
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Like?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Like, I do feel that we've sort of lost our
way a little bit in terms of how we are
trying to engage people in these larger stories about our
democracy and our country and our world and what their
role is in this right, Like, I'm just not invested
in these conversations about democracy and things that are so
important in these kind of gamified ways that are like, well,
(02:52):
this team said that, and so your reactive response should
be this, Like, I feel like it really minimizes what's
at stake here.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, you know, And I think just for example, like
one of the big topics in the news is the
Trump's criminal trial, which has been going on for a
few weeks now, and so much of the coverage is
focused on, well, how are his supporters feeling about it,
how is it impacting the presidential race, and is it
(03:20):
If it's not impacting the presidential race, maybe it was
a mistake to bring the case, but there's very there's
much less coverage on what is the fundamental conducted issue
and should that be legal or illegal? And if it's illegal,
should it be punished. I mean, that's the core question,
(03:43):
and the politics of it are something that we're gonna
find out about in November. But we spend a lot
of the time, like so much of our time between
now and November will be spent just trying to predict
exactly what's going to happen in November, and most of
(04:03):
that will just be wrong and wasted time. I mean,
that's what we do before every election.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
So true, I wonder have you ever have you seen
like polls that indicate that a lot of citizens aren't
really motivated by things like, oh, protecting democracy or fostering democracy.
That I wonder if we've sort of got if we're
sort of like giving people what they want in a
kind of way that's like, oh, people don't care about
you know, was this against the law or not?
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Or is this threatening democracy or not?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
They care about something else, and so these stories that
are reported in this particular kind of way are sort
of giving them that thing that they want, which is like,
they don't care about things like protecting democracy necessarily, that's
not a motivating thing for them.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I think that it is true that sometimes people, and
I think the polling reflects this, are less concerned about issues,
whether that's democracy or are precise policy on taxes or
(05:10):
other important issues than they are on some of these
more cultural or personal questions. But I also think that
it's too much of a cop out to just say, well,
people are only interested in these things, and we're just
giving people what they want, Because what people are interested
(05:35):
in and what they think is important is dependent on
what they're reading and consuming and learning about and how
they're gaining an understanding of what's important and what's not important.
So for me, as somebody who who writes and is
dependent on people thinking they are interested in what I
(05:58):
am writing about, I am of course interested in what
people are interested in it and what they think. But
I'm also equally interested in is there a topic that
I know people are probably not yet interested in, but
can I figure out a way to explain it and
to present it to them in a way which they
(06:21):
will become interested in it? And I think that, from
the perspective of the media is an important role that
gets overlooked too much about the process of shaping what
is important and what isn't important. Not in a hectori way,
but can you present a story that people might not
(06:42):
have been aware of, and if they are aware of it,
they would be interested in if you tell it in
a compelling way.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
And I think that you do this in a very
particular kind of way, because there are so many stories
that come across my newsfeed or whatever about wrongdoing like
XYZ person, public figure, a elected official, whatever, has done
something bad or wrong, and something that you an angle
that you take that I really appreciate that is okay, Well,
(07:08):
this was a bad thing, whatever, whatever, But what are
the let's peel back the layers. What are the corporate
forces that are supporting this person and are they aligning
with their stated values or pledges or whatever that are
out in the world, Like, like, who are actually the
forces that are propping up this person to do XYZ
bad thing. That's something that I think that you do
(07:30):
better than almost anybody out there. And I wonder how
did you come to sort of seeing stories in this
way and taking that framing, well.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
For better or for worse. I've been looking through campaign
finance reports since I was I think eighteen years old.
I'm forty five now, so I've I've been doing.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
It for something that you were into.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Well, I just want to My first jobs in politics
was in the research department at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There were about five or six of us there and
we had one computer that we shared, but you could
print out, you know. One of the things you would
do at that time was create a book. And by
they still talk about books in the research world, but
(08:20):
they're no longer physical books. But at that time it
was a physical three whole punch book and you know,
whatever what you would do is just print out all
the campaign finance filings for that candidate and their opponent.
And you know, things have changed quite a bit, but
the role of corporate money over those decades has become
(08:41):
more and more important. And I also think that there
are especially the way in which we've sliced and diced
some of these congressional districts, and just the way demographs
have shaken out. There's people who are in districts where
they're never they're basically never going to lose, they're not competitive.
(09:02):
There's not that many competitive districts these days. There's not
that many competitive states these days. In the presidential election.
