Podcasts about lexicon valley

Over isn't just the opposite of under and off is not necessarily the opposite of on. John explains.Please subscribe to Lexicon Valley to support our show — go to www.booksmartstudios.com to find out how! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lexiconvalley.substack.com

John H. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is the host of the podcast Lexicon Valley and writes a weekly column for The New York Times. McWhorter is the author of twenty-three books, including Nine Nasty Words, Woke Racism, The Power of Babel, and Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and John McWhorter explore how language evolves, why English only has one form of you, and if we should embrace the singular they. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do you know your blood type? Do you know why we have different blood types? This episode begins with some interesting intel about blood types, why you should know yours and why some people actually have no blood type. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140715-why-do-we-have-blood-types You have probably heard about the value of validating someone else's feelings and experience. What you may not have heard is the science that proves just how powerful it is when you want to connect with someone or influence them. When done right, validation can transform a relationship according to my guest Caroline Fleck, PhD. She is a licensed psychologist, and Adjunct Clinical Instructor at Stanford University as well as the author of the book Validation: How the Skill Set That Revolutionized Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life (https://amzn.to/3YgpzAK) Pronouns are some of the hardest working words in the English language. I, you, me, he, she, we, they – and yet the way these words behave in our language can sometimes be maddening. For example, the word “you” can mean 1 person or a group of people. In a lot of other languages, there are two different words. While English teachers will tell you that the correct way to say this is, “He and I went to the store” doesn't it feel more natural to say, “Him and me went to the store.”? Joining me to dive into the world of pronouns is John H. McWhorter. He teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University and is the host of the podcast Lexicon Valley (https://slate.com/podcasts/lexicon-valley). John is the author of twenty-three books including his latest, Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words (https://amzn.to/4iSauh1) What should go on a resume? People have lots of ideas of what to include and how to write it but what do hiring managers say they look for? Listen and hear what makes a great resume. https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/the-dos-and-donts-of-the-modern-resume-infographic/244399 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John McWhorter, Columbia University linguistics professor, host of the Lexicon Valley podcast, opinion writer at The New York Times, and the author of Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words (Avery, 2025), talks about his new book that digs into the cultural and linguistic history of pronoun usage in English and what light that sheds on today's controversies.

The Thai words for fire, die and rim sound an awful lot like the English words fire, die and rim. Why is that? John explains.To help support Lexicon Valley please consider a paid subscription — visit www.booksmartstudios.com and sign up today! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lexiconvalley.substack.com

Words like thence and thither are all but obsolete in English, but they were actually quite useful! John explains.SUBSCRIBE to LEXICON VALLEY — please go to www.booksmartstudios.com to become a paid member and receive our BONUS segments. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lexiconvalley.substack.com

People love it when video game podcast hosts talk about stuff that's not video games, right? Of course we talk about video game news — like the latest death knell for the 3DS and Animal Crossing LEGOs — but there's lots of stuff in here about public radio, social media and more. Give a listen :) THINGS MENTIONED: Paul Tassi at Forbes on the downfall of Marvel's Avengers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/09/18/marvels-avengers-is-days-away-from-being-deleted-from-storefronts-forever/?sh=44332cd3779c Polygon's latest on Switch 2: https://www.polygon.com/nintendo/23899504/nintendo-switch-2-release-date-power-name-games Who's Afraid of Ayesha Roscoe from Lexicon Valley: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1AizzBpusYA6p8r7Gyp1Yc Noah's on Twitter: noah_hurts Tori's on Twitter: tori_as_always Nathaniel's on Twitter: nathanbased Our cool sounds and intro/outro music are by ⁠GEIST⁠ and our show art is by Kai at Wisp Graphics. We curate your gaming news together and Noah and Tori produce the show. You can follow the show on Twitter ⁠@Press_StartPod⁠  and on tumblr at ⁠press-startpod.tumblr.com⁠ and you can email us about your social media preferences at heypressstart@gmail.com. We'd also appreciate if you left us reviews on your podcast app of choice! Good text reviews will be read out on the show. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pressstart/support

Bestselling author John McWhorter is a linguistics professor at Columbia University, host of “Lexicon Valley,” and a regular guest on “The Glenn Show” with Glenn Loury. John's writing has been published in many venues, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New Republic, City Journal, Time Magazine, and Forbes. He writes a weekly opinion column for The New York Times.John's most recent book is “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.” He has authored more than twenty books on language and race relations, including “Nine Nasty Words,” “The Language Hoax,” and “Talking Back, Talking Black.” Woke Racism by John McWhorter Lexicon Valley SubstackNew York Times articlesWatch this episode on YouTube.

In Episode 51, we discuss Black American English, also known as AAVE, as a way to consider some of the differences between identitarian and identity politics approaches. Black American English is minority dialect in the United States of America. The identitarian approach to protecting Black American English typically involves appropriation discourse and the restriction of who can use Black American English on the basis of racial idenity. We offer another approach, one based in identity politics, which treats Black American English as a minority language deserving of legal protection and recognition. This approach does not restrict who can learn or speak Black American English, but does insist there are correct and incorrect ways to speak it, and, more importantly, focuses on the rights of native Black American English speakers, regardless of racial identity.    SHOW NOTES: Could Black English Mean a Prison Sentence? by John McWhorter: "An upcoming study in the linguistics journal Language found that 27 Philadelphia [court] stenographers, presented with recordings of Black English grammatical patterns, made transcription errors on average in two out of every five sentences, and could accurately paraphrase only one in three sentences." Lexicon Valley with John McWhorter: Black Like Us Lexicon Valley with John McWhorter: What Had Happened Was Storytelling Lexicon Valley with John McWhorter: White Author, Black English. Problem? Quebec's Charter of the French Language Aboriginal Language Knowledge and Youth Suicide: "Youth suicide rates effectively dropped to zero in those few communities in which at least half the band members reported a conversational knowledge of their own Native language." Indigenous Language Organizations and Initiatives   Follow Fucking Cancelled on Patreon & Instagram. Find merch on our BigCartel. Also check out Clementine's website and Jay's website. Theme song by ST x LIAM. Mixing and editing by Charlotte Dora. Free transcripts are added on Patreon as they become available.

Striking writers have deprived Americans of late-night weather-related jokes, evil characters, and pat narrative. Soon-to-strike UPS drivers will deprive Americans of consumer goods. Which negotiation would you prioritize? Mike has a thought. Also, part two of our conversation with Lexicon Valley's John McWhorter about terms like "toxic masculinity," and how we are now arguing over the words instead of the concepts they define. And finally, Chipotle's “Autocado” is poised to free its employees from … employment. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John McWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia University, a New York Times columnist, and host of the Lexicon Valley podcast. He's back for another iteration of McWhorter's Quarters, wherein we discuss language, society, and the intersection (though not intersectionality) thereof. Plus, the Willy Wonka origin movie answers all the questions no one was asking. And finally, the death of nicknames. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/dlzR5Ykwv4s Mentioned: - Indie Author Forum 2/25/23 - 50% off promo code: FRIEND - https://indieauthorforum.com - VirtuousCon 2/25-2/26 - https://virtuouscon.com - Mahogany Books DC: Black Women in Fantasy Event, March 18, 2023  - https://lpen.co/march18 - Philippine-Louisiana Historical Society - https://filipinola.com - Lexicon Valley podcast - https://lexiconvalley.substack.com/ - Wiktionary - https://www.wiktionary.org/ - Galaxy's edge column - https://www.galaxysedge.com/ - ChatGPT - https://chat.openai.com/chat - Antman and the Wasp: Quantumania The My Imaginary Friends podcast is a weekly, behind the scenes look at the journey of a working author navigating traditional and self-publishing. Join fantasy and paranormal romance author L. Penelope as she shares insights on the writing life, creativity, inspiration, and this week's best thing. Subscribe and view show notes at: https://lpenelope.com/podcast | Get the Footnotes newsletter - https://myimaginaryfriends.net Support the show - http://frolic.media/podcasts! Stay in touch with me! Website | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook Music credit: Say Good Night by Joakim Karud https://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported— CC BY-SA 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/SZkVShypKgM Affiliate Disclosure: I may receive compensation for links to products on this site either directly or indirectly via affiliate links. Heartspell Media, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

It's been some time since I haven't reacted to a celebrity's English. This time is Black Panther's Prince Namor, Tenoch Huerta. Personally, I don't know how long he's been learning English, but he behaved like a champion in this interview. You can listen to how he used natural fluency to overcome his lack of grammatical and phonological control. You too can deliver a successful interview for live TV without having to master English with the mastery of a C2 speaker. Tenoch is an excellent role model to follow. The transcript with more comments can be downloaded from here. Make sure you use a good PDF reader to see the bubble notes. The TED talk I mentioned at the end, the one with Professor John McWhorter can be watched here: https://youtu.be/VQRjouwKDlU The podcast he conducts is called Lexicon Valley. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/whatyousayinenglish/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/whatyousayinenglish/support

Comedian Rodney Dangerfield was fond of introducing jokes with a kind of redundancy, for example: “My wife, she told me I was one in a million. I found out she was right.” But those seemingly superfluous pronouns are filled with promise. John explains.Lexicon Valley is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lexiconvalley.substack.com/subscribe

Calamity Jane is back for Part II, featuring stories and poems from The Cru about calamitous dates, uncertain relationships, and a Hero of Earth.  John McWhorter was mentioned on this week's episode. His podcast Lexicon Valley can be found here.

So much of what we do here at Booksmart Studios comes down to the power of speech. Lexicon Valley examines the words and phrases we use to convey ideas. Banished explores what happens when speech runs afoul of current orthodoxy. And on Bully Pulpit, Bob Garfield uses his megaphone to expose the hypocrisy and machinations of those who care more about insulating the entrenched power of the few than about safeguarding the fragile welfare of the many.We're proud to announce our newest offering, focusing on the very source of our freedom of speech. Unprecedented tells the raw and emotional stories of ordinary people who, as they pursued justice all the way to the Supreme Court, pushed the limits of our First Amendment rights.In each episode, you'll meet the accidental guardians of perhaps our most cherished liberty. They are war protesters and religious zealots, Ku Klux Klan members and internet trolls. They are Americans who, regardless of their social or political views — or even an awareness of the stakes — have helped us fill in the Constitutional gaps that our Founding Fathers left open to interpretation.Through captivating interviews with the plaintiffs of precedent-setting cases — many of whom have never been interviewed before — you will learn about your right to be mean, to threaten others or to simply not say anything at all.Hosted by Booksmart Studios executive producers Matthew Schwartz and Michael Vuolo, with special appearances by NPR's Nina Totenberg, Unprecedented originally aired on Washington, DC's NPR station in 2019.Unprecedented begins with the story of a man who, nearly a half-century ago, committed a minor act of civil disobedience when he covered up the state motto on his license plate. George Maynard battled New Hampshire over the slogan Live Free or Die, which he found personally and religiously repugnant. His beliefs would land him in jail, cost him his job and carry him all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unprecedented.substack.com

Michael Rosen is joined by John McWhorter, author and linguist at Columbia University, to talk about his life in language. John H. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American Studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is a contributing editor at the Atlantic, columnist at the New York Times and host of Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast. McWhorter is the author of twenty books often on the subject of language, including The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language, Talking Back Talking Black, Words On The Move and Woke Racism. Producer: Eliza Lomas

In this contentious conversation, Nathan speaks to Prof. John McWhorter about his book Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Prof. McWhorter is a linguist at Columbia University, regular New York Times contributor, and host of the Lexicon Valley podcast. His book argues that anti-racist social justice ideology is properly described as a "religion" and that its practitioners are beyond reasoning with. It's a thesis Nathan takes serious issue with and the conversation illuminates deep points of disagreement on questions like:- Whether something having "religious" qualities makes it irrational- Whether the people Prof. McWhorter describes are really "beyond reason" - Whether Prof. McWhorter's characterization of several incidents of excesses by "woke religion" are presented fairly and accurately - If the California Education Department's new mathematics teaching framework really does, as Prof. McWhorter argues, constitute an abandonment of standards of rigor - Whether it's right to say that certain questions are "off limits" - Whether Eminem disproves the idea that there is a prohibition on white people participating in Black culture - Whether Prof. McWhorter has tried hard enough to engage empathetically with those he disagrees with The conversation is brief, as Prof. McWhorter had a limited amount of time available, but touches on many of Prof. McWhorter's most provocative theses. 

Enjoy catching up with these recent conversations: Hunger strikes are in the news, from youth climate activists to cab drivers in New York City.  Sharman Apt Russell, author of several books including Hunger: An Unnatural History (Basic Books, 2006) and Within Our Grasp: Childhood Malnutrition Worldwide and the Revolution Taking Place to End It (Deckle Edge, 2021),  discusses the history of hunger strikes and explains how they work. John McWhorter, Columbia University linguistics professor, host of the Lexicon Valley podcast and the author of Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever (Avery, 2021), talks about his book on profanity, where swear words come from and why they hold so much power. Jelani Cobb, New Yorker writer and professor of journalism at Columbia University and the editor of The Essential Kerner Commission Report (Liveright, 2021), talks about his new edition of the 1968 Kerner Commission Report and why he finds it still essential reading. Alex Strada and Tali Keren, artist-in-residence for Queens Museum's Year of Uncertainty, talk about their new multi-media participatory artwork called "Proposal for a 28th Amendment? Is it Possible to Amend an Unequal System?". They are joined by legal scholar Julia Hernandez, associate professor of Law at the CUNY School of Law. As part of our Iconic at 50 series, Marcus Miller, musician, composer and record producer, talks about Miles Davis' classic album Bitches Brew, which was released in 1970 but won a Grammy in 1971, plus more from that year in music, including the birth of jazz-rock fusion, including groups like Weather Report and The Mahavishnu Orchestra. These interviews were lightly edited for timing and rebroadcast; the original web versions are available here: How Do Hunger Strikes Work? (Nov. 15, 2021) What You Can't Say on the Radio (May 13, 2021) Jelani Cobb on The Kerner Commission Report (Aug. 17, 2021) Your 28th Amendment? (Dec. 8, 2021) Iconic at 50: Miles Davis' 'Bitches Brew' (Aug. 12, 2021)

Once upon a time, Bully Pulpit's Bob Garfield played the role of amateur linguist on a delightful show called Lexicon Valley. Today, to celebrate the re-release of ten vintage Lexicon Valley episodes — remastered and ad-free — Bob and Mike Vuolo bring you a special reunion episode filled with banter, history, poignant father-son moments and quite a number of words. Are you happy now?This week only, you can get a subscription to Booksmart Studios for just $4.90/month, or $49/year. As a subscriber you'll get extra content, including bonus segments, access to full written columns, and all the remastered Lexicon Valley originals. Become a supporter today. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Today, a conversation with John McWhorter, one of America's foremost Black public intellectuals. He's a linguist and historian who teaches at Columbia University and writes a column and newsletter for the New York Times.  He hosts a podcast about language called Lexicon Valley, and is the author of more than 20 books. In his latest, he writes: “America's sense of what it is to be intellectual, moral or artistic, what it is to educate a child, what it is to foster justice, what it is to express oneself properly, and what it is to be a nation is being re-founded upon a religion.” That "religion," McWhorter suggests, is the philosophy of those he labels “The Elect,” by whom he means writers such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngeloand Nikole Hannah Jones, who have written extensively about how White Supremacy and structural racism are the root cause of racial inequity in America today.John McWhorter rejects this argument, finding it damaging and demeaning to Black people, and he dismisses the Elect as, quote, "charismatic but self-directed, and socio-politically futile.” He argues that Critical Race Theory is a “fragile, performative ideology that rejects linear reasoning,” and he asserts that what is needed to address inequity is “complexity, abstraction and forgiveness.” This is a book that fascinates and infuriates. Professor McWhorter asks difficult and important questions, and he does not shy away from offering controversial answers. It's called Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. John McWhorter joins us on Zoom from New York City. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John McWhorter, Columbia University linguistics professor, host of the Lexicon Valley podcast, opinion writer at The New York Times, and the author of Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America (Portfolio, 2021), discusses a new book in which he takes aim at antiracism and "wokeness."

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about his new book “Woke Racism: How a New Religion has Betrayed Black America.” They discuss how the “social justice” narrative of the Left has become a religion, how this new faith has taken over institutions, and what to do about it. John McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is a columnist at The New York Times, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, and the host of the language podcast Lexicon Valley. He is the author of over twenty books, including Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter—Then, Now and Forever and Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Twitter: @JohnHMcWhorter Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

John McWhorter, Columbia University linguistics professor, host of the Lexicon Valley podcast, opinion writer at The New York Times, and the author of the forthcoming Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America (Portfolio, 2021), talks about how words evolve, as listeners share words and phrases they now embrace or avoid as their meaning has shifted. →Event: New York Times subscribers can hear more from John McWhorter in a free virtual event exploring the evolving role of language in our lives, this Thursday at 7pm. R.S.V.P. at nytimes.com/WokeWords