But everyone or almost everyone, to one extent or another,
requires kind of the buy in or relies on the
buy in from major corporations and other people who do
(09:26):
have a desire and a need to be viewed as
taking broadly acceptable social positions on social issues for the
rest of the world. And so that's a way to
bring a level or some semblance of accountability to those politicians,
(09:51):
or it should be. It's not not always, but at
the very least, I think the first step is understanding,
you know, yes, there's this congressman Mike Collins, who is
you know, saying extremely racist things online and you know,
praising people who are engaged in the ugliest, most disgusting
(10:16):
and racial stereotypes you could possibly imagine if you were
trying to come up with, you know, the worst one
you could, you wouldn't go too far away. But he's
not just existing in a vacuum. He's backed by these
you know, major corporations, American Airlines, Delta, all sorts of
(10:37):
folks who not only would you think reject this, but
really present themselves on a corporate level as being champions
of you know, equality and treating people fairly and equally
and in both their business as far as attracting customers,
and also they're recruiting, you know, bringing in the very
(10:57):
best employees, have have a real interest in being viewed
as somebody who welcomes you know, all sorts of people,
regardless of their race or anything else. And so yeah,
you can kind of I think it's useful for at
least at the start, for people to know what's going on,
where the money is flowing, and how that assists some
(11:22):
of these more radical forces that have taken a pretty
prominent role, you know, in our political system.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
So I got in touch with Judd after a pretty
upsetting moment earlier this summer. You might remember it. On
the campus of University of Mississippi sometimes called Ole Miss,
a group of thirty to sixty pro Palestinian student protesters gather.
The group is multiracial, and a group of counter protesters,
who are mostly white men, two of whom are wearing red,
(11:53):
white and blue American flag overalls with no shirt, are
taunting the pro Palestinian students. The whites students encircle a
black woman. It's journalism student Jayleen R.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Smith.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
They make monkey noises at her and scratch their under
arms while chanting like an ape. One calls her Lizzo.
They shout lock her up. It's heartbreaking, and as a
(12:28):
black woman who came of age protesting for lefty causes
like ending the war in Iraq in the heart of
the Deep South, North Carolina, I was Jayleen, and those
white Southern frat boys taunting and jeering at her, well,
I knew them too. It's like it's been twenty years
and nothing has changed. And that video actually harkened back
(12:50):
even further for me to the days of civil rights
sit ins and bus boycotts across the South. Two male
students were kicked out of their frat by Delta Data,
and a lot of people rightly denounce their behavior, but
not Georgia Congressman Republican Mike Collins. Mike Collins tweeted the
video of the protesters making monkey noises at Jalen, saying
(13:12):
ole miss is taken care of business. That business being
pretty obvious racism toward.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
A black woman.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
He tweeted that in May, and it is still up today,
and Collins didn't really even seem that bent out of
shape when he got pushed back when people called out
the fact that the young men in the video that
he reposted glorifying their behavior, are being blatantly racist toward
a black woman, Collins put out kind of a tepid statement, saying, quote, Frankly,
(13:41):
I did not believe that to be the focal point
of the video shared at the time, but I recognize
that there certainly seems to be some potentially inappropriate behavior
that none of us should see to glorify.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
And that was kind of it.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Collins is not in danger of losing his seat in
Congress anytime soon, and it was like that was that
you know, little chance of any kind.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Of electoral repercussions.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
It kind of felt like the media just moved on
and didn't know what else they could possibly say about
this incident except jud for popular information. Judd looked into
what corporations and businesses donate money to Collins's campaign, and
he found that a lot of them had made these big,
flashy public pledges not to use their money to fund
(14:23):
divisive candidates, and a lot of them talked big public,
flashy games about things like diversity and inclusion.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
So would they be pulling their funding from Congressman Collins?
Not so much so talking about Collins?
Speaker 2 (14:38):
You know, I have to say, like the videos and
the imagery coming out of Old Miss, it hit me
on a really kind of visceral level. Like I was thinking, like, oh,
we're gonna see these images and history books or something
like like. That's the level that I felt those those
images and videos elicited. I don't, but you know, when
(14:59):
you know all already they're put out by this guy
who himself has written for like white supremacist media outlets.
Then Mike Collins is like, oh, oh, Miss is really
taking care of business. What was the reaction after Collins tweeted.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
This, well, I mean, I guess it depends on which
in what group. I think that there were some people
who were online who were certainly outraged by it. You said,
you said, you you you think that you might see
these images in a history book. It was almost as
(15:33):
if we were watching a history books. Like you felt
like you were watching something from the fifties or something
like that. Like it's hard to believe that it's this
is a this is a scene of life in a
college campus of any sword in twenty twenty four as
opposed to you know, nineteen forty four. But I think,
(15:53):
and again this goes back to where we started, the
discussion of how so much political coverage is driven by
what might be the implication in a future election. So
the fact that Mike Collins has a very red seat
and oftentimes I think doesn't even attract a I mean,
(16:16):
he is in his first term, but that particular district
doesn't always even attract a democratic challenger because people don't
want to waste their time. Uh, then therefore we're not
really going to spend time scrutinizing. My view is, no,
this is this is something that's you know, outrageous, and
(16:36):
let's look into it, and let's look into who this
guy is and who's backing him, because the implications are
much greater than one congressional seat. Meaning, if if this becomes,
you know, an acceptable level of discourse, you know that
(16:58):
things things full. I don't think things are going to
go in a good direction from there. I can't imagine
how that would things would end up going in a
good direction. So that's that's really what's motivating. That's really
what's motivating me. But I think the the overall reaction,
you know, from sort of a media perspective, is relatively muted.
(17:19):
I would say, I would say it's it's you know,
relative to what's happening.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Maybe I'm being naive and listeners are going to be like, wow,
what a Pollyanna. But I was genuinely surprised how it
does seem like this story kind of petered out, and
I think it is exactly what you're saying. That part
of it is just like, well, there's no real implications
for a future election here, so.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Like what else?
Speaker 2 (17:45):
What else is there that we could possibly talk about?
If that's the case. And I was genuinely surprised to
see how little traction it got, which is one of
the reasons I'm making this episode because I don't think
that's appropriate. But yeah, I think it goes back to
what you were saying, how when we have this dynamic
that treats politics and democracy as if it is a game,
(18:07):
and if the stakes are one way, there's not even
really any point of even engaging on some of these
issues that really go back to like right and wrong
and what kind of discourse do we want to have
from our elected officials and what kind of discourse is unacceptable.
We're not even really having those conversations in a lot
of cases.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, And I think the other part of it that
I think about sometimes is that it's a very shortsighted
view of the political discourse, Meaning, yeah, there might not
be implications in Mike College congressional district right now, but
politics can change pretty rapidly. You know. It wasn't that
long ago two thousand and eight when all of the
(18:48):
major Democratic candidates, all of them opposed same sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, you know, and you
almost forget that that happened, and you couldn't imagine it
happening today, like you couldn't have a Democratic presidential candidate
who opposed the same sex marriage. People would be like,
what are what are you talking about? Like this is
(19:09):
some sort of bizarro land, But it was really, you know,
fifteen years ago that that was not only something that
could happen, but it was essentially table stakes because people
thought that anything else was too radical. Not all people,
but the people who were running for president at that
time thought it was too radical. So yeah, Mike Collins
(19:31):
might be able to get away with this today. He
can pretty much say whatever he wants. But we don't
know what the future holds, and I don't think that
that should be an excuse if there is something that's
worth you know, exploring and unpacking and worth people's attention
from covering it. So that's that's kind of the I'm
(19:53):
less concerned about, you know, what are the immediate implications
of this story, and more about what's important what's not important,
and let's just start there. And you know, things will
shake out in ways that are are unpredictable, not always
in a in a great direction. You know, it'll be
things go in both directions. We've seen that. We've seen
(20:14):
that too. I think I think one when Obama was
was elected in two thousand and eight, there were a
lot of people saying, you know, the demographics of the
country are changing, and you know, Republicans are never going
to be competitive and presidential elections and et cetera, et cetera,
and you know that's clearly, you know, not the case.
So it's not that it's not that things are always
(20:37):
just going to get improved, but things are always changing
and changing in ways that we don't we can't always predict.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I think it really behooves us to take a long
view of the landscape. I feel like we're so at
least for me, I feel like having a very short term,
narrow view of things is encouraged and just in the
new cycle that we're in, social media moves so quickly,
and it can really do who of us to step
back and take a kind of a longer view of
all of this sometimes.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
For sure, for sure, And I you know, honestly, that's
one of the reasons why I like writing a newsletter
as opposed to before when I was editing a blog.