In this unholy amalgamation of interview and free-form kibbitz between two cranky former employees of WNYC, Bob Garfield and Alec Baldwin discuss life, acting, and the great Stockton Briggle. Plus, find out more about Bob's split with “On the Media.”TRANSCRIPT:TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in. BOB GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt. I'm Bob Garfield with Episode 12: Alec Baldwin Is Everywhere (Including Here, Right Now).ALEC BALDWIN: I'm a game show host. I'm a podcast host. I'm a father of seven children. I'm out of my mind....GARFIELD: ..and see what I mean? That's him, star of stage, screen, Page 6, iHeart Radio, and, in this case, Instagram Live, where he appears once a week for his 2.1 million followers in conversation with actors, musicians, and at least one dashing, elderly podcaster. Why? Because he graciously wanted to call attention to this show. It was something of an interview, something of a promo appearance, and something of a free-form kibbitz between two cranky former employees of WNYC radio in New York City. I warn you, like other friendly conversations you've overheard, it comes with a lot of random digressions.BALDWIN: I'm here with the one and the only Bob Garfield to talk about his new show, Bully Pulpit, to talk about his career in journalism (his long and wonderful career as a journalist), to talk about the fate of journalism. We might talk about that for like 60 seconds, because what's the point? But first of all, Bob, tell me, you left public radio--you were on public radio for quite a while. On the Media, wonderful show. Of course, I'm obviously a fan of yours, a huge fan of yours. But when you left there, talk about the genesis of Bully Pulpit, how did that come together? GARFIELD: Well, first of all, I left there the way an artillery shell leaves a cannon. I was fired. And you know, we can get into that a little bit. The lawyers prevent me from being, you know, too candid. But yeah, we can talk about that. Can we just observe one thing, since this conversation is taking place the day after the Facebook shut down and the Instagram shut down and two days after this blockbuster interview on 60 Minutes with the whistleblower? We are on Instagram, which we now well understand triggers self-loathing in kids, right? Because, you know, Mark Zuckerberg, if we're talking like evil, he makes Vladimir Putin look like Mr. Rogers. So I guess what I'm saying is, kids, please love yourself and we love you too. That's where I want to start. I apologize for talking to you, Alec, on this particular platform because evil. BALDWIN: [coughing] I'm choking. GARFIELD:  I know, it was poignant. I understand.BALDWIN: It's very moving. [coughing]GARFIELD: You know, if that were in a movie (that little episode), in 12 minutes, you would die of consumption.BALDWIN: Well, someone wrote “Trump 2024,” so I immediately started convulsing. GARFIELD: [laughs]BALDWIN: Well, listen, I am someone who Instagram is my primary, if not sole social media source. I have a Twitter account which I keep open just as a placeholder for my name. Facebook--I have a Facebook page for myself, for my foundation. My wife and I have a charitable foundation. We have a Facebook page for that. But Instagram is it for me. And I guess Instagram is owned by Facebook, correct?GARFIELD: It is. And you know, obviously it's a fantastic utility, but it is both utopian and dystopian, and the dystopian side is really dystopian. I mean that because Mark Zuckerberg and company know exactly what the deleterious effects are of the social dynamic on these platforms, and they will not do anything to remediate them because it screws up their business model. So they are constantly apologizing and explaining and being on the defensive, but they never actually fix what's broke. So, nonetheless, like I said, really good utility, and I'm delighted, de-freaking-lighted, to be talking to you on this or anywhere because I'm always delighted talking to you. BALDWIN: Well, thank you. Now a guy who shall remain nameless contacted me quite a while ago, probably last year in the heart of the first waves of the COVID (probably more than a year ago), to talk about a more user friendly platform. Like this with more integrity. Everybody'd have to register. You'd have to give all your real information. You'd have to give a photograph. You'd have to be completely transparent. It's you as you, being you, doing you, posting as you. The question, of course, is how many people really, really want that? Or do most people really kind of like the way it is, where you can hide and you can conceal yourself and say just hateful things?GARFIELD: Well, it's a playground for the id, right? And it, you know, it empowers you to have power, even if it's only the power to intimidate or to terrorize or to bad mouth. And, you know, it taps into something that unfortunately is all too human.BALDWIN: Yeah.GARFIELD: Can I say one other thing, Alec? This is so weird. I'm sitting here looking at your face because Instagram, right? So, last night I was watching the Jerry Lewis documentary, which popped up on Amazon Prime, and there you were. A couple of weeks ago, I was watching the John DeLorean docu-drama--FRAMING JOHN DELOREAN CLIP: I'm gonna try to be DeLorean.GARFIELD: --and there you were, not only as DeLorean, but as yourself commenting on the DeLorean saga. I just watched you in the mini-series, (I think on Peacock), Dr. Death--DR. DEATH CLIP: Duntsch is never going to stop on his own.GARFIELD: --which is a really, really, really perverse story. And I watch you every week on the Match Game.MATCH GAME CLIP: We're looking for….penis. GARFIELD: Well, OK, that's actually not true, I don't watch the Match Game. But Alec, I'm afraid to open the f*****g fridge because I think you're going to be in there like drinking my orange juice from the carton. BALDWIN: There I am on the missing — I'm missing on the carton.GARFIELD: I don't understand. You've got between like 6 and 47 kids. How do you have the time to be everywhere all at once? I don't understand this.BALDWIN: I wish that were true. But Peacock--we started Dr. Death in March of last year. They shut down. They came back and were rebooted and ready to go with all of their protocols by mid-October. We shot from mid-October to the end of like, I think middle or end of February, you know, because we have the holidays. It was like a almost five month shoot to do eight episodes because of all the shutdowns and protocols. But it was a group of people--what you see very often in the business now is how hard people are working to keep everything going. They don't want to be the one that shuts down the production. They don't want to be the one that brings the COVID on the set. They're working really, really hard--like my kids' school. When you go to my kids' school and we drop them off at school, everyone's working really hard, masking, gloves, spraying things down, and distancing. And everybody on the staff is vaccinated. Everybody on the faculty is vaccinated. And I would imagine most of the parents are vaccinated as well, and we're assiduous about all of this because the kids can't be vaccinated yet. So we're always trying to protect unvaccinated children. So the job I did with Peacock (and my part was rather small. I mean, the real star of it was Joshua Jackson--played the eponymous character, if you will.)GARFIELD: Very well. He does a sociopath very, very well, that guy. BALDWIN: Wonderful performance. And so, everybody worked really hard to protect everything COVID-wise. I'm leaving to go to New Mexico in a little while to go shoot a film very quickly, and that's the same thing. Everyone just busting their back to keep everything safe for everybody. GARFIELD: A Western, by the way. BALDWIN: Yes, I'm going to do a Western. GARFIELD: Is this your first Western? BALDWIN: I actually did--the producer was a dear friend of mine. I love this guy. And his name was Stockton Briggle. And we did a--for CBS TV back in the 80s, we did a remake of The Alamo with James Arness and Brian Keith.THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY CLIP: News is that Santa Anna has crossed the Rio Grand. [crowd noise]What about Fannin and the boys from Goliad? Same with Houston, what about him?Both Fannin and Houston are on the march to come to our aidWhen do they get here, Jim?As of this moment..How about it Jim?As of this moment, we are on a battle alert. BALDWIN: ...and the Alamo Historical Society picketed the sets because they said that the two other men were old enough to play the fathers of their character. They were both long in the tooth for their role. So, I did a Western once. I did The Alamo for CBS, and it was memorable, but not for the right reasons.GARFIELD: I'm sorry. What was the name of the producer?BALDWIN: Stockton Briggle.GARFIELD: Right, of course, the Stockton Briggle. I once did a piece, that involved the director of the McLean Symphony Orchestra, whose name, as you know, is Dingwall Fleary, and that was a career highlight. BALDWIN: Well I'm always looking for names to stay in hotels under. And my favorite, one of my favorites was the great Mozart biographer who wrote the great books on Mozart. His name was Cuthbert Girdlestone.GARFIELD: Yeah, you know what, his name was actually Shecky Cuddlestein. And you know, he changed it at Ellis Island.BALDWIN: Real name was Phil Cohen.GARFIELD: Yeah. [laughs]BALDWIN: But I want to ask you--Bully Pulpit, how did that come about?GARFIELD: Well, it came about because I got fired...BROOKE GLADSTONE: Bob Garfield is out this week, and as many of you know by now, every week. GARFIELD: ...under the allegation that I had violated the WNYC'S anti-bullying policies. Not that I was a bully, per se, not that that nicety ever came through. As far as the world is concerned, I'm a bully, and, you know, to some degree canceled, but I'm certainly fired. And it was catastrophic in many, many ways: financially, reputationally. I am fighting it, and I probably will prevail, although there's no such thing as a slam dunk in this kind of law. But in the meantime, I still want to journalize. So a friend of mine, who was my co-host on a podcast that Slate did called Lexicon Valley...LEXICON VALLEY: From Washington, DC, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm Bob Garfield with Mike Vuolo.GARFIELD: It was a wonderful podcast...LEXICON VALLEY: Today, Episode 64, titled “Yada Yada Yada: Europeans Don't Get Seinfeld,” wherein we discuss why the classic American sitcom doesn't translate. Hey, Mikey. Hey, Bobby. How you doing, buddy?Splendid, thank you. And your own self?I am great...GARFIELD: ...which we both--we left. He went and did one thing about Supreme Court decisions. I went to do another thing about MacArthur Genius laureates. And then it was handed over to a Columbia professor, a linguistics professor, named John McWhorter. Anyway, Mike Vuolo his name is, came to me and said, Look, I'm starting this company with my friend, Matt Schwartz, from NPR, and it's called Booksmart Studios, and we would like you to consider doing your thing for us. And I said, Yes! Yes! This is the best part about getting my ass fired and being humiliated and everything else that comes with my fate, now I can do exactly what I want--the same kind of social and political media criticism that I wanted to do, (I don't want to mischaracterize this), but without having to deal with, let's say, the internal politics of an organization, without having any kind of sort of received ideology that has to be at the bottom of it. I'm free to be me, you know, asking the kind of questions and making the kind of observations that I want to make. And that has been very liberating. You know, I wish I hadn't been fired, but I could not be more delighted to be doing this particular show because it's just been a fantastic experience and very well received among the 11 people who listen to it. BALDWIN: I had a show for quite a while. I was several years at NYC.HERE'S THE THING WITH ALEC BALDWIN: My first clip is from an interview with the legendary Barbra Streisand who talks here about how she wanted control of her films in a way that...BALDWIN: When the show ended, when I left NYC to go to iHeart and go from public radio to commercial radio, it was difficult because I was sad to leave behind, figuratively, the public radio audience. I like the public radio audience. And I was always getting--people would tell me how much they liked my podcast in New York more than anything else I was working on. It was kind of funny. But NYC was a place where--I'm a fan of public radio, but not all public radio stations are created equally. And NYC, which has a huge nut, they are, in the COVID era, I would imagine, obsessed with raising money. But NYC, of course, got into the kind of firing jag: Lopate had to go, Jonathan Schwartz had to go, and Hockenberry.I was given a mandatory set of questions that I had to ask Woody Allen. And I said to them, I said, now Woody Allen told me in my conversation with him--we had one conversation, and I said, you know, they're coming after me to ask unanswered questions. And I just find asking those questions--again, not that there's anything wrong with them, but it doesn't mean a good show. He's already been over this a thousand times. And they said, well, if you don't ask these questions, we're not going to air the show. I mean, I found the chuck. This is public radio. They said, if you don't ask the questions--the guy, whatever his name was. What was that guy who was in charge of content there?GARFIELD: I just, I see no need to bandy about names, Alec. Let's just leave them anonymous. BALDWIN: I'd love to put his name right up on the screen, but he was the one that said, yeah, if you don't ask these questions, we're not going to air the show. So in my mind, that was it, I was going to quit. I was out of there. And so, I said to Woody, they're demanding that I ask these questions. I apologize. This isn't at all what I had in mind. He said, listen, he said, don't worry about it. So we do the show. He was great. I mean, he was great, great, great.WOODY ALLEN: I was coming from a position--people were thinking, my god, this older person has seduced this young girl, and he's taking advantage of her. You know, it looked awful. I understood that. I mean, I can understand that. BALDWIN: And then we finished and I called my lawyer and I said, I'm out of here. They didn't care. So I just kind of took a deep breath and I said, you know something, I mean, just about anywhere has got to be better than here. Do I like being on commercial radio? There's benefits to it. Now, you're on commercial radio now as well. GARFIELD: I wish there were more commerce. it's an interesting model. We are on Substack, which is a platform for independent creators of content who are not in the employ of media companies to fend for themselves. You know, put their content out there and be paid by subscriptions by their followers. And Bully Pulpit is, in effect, a Substack talent. And at the moment, we are three shows. There's Bully Pulpit. There is Lexicon Valley, which Mike and I started, and McWhorter now does for us.MCWHORTER: Having a pronoun to mark nonbinary identity could be seen as pretty basic. It could be seen as something that a critical mass of people could agree is a moral advance if you think about history, if you think about what seems to be the case in all cultures.GARFIELD: Then there's Banished by an academic, a professor named Amna Khalid, which looks at what loosely is called “cancel culture” and looks at its implications for the society and so forth.KHALID: To what extent is this just kind of generating frankly b******t work and legislation to make a political point and just to kind of grind down the machinery and keep the conversation going around these issues? And to what extent do they genuinely think that they are going to be able to control the space that is higher education?GARFIELD: She really asks smart questions, and, you know, listens carefully to the answers. And it's something. I mean, when you listen to an episode, when you're done, your jaw aches because of the tension of this moment in our society. And yes, of course, in answer to your question, yes, you can subscribe to all of them for free at Booksmart Studios. BooksmartStudios.org. And if you ask me later, I'll also plug the shows.BALDWIN: [laughs] What are the benefits of the show you're doing now as compared to where you were before? GARFIELD: Well, I get to be me. I don't have to worry about other people's ideology, about their their red zones, you know, I don't have to worry about their aesthetic. I mean, collaboration is great, and I worked with extremely, extremely, extremely talented producers. But they weren't me, and there were times when I was stymied in my wishes for a particular piece of subject matter (often subject matter) or an approach, a line on a piece or something like that. And now I am free to either soar or f**k up all by myself. I'm free to be me, if you call that freedom.BALDWIN: Now, you had on one of the episodes your friend who you've known for many years, who did the 911 Museum documentary. Correct?GARFIELD: Yeah. Steve Rosenbaum.BALDWIN: Rosenbaum--the director or the producer or both?GARFIELD: Both. BALDWIN: And Michael Shulman, I remember that clearly he was the kind of protagonist of the piece.ROSENBAUM: I mean, he's quite brilliant in the way that lots of thoughtful New Yorkers are about images and sound and picture. He's just not a museum person in that he doesn't play by the rules...BALDWIN: I liked the film a lot and I just couldn't get enough of Shulman. I wanted to see more of Shulman.GARFIELD: Shulan. Shulan. BALDWIN: Oh, Shulan? Yeah, Michael Shulan. Sorry. So, you know Rosenbaum from where?GARFIELD: I've known him for, you know, six or seven hundred years. I was a--believe it or not, this is going to sound ridiculous, but before I got into the media criticism racket, I was an advertising critic. I was a, believe it or not, world famous advertising critic because I worked for Advertising Age, which was the global publication for media and marketing industry. And I passed judgment on new commercials and campaigns and print ads and so forth. And as such was--[laughs] it's crazy. “BOB GARFIELD: EXCELLENT RADIO MAN”: Good, old Bob Garfield is the best man in the whole wide world. Good, old Bob Garfield is very intelligent. Good, old Bob Garfield is the nicest man who ever lived. GARFIELD: You know, you know what it's like to walk down the street in Cannes during the movie festival in May and people turning their heads and going, [whispering]. Well, that's what would happen to me when I walked down the Croisette in Cannes in June for the advertising festival.BALDWIN: I thought you were going to say that that was what it was like when you walked down Madison Avenue in the 70s and 80s. That was your Croisette.GARFIELD: As you well know, Alec, as a native New Yorker, nobody makes eye contact with you on Madison, so.CHARLI XCX: Why you looking at me? Why you looking at me? All these  b*****s looking at me.GARFIELD: You know, it's easy to be anonymous walking down at North to South Street. Anyway, so he called me once to book me for a speaking gig, and we became friends. BALDWIN: You were a person who was immersed in the world of advertising. I used to do voiceovers in the early days with the Young & Rubicam and of course, my favorite piece of  Madison Avenue trivia, my favorite anecdote, was when someone said that BBDO (Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn) was the sound made by what? What was the joke?GARFIELD: A trunk falling down the stairs. And it was Fred Allen, said it on his radio show back in 1644.BALDWIN: Batten, Barton...GARFIELD: Durstine and Osborn, yeah. [laughs]BALDWIN: What's your media diet? I mean, I talked to a couple of people, all of them say the same thing, and I don't fault them for that. Their go to in the morning is The New York Times online. They're all reading The Times first and foremost. What's your media diet every day? What are you committed to listening to, reading every day? GARFIELD: Well, as we've discussed, the major thing that I consume it turns out, is Alec Baldwin movies, which is is getting to be a problem.GLENGARRY GLENN ROSS SPEECH: You see this watch? You see this watch?Yeah.That watch costs more than your car. I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. GARFIELD: You know, I read The New York Times. That's my first go. And then, because I'm always looking for story ideas, the other thing I read is everything. Now, one of the things I really miss, one of the things I really miss about On the Media is the producers in the aggregate had far more scope in their media diets than I did, and they would bring stuff that I otherwise would not have found. And, you know, sometimes it was from Atlantic or The New Republic or The Nation or some even less brand name publications, but far greater than I personally consumed. And now, because I have constantly to be on the lookout for ideas, for pieces and commentaries and essays, I just obsessively scroll everything. So the answer to your question changes hour by hour, but I'm just going to go with everything.BALDWIN: So again, the podcast is called Bully Pulpit. It can be found at Booksmart Studios? GARFIELD: BooksmartStudios.org. You can subscribe for free. You can pay $7 a month and get bonus content from Amna and John and from me. I write a weekly text column, which might be even funner for me than the audio pieces. You know, in my life, I've written 3 or 4,000 columns. That's really how I got started in this business. What we do, or at least what I do, is observe. I observe my ass off, try to look at what is happening in our society, and ask questions that for whatever reasons some are uncomfortable about asking. And I may sometimes seem polemical. But the key is I make an argument. I don't just say things as if they were received truth. I make an argument and the arguments are pretty strong and it's often kind of funny. Have you heard any of the pieces?BALDWIN: Yes. I listened to the one about the tortillas. I listened to one about the documentary. Yeah.GARFIELD: So, I mean, in two words and one of them being “transcendent,” how would you characterize Bully Pulpit from BooksmartStudios.org.BALDWIN: Almost transcendent. GARFIELD: [laughs]   BALDWIN: To get back to your media diet, no TV for you? You're not watching any TV news at all. That's hopeless to you. GARFIELD: Well, cable news is not news. It's just highly conflicted people arguing about the news, right? Fox News obviously is not news because it's just political propaganda and opposition research. And it's, you know, it's a cancer on the society. And the local news is, you know, people standing in front of police tape talking live from something that happened yesterday. So that's utterly useless. And unfortunately, local news reporting, it's all but disappeared. We are awash in national political reporting. But the collapse of the media industry has devastated, decimated, the journalism business everywhere in this country. In some places, there are vast deserts where there is no local news available. And you know who's behind that too? You know who is at the heart of that collapse? Well, the digital revolution in the first instance, because it bollixed up the advertising model and it created an endless glut of content and not enough advertising to support it. But then Facebook and Google snapped up everything. They own the advertising economy, and everybody else has to fight for scraps. So, on top of all of the other evils of Mark Zuckerberg that we began with, they have, more than any other institution including the Trump administration, eviscerated the news business here and around the world, and from this, I believe we shall never recover.BALDWIN:  You don't see any hope?GARFIELD: No, I mean, I'm in the despair industry, but there's not a lot I see. Let's just say the planet does not burn into a cinder, about which I'm also increasingly skeptical. I don't see the problems, the intractable problems, in the news business doing anything but getting worse and worse and worse. BALDWIN: The show is called Bully Pulpit. The site is BooksmartStudios.org. I'm especially interested in both the other podcasts--Banished, and what's the other one, Lexicon Valley?GARFIELD: Lexicon Valley. They both are transcendent. And also Alec, I should say I'll be at the Valley Forge Music Fair June 7th, 8th and 9th, and I'll be doing some summer stock in Meridian, Mississippi. I'm doing Music Man. It's long been a dream of mine. I will be playing the Shirley Jones character. BALDWIN: I'm so sorry to miss that. Let's record that. Anyway, my very best to you. I look forward to Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley, and Banished on BooksmartStudios.org.GARFIELD: Thanks, man. It's always a pleasure. BALDWIN: My pleasure. We'll talk to you down the road.GARFIELD: All right, we're done here. You now know what my conversations with Alec Baldwin tend to sound like and you also know more about the origins of this show. In due course, you will learn more about my WNYC ordeal. It is as frustrating, I promise you, to be muzzled as it was to be smeared in the first place, but I promise you in time the truth will emerge.Meantime, we encourage you to become a paid subscriber to Booksmart Studios, so you can get extra content from Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley and Banished. The big Bully Pulpit bonus is my weekly text column, which some have described as “like Bully Pulpit but you don't need earbuds.”Also, I can't emphasize this enough, if you like what you hear from our shows, please share with your peeps and go to iTunes to rate us. Those ratings to date are phenomenal across the board but scale matters a lot. So, please please weigh in. And I, of course, thank you very much.Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Bob stumbles on a controversy about a media personality's enchilada recipe — and learns about truth, celebrity and Mexican food.TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in. BOB GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt. I'm Bob Garfield with Episode 11: The Tortilla Scandal.Gotta tell you, this one is hard. Look, I think it's fair to say that in 44 years of journalism, I haven't shied away from difficult subjects — because that's what we do, right? That's why we are here, to shine light into some dark corners. Sometimes dark and damp. The kind of fetid hiding places where bad things happen out of public view. Unseen crevices, shadowy and, you know, moist.But journalism is all about venturing there, risks be damned, to protect the public's right to know. I'm looking at you, Armando Tinoco of Showbiz Cheat Sheet. He is the author of the blockbuster story headlined “‘Magnolia Table': Joanna Gaines Makes ‘Controversial' Substitute in Mexican Enchilada Recipe.”JOANNA GAINES: So I've got my 9x13 pan, and I'm going to put about half a cup of the enchilada sauce at the bottom.GARFIELD: The Magnolia Table episode starts out normally. As the old saying goes, “You can't make enchiladas if you're not willing to make enchilada sauce.” And the host, Joanna Gaines, for a while says and does nothing that would suggest controversy.GAINES: So, I'm going to add the shredded rotisserie chicken and then I like to add some mozzarella cheese. It's a nice go-to, safe recipe that everyone will love.GARFIELD: OK, trigger warning. I'm not going to show you this, because we have some technical problems with our video, but it turns out not to matter what Gaines says about “safe” and “everyone will love,” because pictures don't lie. She is wrapping her enchiladas in wheat-flour tortillas. It's like watching police body-cam video. And there were some in the audience who were all, like, am I really seeing this?MATTHEW McCONAUGHEY: Holy...f*****g s**t.GARFIELD: You can say that again, Matthew McConaughey, maybe even slower. Because Gaines totally courts the inevitable backlash, openly declaring, and I quote: “I grabbed a handful of fresh tortillas from Jesse's today. In traditional enchiladas, sometimes it's corn tortillas, but I like to use flour tortillas and it's quite controversial.”“Controversial,” she says. No wonder she got the attention of Showbiz Cheat Sheet, which zeroed right in (I mean, if we're to credit the headline) on this potential crime against humanity — like genocide, or cinnamon-raisin bagels. Is God okay with tortillas not made with corn? YEAH YEAH YEAHS: (Music) It's sacrilege, sacrilege, sacrilege, you say… It's sacrilege, sacrilege, sacrilege, you say…GARFIELD: This is precisely the matter explored by food vlogger Adam Ragusea, who painstakingly documented the relationship between white flour and white people.ADAM RAGUSEA: The soft-shell corn tortilla is the original tortilla, originating in pre-Columbian America. Wheat didn't even grow in this hemisphere until European colonialists brought it over.GARFIELD: I'll return to Adam in a moment. Because in media, controversy is a commodity and you really, really need to inspect the goods. For now though, let's focus on another important question: Joanna Gaines, the enchilada lover — who is she again? Well, here's who: a famous American. A cable-TV-famous, unthreateningly attractive, very white-teethed American, who, with her even more white-teethed husband Chip, were for five years hosts of HGTV's super popular home-renovation-porn show Fixer Upper.SNEAK PEEK OF FIXER UPPER EXCERPTS: “Lucas and Laney, today is the big day. Are you ready to see your fixer upper?”“Absolutely.”“Let's do it!”“OH MY!”“This kitchen…”“How did you do this?”“Ta-da!”GARFIELD: The show was a blockbuster, but is just ending a three-year hiatus while Joanna and Chip spent more time with their five kids, their lawyers, and their very own fledgling cable channel Magnolia Network, where, at the moment, Jo doesn't renovate old farm houses but cooks meals on TV. Yes, she is now a DIY celebrity chef, and as such, what she does with an enchilada matters.Ok, not “matters,” as in having any relevance to anyone's real life in this particular solar system. “Matters” as in feeding the industry built on the passing interest of many, many TV consumers who may or may not be up to speed on, say, the systematic erosion of voting rights for Black Americans or atrocities in Myanmar or the burning of our planet to a cinder, but definitely do feel a kinship with Jo and Chip, becausetelevision.In that universe, not only can Armando Tinoco gain employment writing about the tortilla ingredients of the rich and famous, but everything Joanna Gaines does (with the possible exception of her autonomic nervous system) is also newsworthy. I commend you, for example, to Rachel Askinasi's scoop for Insider headlined: “I Tried Joanna Gaines' Restaurant-worthy, Cereal-coated French Toast and It's Perfect for Family Brunch.”Pulitzer committee, take note. But the journalistic interest extends beyond Joanna herself to those with whom she shares DNA. Credit Nathalie Kirby of House Beautiful for ferreting out the story headlined: “Joanna Gaines's Younger Sister Just Opened a Plant Shop Called ‘Ferny's' and We Can't Wait to Shop There!”These exposés don't just land in a reporter's lap. Breaking this news required Kirby to roll up her sleeves and read Joanna Gaines's Instagram, which gushed about both Ferny's and sister Mary Kay — approximately like the Pentagon papers, if the Pentagon Papers had included an address and store hours.It is journalistic enterprise like this that keeps you and me free. Because We. Must. Know. More. I mean, Chip and Joanna's infidelity issues, don't even get me started. Access Live was all over Chip, and we are the better for it.INTERVIEWER: I'm thinking about your 18th wedding anniversary, the five kids, all the success, all the fame that's come. Has there ever been a moment for the two of you where you thought you were going to throw in the towel or that you couldn't do it?CHIP GAINES: You know, that crisis, Jo and I had multiple opportunities to quit and throw in the towel, and that was just not in our DNA. So now I think we've taken that and realized that, you know, it's like you can't ever lose if you don't quit. And Jo and I keep showing up day after day and sometimes it's right, sometimes it's not, but we keep putting one foot in front of the other.INTERVIEWER: Joanna, tell me about the engagement ring. GARFIELD: Now, amid all of this repertorial heroism, there is one small nitpick. When Showbiz Cheat Sheet caught Joanna Gaines preparing enchiladas with flour tortillas, it was possibly not exactly cultural desecration. It was more like what Mexicans call: “cooking.” YouTuber Adam Ragusea pressed the question with LA Times reporter Gustavo Arellano, author of the book Taco USA.GUSTAVO ARELLANO: Go talk to the people in Sonora. Go talk to the people in Nuevo Leon and Chihuahua--the borderlands. Go talk to the Tex Mex folks who have been right there on the border for generations, and for them, flour tortillas is what they grew up on. They totally speak Spanish. They look like you and I. Flour tortillas--our tradition. GARFIELD: Oh, so, no controversy after all. As they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The moral of this story, I suppose, is that true journalistic courage comes in not caring if it's “right” or “wrong.” Or “significant.” We should all maybe beware of trading in pompous pieties when the sacred appetites of the audience hang in the balance. On the other hand, I suppose credibility does matter, right? For instance, that cereal-coated French toast. Is it really perfect for family brunch? How do we know? For the love of God, how do we know?Ok, we're done here. We encourage you to become a paid subscriber to Booksmart Studios, so you can get extra content — including my weekly text column — from Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley, and Banished.Meantime, please please please share our podcasts with friends, colleagues, relatives and your social networks: Twitter, Insta, Facebook. And also, rate us on iTunes, that is invaluable. We are trying to bring unapologetic scrutiny to the world of ideas, and we simply cannot do that without you. So please help, and, of course, thank you in advance.Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

“Critical Race Theory,” also known as CRT, is a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these anti-CRT bills aiming to accomplish, and how will they affect schooling in the US? Amna Khalid discusses the rise of anti-CRT bills with Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy; Acadia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs; and former president of the ACLU, Professor Emerita Nadine Strossen of New York Law School.SPEAKER 1: Critical race theory is teaching that white people are bad.SPEAKER 2: We’re demonizing white people for being born.SPEAKER 1: This theory was never meant to be brought into grade schools, high schools at all. It’s actually taught in the collegiate atmosphere.SPEAKER 2: These are systemic things. Ignoring it perpetuates the problem. By acknowledging it, we can find solutions and we can address the problems and the inequality that exists in our country. SPEAKER 3: You gonna deliberately teach kids: “This white kid right here got it better than you because he’s white”? You gonna purposely tell a white kid, “Oh, well, black people were all down and suppressed”? How do I have two medical degrees and I’m sitting here oppressed? [cheers] How did I get that? [cheers]AMNA KHALID: Most parents of young schoolchildren are familiar with the stories--third graders in California are given an assignment: rank yourselves by power and privilege based on your racial identity. Parents in North Carolina say middle schoolers are forced to apologize in class to their peers for their privilege. In an elementary school in Manhattan, children are sorted by race for mandatory training. In some Buffalo schools, students are taught that all white people are guilty of implicit racial bias. Sometime towards the end of last year, parents and politicians freaked out, mostly conservatives, who see all this as a kind of liberal indoctrination of our youth. In at least 26 states around the country, Republican legislators have introduced what are now called anti-CRT bills. CRT stands for critical race theory, a phrase that has become shorthand for just about any classroom instruction on racism, past or present. But what is this fight really about? What are these bills aiming to accomplish and how will they affect schooling in the US? I spoke to three experts about the rise of anti-CRT bills. First is Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy, who says that although CRT was coined decades ago as a purely legal, academic term, it has now all but lost its original meaning. RANDALL KENNEDY: Now, if I'm in a seminar at my law school and we're talking about critical race theory, I'm thinking about a community of people, a community of thought that has its origins in the 1980s, that believes that liberal legalism was inadequate to get us to a state of racial justice. They’re people who believe that mere anti-discrimination would not suffice to redress the terrible injuries of racial oppression. Something much more activist, something much more deep-seated, had to be done to get us to where we needed to go. On the other hand, if we're just talking about on the street, if we're talking about television, if we're talking about radio today, for many people, especially for its most vocal critics, critical race theory is anything that they don't like that has to do with race. It's an open category and it's more of a slogan than anything else. KHALID: Let's move a little bit away from its origins and from the academic context and think about what it's come to mean today, particularly when we're referring to these anti-CRT bills. We've seen a rise in bills that have been drafted across the country, primarily in Republican-dominated states, where there is an attempt to banish, if you will, what they call teaching of critical race theory, particularly at the K-12 level. Now, as someone who is a scholar, a legal scholar, can powers that be do that? Is it legally sanctioned to stipulate what K-12 curriculum should be or is it in contravention of the First Amendment? KENNEDY: It can be done. It's a well-known tenet of American practice that public primary and secondary schooling is largely under the control of local political forces. It's deemed to be perfectly proper for primary and secondary schools, for instance, to inculcate patriotism. You know, that's viewed as uncontroversial. Of course you're going to inculcate patriotism. Of course you're going to inculcate various attitudes that the ascendant political forces in your jurisdiction want to be taught in schools and nourished and lauded. We want our youngsters to know about the Founding Fathers and the greatness of American democracy, et cetera, et cetera. Well, if you can do all of that, I mean, that's inculcation. This is another type of inculcation, or it's saying what we don't want taught. Well, you can do that. You can, for instance, have a school system in which you say, “We're going to banish the teaching of racist ideas.” And in fact, that's what some of these people, you know, are saying right now. They're terming critical race theory itself as a type of racism. And they're saying, “We don't want that taught.” Can that be done? Yeah, that can largely be done at the K-12 level. Yes. KHALID: There's nothing that prevents that kind of move from being undertaken.KENNEDY: That's right. It’s a political question. Basically from kindergarten to 12th grade, what you're taught in school is largely under the control of the local school board, the city school board, the county school board. It's a matter of local democratic politics. And so, it's a political struggle. KHALID:  OK, so, Randy, now I'm going to ask you to take off your legal scholar hat and put on your hat of an educator who is concerned with how we train our students to think. So with that hat on, I'd like you to tell us, are you in support of anti-CRT legislation? KENNEDY: I'm appalled by it. In my view, what's going on is the latest iteration of a phenomenon that we have seen over and over and over again. In my view, this is analogous to what happened in the 1950s: the panic over communism, the panic over socialism. You'll note that those two words often find themselves in close proximity to critical race theory. People say, you know, “Critical race theory is Marxism. Critical race theory is socialism.” There's a long history of stigmatizing ideas that are dissident, especially ideas that are critical of the status quo. There's a long history of stigmatizing such ideas as communistic or socialistic or Marxist. And that's what's going on today. The courts, I don't think, are going to be our salvation. I think our salvation is going to be public opinion. And you asked me, “Well, you know, what should people be thinking?” People should be thinking, “How do I want my children to be trained?” I would think that people would want children to be critical thinkers, would want children to be introduced to all sorts of ideas, including ideas that they don't like, trained in such a way that children can have a critical, skeptical stance toward a wide range of ideas. That, it seems to me, is what we should want in our public schools. And we cannot have that if certain ideas are banished. Let the teachers introduce things that are called critical race theory and let's talk about it: “What do you think of this? How should this be assessed?” The art of assessment is what we should be inculcating in our history and in our social studies and in our civics classes. And we can't do that if we are in a panic and banish ideas that we think we don't like. KHALID: According to Randall Kennedy, critical race theory in 2021 means something very different from what its original proponents intended. Nowadays, the term is loaded. It is political. It means everything and says almost nothing about what is actually being taught in schools. But it's the term that we're stuck with for the time being. The more immediate question then becomes, what are these anti-CRT bills trying to achieve? Jeffrey Sachs teaches Middle Eastern politics at Acadia University in Canada and has been closely following the various legislation.JEFFREY SACHS: These efforts focus their attention on preventing K-12, and in some cases, public universities and colleges from engaging in certain kinds of speech in the classroom, assigning certain kinds of materials, and also, in some instances, preventing the kinds of trainings that schools can require teachers or staff to undergo as part of their jobs. And really, the long and short of it is that this is an attempt to prevent teachers from being trained in or discussing certain ideas that conservatives really hate. KHALID: And what are those ideas? SACHS: The list fluctuates. They tend to focus on things like the idea that one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another race or sex, or the idea that somebody, by virtue of their race or sex, is guilty or should feel shame on that basis. I don't think there are many people out there--I certainly, I hope not--who think that a person should feel shame or guilt on account of their race or sex. So, the ideas that are being targeted for censorship by these laws, many of them, when they're presented, they sound like a reasonable law. But when you kind of really drill down into how these laws are being written, you discover very quickly that they're far more sweeping and in some cases, far more sloppily drafted than probably they should be. And they would inevitably sweep up and censor all kinds of speech or classroom content that we want to have included, that we want to have protected. This is really a case where the politics of the issue, I think, are so powerful and the momentum is so great that legislators aren't really thinking clearly or if they are thinking clearly, they have malign intent because the result is laws that really are going to do a lot of damage to both K-12 and higher ed. KHALID: It may be constitutional in the K-12 context, yet that doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean that it doesn't come with a set of both anticipated and unanticipated consequences. There's nothing wrong in saying that teaching divisive concepts, which say things like, “If you're from a particular race you’re inherently superior or inferior,” is wrong, and we don't want that happening in our schools. Yet, the issue becomes very nebulous when we begin to think about definitions, what constitutes a divisive concept becomes contentious. SACHS: So, a good example is the law recently passed in Tennessee, which reads that a public school authority or public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction, and also that they may not use any supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts. And then it lists an array of concepts similar to the ones I described earlier. Now, the problem here is that there are all kinds of sound pedagogical reasons why a teacher might wish to include a concept in a course, even a very controversial concept. So an example might be that the teacher wishes to include a primary source written by an author who lived 100, 200, 300 years ago, at a time when certain kinds of divisive concepts were common currency. It might be useful, for instance, for the purposes of discussing historic discrimination or present-day discrimination for a teacher to cite a document that contains a divisive concept. If you pass a law, as Tennessee has, saying that teachers may not include such material in the course, then you are robbing students of their ability to confront and think intelligently about these ideas--ideas that they're bound to encounter at some point in their everyday lives. It should be the jobs of teachers to introduce concepts, no matter how divisive, so long as they do so in a responsible, neutral, and objective way. These laws, in many cases, do not draw that distinction. Instead, they ban any inclusion of these ideas. Tennessee’s is a good example. It bans the mere inclusion of these ideas, even if included objectively and discussed neutrally. That kind of sloppy drafting, if indeed it is sloppy and not intentional, is, I think, a real ticking time bomb. KHALID: The irony is that those who are pushing these laws are the ones who, until very recently, supported a president who was making precisely the kinds of speeches where certain groups were being seen as inferior and which would be very much part of your civics education if you were trying to engage in an educational discussion about democracy in America. SACHS: Absolutely. I mean, under this law, there's many Trump speeches that I'm sure would be ineligible for inclusion in a Tennessee classroom. Setting aside my own opinions about Donald Trump, I think that there is very valid pedagogical reasons for why a civics teacher might want to include a speech by the president of the United States. It's just a no brainer to me. Whether they mean to or not--and I always try to give legislators the benefit of the doubt, but whether they mean to or not, this law, which is currently on the books in Tennessee, would forbid the inclusion of a speech by the president. That seems to me to be insane.KHALID: But hang on, Jeff. People in favor of these bills often point out that teaching at the K-12 level is already highly regulated. Take creationism. You can't make that part of the science curriculum. And for the most part, people are okay with that. So what's wrong with banning CRT then, if that's something we want to keep out of the classroom? SACHS: There's a good reason why this is not a good analogy, because the fact of the matter is we do not ban creationism from public schools, right? We ban the promotion of creationism. We ban, under the Establishment Clause--jurisprudence--Teachers may not promote the idea that the earth or the cosmos was created by a deity. However, teachers are free to discuss that idea. And in fact, they have to if they're going to discuss things like Greek and Roman mythology or Dante's Divine Comedy. So there has to be room in our law and in our jurisprudence to allow people to discuss the idea of creationism so long as they do so in a neutral and objective way. We should extend that same basic courtesy and framework to critical race theory and its attendant ideas. So, people should be allowed in the classroom to discuss the idea that black people are inherently superior or inferior to white people, if only for the reason that that idea pops up in important documents and important conversations throughout history and in the present day. A teacher would be failing in his or her duty if they did not prepare students for the eventuality that they will encounter that idea outside the classroom. People should also be able to discuss the concepts of critical race theory without saying critical race theory is the truth. KHALID: Jeffrey, I'm going to actually move the conversation to discuss a different context, which might help elucidate some of the issues that we would face in the US. And it's one that I feel you're well-equipped to comment on. So, I come from Pakistan. And Pakistan is a very different society, one that has been looked upon in the US as a society that is backwards. And one of the key issues is we have blasphemy laws, which prevent the discussion of anything that insults Muhammad. Now, what constitutes a blasphemy is the issue over here. And in colleges and universities, I remember growing up not being able to ask genuinely inquisitive questions because they were being shut down because they were seen as blasphemous. So, for instance, Mohammad does X, Y, and Z and a single question like, “Well, why was this the best option?” or “Why did he choose to do this?” would be met with such irate censure from the teacher, who clearly did not want to go there for reasons that this could have implications should this be reported outside of class. And I feel like the US discussion about bills about CRT would benefit immensely--we could elucidate the ill effects of these if we just look a little beyond our shores to see what's going on in other countries. You study the Middle East. SACHS: That's such a fascinating comparison. And I think it really does kind of cast a bit of relief, what you're talking about. There's a famous case from the early 1990s in Egypt where something similar to what you're describing happened, where a university professor--of course, academic freedom is severely circumscribed in Egypt then and now. And in the early 1990s, this university professor described the Koran as a historical creation, that it reflected the events of its time and is not necessarily a universal and eternal document the way kind of orthodox Islamic theology presents it to be. For this, for engaging and considering this kind of critical view of the Koran, he was fired. He was prosecuted. He was declared by the courts to be an apostate, and his marriage to his wife, who, at least according to the courts, was still a Muslim in good standing, was annulled, and the two of them had to actually flee the country. Now, that's a very famous and thankfully, at least, a very extreme example, even in the context of Egypt, where these issues can be so sensitive. But it definitely highlights the idea that the moment you fail to draw a distinction between the discussion of an idea and its promotion, then you are robbing teachers and students of the opportunity to confront and critically consider certain ideas. So, while I don't think we in the United States or Canada or wherever face a similar kind of punishment if we run afoul of these anti-CRT laws, the threat is there and the self-censorship will be too. So, there we will definitely see in America teachers (and frankly, in many cases professors as well, because academic freedom is only as powerful under the law as the people who enforce it), at all levels, we will see a kind of self-censorship and a kind of terror in many cases of running afoul of these texts. KHALID: As Jeffrey Sachs suggests, many of these bills do not make a distinction between explaining an idea and endorsing it. But that's just one problem with how these bills are drafted. Nadine Strossen is professor emerita at New York Law School and former president of the ACLU. She takes issue with the way these bills invoke the concept of divisiveness. NADINE STROSSEN: The concept of divisiveness is being bandied about as if it is inherently negative. And that is very dangerous because divisiveness applies to ideas that people disagree with, right? Any time somebody says something controversial or provocative or unpopular, one of the stigmatizing accusations is, “Oh, you're engaging in divisiveness.” Or if you say something critical of government policy or, heaven forbid, of school policy--“Oh, don't be so divisive.” Well, what's the opposite of divisiveness? It's uniformity. It's homogeneity. It's conformity. And that's the opposite of the critical thinking toward which I think we should be striving if we are to educate our young citizens. And interestingly enough, in the Supreme Court's most recent student free speech case from the summer of 2021, the Mahanoy case, the Supreme Court actually said that the school itself has an interest in making sure that students have the right to engage in unpopular expression. That could be, in other words, divisive expression. And not only that the students have that right, but the school even has a duty to teach students the importance of exercising and defending unpopular speech in particular. And that would certainly apply to divisive speech. Now, I also want to go back to the 1969 Tinker case where Mary Beth Tinker and a number of other students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in the early 1960s, at a time when the war was still very popular, when critics of the war were very unpopular, were assumed to be traitors to the United States and unpatriotic. And it was very upsetting expression because many parents and siblings of these school kids and teachers were off fighting and dying in Vietnam. A recent alum of the school had recently been killed in Vietnam. So this was very divisive emotionally as well as politically. And the school cited those concerns in saying, “Well, that's disruption and we can't have that in the public schools.” And the Supreme Court said, “No, no, no, no, no. Freedom for ideas, especially about matters of public affairs”--That's true for CRT, deals with matters of public affairs--“is critically important. If we were to say that the mere fact that speech can be divisive or upsetting, either personally or politically, that that's not a basis for allowing it to be protected, then we are teaching the wrong lessons about citizenship to these future voters and future leaders of our country.”KHALID: I'm actually really glad that you brought that up, because I think one of the hallmarks of democracy is precisely to not just allow for or tolerate, but to actually foster dissent, to create spaces where dissent is possible. As an educator, what I see happening with these bills is that they reek of an authoritarianism which is trying to produce the kind of conformity that fundamentally hollows out democratic institutions. And it's terrifying. When the public school system is destroyed is when you begin to see the downfall of a society. And it troubles me deeply. STROSSEN: You know, without free thinking and critically thinking and debating and discussing citizens, our democracy is going to crumble because it depends on we, the people, to wield our sovereign power. We can't do that in an informed, meaningful way unless we have nurtured and respected dissent.KHALID: I want to end with Professor Randall Kennedy, who believes that there is a direct line between laws that stifle open inquiry and the very health of our civic society. KENNEDY: The quality of our education is intimately tied up with the quality of our democracy. All of the leading theorists of democracy have talked about the importance of public education. They are bound up with one another. K-12 is the foundation of our educational system. What happens in K-12, tremendously important. In a democracy, if the people rule, it's very important for the people to make decisions about our health, about the use of military force, about all of the things that are significant. Well, if you have a lot of ignorance out there, if you have, out there, people who have not been trained to make wise assessments, if you have, out there, masses of people who really don't have the ability to separate disinformation from good, useful information, the fanciful from the realistic, well, a society that's governed by a badly educated populace is a society on its way down, which is why, you know, the struggle over the schools is so important. KHALID: As a mother of two young boys, I, too, am deeply invested in how racism is addressed in our schools. I definitely don't want my kids coming home and saying things like, “Mama, we were told today that white people are oppressing us.” That's not what I would consider an education. But if legislation is not the answer, and I firmly believe that it's not, then what can parents do to protest indoctrination in schools? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. You can leave a written comment on BooksmartStudios.org or email a voice memo to banished@booksmartstudios.org.If you like what you heard today and want more exclusive content, including access to my extended conversation with Nadine Strossen and an exclusive discussion with Greg Lukianoff, the president and CEO of FIRE and coauthor of Coddling of the American Mind, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get transcripts, extended interviews, and bonus segments. Also, check out my sister podcasts by Booksmart Studios: John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Bob Garfield's Bully Pulpit. Please comment and help us spread the word. The success of Booksmart and the impact of our work depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And as always, I am Amna Khalid. Cheerio. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In the ongoing drama surrounding the murder of Gabrielle Petito, Bob realized that the media are telling us everything under the sun, except for what matters most.TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in.GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt. I'm Bob Garfield with Episode 10: Airing Dirty Laundrie. GABRIELLE PETITO: Hello, hello, and good morning. It is really nice and sunny today. It's only ten o'clock in the morning, but it rained all afternoon yesterday…oh, my God!GARFIELD: That's from a YouTube post a few weeks ago by wannabe travel vlogger Gabrielle Petito, documenting her cross-country van journey with her boyfriend Brian Laundrie. We see them hiking, taking in sunsets, eating camp-style, hugging and kissing and frolicking, doing cartwheels on Santa Monica beach — two attractive young people living the dream.That the dreamy footage obscured a gathering nightmare, of course, is by now, hardly news to you.FOX NEWS REPORTER: Yeah, good morning Todd and Gillian. Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito were on a cross-country trip they were documenting for their YouTube series, but on September 1st, Brian returned home alone and has been hiding out at his parents' house, right behind me.Yesterday, North Port police named him a person of interest in this case.GARFIELD: Now, people go missing all the time in this country. One this month was Gregory Martin, a 70-year-old Buford, Georgia man, afflicted with dementia, who strayed away from his optometrist's office. You did not see anything about him on the news before he turned up safe and sound. You probably haven't heard of Quawan Charles, who was 15 when he went missing last year from his rural Louisiana home. If you were to Google “missing teenagers 2020,” you wouldn't find his picture. A lot of white schoolgirls, not a lot of black male schoolboys. His disappearance did not captivate the nation, or even the local police.LOCAL TV REPORTER: The family called the Baldwin Police Department and St. Mary Parish Sheriff's office to report him missing. Although the family asked that an amber alert be issued, officers declined to do so. The family claims the police downplayed their concerns, including speculating Charles may simply be attending a football game and not answering his phone. Charles' body was found days later, on November 3rd, in a wooded area about thirty minutes from his hometown. GARFIELD: And incredibly, in 2019, more than 5,590 Native American women were reported missing. You cannot name a single one of them. But when I say Natalee Holloway, or Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy — all of whom were TV news fodder for weeks or months at a time over the past couple of decades — you can most likely tell their heartbreaking stories, most likely in intimate detail. This is called “Missing White Woman Syndrome,” a term coined twenty years ago by the late journalist Gwen Ifill, and lately invoked by the New York Times and others in a “here-we-go-again” sort of way. This was Good Morning America: GOOD MORNING AMERICA REPORTER: Gabby Petito is one of so many reported missing each year. At the end of 2020, the FBI had over 89,000 active missing persons cases. 45% of those cases: people of color. Petito's story has renewed debate about which cases get attention and the media's seeming infatuation with missing white women. GARFIELD: If anything about that surprises you — I mean, anything — I don't even know what to say. Lookit: by American TV-news standards, the fact that Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson were brunette was practically affirmative action. So, of coursethe fate of skinny, blonde Gabby Petito, unlike Quawon Charles, has gripped the country as an irresistible true-crime mystery played out in real time. Clue by clue. Revelation by revelation. Twist by twist. Newsbreak by newsbreak — tragedy as infotainment, costumed (with all the obligatory sobriety and furrowed anchor brows) as journalism.LOCAL TV REPORTER: That's right Keith, good evening to you. North Port police admitted this search warrant last week. The detective writes that Gabby Petito's phone had been shut off for at least fifteen days. The investigator also says...TRAVEL BLOGGER 1: This is most definitely Gabby Petito's Ford transit van. TRAVEL BLOGGER 2: And I slowed it down, so you can possibly see it a little bit better.ABC NEWS REPORTER: In the last 24 hours, we've gotten more information on the final days leading up to Gabby's disappearance. Police just released audio of a 911 call out of Utah, where the caller reported seeing a domestic fight between Gabby and Brian on August 12th...CLARK COUNTY 911 CALL: “We drove by and the gentleman was slapping the girl.”“He was slapping her?”“Yes. And then we stopped, they ran up and down the sidewalk, he proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car, and they drove off.”ABC NEWS REPORTER: Police in Utah pulled the couple over last month, after responding to calls of a domestic incident while they were road tripping across the country. Officers said Petito was crying...POLICE BODY CAM: “What's your guys' names?”“Gabby.”