And it's just because I write one newsletter a day,
so that means that there's a whole bunch of stories
that occur during the day. Then I know people will
probably be interested in, but they'll either already know about
(21:26):
or will sort of just be old news by the
next morning. So you have to try to pick something.
I mean, it's not exactly long term think as opposed to,
you know, spending five years reading a book, but it's
a little bit better. You know that you have to
think of something that does this have a you know,
is this still going to be worth thinking about and
talking about, you know, in the morning.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
And I think that's a I appreciate at least having
that that perspective in that check on myself because I
think it is it is tempting to think about, well,
what's going to a people's interest in that moment, and
that that is what drives a lot of our a
(22:07):
lot of the discourse.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
This is something I feel viscerally because I make this podcast.
Sometimes there really is this pressure to just be reacting constantly,
just putting something into the feed that responds to the
thing that everybody is talking about, you know, just adding
your take into a sea of however many takes are
already out there. It's tempting, but does it really make
us any.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Smarter or more informed?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
You know, I think there's got to be a better
way and judge us too. I really appreciate that, you know,
as somebody who makes a podcast. Our show comes out
twice a week, and so many of the stories from
on the beginning of the week, I'm like, oh, everybody's
talking about this. By the time I'm ready to put
an episode out about it, it just feels like more chatter,
like everybody has already got their takes out, And I
(23:11):
guess I think there's a temptation to add to the
chatter of like, everybody's talking about this, let me do
an episode about it. But then you don't get to
give these stories a little bit of breathing room and
be like, well, what's going to be the story that
really does have longer term implications. It's so easy to
just crank out reactions and content, but it is harder
(23:31):
and I think more valuable to really spend some time
being like, well, if people have one story that they're
going to pour over today, what story should that be
and why? Like, I think you're really doing some of
that foundational work of nourishing people via media, which I
think is so important and done less and less these days.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Yeah, and it's an interest. It's difficult, but it's to
try to think about that, like, what are something that
is not getting a lot of attention that might get
attention if people just knew about it. But the reality
is there are so many stories, so many important stories
that are untold today. Because you've had with you know,
(24:13):
Google and Facebook and others sweeping up all the local
advertising revenue, you've had a really hollowing out of local journalism,
which used to be you know, there might have been
ten people covering a state house, you know, in Maryland
or wherever from Maryland. So that's what I bring it up.
But you know, it's a similar story at every state.
(24:35):
You might have had ten people and now you have one,
or you might have had fifty people and now you
have five. And that just means there's so many things
that are going on that people don't know about. So
it is important when you can to try to in
my view, or at least what I try to do,
(24:56):
is to try to find things that I think are
flying on to the radar a bit because I think
more and more that's what's happening and and this, and
the desire to kind of pile on or it's safer
to write about you know, it's it's safer to write
about Trump, for instance, you know, because because everyone's interested
(25:17):
in it, and there's nothing wrong. I mean, he maybe
our next president. It's not there's nothing wrong with that,
and it's appropriate to be interested in who's the next president.
But you know that there's going to be kind of
a baseline level of interest. You also know that it
is going to be difficult to break new ground because
(25:39):
there's so much that's already been said. So I think
that there may be more opportunities in down the ballot,
in localities, in states where really important things that are
happening that impact people's lives but are not getting that
same level of attention just because of where we are.
(26:02):
The dynamics of political media.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Don't even get me started, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Not that long ago, I was working for an advocacy organization,
and when Trump is in the White House, we definitely
leaned on that when we would send emails out to
our list, because every subject line got to be like,
what's Trump done?
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Now?
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Trump is terrible?
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Trump is doing this and that and rightly, so, like
all of that stuff was true, but when Trump left office,
it was so we had like leaned on that so
hard that it was like we had trouble engaging people
or getting them interested when we didn't have Trump as
this like singular bad guy figure to use. And it
(26:48):
kind of made me think, like we really sort of
lost the plot here if we can only talk to
our community, our people when we are pointing to something
horrible that Trump has done legitimately, so, but like, there's
got to be a better way to engage people politically
than that that like actually speaks to their values or
you know, a shared future we want to see together.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
That's not just like you know, pointing to him as
a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
It's something that I really think that some of us
might have used as a crutch for a bit. And
now we're sort of like, oh, well, the media legacy
or the media landscape that that has given us is
really not so great.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Yeah, And at some point, you know, Trump will go away.