“I'm Brian.” “Gabby, Brian. Ok. What's going on? Why are you crying?” “I'm not crying. We've just been fighting this morning.”FBI PRESSER: Human remains were discovered consistent with the description of Gabrielle “Gabby” Petito.CNN REPORTER: The news coming as the search is intensifying for Gabby Petito's fiance, Brian Laundrie, whose parents told police he disappeared a week ago today.LOCAL TV REPORTER: Yesterday, they, along with the FBI and several other agencies, spent the weekend scouring through the Carlton Reserve at the Myakkahatchee Creek Environmental Park. They have not found anything yet. The search ended just after six pm last night. North Port police have yet to tell us if they plan to resume that search there today, but I can tell you it is a very large, dense place with lots of shrubs, so it will take some time to get through.LOCAL TV REPORTER: Detective work, DNA and digital foots prints. The FBI is fanning out and zeroing in. From a North Port family home to Wyoming.GARFIELD: Gabby's death is obviously an unspeakable tragedy for her, for her loved ones, and for the loved ones of Brian Laundrie. For almost everyone else on the planet, it's merely pulp non-fiction — undoubtedly destined to be formally Hollywoodized in a four-part streaming series. Which, wholly apart from the implicit racism, is tragic itself. There are deep problems in this world, politically and environmentally, and the media and audience both have invested their scarce time resources in a morbid drama that offers virtually no significance, no insight, no meaning to anyone but the principals. There is one flicker of possibility, about which more in a moment, but I need to remind you what all-Gabby-all-the-time has squeezed out of the news.VALERIE MASON: With further warming in the coming years, we expect to see new extremes that are unprecedented in magnitude, frequency, timing, or in regions that have never encountered those types of extremes.GARFIELD: That was climate scientist Valerie Mason-Delmotte, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a couple of weeks ago, joining the UN General Assembly in declaring Code Red for Humanity.ABC NEWS REPORTER: The report's authors are essentially sending the world's leaders a final wake-up call: Curb emissions and dramatically reduce consumption, or face a world that is fundamentally different.GARFIELD: Yeah, that lasted one news cycle. One. The end of life on Earth as we know it. One news cycle.Oh, we're awash in coverage of national politics and the latest on Trump's every utterance, including talking in his sleep, but the death spiral of the media business has meant vastly shrunken newsrooms, vanishing local coverage, empty statehouse bureaus — and the biggest stories in the history of the planet treated like wheat germ occasionally to be sprinkled on the Trump-ruptions.CNN REPORTER: Trump sent a letter riddled with lies to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to decertify the results in Georgia, citing all sorts of debunked claims. GARFIELD: Celebrity crap.REPORTER: The Crown's Emmy nominated actress, Emma Corrin, made a bizarre fashion statement in a strapless frock and bonnet, quite a different look from her Princess Diana role.GARFIELD: And anti-vaccination a******s disrupting school board meetings.ANTI-VAXXERS: Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!GARFIELD: To which we can now add the story of Gabby Petito, who went on a travel adventure seeking fame, and achieved it, posthumously, like some sort of sick cosmic joke.But, as I said, a glimmer. A glimmer of something of value to be drawn from the morbid fascination with this mystery — namely, that it is not especially mysterious. Because as we comb through the endless clues and tidbits gathered by investigators, the press and random online civilians, we discover lurking within this saga a lesson.You'll recall the traffic stop, by Utah park police, who had seen the couple's van speeding erratically. The stop lasted 1 hour and 17 minutes, and the bodycam footage displays remarkably engaged and conscientious cops trying to get to the bottom of the couple's argument, in which Brian got scratched on the face and arms and Gabby had her face squeezed like a dog whose owner is trying to shut it up. What the police discovered, from both subjects, was that the two frequently triggered one another, leading to violent arguments that sometimes got physical. Brian said Gabby was very anxious and emotional and, you know, the girl crazy. And Gabby said, it's true. This led to a piece of advice from one officer to a crying Gabrielle. The relationship, he said, was toxic, and dangerous.POLICE OFFICER: It may be bad for your soul, just saying. I'm not telling you what to do with your life, but if you know you have anxiety, look at the situations you can get in, you know what I mean? Now, we're not here to be mean to you or anything but you know, there's a first time and then it usually...GARFIELD: And then, usually it gets worse. Because the pathology of domestic violence is a pathology of repeated episodes spiraling ever downward. If Brian was mishandling her in a speeding vehicle on unfamiliar mountain roads, the worst was surely yet to come. This is the lesson — the universal lesson — to be drawn from this horrifying saga. There are lovers' spats and there is battering and the difference, the fatal difference, is often on display. Every parent and every sibling and every friend of every woman — not to mention the cops who get called to the scene of a domestic — should be vigilant for these signs and be prepared to intervene before it is too late.But did that single salient issue dominate the news coverage? No. We have 24/7 on the search for Brian Laundrie. But to be reminded of the real stakes here, I had to happen upon a Facebook post, from an author named Julie Perkins Cantrell, who in a now viral message codified the thirty lessons of the Gabby Petito tragedy, culminating in this: “When we see someone at her emotional end during a domestic dispute, we shouldn't assume that she's crazy. We shouldn't buy into the false narrative given by the abuser. We shouldn't believe the cover-up story given by the target, who has been conditioned to carry all the blame and shame. And we shouldn't assume they're going to be okay.”All of America now knows Brian Laundrie is a suspect-- the only suspect -- in Gabby's murder. What we haven't been informed of by the media — but what we should internalize — is another Code Red for Humanity: the murderous ending of the online Van Life Journey was all too foreseeable before the couple even backed out of their Florida driveway.All right, we're done here. We encourage you to become a paid subscriber to Booksmart Studios, so you can get extra content — including my weekly text column — from Bully Pulpit, from Lexicon Valley, and from Banished.Meantime, please please please share our podcasts with friends, colleagues, relatives, total strangers, and your social networks: Twitter, Insta, Facebook. And then also please rate us on iTunes. That is invaluable. Look, we're trying to bring unapologetic scrutiny to the world of ideas, and we simply can't do that without you. Thank you in advance.Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Turns out that some languages are less intelligible through a mask than others, and, believe it or not, it all depends on how often you use certain consonants. It’s called the McGurk effect and it’s the closest that linguistics comes to actual magic.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *From Booksmart Studios, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm John McWhorter and you know, in line with the fact that the Booksmart version of Lexicon Valley is going to be somewhat more topical than the Grand Old version, I want to discuss something that I've tried not to get too much into because of my motto that life is always happy in the valley and that is the pandemic, especially since it could be argued that we're coming out of it. And I feel a little better about referring to it at length. And I want to discuss language and the pandemic and beyond the level that some people started asking back about a year and a half ago. What about all of these new terms? And, you know, the answer is, well, you know, what about them? So social distancing, you can't do a show about that. Yes, we learned a bunch of new words and expressions. But still, the question is — especially, you know, a year and a half out — what kind of effect has there been on language from all of this stuff that we've had to go through? And, you know, one of the first things that you might think about is these God-damned masks. What kind of effect does it have? For example, someone very near and dear to me was talking about how when she goes to a store and she has to tell them whether or not she's going to use credit or debit, well, when you're in there and everybody's masked, the cashiers have told her that it's hard to understand whether people are saying credit or debit because those two words differ only in their initial consonant, as we call it. So is it cr- or d-? There is no problem with that at all in normal life. But when you've got a piece of cloth in front of your mouth, it can be somewhat muffled and you can't make up for that by looking at people's mouths and doing a little bit of passive lip reading as we all do, whether we're conscious of it or not. So credit, debit, what did you say? And so, my sweetheart tells me that she walks into the store and she has to actually enunciate or shout credit or debit. What's going on with that?THE McGURK EFFECTDo these masks actually muffle speech in that way? Do they create a kind of a confusion? And, you know, we would expect that they would. They certainly are. And one way that we know it is that linguists are aware of something called the McGurk effect. And the McGurk effect is one of these things where you can have fun in a class showing people that linguistics can be magic. And what it is, is that if you show a video clip of somebody saying gah, but then what you play them saying is not gah, but bah — you have those two things going on — the person is with their mouth saying gah, but you play them saying bah, what an Anglophone does when they see that is they could swear to God that the person is saying dah. You watch somebody mouthing gah, you play them saying bah. Well then what you hear is not bah and you don't hear gah, what you hear is dah. And what's especially fascinating is that those consonants, the b, d and the g, have a certain relationship in terms of how pronunciation actually works. So forget the order that those things come in in the alphabet. It's not about b first and then d and then g. It's actually more interesting than that. And the alphabetical order is actually only accidentally consonant, haha so to speak, with how this works. B is with your lips, d is when you put your tongue on that alveolar ridge, that thing that you burn if you drink your hot cocoa too fast, then g is the soft palate. So front, middle, back, b front, d middle, g back. So what happens is if you see somebody speaking the back, gah, and then what's played is them doing the front, bah, you end up correcting it to what's actually in between, dah, which the person didn't say and you didn't hear. That is called the McGurk effect. Absolutely fascinating thing. It's funny with McGurk, I always find myself having the most random thought when I hear that. Does anybody remember that sitcom Dear John? This is way back about 30 years ago. Judd Hirsch is off of Taxi and Dear John was supposedly based on a British show, but really Dear John was a shameless attempt to put Judd Hirsch in Taxi again. And they had characters that almost all corresponded to the Taxi characters. And as you can imagine, the show was pretty good. It wasn't quite a keeper, but because it was more Taxi and because the actors were good, I must admit that back then when there was less to do because there wasn't really any internet yet, I watched it. And I remember Jere Burns had this character Kirk, and Kirk is this sort of Guys and Dolls-ish vernacular person. And the running joke was that he'd introduce himself as “Gurk.” My name's Gurk. And so I always think of “Gurk” when I hear about the McGurk effect. You know, why am I imitating this obscure character? Listen, everything's on YouTube. Here is Jere Burns. The first time, this is the first episode where he introduces this “Gurk” character.KIRK MORRIS: The name's Kirk.JOHN LACEY: Oh, hi. John. Nice to meet you.KIRK MORRIS: All right, stick with me. You're gonna make out like a bandit.The McGurk effect. And guess what has actually been shown in research that's now coming out in the wake of the height of the pandemic. It turns out that when people have these masks on their faces, young people are good at compensating. They stop relying so much on that passive lipreading and they get better at just distinguishing consonants based on hearing them. However, people who are older don't do that nearly as well. The ability atrophies. And so the masks have been less of a problem with the young than with older people. This was demonstrated by a very interesting paper in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, and it was by Czech researchers. And to tell you the truth, I don't know much about Czech and I can't pronounce their names. But it was in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. It was recently. And if you want to check it out, you should check this out. You'd predict it. You wouldn't necessarily predict that there would be an age issue. But yeah, these masks make it harder to understand what people are saying, sometimes in really graphic ways. But just in general, we don't get to do that lipreading. The way we learn to deal with human language is that you don't have to see the person's face. We know that from, you know, the radio, et cetera. But it certainly does help. And if we've got people in front of us watching their face is part of how we accomplish comprehension. With the masks that's muffled, and so you have to adjust and we can. But adjusting, as with just about everything else, is harder as you get older.IS THE McGURK EFFECT MORE PRONOUNCED IN ROTOKAS?And it's interesting, you think about other languages. The McGurk effect happens in lots of languages, more in some than in others. Although within a given language, the results are almost bizarrely consistent. But you can imagine there are places where these masks must have been more of a problem. And so, for example, I'm not aware of any article about how people are dealing with masks in the language Rotokas, which is spoken on an island off of New Guinea. But Rotokas is famous for one of the languages with the fewest sounds, period, of all. So there are languages that have like 148 different sounds. One of the click languages has that many because there are many, many, many clicks and then many, many other consonants and vowels. But then there are languages that have the fewest sounds and Rotokas is one of the ones with the very fewest. And so, for example, with consonants all Rotokas has — if we're going to be technical, it's the central Rotokas dialect — but all central Rotokas has is p, t, k, b, d and g. Now you can hear that as a pattern. So it's the b, d, g — front, middle, back — and then p, t, k have the exact same relationship. Really p and b are the same thing but different; t and d are the same thing but different; and k and g are the same thing but different. Feel it? So, p, b, and you're thinking well one is a B and that's close to the beginning of the alphabet and then P is somewhere in the late middle. No, that's completely irrelevant. P and b — b is just p with kind of some belly in it. So all Rotokas has is b, d, g and the related p, t, k. Nothing else. No nasal sounds. The way Rotokas speakers make fun of speakers of other languages is they start going mmmnnn, because that's how speakers of other languages seem to them. Now that doesn't mean that they have any problem with making themselves understood in normal conditions. But imagine if all you've got is p, t, k, b, d, g and now you've got these masks on, and there is this effect that you have where you are likely to hear a different consonant if you don't get to see the person's face. The McGurk effect must be a real pain in the ass on Rotokas in particular, in any language with that few consonants.IS THE McGURK EFFECT LESS PRONOUNCED IN CAMBODIAN?But then there are places where you would assume that it would be less of a problem. And that's because this issue is with consonants, not with vowels. The vowels come through the cloth pretty darn well. So that's not an issue. And that would mean that if you are a language with lots and lots of vowels, then this sort of thing isn't going to be as much of a problem in terms of comprehension. And I think, for example, of Cambodian. I'll just bet — and if any of you are Cambodian you can please let me know, I would genuinely like to know — I'll just bet that the masks aren’t as much of a problem in Cambodian. And that's because, this is a factoid that doesn't get around as much as that certain click languages have lots and lots of sounds, but just like there are languages that have lots and lots and lots of consonants, there are languages that have lots and lots of vowels, too. So, for example, depending on how you count it in English, you've got about 13 vowels. Cambodians got 30. It's really rather amazing. If you take the single vowels and then also the diphthongs — not dipthong as you want to call it if you see it on the page and you look by too quickly, but diphthongs — diphthongs like not aw but oi, not ah but ai. Diphthong. Those are still thought of as single sounds. Take the vowels that are single and then the diphthongs, Cambodians got 30 — you might say 29, you might say 31. And it depends on the dialect but they've got 30. It's funny how that happens. The only languages in the world that regularly have that many vowels are in Southeast Asia and they're ones that are related to Cambodian. And what that is, is the result of language change on tone languages. So I've talked about how there are languages where tone, the pitch that you utter a syllable on, is as important to indicating the meaning as what the vowel is itself. And so, for example, in Mandarin you can say, dah, okay but you've got to do the tone because dah is big, whereas dah is answer and dah is hit, and so on. Well, I'm always telling you that language always changes. Well, what about tones always changing? They can change into other tones, definitely. But another thing that can happen in a tonal language is that the tones wear away and just become different vowels. So where there once were four levels of tones and then a bunch of vowels, well, what ends up happening is you have just a big giant bunch of vowels. And so that's how Cambodian ends up having 30 vowels. Roll the tape back and it had some tones, just like a lot of the languages surrounding it — like Vietnamese, like, depending on what you call surround, Chinese. But now it's got 30. And that means that it's got so many vowels that speaking through a mask is probably less of a problem because the vowels come through loud and clear and they can help to distinguish what the consonants are that are being confused because you've got so many vowels to work with, and, well with context, you must be fine. So if you're a Rotokas speaker, and I'm sure I have many Rotokas speakers among my listeners, let me know how much of a pain in the ass the masks have been. And if you're Cambodian, let me know if you've noticed that with Cambodian, actually it's just not that much of a problem. It is, you know since we're talking about Cambodian, it's time for a song clip. And, you know, let's try this. It's Cambodia. It's hot there. In the summer of 1987, it was hot because it was summer, at least in Philadelphia. And I had this mind numbing but socially wonderful job working in the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia. And I remember this song was one of the pop hits, and I've always loved it. And I don't know anybody else who does. But one of the people who worked there, a woman in her 50s, I remember she said, you know, I like this one. I've been hearing this one on the radio. I like it. So well, Cathy liked it. So I'm not alone. I salute Cathy and Barbara and Antoinette, my summer coworkers, back at the Federal Reserve Bank in 1987. You know, actually, folks, for those of you who may have read Nine Nasty Words, this is the summer job where there was another coworker who used to yell motherfucker all the time. This is that job. In any case, the song is by ABC. Yeah, I know. But there was something about them and it's “When Smokey Sings.” It is one of my top ten favorite shitty pop hits of all time.When Smokey SingsCOVID MASKS AND SIGN LANGUAGESYou know who else has a problem with the masks and you kind of wouldn't expect it, people who use sign languages. Now, you kind of think that because they're talking with their hands that the mask would be less of a problem, but no. The truth is that facial expression is very important to getting across not only the things that we convey with facial expressions in spoken languages, but also grammar. There are grammatical things — and not just little nuances, but, you know, basic grammar — where you really have to have the face. And of course, the mouth and the nose are, for most people, part of the face. And so having the mask on when you're doing sign language is a problem. And in some ways it's more of a problem than it sometimes is in spoken languages, especially with Cambodian. And so, for example, you're trying to express yourself in American Sign Language, ASL and you do kind of a, a pout with your lips, a little bit of a pout, and you're kind of miming mmm. So that's what you're doing. That is one way of saying “regularly.” So whatever you're signing, whatever the verb is, when you do that little pout — as if to go mmm — that means that you do it on a regular basis. Now, if you think about it, that's not just making some facial expression. If I make my lips into a little pout and go mmm, nobody around me is going to say: oh, you do it that often? Doesn't look like that at all. In other words, it's arbitrary, like so much of language. There's no reason you call that thing a cat. That's not the sound it makes. It doesn't go cat. It's just arbitrary. Well, that kind of mmm, I'm sure there's some story as to how that came to mean regularly, but now it's just language. Well if you can't see your mouth then you can't convey that. Or you do the same pout but then you stick your tongue between your teeth a little bit, like thth. A little bit of th-ness. That means “carelessly.” Once again you can't convey it if you've got that damn thing on your face. Oh, by the way, I keep calling it that. I have masked along with everybody else, but goodness have I hated it. I don't like having that thing on. And it's partly because I'm weird. And I mean, I know none of us like it, but for example, I own not a single hat. I have never had a hat since I wasn't being made to wear one. I don't like something on my head and I have never felt, goodness my head is cold. And so only on the very, very, very coldest days will I put up a hood. I have various pairs of sunglasses. Never wear them unless I'm on the beach on my back with the sun right in my eyes. I get, most people put on shades. I don't want to. I don't want that in front of my eyes. I want to see the world as it is. Same thing with the masks, don't like them. That's why I keep on saying Goddamn, I have never gotten used to them, but I do read them. But if you are signing, then it's a problem to the point that there are these masks with windows in the front so that you can see and people who are signers like them quite a bit. Also, there's lipreading involved with sign language. It's to an extent. And once again, if the lips are covered up, you can't read them. And so the masks have not been fun for people who are using signed as opposed to spoken language, despite the fact that you might think that sign languages are all about the hands. That's what I thought at first. I thought, well, if there's one good thing about this, it's that people who are signing don't have to feel like they're being muffled by the masks for what I thought of as the obvious reason. But no, I wasn't thinking hard enough. They do.COVID (CORONA?) AND BILINGUALISMSomething else about the pandemic and language. You know, if you are somebody who, you know, for part of your living writes for the media, now and then you make predictions and it's very easy to never check up to see whether your predictions come true. You write it, and I don't know if all people are aware that if you write for the media regularly, you forget what you write the second you write it because you're on to the next thing. And a lot of people forget what you write the second you write because they're on to reading the next thing. And so pundits, as it’s sometimes called, don't get checked up upon enough. And so I decided to check up on myself. I said two things about language and the virus. I was wrong about one and I was right about another one. The one I was wrong about is that sometime back there, and I'm pretty sure it was on this show, I said that people were not going to take up the term Covid, they were going to call it Corona. Because there was a time — I'll bet we're almost already forgetting —  where you could talk about Corona. I remember that's what my kids were calling it for the first two or three months. And I was calling it that because Corona is a prettier word than Covid. You could call that arbitrary, but rrr, nnn, they don't stop — as opposed to covvv, which kind of has the kind of tire on the pavement then d. So it's like covvvv … d, it's like an accident. And so I kind of thought esthetically Covid is going to catch on because it sounds like the disease that it is, whereas Corona puts a kind of a corona of gentleness around it. I was wrong. Covid is what has caught on and to have people calling it Corona — they're going to have people doing that probably in movies about this in 20 years. And it's going to be a little, a little inaccurate, like showing people with water bottles in 1991 when it hadn't happened yet. But then I actually was right about something else. And this is something the same sweetheart is the one who came up with, it wasn't really me, but I jumped onto it and I wrote about it in the Atlantic. There was an idea that people who use a heritage language, as we call it, at home — s o people who say in the United States use English outside of the home, but then another language from another country in the home. The idea was that kids were going to get better at speaking those home languages during the lockdown because they weren't out being distracted by English as much. That was a prediction. It was something you could imagine and you couldn't be sure, but it looked like that was going to happen. And if you check up on it a year and a half later, it looks like that has definitely been true. Now, whether the effects will stick is a question. I would bet they won't. We should check up on that in the future. But nevertheless, a year and a half later, it's been shown that kids who have been under lockdown have been better at their heritage language because they aren't so distracted by English from the outside and English having that coolness effect, even if it does it through the media. Still your home with grandma, your home with your parents, you're using it more. There's a study by Li Sheng at U. Delaware. Li Sheng, and they were working with various other people. And it shows that if you are in a household these days, you're four to eight years old and English is the outside language, Mandarin is used at home. After the lockdown, these kids have been better at Mandarin than they were before. So their comprehension of English and Mandarin is the same, but they produce Mandarin. Their spoken Mandarin is a little better than their spoken English because it's been polished at home with native speakers of Mandarin such as their parents and their grandparents, and they haven't interacted live as much with English speaking peers. So that's a neat study. And similar things have been shown in Britain and Ireland and in Norway. And I also found a study in Uganda. Same thing. So we're not saying Corona, we're using that ugly word Covid, but it has given a little bump to kids retaining the language of their parents as opposed to big giant, nasty, dirty English. So language at home, language and love, love American style. There's your transition because I want the other song cue In this episode to be one of my favorite theme songs. Love American Style was a show that really does not travel outside of its time zone at all. It was this anthology show with these, you know, by today's standards, tacky little stories about love and hinting at sex about as much as Procter and Gamble could let you get by with at the time. But one of the best things about it was the theme song, which I remember. I found the show when I was seven and eight, about as incomprehensible as The Tales of Gilgamesh. But I did like the theme song and this is it. It's The Cowsills. If anybody remembers this, I know you liked it too, even if you didn't want to bother with the show.Love American Style theme songFor the musicologists among you, what's good about it is the pedal point in the bridge, the way the note in the bottom is the same all the way through. It makes the bridge sound kind of nostalgic and, frankly, more sophisticated than it is. I love pedal point.WILL VAX BECOME VASK? IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN.What about new words during Covid? Well, as I’ve told you, to be honest, I have not found anything terribly interesting about them except that the words are just new. As you know, I'm often kind of a grammar person, but there is something that's interesting. More about me and the predictions. And this one seems to be coming true. When I say that language is always changing and you should take it as kind of a spectator sport, this was one of those things. And so, for example, the word mash, as in The Monster Mash. I say that because, remember Count Chocula and Frankenbrry. Well, they release those at Halloween again, and I love Frankenberry. It is a marvelous cereal. Usually you only get it at Halloween. For some reason, I found it in up-ish-state New York for sale at a Target. And so now I have a box of Frankenberry the size of a child in my home, and on the back there's something about Monster Mash. So the word mash, originally it was maks. Okay, now that in itself is just an isolated factoid. But fish, the original word was fisk and then in some dialects it became fiks. So you see how something ks. But then that might become sk, and then that might become sh. There's this ks, sk, sh interchange in English just like ask, for example. Well, just as many dialects of English have said aks as ask, and that is why, yes, Black people in colloquial speech say aks, not to mention many white people. It's not because people don't know what order to put their consonants in. It's because way back in old English, there was an alternation between askian and aksian. And now we have that as ask and aks, and that's not special pleading because also mash and maks, fish, fisk, fix. Well, if that's true, then I've been listening to people talking about vaxing and people being antivax and I've been thinking we need about five minutes before you start hearing people say antivask because when you say ks, there's a part of we English speakers that wants to kind of switch it around. There's always that little alternation. And so you can aks, you can ask, it's a maks that becomes mashing, etc. I was thinking antivax, some people are going to say antivask because it feels kind of good and because we're used to words like mask and ask and wouldn't you know, it's true. There apparently is an expression that's making its way. It starts small and then maybe it'll spread, but it's making its way. You can be antivask, antimask. That's what people are saying. I've only seen it with antimask alongside. But still, I'll bet it's the beginning of a colloquial pronunciation of vax as vask because it feels right, because there's so many words that end in sk as well as ks. So there is a, a Tweet that I found.Humans are generally like this. Hear/read something 1000X--e.g. anti-vask & anti-mask lies from Right Wing TV, radio, newspapers or social mediaOr there's somebody who wrote, frankly sadly: I know anti-vask, anti-mask nurses. Well, the world is complicated, but that means that yes, vax … antivask. Say that enough, and there are going to be people who say antivask. I'm assuming that before long, if it hasn't happened already, there are going to be people talking about the antivask people and just, you know, letting it go by because that's how language goes. There's some words during Covid. That's the one I've been listening for. And so far, it's behaving the way I think it should. And of course, that's what it's all about.If you'd like to leave a comment or check out our other great podcasts, Banished with Amna Khalid and Bully Pulpit with Bob Garfield, or if you want to subscribe, please visit BooksmartStudios.org. Our producers are Matthew Schwartz and, as always, Mike Vuolo. And our theme music was created by Harvest Creative Services. You know what, if I may, unless your body really can't take it, you should get the vaccine. And in any case, your host has been John McWhorter. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