I'm not sure when that point will be, but at
some point that will happen. But that doesn't that won't
be the end of his style of politics. And he
wasn't the beginning of his style of politics. Either you know,
we had over many years the development of the Tea Party,
(27:51):
and one, you know, what Trump does very kind of
effectively a lot of the time at least is degrade
confidence and trust in institutions. I mean, that's that's that's
the whole game ultimately, you know, whether it's saying Barack
(28:12):
Obama was really born in Africa or saying the election
was actually stolen or saying all the prosecutors who are
going after him are corrupt. I mean, it's about undermining institutions.
But that process did not start with Trump. I mean,
this is something that has been funded at a very
high level with the Tea Party and with with other groups.
(28:35):
And once Trump, you know, kind of exit stage left,
it will continue. It will continue, and there may be
people who are who are were even more effective at
a kind of rallying support around some of these these topics.
So I do think it is a mistake to present
the problem as one of a specific personality. Uh and
(28:59):
what what other thing that I'll just sence I'm on
a little rant here. One other thing that I'll say
is I also think it's a problem that what is
now considered a moderate Pundit is actually some of the
most conservative people on pretty much every issue who don't
(29:22):
happen to like Trump stylistically and his style of politics.
So they're anti Trump, which is fine, but politically they
are not moderate. And if we come out of this,
if we come out of this in the example is
you know that Bill Crystal or whoever, you know, all
these folks who have kind of you know, are very
(29:44):
or you know that some people become anti Trump and
then they come back and they're pro Trump again.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
But there are a.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Group of people who are pretty consistently pro Trump. But
that does not make them moderate in any way. It
just means that they happen not to like Trump.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
It is so true, and it really in me it
goes back to what we were talking about earlier of
like I don't know when I think about where I
was politically and the political landscape and like two thousand
and seven, two thousand and eight, some of the people
that I feel like I'm being told like, oh, well,
that's a moderate voice.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
I like this.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
I just can't believe where the ships have fallen, and
like where we are in terms of political discourse in
this country right now.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
It really terrifies me.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And yeah, I just I don't I when I think
about where we will be in the future, I genuinely
don't know.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I think it's it's.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Really wild how some of the most extreme voices and
names out there we kind of are meant to be like, oh, well,
they're not a Trumper, so they're kind of on the
right track, and it's like, no, they really aren't.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Like, well, like what has happened to our landscape here?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yeah, and it'll be interesting to see how that how
that shakes out.
Speaker 4 (30:59):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
You know, we're either five years away or a few
months away from the from the end of Trump. I
don't think he'll have another run in him after this
if he were to lose another time. But you know,
either way, you know they'll be there'll be a new
(31:21):
uh dynamic, And to be honest, I'm looking forward to
it because I think it as somebody you know, I
mentioned that, you know, I've been sort of involved in
politics in one way or the other for for most
of my adult life, and I think that the moment
we're in now is is definitely one of the most
(31:45):
exhausting moments because I just feel like the dynamics have
not changed for so long, Like what what's what's interesting
in in kind of invigorating is when you get sort
of new dynamics, new figures on the scene, new issues
at play, new kinds of debates. But today, you know,
(32:07):
we're engaged in a lot of the old kinds of debates.
So it can become a little exhausting, but it doesn't
make it. Of course, the stakes are still just as important.
So you kind of sold your own. But if things
do change one day soon, I won't be too upset about.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It, you and me both.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
More.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Given the kind of reporting that you do, what role
do you see corporate money and corporate funding and corporate
support having in where we are today, Like when it
comes to Collins, Like what brands and corporate dentities are
some of some of the folks who are supporting him
right now?
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Well, I think when you when you look at it,
a lot of his supporters are major corporations UH that
are based in Georgia, which is not so you have
folks UH like Delta Delta Airlines. You have folks like
(33:28):
Coca Cola UH, and then some of the other UH
national big national groups are who are based elsewhere at
and T Verizon. UH. One thing I thought was really
interesting about Coca Cola, and this of course goes back
to its kind of history and in Georgia specifically, which
(33:51):
is one of the you know, central UH, places where
the civil rights movement kind of was played out, and
Coca Cola has always had kind of a forward looking
perspective on those issues. And I think, really, you know,
(34:11):
for a whole variety of reasons that's based in Georgia.
I think it wants to make sure that it could
attract you know, the best black talent, the best talent overall,
but particularly a lot of the talent are going to
be black people, and so they've been pretty forward looking,
and they actually in twenty twenty one pledged and said,
(34:35):
we are not going to give any money to people
who are making these kind of outrageous comments on racial issues.