Bob speaks with “The Outsider” co-director Steve Rosenbaum about his film documenting the fraught creation of the National September 11 Memorial & MuseumTEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in. GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield. Episode 8: The Outsider.It has been twenty years since the bloody horrors of September 11th, 2001 scarred lower Manhattan and the American psyche. Within three years of the terror acts that claimed nearly 3,000 innocent lives, plans were underway to commemorate the fateful day and its events for posterity. The National 9/11 Memorial & Museum would be constructed on the hallowed footprint of the atrocity. A decade later, the half-billion dollar project would be opened to the public. Here was President Barack Obama at the dedication ceremony:OBAMA: A nation that stands tall and united and unafraid -- because no act of terror can match the strength or the character of our country. Like the great wall and bedrock that embrace us today, nothing can ever break us; nothing can change who we are as Americans.GARFIELD: That was perhaps a fitting tribute to a new national shrine, the memorial part of the project that must necessarily dwell in the grief, the sacrifice, the heroism that so dominate the 9/11 narrative. But what Obama left out was the museum part and its role of exploration, illumination and inquiry, such as where do those acts of terror and their bloody toll fit into the broader sweep of history, into America's story, into our understanding of human events before and since? If the dedication ceremony was appropriately a moment for communion and remembrance and resolve, surely the ongoing work of the museum would go beyond the heroism and sacrifice to the complex history and geopolitics that led to 9/11 evil.SHULAN: One of the key meta narratives of this exhibition, one of the most important things about this exhibition, is to say to people, “Use your eyes, look around you, look at the world and understand what you're seeing.” And if we don't do that with the material that we're presenting to people, then how can we give them that message? How will that message ever get through?GARFIELD: A new documentary by husband and wife filmmakers Pam Yoder and Steve Rosenbaum offers an inside view of the creation of the 9/11 Museum. It tells the story of the storytellers as they labor for a decade, collecting artifacts, designing exhibits, and editing the narratives flowing from that fateful day. And its protagonist was a relatively minor character who was propelled by internal conflict among the museum's planners into a central role in this story. The film is called “The Outsider,” available on Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Vudu, Facebook and other platforms. Steve Rosenbaum joins me now. Steve, welcome to Bully Pulpit.ROSENBAUM: I am so glad to be here, because I've always wanted to be on a bully pulpit.GARFIELD: Uh huh. Well, congratulations. You have achieved your dream, perhaps your destiny. OK, first, a whole lot of disclosure. You and I have been friends for most of our adult lives, so about 100 years, and I've been following your progress in getting this movie made for a long time. And furthermore, at more or less the last minute this summer, I stepped in to help write the narration and ended up voicing it in your movie. So I'm not exactly bringing critical distance into this conversation, but I still have a lot of questions. You ready?ROSENBAUM: I am ready indeed.GARFIELD: OK, so not only have you made a feature length movie about a process, it is a feature length movie about the process of museum curation with most of the action taking place around conference tables. So what I'm saying is Fast and Furious, it isn't.ROSENBAUM: You know, the Blue Room, which is the conference room you're referring to, was both the magical place where the magic happened and also a bit of our albatross because it is, in fact, a conference.GARFIELD: So in the end, though, you do manage to capture quite a bit of drama, quite a bit of drama, but there is no way you could have anticipated, when you got started, what would emerge over these years and -- how many hours of film?ROSENBAUM: 670. GARFIELD: Over how long a period of time?ROSENBAUM: Six and a half years.GARFIELD: How did you come to be a fly on the wall for six and a half years as they undertook this project?ROSENBAUM: So we negotiated with a then non-existent museum to trade them a very precious, valuable archive that my wife and I had lovingly gathered over many years in exchange for access to the construction, design, and development of the museum. And I think at the beginning, everyone thought it was fairly harmless. Like, what could go wrong? I mean, the museum will be fantastic and they'll record all of its fantasticalness, and that will be a film.GARFIELD: When you went in there for those six and a half years, it was purely as a matter of documentation, right? You didn't walk in with a premise or a hypothesis or a scenario or an angle, much less an agenda. But there must have been some sort of core interest, some focus when you undertook this project.ROSENBAUM: You have to remember that in the weeks after 9/11, particularly in New York, there was this extraordinary feeling of camaraderie and connectedness, both among New Yorkers and also around the world. And the sense that maybe what would come of this terrible day is some real goodness, that people would understand each other, that we'd be part of a global community. And so, we brought that, what now seems like naive optimism, to the museum. And they, at least in the early days, fueled that. I mean, they said to us, “We're going to build a different kind of museum. It's going to be open and participatory. It's going to be democratic.” And, you know, that worked for us as filmmakers. We thought a different kind of museum in a country that's gone through a terrible day and hopefully will come out of it stronger and wiser and, you know, more introspection--GARFIELD: But as of at least a year ago, you really didn't know what your film was going to be about. You didn't really have a movie scenario.ROSENBAUM: Well, you have to start with the problem that we had as a filmmaker, as filmmakers, which was a) No one gives a s**t about museums and how they're made. There's zero public interest in that. And then secondly, as it turned out, no one really gave a s**t about the museum. Nobody went to it other than tourists. Thoughtful people, historians, scholars, New Yorkers, media people didn't go there in droves. So, we're like, “How do we make a movie about a museum nobody cares about?” And in fact, the museum opened in 2014 and we spent three or four years fumfering around trying to get our arms around a movie we could make and pretty much gave up. And then Pam, my filmmaking partner and life partner and smarter person than I am, came to me one day and she said, “You know, I think there's a scene that might help.” And she came out with this little -- in her hand, this little Hi 8 tape, she handed it to me, said, “Put it in the deck.”And it was this exhibit in Soho. It was a photo exhibit, which I actually remember going to and some of your listeners may remember as well. It was called “Here is New York,” and it was literally the first crowdsourced photo exhibit in history. All of these people with little mini cameras made pictures of 9/11. And this character, a guy named Michael Shulan, who is a kind of a failed author, owned a little storefront gallery that had been essentially empty, put a picture on the window. And what exploded there was this spectacular collection of real person pictures. And so, the scene that Pam found was of this guy, who we had at that point never met -- one of our camera people had recorded him -- telling the story of why they gathered these pictures.SHULAN: We've asked basically that anyone bring us their pictures and we will display them. And to date we've probably had sixty or seventy people who've brought in pictures in the past two days.GARFIELD: So two things. One, this clip Pam found was from video you guys had shot twenty years ago for a previous movie about 9/11's aftermath called “Seven Days in September.” And you watch it and you're like, “Holy hell, that's Michael.” He is one of the guys who wound up on the museum planning staff, and you have been filming for six and a half years.ROSENBAUM: You know, we have 500 hours of the day of 9/11 and 670 hours shot at the museum construction. It is the definition, the filmmaking definition, of a needle in a haystack. We literally didn't know we had the Shulan scene until Pam magically pulled it out of -- the rabbit out of the hat. And Shulan was one of the five people we had chosen to follow for all six and a half years. And so, the combination of that -- and “Here is New York” is a wonderful kind of mile marker for where the film began because Michael talks about democracy and openness and sharing and letting people kind of find their own story in the photos. And that's exactly what the museum began as.GARFIELD: You say it was a needle in a haystack, finding this film of one of your characters surface. It was also very serendipitous because Shulan, who had the title of museum creative director and who is the “outsider” of the title -- of your title -- is not a professional museum executive or even a professional curator. He had this storefront where he crowdsourced this enormous collection of, you know, amateur images of the day and its aftermath.SHULAN: I live in this little building on Prince Street in Soho, which was inside of the World Trade Center. On the storefront of the empty shop, someone had taped up a copy of the 9/11 morning's newspaper and people were touching this thing and seeming to take some solace in this. And I suddenly remembered I had an old picture of the World Trade Center. So I ran upstairs and I got this picture and I taped it up. And as the day wore on, I noticed that people now came by and were starting to take pictures of the picture. And that was how the whole thing started.GARFIELD: And he was kind of thrust by events into the spotlight, which is how he got hired by the museum to begin with, right?ROSENBAUM: That's exactly correct. But I don't want to, you know, sell him short. I mean, he's quite brilliant in the way that lots of thoughtful New Yorkers are about images and sound and picture. He's just not a museum person in that he doesn't play by the rules. And I think it's important to foreshadow that because, you know, nobody who hired him could have had any confusion about what his behavior was going to be. I mean, he wore his heart on his sleeve.SHULAN: 9/11 was about seeing. 9/11 was about understanding that the world was a different place than you thought it was. It didn't start on the morning of 9/11. It started twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years before that, and we didn't see it.GARFIELD: You know, I've seen this movie now a number of times. He is clearly, as you say, a smart and interesting guy. He is a very thoughtful guy. He is a man of principle. What he isn't exactly, is a charmer.SPEAKER: Robert--SHULAN: Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you care what this project looks like?SPEAKER: Michael, I care very much what this project looks like, but we are in a process that makes decisions and moves forward.SHULAN: But the process makes the decision. You made a check, but is it the right decision?ROSENBAUM: No, he's abrasive. But, you know, I'm personally very fond of him, both as a character and as a human being, because I don't think 9/11 needs lots of people patting it on the head and telling it how heroic that day is. I think we need more of him, not less of him.GARFIELD: And this will ultimately coalesce into the thematic basis of the film, because Shulan was not only abrasive, but he's a man with a point of view. And his point of view was very specific. He believed that a museum documenting 9/11 should not be pedantic and definitive, it should be open ended and inquiring -- well, I'll let him say it:SHULAN: One of the conditions I laid down both explicitly to Alice and to myself when I took the job was that if we were going to make this museum, that we had to tell the history of what actually happened.GARFIELD: Which is not categorically a bad way of approaching museum curation, is it?ROSENBAUM: No. In fact, if you think about your journeys to museums and the ones that you remember, if you've ever gone to one -- I mean, you know, if you go to the Met or to MoMA or the Whitney, there'll be some art in those museums that you like very much and there'll be some other art that you'll look at and go, “Why in God's name did anybody put this thing in this building?” And museum curators don't do that accidentally. They want to challenge your comfort zone. They want to show you things you may not like, and then they want you to think about why you don't like them. So, I don't think museums succeed by being simplistic or pedantic.GARFIELD: Well, as we shall see, there were those who wished not to have this sacred space marred by uncomfortable questions. So you got this guy as your protagonist, a not particularly warm and fuzzy one. And from a dramatic perspective, I guess, the story requires a villain or at least a foil, someone whose philosophy of museuming is very different from Shulan's, providing you the conflict you need as a storyteller, right? And that role fell to the museum's big boss, the CEO, Alice Greenwald.GREENWALD: The politics are the terrain we're in. And it's the, you know -- the World Trade Center has always been a complicated site. You know, it's a bi-state agency that operates, you know, an entity that, an authority that deals with transportation, but it's also building commercial buildings and, you know, a transportation center. It's going to be complicated. It's just going to be complicated.ROSENBAUM: So, Alice is charming. She's warm. She's approachable. She answers questions. She doesn't get caught up in her knitting. And from the day that we met, you know, I remember this conversation like it was yesterday. I said to her, “You're going to be the magnetic north of this story. All people on the planet that want to come and explore it are going to come here.” And she said, “We understand that. We understand that's our responsibility.”GARFIELD: And yet, she is also clearly not as keen as Shulan is in exploring, let's just say, the geopolitical nuance of 9/11. And this has something to do with curatorial philosophy, but it also has to do with this museum being both a memorial and a museum and there being a lot of stakeholders, including the families of the 2,900 plus victims of the attacks. She was politically in an awkward position because there was no way that whatever decision she made, that everybody was going to be delighted.ROSENBAUM: Well, let's go back just half a step. She came from the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. So that was the bulk of her career and that was her experience. And so, you know, she's used to demanding stakeholders and people who want the story told a certain way. But the Holocaust Museum is also quite open, and in fact, allows lots of different points of views, some of which they find abhorrent. And so, I don't think she -- I don't think she brought to the museum any sense of shutting down debate or dialogue. I think that happened in an evolutionary process over time.GARFIELD: But as we see the design and construction and planning and curatorial decisions play out, there did seem to be -- you know, I hesitate to use the word whitewash, but it was there seemed to be no great effort to do what Shulan wanted, which is to ask difficult questions, even if you could not come up with a definitive answer. When did it become clear to you as a filmmaker looking at the footage that you had found the conflict that I previously described?ROSENBAUM: So, you said it exactly right. I mean, you know, people say to me, “Well, you know, did you know when you were at the museum, there was a change? Did you feel like it was shift--?” The answer is no, we didn't. And it wasn't until Pam handed me that first tape and we then took the 14 hours of Michael Shulan and laid it out end to end and watched it, that you could feel the tone changing and his kind of quizzical nature become more frustrated and then more angry by about year three. And one of the things I think that's important to remember here is there were some things that Alice was facing that are now lost in history a little bit. So, you know, they began construction in 2005, 2006. By 2008, Wall Street had collapsed. And all these people that had committed donations to build this thing took their money back. And the mayor of the city of New York, who is also the museum's chairman at that point, was Michael Bloomberg. And, you know, Michael's got no shortage of cash, but I don't think there was ever an intention that this museum was going to be a perennial money suck for him or other donors. And so, part of the drumbeat that you start to feel is, “How do we make this private museum” -- not a public museum -- “without government funding, something that people will come and buy a ticket for?” And that's, I think, where some of the rub was.GARFIELD: A twenty three dollar ticket, if I recall correctly.ROSENBAUM: They raised the price. It's now twenty six.GARFIELD: So at that point, you know, apart from any political or philosophical considerations, there becomes the problem of needing, in order to meet expenses, to have not just a shrine and not just a museum, but an attraction which changes the calculus altogether. And what you were able to do when you were combing through your footage was find some pretty upsetting scenes of museum staff trying to figure out what would make the customers react.ROSENBAUM: Yes, there was definitely a series of debates about what would be impactful. And they were always careful to never say immersive. But there definitely became a bit of a schism on the team between people that wanted the museum to be welcoming and complicated and people who wanted the museum to be intense and dramatic. And there are some good examples of that, in particular, some particular scenes that I think the museum wasn't happy to see recorded. But, you know, we had them on tape.SPEAKER 1: Do you have any interest in developing ties? You can do whatever you want on it.SPEAKER 2: I think a tie is a really — you know what's nice to give away is a tie and a scarf.NEWS REPORTER: Just days away from the public opening of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, there's growing criticism of high admission fees. Twenty four dollars to get in and the sale of souvenirs at the gift shop. SPEAKER 3: I think it's a revenue generating tourist attraction. NEWS REPORTER: Jim Riches shares the same sentiment shown in this New York Post headline titled “Little Shop of Horror.” ROSENBAUM: But I also think it's important for your audience to understand people don't want to re-experience 9/11. Certainly New Yorkers don't, and probably Americans as a class.GARFIELD: There was the question, and this was a word you ended up not using in your film, of whether you going through that footage were witnessing the “Disneyfication” of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, yet you ended up pulling that punch up. Why? ROSENBAUM: It made people so staggeringly angry that -- I mean, I don't think it was inaccurate or untrue. It was just we were picking our battles a little bit at that point with the museum and like, they -- because we didn't have any of our characters raising the word “Disneyfication,” although we'd heard it, we decided it was harder to defend than some other challenges that we made that were on tape.GARFIELD: You got a lot of good press for this film, but you also ran into a couple of buzzsaws, notably The New York Times Review, which was pretty scathing. And, although the critic was kind enough to single out my performance as a narrator -- what word did he use?ROSENBAUM: I believe the word was “amateurish.”GARFIELD: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that was unfortunately true because I did it for nothing. But his central complaint is why you and Pam, as filmmakers, would privilege the creative vision of this novice outsider, Shulan, over the consensus of the team and the museum that they together crafted. Why did you, in the end, apart for reasons of just dramatic conflict, focus on Shulan?ROSENBAUM: Well, let me answer that question. So a couple of things: in the review, his criticism is that we're somehow promoting Shulan's career as a museum curator. And, you know, I watched the film not objectively, but I don't think anyone's going to be hiring Michael as a result of this. I also don't think that that was his intention or ours. I think, you know, what we liked was that Michael said, “Let's make a museum that's open and democratic.” And that that was the same thing Alice told us on day one. And then, as we slipped away from that, we slipped to an institution that felt to us heavy-handed and pedantic. And so, you know, Michael certainly represents a point of view that the filmmakers share about the museum. But I also think that, you know, the questions he raised about the museum, he's not alone. I mean, Tom Hennes, who's the head of Exhibits, feels very much the same way. And, you know, Philip Kennicott from The Washington Post feels very much the same way. And the head architecture critic from The New York Times, oddly, feels very much the same way. But it wasn't meant to put Shulan on any kind of a pedestal. It was simply that he was a really good lens through which to focus the question.GARFIELD: Speaking of Michael Kimmelman, the architecture critic at The Times, you have some tape of him commenting on a sign that is erected, you know, in the plaza area of the museum, the above ground portion of the museum. Most of the exhibit space is below ground, which was jaw dropping for him and for, I think, any viewer of the film.KIMMELMAN: The list of don'ts on the site is astonishing. You can't sing, much less stage a protest or a demonstration. And I think that does raise some very profound questions. You know, I have to keep coming back to say, I think the ability of New York, and by extension, America, to return again to life and return this place to life would have been a very remarkable and powerful statement.GARFIELD: If one bookmark of the movie was Michael Shulan, at his open source photo exhibit in Soho, this was the other bookend: the opposite of open source democratic anything, this closing down of protest or comment or debate on this site. I mean, it's not to be believed.ROSENBAUM: You have to think about where it sits in the arc of the last twenty years in American history. I mean, you know, you got the Patriot Act, you got renditions, you've got drone strikes, you've got police being heavily armored and turning into military units. The museum's fear of terrorism was the reason why they controlled the site so closely, but it also was part of this larger shift over the last twenty years toward a nationalistic heavy-handed kind of militaristic control. And I don't think that they were out on their own when they were limiting the fact that you couldn't sing or, you know, bring a guitar or read a piece of poetry on the site. I also think, by the way, it's worth remembering that the site is private property. So there's really nowhere else in New York -- I mean, if I want to go to Central Park and read a poem, no one, no cop is going to come up and say, “I'm sorry, sir, no poetry reading here.” The only place where that's going to happen is at the September 11th Museum.GARFIELD: Now, let me ask you this final thing. You have documented what I think could be characterized as the denaturing of the 9/11 Museum, the slowly evolving whitewashing of what we described in the very beginning of this thing, which was the search for meaning in the events of that day twenty years ago. As a museum goer, will I come away with the sense that something is being withheld, or does what they have come up with provide the raw material I need as a member of the society and a citizen to ask these questions myself?ROSENBAUM: You know, I've come to be able to answer that question after a couple of months of talking to other people. I think the best answer is, you know, that they're in a really tough box at this point because the thing about, you know, Afghanistan is it's not going to go away and it will be the bookend on this twenty years that will raise questions about, “Wait a minute, is the museum not going to talk about Afghanistan and the war, the twenty year failed -- our failed war in Afghanistan?” Well, of course they have to. And then the question is, what about the twenty years between the “never forget moment” that they hit like a drum beat and now? Because lots of things happened. And theoretically, at some point, the material about Saudi Arabia that has been hidden by the government will make its way into the light and then that will raise questions about, “Oh wait, who did 9/11?” So, when you really look at what the museum has chosen to put on a pedestal, it's essentially those two towers and they're falling down and all of the horrible human pain and suffering that comes from that. But I'm not sure that counts as the appropriate historic take on that day.GARFIELD: Steve, I want to thank you very much for doing this. I'm sorry Pam couldn't join us, but thank her for me as well. And I wish you all best of luck with the film.ROSENBAUM: We love people to watch it and send us, you know, notes, criticism, feedback. We think it's the beginning of a conversation, not the end.GARFIELD: Just as Michael Shulan would have preferred. Steve, thank you. ROSENBAUM: Thanks. GARFIELD: Steve Rosenbaum with his wife, Pam Yoder, directed the new documentary “The Outsider,” available now on Apple TV, Prime Video, Vudu, Xbox, Facebook, and other digital platforms. All right, we're done here. We encourage you to become a paid subscriber to Booksmart Studios so you can get extra content, including my weekly text column from Bully Pulpit, Lexicon Valley and Banished. Meantime, do please review Bully Pulpit on iTunes. Amid a cacophonous glut of podcasts, we depend on you to bring news of us to the world. We are trying to bring unapologetic scrutiny to the world of ideas and we cannot do that without you. Thanks in advance. Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Bob speaks with author and scholar Lawrence Weschler, who shares astonishment that The Machine Stops could — from very few data points — extrapolate our present, so paradoxically connected and detached.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in.GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield. This is Episode 7: Back to the Future.It's a special episode, featuring not an essay or an interview exactly but a conversation — a literary conversation no less — with author Lawrence Weschler. The subject is a 12,000-word novella called The Machine Stops, and the occasion, for reasons that soon will be apparent, is the Venice Architecture Biennale. This is an abridged version of our back-and-forth for that audience.Now you may know Ren Weschler from his decades as a staff writer for the New Yorker, or for his dozen-some books on subjects as varied as Chilean torture, Polish liberation politics and his Boswell-ish engagements with such pioneering artists as David Hockney, Robert Irwin and the maker of hand-inked paper-money facsimiles, JSG Boggs. And so much more, because he is a journalist of astonishing scope and erudition, as you are about to ear-witness.At some points I may interrupt the Venice conversation for a clarifying point. Meantime, for reasons that will also soon be obvious, we will begin not with a description of The Machine Stops, but of Ren reading the first page or two.WESCHLER:Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee. It is lighted neither by window nor by lamp, yet it is filled with a soft radiance. There are no apertures for ventilation, yet the air is fresh. There are no musical instruments, and yet, at the moment that my meditation opens, this room is throbbing with melodious sounds. An armchair is in the centre, by its side a reading-desk — that is all the furniture. And in the armchair there sits swaddled a lump of flesh — a woman, about five feet high, with a face as white as fungus. It is to her that the little room belongs.An electric bell rang.The woman touched a switch and the music went silent.“I suppose I must see who it is”, she thought, and set her chair in motion. The chair, like the music, was worked by machinery and it rolled her to the other side of the room where the bell still rang importuningy.“Who is it?” she called. Her voice was irritable, for she had been interrupted often since the music began. She knew several thousand people, in certain directions human intercourse had advanced considerably.But when she listened into the receiver, her white face wrinkled into smiles, and she said: Very well. Let's talk, I will isolate myself. I do not expect anything important will happen for the next five minutes — for I can give you fully five minutes, Kuno. Then I must deliver my lecture.She touched the isolation knob, so that no one else could speak to her. Then she touched the lighting apparatus, and the little room was plunged into darkness.“Be quick!” She called, her irritation returning. “Be quick, Kuno; here I am in the dark wasting my time.”But it was fully fifteen seconds before the round plate that she held in her hands began to glow. A faint blue light shot across it, darkening to purple, and presently she could see the image of her son, who lived on the other side of the world, and he could see her.“Kuno, how slow you are.”He smiled gravely.“I readily believe you enjoy dawdling.”“I have called you before, mother, but you were always busy or isolated. And I have something particular to say.”“What is it, dearest boy? Be quick. Why could you not send it by pneumatic post?”“Because I prefer saying such a thing. I want  —”“Well?”“I want you to come and see me.”Vashti watched his face in the blue plate.“But I can see you!” she exclaimed. “What more do you want?”“I want to see you not through the Machine,” said Kuno. “I want to speak to you not through the wearisome Machine.”“Oh, hush!” said the mother, vaguely shocked. “You mustn't say anything against the Machine.”“Why not?”“One just mustn't.”“You talk as if a god had made the Machine,” he cried. “I believe that you pray to it when you are unhappy. Man made it, do not forget that. Great men, but men. The Machine is much, but it is not everything. I see something like you in the plate, but I do not see you. I hear something like you through this telephone, but I do not hear you. That is why I want you to come. Pay me a visit, so that we can meet face to face, and talk about the hopes that are in my mind.”And it goes on from there.GARFIELD: Well, thank you, Ren. As you in our audience have by now divined, The Machine Stops is a work of science fiction depicting a techno totalitarian state in which citizens from their hexagonal hive quarters conduct their lives almost entirely mediated by an internet called The Machine. And as we'll discuss, it really kind of nails some of the biggest issues we face as Earthlings in 2021, Ren so far so good. Fair description?WESCHLER: I think that's good. Keep going.GARFIELD: All right. The Machine Stops portrays a dystopian future society, denuded as will learn of trees and of real human contact, where physicality is not really déclassé, but bred out of the species all together. The inhabitants of this world are flaccid and lumpen and pale and depend on the Machine to the limit to deliver them, not just images on the screen, but through that network of tubes the food and oxygen they need to sustain them.WESCHLER: They're all living underground.GARFIELD: Oh, and they're living underground. Stop me if I'm getting any of this wrong, if there's any other additions.WESCHLER: Something appears to have happened on Earth, on the surface, and everybody's been moved underground and is living in a hive of hexagonal rooms.GARFIELD: Exactly. So here's the thing. To read The Machine Stops is to immediately think of other fictional techno dystopias from which such a scenario would seem to derive. George Orwell's 1984, written in 1949. and Aldous Huxley's Brave New Worldfrom the year 1932, each depicting authoritarian societies which controlled the population through centralized media and creature comforts to make individuals docile and compliant. But Ren, you stubbornly refuse to call this story derivative of either Orwell or Huxley. Why is that?WESCHLER: Because it was written in 1909, by E.M. Forster. And it's amazing because we don't think of E.M. Forster, who we associate with those of us who either read it in college or went to the movies, we associate it with A Room with a View, which is a book that came out just before he wrote this, or , which is a book that came out just after. He wrote it in 1909. And as we'll discuss as we go on, it is unbelievable how he nails the current moment. He nailed the current moment even three or four years ago, but after Covid, it completely nails the current moment. It's, it is absolutely amazing that he would have had this vision in 1909. A few thoughts on that and then we'll go back to the story itself. I've been doing some reading of his biography, in various biographies, and all of them quote this very seminal diary entry he had in January, 1908. So this is a year before he wrote the story. And he's all upset because that morning comes news. Well:Last Monday, a man named Farman flew a three quarter mile circuit in one and a half minutes.He's talking about planes, airplanes, the early airplanes.It's coming quickly. And if I live to be old, I shall see the sky as pestilential as the roads. It really is a new civilization coming. I have been born at the end of the age of peace and can't expect to feel anything but despair. Science, instead of freeing man — the Greeks nearly freed him by right feeling — is enslaving him to machines. Nationality will go, but the brotherhood of man will not come. No doubt the men of the past were mistaken in thinking dulce decorum est pro patria mori — it's beautiful to die for one's country — but the war of the future [this is 1909]  will make no pretense of beauty or of being the conflict of ideas. God, what a prospect. The little houses that I'm used to will be swept away. The fields will stink of petrol and the airships will shatter the stars. Man may get a new and perhaps a greater soul for the new conditions, but such a soul as mine will be crushed out.GARFIELD: He was a hell of an extrapolator.WESCHLER: Yeah, you can see it going from there. By the way, it reminds me of an amazing passage from Henry James writing to a friend in 1914. In August, 1914:Black and hideous to me is the tragedy that is gathering and I'm sick beyond cure to have lived on to see it. You and I, the ornaments of our generation should have been spared this wreck of our belief that through the long years we had seen civilization grow and the worst become impossible. The tide that bore us along was then all the while moving to this, it's Grand Niagara. Yet what a blessing we didn't know it.GARFIELD: OK, as threatened, popping in here after the fact to point out what Ren and I failed to remind the audience — which is that Henry James was responding to the outbreak of World War I and the shattering realization that evolved societies can devolve in the worst way — which he simply did not see coming.WESCHLER: Interesting thing there is that in many ways Forster did. And for that matter, it was this fantasy that both Foster and James had that, this was a time of civility and so forth, completely occludes what was, for example, taking place in Africa and in imperialism all over the world and that wasn't going to lead directly to World War I. By the way, one other thing to say about 1909 before we go on is, 1909 is not just an average year. 1909 is the year that Cubism is invented. And in some ways, I would argue and we can go into this later on, that the Cubists, too, are having this sense of the limitations of things and how one needs to think differently, to think in new ways and how to evade the totalitarianism of one point perspective and so forth.GARFIELD: You could say that cubism is extrapolation itself, so they share that in common. You mentioned the air travel. I mean, this is just a couple of years after the Wright Flyer got a few feet off the ground at Kitty Hawk. And he's imagining transcontinental travel, which is just one element of just the jaw dropping list of prescient observations. You referred to the Covid lockdown. Everybody is in absolute isolation. They see other people only through that screen, that blue lighted screen in their hands, which is like a smartphone or an iPad.WESCHLER: They've all gone flaccid and flabby. There's an amazing passage, by the way. He does a flip on several things. He does a flip on eugenics, that in this society, any babies that are born that seem to be strong and athletic are immediately eliminated. This is just the opposite of the fantasy of eugenics at that time. And they're eliminated because, you know, what's the point? It would just make them uncomfortable and it would be embarrassing for everybody else. So they are killed at their very births.GARFIELD: Yeah, and that will become a plot point because they've culled physicality from the species. But the son who we're introduced to in the first passage will actually cultivate his muscles for what will be his escape to the surface.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: Just a couple more things Ren. There's the environmental devastation that I don't know that others anticipated in 1909, but the air is despoiled, the trees are gone. We are forced as a species underground because it is uninhabitable above.WESCHLER: One point where he says that, for our comforts, we despoiled the entire planet and made it unlivable, some phrase, just because we wanted to be more comfortable. Amazing phrase in 1909.GARFIELD: There is also, and again, this was, this was long before globalism and the interconnectivity of the whole world. Distant places were distant and discrete. But what he somehow envisioned was this vast cultural homogeneity as a result of globalism. Every hexagonal hive around the world was the same and all of the media content was the same, and we all lived the same experience.WESCHLER: He has this great line. What's the point of going to Beijing, or Peking as it's called, when when you get there, it's going to look exactly like your own town. He has malls, he has FedEx. He has this great line where he says, we've solved the problem of people having to go places to get things. Things come to people. That solves that. No need to go outside. No need to leave your room. He has this very funny thing about why one of the reasons that the world was despoiled was because all the trees were cut down for pulp, for books.GARFIELD: And newspapers.WESCHLER: And he has a thing that's basically Kindle. And there are no books anymore. There's basically this plate. You can read any book you want on that plate. There is one book, which is the manual for the Machine basically, that's achieved kind of the role of the Bible almost.GARFIELD: Yeah. And there's this recurring theme in the book about the deification of the technology and the ongoing debate between the mother Vashti and the son Kuno about whether they have actually defaulted to the religion that they're nominally not permitted to have in this society. There's one thing about that  iPad or smartphone, the image that is at the very beginning of the story — it comes just about where you left off.WESCHLER: Right. Right.GARFIELD: And I wanted to read this because it's describing the low resolution of the screen.WESCHLER: And we are not unaware of how meta this whole conversation … GARFIELD: Yeah, especially if your Zoom feed is pixelating right now. But it said:She could not be sure, for the machine did not transmit nuances of expression. It gave only a general idea of people, an idea that was good enough for all practical purposes, Vashti thought. The imponderable bloom declared by a discredited philosophy to be the actual essence of intercourse was rightly ignored by the machine, just as the imponderable bloom of the grape was ignored by the manufacturers of artificial fruit. Something good enough had long since been accepted by our race.It's an astonishing observation. And you don't know whether he's talking about the Uncanny Valley, by which animated figures and robots can be seen not to be human because there's a certain light missing from their eyes. Or whether it's a society wide kind of Aspergers where you're blind to nuance of expression. Is it just technological, is it just that there aren't enough pixels on the screen. Or, and this is what I think, is the loss of resolution, the just good enough, a metaphor for the loss of rich experience and rich inquiry and the sense of mystery which the society has forsaken? What the hell is the imponderable bloom, Ren?WESCHLER: Well, I'm reminded of when you go to museums and you see those — using the example he himself uses — the paintings of still lifes, the Dutch still lifes. And they do have that incredible, that little powdery dust on the plum, for example.GARFIELD: Mm hmm.WESCHLER: That is the essence of a plum. And yet you don't — when you go to the store, the supermarket, all the plums have been polished — and so you don't see that at all. For that matter, I'm reminded of, in that context, John McPhee's book, Oranges, in which he asks the question one morning at his breakfast table, why does the orange juice, his packaged orange juice from Florida, taste the same every single time? And that became a whole book of the entire industry, the superstructure of creating oranges and everything that has to happen to make sure that they stay exactly the same. God forbid you should have a separate kind of taste one morning from the other morning. You would, of course, take it back to the supermarket and complain, you know, you would become like one of the satirical characters in this story. I mean, that's how you would respond to it.GARFIELD: I'm no longer surprised, now that you mention the orange thing, which I had been unaware of, that John McPhee also wrote 60,000 words on rice.WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. Well, that was the good old days at The New Yorker.GARFIELD: Those were the days. And you were in the thick of The New Yorker.WESCHLER: I was in the thick of the rice.GARFIELD: Them days. I just wanna, if I had E.M. Forster here, I would say to him: I got news for you, dude — I grew up in the 50s and 60s and we had artificial grapes that were made of glass and they had some sort of, I don't know, latex around them. And they looked really, really foggy. You know, they had that misty look to them. So we solved that problem motherfucker. You know …WESCHLER: I'm sure the two of you would have gotten along great.GARFIELD: Oh, I have no doubt. So, Ren, obviously it's jaw dropping that he was so prescient in so many ways.WESCHLER: There's a few other ones that I wanted to point out. One of the things that's absolutely amazing is that Vashti's job is essentially she's an influencer. And when she's not influencing, she's a TED lecturer. She basically gives these lectures that everybody all over the world, because she has thousands of friends, that's basically what she has, tune in to her lectures and they are 10 minutes long. They are never more than 10 minutes long. And we were talking a bit about the standardization of the world. All beds are exactly the same size and are the same everywhere. It's basically the IKEA of the world. You realize that for him, this is dystopian and for you this is your life.GARFIELD: There's one big difference between like TED culture and The Machine Stops culture, and that is that these lectures, they mustn't, they mustn't contain new ideas.WESCHLER: Exactly.GARFIELD: It's a beehive. It's also a cow stomach, where you're allowed to digest in ...WESCHLER: Ruminate, as it were.GARFIELD: … different chambers, but you're not allowed to do anything new.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: And again, early in the book, there's something I find astonishing. Can I read one more passage?WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. Do, do.GARFIELD: In the very first pages, the son is talking to his mother, whose job is to lecture about stuff that people already know. And he talked about his experience when he was on one of these airships of seeing stars take a familiar shape. He says:Do you not know four big stars that form an oblong and three stars close together in the middle of the oblong and hanging from these stars, three other stars?No, I do not, she says, I dislike the stars.But did they give you an idea?How interesting. Tell me.I had an idea they were like a man.I do not understand.The four big stars are the main shoulders and his knees. The three stars in the middle are like the belts that men wore once, and the three stars hanging are like a sword.A sword?Men carried swords about with them to kill animals and other men.He had reinvented the wheel called constellations.WESCHLER: Orion, in particular.GARFIELD: It had vanished from humankind, the notion of looking at the stars and marveling and imagining what images they conjured. This was, this was a revelation. This is how far the society had devolved, that they lost track of the very stars.WESCHLER: And there is the wonderful phrase at one point where Forster says that above them, night was turning to day, day was turning to night. They were completely unaware of the cycle, even that cycle. At one point she does, Vashti does decide to go and they have these airships they are called. They're like kind of like planes, kind of like balloons — it's not quite clear what they are. But they're traveling, and this description of what it is like being on the airship:It was night. For a moment she saw the coast of Sumatra, edged by phosphorescence of waves and crowned by lighthouses still sending forth their disregarded beams. These also vanish, and only the stars distracted her. They were not motionless, but swayed to and fro above her head, thronging out of one skylight into another, as if the universe, and not the airship, were careering. And as often happens on clear nights, they seemed now to be in perspective now on a plane now plied tear beyond tear into the infinite heavens, now concealing an infinity of roof limiting forever the visions of men. In either case, they seemed intolerable. Are we to travel in the dark?, called the passengers angrily. [In other words, in night? And what the hell is this? What are we doing?] And the attendant who had been careless generated the light and pulled down the blinds, a pliable metal. When the airships had been built, the desire to look direct at things still lingered in the world. Hence the extraordinary number of skylights and windows and the proportionate discomfort of those who are civilized and refined. Even in Vashti's cabin, one star peeped through a flaw in the blind, and after a few hours of uneasy slumber, she was disturbed by an unfamiliar glow, which was the dawn.She's furious that there's a rip in the curtain that is allowing this stuff through. Close it, close it. All ideas have to be, at very most, original secondhand and preferably third or fourth hand. And that's all the discourse that's going on.GARFIELD: Hold on. Now, on the subject of intolerable, dude, keep reading because something happens between her and the flight attendant.WESCHLER: Yeah, that's fantastic, too, yeah:People are almost exactly alike all over the world. But the attendant of the airship, perhaps owing to her exceptional duties, had grown a little out of the common. She had often to address passengers with direct speech, and this had given her a certain roughness and originality of manner [originality being a very bad word]. When Vashti swerved away from the sunbeams with a cry, she behaved barbarically. She put her hand out to study her. “How dare you?,” exclaimed the passenger. “Vashti, you forget yourself.” The woman was confused and apologized for not having let her fall. People never touched one another. The custom had become obsolete, owing to the Machine.Welcome to Covidland.GARFIELD: Yeah, the 12:44 is coming in right on schedule.WESCHLER: Right, there it is, outside.GARFIELD: A society denuded not only of trees, but of touch, of human contact. So we've established clearly that Forster was prescient beyond beyond belief, right? But the other thing that's beyond belief is that the person who's writing this is E.M. Forster.WESCHLER: Right.GARFIELD: Because E.M. Forster, A Room with a View, Passage to India, where at least at first glance, the issues that he's concerning himself with are very, very different, in class division and so on. So my question for you is, are they really that different?WESCHLER: Well, there's that.GARFIELD: Is there a line between A Passage to India and The Machine, you know, styles?WESCHLER: Well, a couple of things. First of all, in terms of the immediate background, according to some of the biographies I've been reading, he wrote it, he said at the time, as a counter to some of H.G. Wells's most recent work at the time, which was utopian — where H.G. Wells was imagining actually a happy outcome, where the world, where all these machines were taking care of all these things and so forth, and he was not at all sure about that. So, he also, somebody said, he was writing an encounter to an Oscar Wilde line that he had quoted at one point, who in 1890 — so that would have been 20 years before this — had written this is Oscar Wilde, the Oscar Wilde of Art for Art's Sake, as:… we become more highly organized, the elect spirits of each age, the critical and the cultured spirits, will grow less and less interested in actual life, and will seek to gain their impressions almost entirely from what Art has touched.In other words, that is a different kind of utopianism, where you no longer have to deal directly with life and so forth.GARFIELD: Well, you just described Wilde's actual life because, you know, I think probably into the 20th century, well into the 20th century, art was the stuff of aristocrats.WESCHLER: Yeah, yeah. And so that in turn, of course, aristocrats and bohemians — that great line of Kurt Vonnegut's, that that art is a conspiracy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupidGARFIELD: (laughing)WESCHLER: But indeed, I think Forster is very, elsewhere, is very focused on partly the comforts of a certain layer of bourgeois life. But also the underpinnings and the way that there is beginning to be this growing polarization of wealth, you might say — we are in the Gilded Age after all — and the terrible way in which servants and so forth are being treated. He's quite sensitive to that. And oddly enough, one of the things that's interesting here is that the dystopian society has had a solution which is making everybody live in beehives, you know, and so that that class culture has disappeared, but in a kind of dystopian way. I think, though, that some of those passages, the passage of the dawn in Sumatra and the lighthouse, that's pure E.M. Forster, A Passage to India. I mean, this extraordinary sensitivity to the tactile quality of experience. Especially as opposed to the everydayness of most people's lives, his heroes have these moments, these epiphanies.GARFIELD: To the textures, to the smells, to the colors, right, of different cultures — the antithesis of the homogeneity.WESCHLER: You go to Beijing because Peking is different. You go to Delhi because Delhi is different. You go to that cave because, good Lord, is it different than something you would have experienced at home?GARFIELD: That's something else he nailed too, because, you know, increasingly Shanghai is Los Angeles or whatever.WESCHLER: Yeah. And by the way, Los Angeles is Shanghai.GARFIELD: Yes, that's right.WESCHLER: It's just this remarkable thing to come upon and to come upon it now. So part one is basically this, brings out this world. In part two, there's three parts, part two — in what in one sense is the climax of the story — is how Kuno not only is sacrilegious in that he doesn't honor, he says things that, Be quiet, don't say those things. The machine is listening. You know, the machine is our benefactor.GARFIELD: Popping in again, because I also failed to notice this when Ren raised it, but the idea of the Machine is listening. If this were Orwell, or Huxley, or Ray Bradbury, the machine would have been listening like an electronic Stasi, like an omniscient security state — which is not quite the case in Forster or even in our own surveillance society. It's not eavesdropping per se. Yes, in 2021, the Machine does know, because we surrender data willy nilly, and our every click and keystroke are recorded and we spill our guts on social media for eternity. Forster somehow knew that the machine would somehow know. And so Kuno tried to explain to his mom.WESCHLER: And he's saying, no, I want to get out. And she says, well, there's no way to get out. The only way to get out, you take the train to the air thing and then you can take airships but you can't go on land, you just can't go on the land. And he says no but I figured something out. And he has this amazing description of, he — well, as you say, he began exercising, which was like completely crazy. He turned off all the stuff and just would do pushups and so forth to get stronger and stronger because, and then he has this extraordinary line, by the way, let me see if I can find this, this amazing line about what we've lost: We have lost the sense of space. We say space is annihilated. That's from the phrase that the telegraph had annihilated space and time, that it used, when the telegraph and the telephone and eventually email come online, the feeling was that space and time — where it took a long time for a message to get from one place to another, you know, and so forth — had been annihilated by by this incredible thing. Initially, the telegraph or along with the telegraph, exactly along with the telegraph, is the train system because the trains need telegraphs to set up all the signals and so forth. And they were exulting at the annihilation of space and time. Which reminds me, by the way, some other time we should have a conversation, if you will, if you enjoy these conversations, about an amazing book by Wolfgang Schivelbusch called The Railway Journey, in which he goes back and looks at what people's experience of railway's was when it first happened. And he describes people are suddenly going six miles an hour, seven miles an hour. And universally, the letters that everybody's writing each other is about the G forces on their bodies. They're being hurled back into the seat. You know, this is, everybody has this same experience. GARFIELD: Not the soot in their teeth, but but that thrill ride of seven mph.WESCHLER: Right. Anyway, so he goes on:We say space is annihilated, but we have annihilated not space, but the sense thereof. We have lost a part of ourselves. I determined to recover it. And I began by walking up and down the platform of the railway outside my room, up and down until I was tired and so did I recapture the meaning of near and far. Near is a place to which I get quickly on my feet, not a place to which the train or the airship will take me quickly.He's walking, he walks farther and suddenly one day, he comes upon this little pile of rubble on the thing and he looks above and he realizes this must have been when they were building the hives. There must have been a tunnel that went through here up to the, up to a vertical tunnel. And this is left over from the building. And he kind of scratches away and he suddenly finds himself in a tunnel. And he's saying to his mother, there was a ladder. He opens it up and there's this little thing and it goes way straight up, and he says:There was a ladder made of some primeval metal. The light from the railway fell upon its lowest rungs. And I saw that it led straight upwards out of the rubble at the bottom of the shaft. Perhaps our ancestors ran up and down it a dozen times daily in their building. As I climbed the rough edges, cut through my gloves so that my hands bled, the light helped me for a little, and then came darkness and worse still silenced, which pierced my ears like a sword. The machine hums. Did you know it? Oh, that its hum penetrates our blood and may even guide our thoughts. Who knows. I was getting beyond its power then I thought the silence means that I am doing wrong. But I heard voices in the silence and again, that strengthened me. He laughed. I had need of them. The next moment I cracked my head up against something.And he's bumped up against the top and eventually gets out. And there's this amazing moment when he is hurled out of, the air pressure hurls him out into this bowl of grass and the sunshine and so forth. George Lucas and Walter Mirch in 1971 made a film called THX 1138 about an incredibly disposed dystopian world in which everybody is living underground.THX 1138 soundtrackThere has been some kind of calamity on the surface. Everybody is told they can't go on the surface. There is a machine that is in control of everything. And there is Donald Pleasence and Robert Duvall and so forth. And Robert Duvall suddenly decides that he wants to escape. And the climax of the film is his escape. And I just want to show this to you, because the climax of the story I'm going to tell you is that neither of them were aware of The Machine Stops when they wrote and they made this film.THX 1138 clipIt's absolutely staggering. Talk about a weird echoes, and in fact it was Walter Mirch who eventually first showed me The Machine Stops. He says, look at this thing. We didn't know about this. It occurs to me that it also has echoes of the great Chris Marker film from the French New Wave La Jetée, where society is underground. There it's not a tunnel that you go through, but there's some time travel stuff and they keep on sending the character back in time, and he is walking around Paris. And the wonderfulness of the life beforehand — again this is a theme that keeps coming up. But as far as I know, it first shows up in The Machine Stops, in its kind of purest form.GARFIELD: So in this film, the reward for escaping to the surface is kind of splendor. And going back to the extraordinary prescience of The Machine Stops, I think the reward is slightly different. We've all experienced, through Covid, isolation — I believe, a kind of loss of proprioception of time. We don't feel like we have purchase on our lives anymore. We can't quite get a grip on the past and we certainly have trouble envisioning what six months will be like or, you know, in some cases six days. And it's a distracting sensation of just not knowing where you are, which I think is more or less the definition of proprioception, having a sense of where your body parts are. But in this society, that Forster's talking about we, you know, we are completely atrophied. There is no human touch. Light and sound is all controlled by the machine. And we can't fix ourself based on the stars. All of humankind has lost its sense of place and time and self. And that was, I believe, the son's reward for getting to the surface. Maybe we should withhold the consequences of his decision.WESCHLER: Let's withhold that. But just note that there's a whole part three. And without going into too much detail, but it's absolutely fascinating. The machine begins to break down. And it is the most, it breaks down in absolutely the ways it breaks down for us, you know, but we can imagine it continuing to breakdown more and more. Suddenly the air begins to get staler, you know, and the food isn't so good. And there are moments where the iPhone's not working and and so forth, that it kind of climaxes.GARFIELD: I'd like to ask a question, and I'm doing this for a couple of reasons, one, out of genuine curiosity and another for having a natural ending to the podcast version of this. And that is Ren, what have we learned?WESCHLER: I guess this isn't so much a learning as an awakening. You know, I hope that this story wakes us up to the way we've been sleepwalking. I mean, in some sense, if the fantasy of Kuno climbing those stairs allows us — in the short term about Covid, to imagine what it might be to climb out of Covidland — but more importantly, to understand that Covid is just a metaphor in some sense, notwithstanding all the actual damage it's done of what's coming and what's coming more and more and more. And for God's sake, wake up. And engage or, in Forster's words, only connect. Break down the hive walls. And for an architecture biennial, break down the goddamn hive walls.GARFIELD: All right, we're done here. What you have just heard was an abridged version of my conversation with author Lawrence Weschler, as part of his Mr. Weschler's Cabinet of Wonders series for the 17th Venice Architecture Biennale. If you like what you've heard here, do please venture beyond our Great Paywall of Booksmart to be a paid subscriber to our offerings, including the works of professors John McWhorter and Amna Khalid in their respective podcasts Lexicon Valley and Banished. You'll get longer form interviews, access to our hosts and, in my case, my weekly text column — which is, let's just say, “uncompromising,” because that sounds better than “indelicate” or “brutal.” Now then, Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. We had technical help in Europe for this episode from Adrianos Efthymiadis. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