Like that is our pledge. And it fits in with
a lot of the other stuff they've done. And you
don't want to I don't want to diminish the fact
(34:56):
that they probably have done a lot of you know,
important work in this regard. But the thing that I
find disturbingly cynical is that Coca Cola and the other
corporations too never really want to be held accountable or
(35:16):
follow through on pledges like that. They are they want
the sort of pr win and they definitely want that reputation,
but they also want to stay on good terms with
somebody who is a congressman from their state who they
may need to get a meeting with, or you know,
(35:38):
might want to be able to bend a zier a
bit on an important issue. So you know, that's that's
where I see a much larger role if corporations are
really serious about this. I mean, that's the whole thing
(35:59):
with you know, whether you want to call it ESG
or DEI or whatever acronym you want to call it
around corporate social responsibility is there's a lot of criticism
from the right, but the reality is most of this
is just talk that many corporations are saying a lot
(36:22):
of stuff. They have a whole fancy website about, you know,
what they're going to be doing on climate in twenty
forty five, but they're not doing anything now, you know,
and now they're going in the wrong direction. So that's
I think a very you know, we'll have to see
how that that how that plays out that there's a
(36:45):
reason why it's a political battlefield right now is because
it's important and the right has has come back and
is trying to make it politically unpalatable for corporations take
any kind of position on political or social issues.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Yeah, I mean, given all that, like given that, we're
seeing things like DEI and like conclusion efforts, even the mildest,
the most toothless things being attacked and kind of made
politically reactive in these ways, Like where do you see
corporations and brands landing? And in some way that doesn't
matter where they land because you know, I have to
tell you I've taken like a tour of the Civil
(37:32):
Rights Museum in Atlanta, which they have an entire Coca
Cola wing, and the person who was giving us the
tour was from Coca Cola and was like very proud
to tell us what a big ally Coca Cola was
in the civil rights movement and how important that economic
economic flexing was to the civil rights movement and all
of that, and like here in twenty twenty four, haaven
(37:53):
then be like, well, we made this pledge, but what
are you.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Going to do? Like it is. It is very disappointing.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
But I guess, stepping back, like, do you think these
brands are going to really.
Speaker 3 (38:06):
Be engaged? Is it all just talk? And on some
level like does it matter?
Speaker 1 (38:13):
I think it. I mean, I think again it's the
short term. In the long term, I think short term,
there's very little in it for brands right now, and
that's why you sort of see or retrenching. The most
dramatic thing we saw happen was after January sixth, when
you did see a lot of corporations pledge to stop
(38:37):
donating to the members of Congress that voted against certifying
the election. But quickly we've also seen most of those
companies roll those back, or they did it for a
year or two years, and then they said that was enough,
and now we're going to donate to those companies again,
donate to those members of Congress again. Because the reality
(38:58):
is that right now the political environment is pretty it's
pretty evenly split. You know, maybe it's not completely evenly split,
but you don't if you want to appeal to everyone,
you know, it's pretty easy to make people upset. But
I do think that there's a broader trend where people
(39:20):
are much more conscious in their consumption. Maybe not right
now about the politics of the companies who are producing
the products that they're consuming, but people are much more interested,
for instance, in you know, if they're buying broccoli, like
where that broccoli came from. They're much more interested today
(39:41):
than they were ten years ago. They're much more interested
in how their T shirt was produced. Not everyone, but
many more people than were produced. But and I think
that if people are starting to engage in those kinds
of questions and think more critically about those kind of questions,
it is a natural step and certainly a step that
(40:01):
some people, although maybe not a critical massive people are
taking to think about what role is this company playing
in the political issues that I care about? How are
they using their influence? Because there is a path where
(40:23):
the companies sort of take a step back and say
we're not going to do anything. You know, we're not
going to donate the politicians, We're not going to engage
in lobbying. We're just going to focus on making our
widgets and selling our widgets, and we'll let other people
worry about politics. That's not really where they are right now.