There’s a lot of passionate argument about whether “Critical Race Theory” should be taught in schools. But the meaning of CRT differs greatly depending on who you talk to. What did CRT originally mean, and what does it mean now? What are our children actually being taught? And why do some terms tend to become so thorny over time? Click play to find out.*FULL TRANSCRIPT*JOHN McWHORTER: From Booksmart Studios, this is Lexicon Valley, a podcast about language. I'm John McWhorter and we need to talk about something.WORD MEANINGS CHANGE OVER TIMEAs I often do, I'm going to start from way outside and then I'm going to zero in. As you'll see, that is a general process that I consider very central to the passage of people and things and words through time. We need to talk about something. So let's start with something like audition. We all know what an audition is. You're picturing somebody nervous on stage. Think about what that word, quote unquote, should mean. The aud is about hearing. The reason that we say audition is because the original idea was that you would listen to someone recite something. Now, it was a natural drifting that you would go from someone reciting something on a stage or in a performance to someone playing an instrument or even someone doing a dance, something that doesn't involve sound at all. It could be a mime these days who auditions, but it started out being about hearing someone say something and then it changed. Words’ meanings change. No one today would say: How dare you use the word audition for dance? What's happening to language? Nobody says that because we all know that words don't always mean what they mean, that the form is often different from the content and that's just the way it is.Lewd. Lewd used to mean that you were unlearned. It meant that you didn't know things. Now, no one who knows that says, how dare you imply that those people aren't intelligent, when what you're really talking about is issues of morality and sex or whatever lewd is about. You know, you can learn that it used to mean unlearned, but you don't wish that it still did. There isn't a sense that it's wrong that unlearned drifted into meaning that you can't keep your pants up or something like that.One more, to get a little closer to what we need to talk about. Democratic, and no, I don't mean Greece. I mean the party here in the United States. Democratic once stood for very different things than it does now. Most of us know that Democrats were the party of segregation, for example. There's actually, there's a silly book, and I'm not going to name who wrote it or what the book's title is, because many of us write silly books now and then. I have once or twice, but a silly book that was basically saying that Black people need to stop voting Democratic so much because Democrats have often been quite racist in the past. And this meant things like the fact that Woodrow Wilson, you know, who was a straight up racist, that he was a Democrat, that Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court and he had been an ex Ku Klux Klan member. All those things are true. But, you know, we think to ourselves, whatever racism we might find in the Democratic Party today, when we're talking about Wilson or what FDR’s priorities were, we're talking about a very long time ago. As history moves along, as conditions change, the parties change. What a Democrat is today is very different from what a Democrat was in 1920. Just like certainly being a Republican now is quite different from what it was in, say, 1865. So words’ meanings change over time. The sequence of sounds comes to refer to different aspects of this vale of tears called life than it once did, right? OK, we all know that. We've got that.WORD MEANINGS TEND TO NARROW WHEN THEY CHANGEWords’ meanings don't only change, they often get more specific. They narrow. But it's not always about value, just they get more specific. It starts out general and then it gets down to cases. My favorite example of this is reduce. Reduce is from re, as in going back to, and then duce, leading. It used to be that reduce just meant going back to the way it was. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. That could be an increase or a decrease. It used to be that you could reduce something to its former glory. Get that? That it meant take it back to its former glory. Not that glory was somehow down in the dirt, but reduce just meant to take something back. Now, it could also mean to take something down into the mud, and that is what the word ended up meaning. And so we think of reducing as going down. But that is not what somebody would have thought of 500 years ago. The word changed. It got more specific. It happened to drift into a choice.Getting a little closer to what we need to talk about today, how about diversity? We know what diversity means or don't we? Diversity, just difference, just willy-nilly. But we know that when we talk about diversity today, it tends to be much more specific than just talking about difference. You can talk about a diversity of mushrooms, but notice that you're already imagining that the word ends in ie rather than y, and it's probably in some ancient book that's falling apart. When we think about diversity, we are generally thinking about affirmative action policies, about even racial preference policies. And so, within the controversies over that, there is often someone who will say, well, you know, if we're looking for diversity, then what about Mormons and people from Idaho and somebody who has only one leg? What about that diversity? But no, we, we all know that what diversity means, in code, is Black Americans, Latinos and also Native Americans. That's what diversity policies are usually aimed at. And to be an American person is to know that that is the meaning that diversity has specified into. It’s narrowed.And you know what's diverse in the real sense, as in the original sense, Beauty and the Beast, the Disney movie musical. And you know it's diverse when it's in Dutch. Yes. I spent about 15 minutes in Holland way back in 1992. And of course, when I was there, I wanted to at least be able to fake speaking Dutch. I could have a really, really bad conversation for about three minutes of the time I was there. And the way I learned it mostly was by listening to the Dutch soundtrack of the then new musical film, Beauty and the Beast over and over. This is the bon jour. And since this is so popular, most of you probably know basically what the words are. But yes, in the Netherlands, they dub these things — things like this, where kids, you know, they don't know English yet and so you have to do it in Dutch — and I enjoyed listening to it in Dutch. So here it goes.MUSIC: Belle from Beauty and the Beast (in Dutch)Daar gaat de bakker — there goes the baker — see how Dutch and English are related?CRITICAL RACE THEORY’S ORIGINS AS LEGAL THEORYLet's get back to what we were talking about. So words’ meanings are always changing. Words’ meanings are getting more specific. Now, there's a term that we're using lately as if those two, frankly rather obvious, things weren't true. And that term is, get ready for it: critical race theory. We really need just some simple perspectives from linguistics to cut through a lot of one of the weirdest, messiest controversies I've seen in a long time, because nobody quite understands what the other person is talking about. And so critical race theory begins with obscure legal theory articles a good 35, 40 years ago. And they had a particular subject matter. They were about reconceiving our sense of how society works on the basis of power relations, which are so entrenched that we might reconsider the very philosophical foundations of the republic. That is one of the arguments in this body of work. And this body of work was, as legal scholarship, also about how we might reconceive our very notion of what justice is. So this is law school stuff. This is legal scholarship and it was titled Critical Race Theory. Now, today we're hearing that critical race theory is being used in schools and it's something quite different from what these legal papers were about because critical race theory has come to refer to different things than it happened to in, for example, 1985. This is what happens. So Democratic doesn't mean today what it meant in 1920. Diversity today doesn't mean what it meant as recently as, say, 1975. Critical race theory — what we mean by that has extended from what it originally meant into something that is different, related, but different.IS CRT BEING TAUGHT TO SCHOOLCHILDREN?So to take an extreme, and this is an extreme, there are schools where people are teaching a way of looking at things that's rooted in critical race theory, but certainly is not about exposing nine or 12 or even 15 year olds to articles written for legal scholars decades ago. But for example, there's the Dalton School in New York City and there is an anonymous letter from parents where they describe the sort of thing that has been going on at that particular school. It's something different from preaching from legal articles. So, quote:Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, racist cop reenactments in science, decentering whiteness in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. In place of a joyful progressive education, students are exposed to an excessive focus on skin color and sexuality before they even understand what sex is. Children are bewildered or bored after hours of discussing these topics in the new long format classes.Now, that's not happening everywhere, but it is a useful peek at what is alarming many parents. What we have to understand is that when that is called critical race theory, we're talking about what that term has come to apply to in the wake of the original articles, but it doesn't refer anymore to the articles in question. So there's a pushback against that happening in the schools. And you should understand that my point here is only to be a linguist, not to editorialize about those things. As most of you know, I do that elsewhere. But my issue here is to say that if there's going to be a coherent debate about these things, we have to understand that the pushback against the kind of thing I just described is not against exploring the operations of power. It's not against students supposedly being introduced to a whole reconception of what justice should be. Almost nobody is teaching that to schoolchildren. The idea is the modern manifestation of CRT, as it's called, and that's less about legal theory than about, for example, separating students by race to teach them that race and power relations are deeply embedded in our fabric. It is having anti-racism be the core of pretty much all teaching in the schools. The people who came up with critical race theory weren't thinking about school pedagogy at all. This is the morphing of the term and what it applies to over time.Or there's a general theme that you might teach that the whole American experiment has essentially been a kind of a, a crime spree. Now that, although the CRT people don't put it that way, it is a reflection of what those legal scholars thought. But the fact is, the package that is being taught in many schools today, and it really is, is not critical race theory as a legal scholar would have recognized it 30 years ago. Critical race theory as we discuss it today, is more specific than what these legal scholars were talking about. It's not about legal scholarship and the entire foundations of the nation. It's a particular pedagogical teaching program and a particular set of practices. So it's more specific.CRT, LIKE RACE ITSELF, HAS SPECIFIED AND BECOME CONFUSINGYou can do this with the word race. We all know what a race is. And it used to be that if it was a record, this is way back when there were records. This is back in the 20s and 30s. If there was a record of Black popular music, it was called a race record. Well, you know, there's the white race, the Black race and all the other ones. Why is it a race record when it's Black people? Well, that was because Black people were the nonwhite race who were most discussed. That's messy, but that was normal. And all this sort of thing means is that on the left to say that opposition to critical race theory is inherently racist is oversimplifying because the opposition might be to a specific way of addressing racism in these classrooms. So if there's a parent who's alarmed that the white kids are being put on one side of the room for activities and the Black kids are being put on the other side of the room within those activities, that doesn't necessarily mean that these parents are against students learning anything about race or even racism at all.Then if you're on the right, you have to be clearer about your opposition to critical race theory, even if you're just in the center, because let's face it, many people in the center are against the sorts of things that are going on today. But if you say, well, we don't want any critical race theory taught in the schools, you have to realize that people are extremely unclear these days on just what critical race theory we're referring to. And there are great many people who are supposing that you're objecting to this legal theory being taught. And it's reasonable to suppose, if you don't want that being taught, you don't want people to learn about race and power and injustice at all. You have to make it clear — people on the right and even people in the center — that you're against specific things often going on at schools like Dalton today. That would make for a more constructive discussion, wherever the leaves fall, whatever happens, whoever turns out to hold the cards, whoever turns out to quote unquote be correct. The discussion could be more coherent if we allow that when you say CRT, you don't necessarily mean legal papers, especially if you're not a legal scholar or some other kind of graduate student. And what it means is that if somebody from the left says critical race theory isn't being taught in the schools, it's a little disingenuous because when a person objects to what they're seeing and calls it CRT, they're talking about a term whose meaning has morphed considerably over time.Now, no doubt there are some people, especially on the right, I don't know any from the center, but especially on the right, who do want kids to not learn anything about race or racial difference or racism at all in the schools. There are occasional such people, and I should make it clear — here I am going to editorialize a little bit — I think that anybody who doesn't want racism or power relations or the dangers within them talk to students at all, I think that that's, narrow would be polite, frankly I think it's just wrong. So, for example, recently there was a case where Jacqueline Woodson, she is a Black woman author, she has this beautiful children's book called Brown Girl Dreaming. And there were parents who had a problem with that being taught out of the idea that that's critical race theory. No, no. There's nothing wrong with students being given a book that describes the experiences of that Black girl. Nevertheless, the left in saying if you don't like CRT, you're a racist, too simple. With the right, saying you're teaching CRT in these schools and being surprised when some people seem to think that you're talking about the legal theory of Kimberle Crenshaw, you have to understand the nature of this debate and realize that many people, and frankly they have reason to, suppose that people from the right don't want race taught at all. Most of you on the right don't mean that. Please make it clearer so that this debate can make more sense.By the way, as you know, we like to stick mostly to linguistics and etymology and such here in the Valley. But if you’re interested in deeper dives on issues like Critical Race Theory, or what people mean these days when they talk about getting “cancelled,” here at Booksmart, we also have Amna Khalid at Banished and Bob Garfield at Bully Pulpit, both of whom deep dive on those topics every week. So subscribe to me too but collect all three. We are a family.WORDS NOT ONLY SPECIFY OVER TIME, THEY TEND TO PEJORATELet's get to what real people may really be thinking, not just getting more specific, but you might be thinking the new meaning is negative. So it's not just that it's more specific, but we have this business of thinking of critical race theory as a bad thing, all this stuff going on. Isn't that just the grand old story? The new meaning isn't only more specific, it's negative. It's a slur. Isn't that evidence of racism, of some kind of just general problem with Black people? It's that people are slamming it. But, you know, that is linguistically normal too. Words have a way of putrefying; pejoration is what it's sometimes called. So, for example, hierarchy. That word originally referred to the nine orders of the angels. It was an order of angels and angels are good and goodly. And I always imagined an angel smelling like honey, and if you licked an angel, they would have honey all over them, although they wouldn't mind. Nine orders of angels. Now think about how hierarchy feels to you now, just I say the word. Notice it's a little irritating. It goes a little down to your liver. Hierarchy. If anything, hierarchy tends to be bad. If you mention a hierarchy, there's at least an implication that there shouldn't be one or that the people who are on top of it have some explaining to do. Hierarchy’s kind of an “uh-huh” term. That's not the way it started. It used to be about angels.Think about attitude. Attitude used to just mean your position, like you're standing in a certain pose. And then you could extend that to your position about any number of things in the emotional or the cognitive sense. But an attitude was how you held yourself. It was a position. Yet now notice, I say attitude, the first thing you think is bad attitude. If somebody has an attitude that means they have a bad attitude. You don't say somebody has an attitude and then picture that person smiling, or if they're smiling, it's a maleficent smile. Or you can say somebody has a positive attitude, but that presumes a contrast with a negative one and negative attitude feels redundant. Positive attitude is the attitude that you don't expect because having an attitude is negative. That is just normal. There's nothing that hierarchy and attitude have in common culturally that would make them both take that pathway. It's just that words have a tendency to putrefy. It's actually been shown that words develop negative meanings more readily than they develop positive meanings in the history of English at least.Yeah, yeah. We need a song. And, you know, a lot of you liked Traffic when I did some Traffic in a recent episode. So how about more of that genre? So that kind of gritty, absolutely perfect music, kind of jazzy, fusiony, rocky stuff that a lot of people were doing in the late ’60s. That would have to be, for example, Blood, Sweat & Tears and my favorite from them. I don't know them that well, but my favorite from them is Spinning Wheel. It was on the radio long into my young childhood. Or maybe my father had it because it’s ’68 and I'm not remembering it from then. But Spinning Wheel, ride that painted pony. So how about a little of that, some of this music that's just God's music? It's like Duke Ellington. It's like Mozart. It's just good.MUSIC: Spinning WheelWORDS FROM CONTROVERSIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO PEJORATEMcWHORTER: That negative business, that's especially likely with controversial topics, and so, for example, think about woke. Woke, like 10 minutes ago, was a compliment. It was this happy word, it basically replaced PC because PC had gone bad and it was this jolly thing. But I want you to listen to something. I don't want things to be all about me, but I want you to hear a certain person speaking on Colbertback in 2018 about the word woke. Listen to what I said back then when I was young and carefree.McWHORTER: The one that's happening now is, you know, because I'm, I'm a stodgy person who tends to like old things and doesn't want things to change. And so I always learn about slang terms about 20 minutes too late. But, for example, woke. I'm not going to tell you when I learned that term, but when I learned it, it was still just the coolest thing. You are woke to the complexities of society and how injustice really happens. It was, it was cool. It smelled like roughly marijuana and lavender. It was that kind of word. And about two seconds later, a certain kind of person started sneering, oh, is that person woke? And it's at the point where woke is as in quotation marks in many circles as the word perky. You can't really say that anybody is perky. It's a word. It hasn't been a real word since roughly Bye Bye Birdie. Woke is the same thing. Now, woke is something that people from a certain side of the political spectrum are throwing at other people, the idea being that you're a smug person who thinks that your views are the ones that come from on high. That has happened during the time, roughly, that a certain person has become president and about six months before that. I've found it fascinating. Wokewill be all but unusable in 10 years.Notice I said all but unusable in 10 years. What? It was all but unusable like 10 minutes after that taping. Here we are with woke being unusable outside of quotation marks at this point. That is what happens to words.Oh, by the way, since it's all about me, just for a second. You know, folks, I would be a fool not to tell you here. I am doing a newsletter now in The New York Times, of all places, twice a week. So if you feel like it, you can also subscribe to me there. And it's not just columns. I don't feel like writing columns. It's like 700 words. I don't think in 700 words. I think in essays for some reason. They're letting me do an essay every three days. So, you know, 1200, 1500, I get to stretch out, but not too much so that I'm not taking up too much of your time as I might be here. But I did my first piece there on exactly this story of the word woke.In any case, enough about me. Let's talk about neoliberals. Although come to think of it, I've been called one, but that's another one where it used to be that neoliberal was, quote unquote, good. So Walter Lippmann, you know one of those people very famous as a pundit at the time. Damned if you know anything he said then. It's such a fragile career, pundit. But Walter Lippmann, you know, he was the king, the Krugman, Brooks person, and he had this idea of neoliberal back in the day being a matter of “challenging the ruthless with an intuition of the human destiny, which is invincible because it is self-evident.” The way you could write for the popular press back then, it's the ringing 10 dollar words. I love it. That was Lippmann. And so that meant that in the late 70s, for example, if you were a neoliberal, you didn't like the free market or you were distrustful of it. You didn't like the National Review. But nowadays, when you hear neoliberal, it's often with a sneer. So there are people who have called it all about cutting expenditures for social services and it's about deregulation and eliminating the concept of the public good. Those are the sorts of things you hear about neoliberalism. In other words, as commitments have changed, as impressions have changed, as coalitions have changed, that term, neoliberal has turned upside down over the past nearly 100 years. That's normal. It would be peculiar if we meant today by neoliberal what people meant when there was no penicillin yet.What is all this about? Controversy is inevitable about, for example, current developments in education. But to hear that some people don't like CRT being taught in the schools and to say nobody's teaching the work of Kimberle Crenshaw, or even to say, so you're saying you don't want these kids to learn anything about racism at all? You don't want us to stir that stuff up? That's crude, if I may. And I don't mean crude in the sense of vulgar, but I just mean that it's looking at these things too brusquely. It's not thinking about the fact that we mean different things by critical race theory. But all of us, no matter where we are on the spectrum, need to understand that there's a difference between what people meant by critical race theory in 1990, for example, and what people mean when they're worried about certain things going on in the schools here in 2021. Because the terms meaning has changed, we do have to accept that if somebody is angry about CRT in the classroom today, they don't necessarily mean that they think that nine year olds are being taught legal justice theory. They don't necessarily mean that they don't think that kids should learn about race and racism. They mean something more specific. And that's because critical race theory’s meaning has become more specific. And that's not a peculiar thing. This is what happens to terminology in this world that we live in.In any case, if you’d like to leave a comment, check out our other great podcasts, Banished and Bully Pulpit, or subscribe, just visit BooksmartStudios.org. Our producers are Matthew Schwartz and, as always, Mike Vuolo. Our theme music was created by Harvest Creative Services. And I am John McWhorter. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