Where most companies are right now is they will support
people in power because they want access to power. And
(40:48):
I do think that there is a point in the
foreseeable future when a critical massive consumer say that that
that is not good enough and that I'm going to
shift my consumption to corporations that either stay out of
it or corporations that more reflect my values. So I
do think that this process of, at least at the beginning,
(41:08):
kind of maybe just exposing the role that corporations play
in politics, you know, may may lead somewhere.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Maybe I won't be doing this work long enough to
see it, but it might. It's not hard to imagine
a world where you know, people are paying much closer
attention to these kinds of issues.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Well to that end, you know, in your in your
newsletter piece about what happened at Old Miss, I noticed that,
you know, you're like, oh, popular Information reached out to
H and T, Verizon Coke didn't hear back.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
How much of this worked for you is like being.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Willing to ask the ask the company an annoying question
and then being like, I'm We're not going to answer that,
Like how much of this is just being like, well, yes,
said x y Z publicly, What's what's the deal.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Where do you stand now?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
A lot of time doing that, and it is it is,
it is sometimes frustrating, and you don't always get an answer,
or if you do get an answer, it's it's sometimes
it's it's no comment. And I do think that people
are much less likely. People are much less likely to
weigh in now than they even were in twenty twenty one,
(42:22):
because there's been a concerted effort to try to present
this idea that corporations have gone woke and people and
they're guarding against the other side of it. So yeah,
that is a big part of it. But I also
think it's you know, important work. I mean, we were
the first people in the newsletter, was the first place
(42:44):
to report that any companies had decided to not to
stop donating to the members of Congress who who voted
not to certify on January sixth, and it's because you know,
we sent out the you know, inquiries to one hundred
and seventy seven companies, I think the first for the
first issue, and we heard back from four of them.
(43:06):
But those that four turned out to be you know,
fairly significant and helped create a dynamic where other companies
filed suit. So I think it's important to ask those questions,
and I think sometimes even when you don't get an answer,
it's important to know. It's important for the companies to
know that it's getting written about, and that it's going
(43:28):
to be and it's going to be discussed and talked about.
And I know that they companies do pay attention to this,
to this kind of reporting, and that's one of the
reasons why I stick with it. The other reason is
I know that you know, a lot of readers, you know,
appreciate it, and a lot of readers are looking for that,
(43:52):
you know, information. It's probably not the first thing on
the on the top of everyone's mind when they're you know,
in the grocery store, whatever they're doing, going about their day.
You know, people have you have to remind yourself when
you're working in a political space or the media space
that people have other things going on. They've got jobs
and lives and kids and all sorts of responsibilities, and
(44:14):
so they're not always going to be focused on this stuff.
But you know, for the people that are or or
or might be, you know, establishing this factual record I
think is worth some time.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
I think popular information has completely changed the culture around
how we think about who is funding what and our
role in it and all of that. So I completely agree,
And I guess one of my last questions is, first,
folks who are listening, who are like, I'm so checked
out on this, I don't even know, Like, how do
(44:51):
you stay engaged and not just sit out all of
this set out your democracy, especially when things are so
exhausting and everything seems so exhausting to keep up with.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Well, I think that's a tough question because I think
it is difficult enough to kind of keep your own
life on track and your own life in order. Sort
of taking in all these external things that might not
be happening in your front door is difficult, and I
(45:26):
think it's actually okay sometimes. I know this is maybe
like anathema to people who work in the political space,
but it's okay sometimes to like check out and just
focus on yourself. But I do think that the progress
in politics or things that are more can give you
(45:49):
some hope don't usually come in the form of this
one sort of dramatic event where everything is fixed to
get and everything is good to get. That's not the
way that it works. But I think that things that
can impact even one person's life, and or just having
(46:16):
someone feel like they're more understood or more valued. That
can be really important. And that's what I, you know,
try to try to focus on. And so I think
if you're feeling like what you're doing doesn't matter or
(46:40):
it's just pointless to be engaged, you know, your contribution
might just be explaining the importance of you know, let's say,
expanding the child tax credit to one person and getting
them to you know, maybe just understand, maybe not even
change their mind, but maybe just understand that issue and
(47:02):
why a lot of people rely on it and why
we have you know, a lot of kids who are
still living in poverty in the United States. That could
be I think that's that's like a contribution that you
can feel okay about. You know, it doesn't have to
be that you know, you've you've passed a major piece
of legislation, because that's that's something that that anyone really
(47:24):
could do these days. So so that's that's I think
when I'm thinking clearly, I think that's the kind of
thing that I try to focus on. And I think
probably the right the better attitude.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
H H.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech I
just want to say Hi. You can read just a
Hello at tangodi dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me for j Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed creative Jonathan Stricklet
as our executive producer. Tarry Harrison is our producer and
sound engineered. Michael Almato is our contributing producer. I'm your host,
(48:03):
Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
Review us on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.