What does it mean to be woke? Has the word problematic become problematic? Lexicon Valley’s John McWhorter talks to Amna Khalid about the fraught vocabulary of modern censorship. * FULL TRANSCRIPT *AMNA KHALID: From Booksmart Studios, this is Banished. And I’m Amna Khalid.NEWSCASTER: Republicans are always denouncing so-called “cancel culture.”BBC GUEST 1: I think that nobody should lose their job because of what they believe in. I think that’s the issue—BBC GUEST 2: —but that’s what “cancel culture” is!POLITICIAN: “Cancel culture” is eroding the very foundation of who we are as an American people.NEWSCASTER 1: He’s woke.NEWSCASTER 2: I’m woke.NEWSCASTER 3: Now you’re woke but you’re like me woke!NEWSCASTER 2: I’m woke to the woke.FOX NEWS GUEST: So we’re woke, and we have to say woke.NEWSCASTER: Wait, so we’re both woke? You and I are both woke?FOX NEWS GUEST: Yeah, I think we’re woke!NEWSCASTER: Who’s the woker of the two, would you say?AK: “Woke” and “cancel culture” are now two terms that are now so much a part of our consciousness, that it feels like they’ve been around forever. But the reality is that they exploded only a few years ago. Like many of our most fraught cultural terms, they evolved over time, jumping from one community to another, shifting slightly in meaning or nuance. Along the way, they get weaponized, fall in and out of favor and even get canceled themselves — in other words, they are linguistically fascinating.Who better to dig into the lexicon of Banished, than John McWhorter, the host of Lexicon Valley here on Booksmart Studios, and an esteemed professor of linguistics at Columbia University. If you’ve never heard his show, it’s an endlessly entertaining deep-dive into everything that makes language so enthralling. I started our conversation by asking him about the word woke, which I first heard in hip-hop lyrics. JOHN McWHORTER: Well, woke actually goes back further than many people would think. It's actually first documented in the early 60s and it was a Black slang. What it meant was politically aware of certain realities that operate largely below the surface, but have a determinative effect on, for example, the Black American condition. And so you might think, if you were you or me, that woke is about 10 years old. But actually people were saying it on the Black street long before that. It did not leave the Black street. Then, in roughly the 2000-teens, it jumped the rails and started being used by a certain kind of politically aware white person on the left. And what it meant at first in the general culture was somebody who understands certain basic leftist analysises of the world. What it really was, was a substitute for a term that had worn out. It replaced politically correct, which, if you're just old enough now, you can remember was used without irony back in the late 70s and early 80s. And what it meant was that you have a basic understanding of liberal/leftist realities. Then it became PC. PCstarted being used as a slur to ridicule the kind of person who used that kind of ideology as a bludgeon in a smug kind of way. And so you couldn't say politically correct without making somebody laugh by, say, 2010. Really, you couldn't do it by about 1990. And so woke replaced that. As recently as 2018, I was on a TV show—STEPHEN COLBERT (crowd cheering): My next guest tonight is a professor at Columbia University, who hosts one of my favorite podcasts.JM: —talking about how woke was taking on a certain pejorative flavor.JM ON COLBERT: When I learned it, it was still just the coolest thing: You are woke to the complexities of society and how injustice really happens. It was cool — it smelled like, roughly, marijuana and lavender. It was that kind of word. And about two seconds later, a certain kind of person started sneering: Oh, is that person woke?People from a certain side of the political spectrum are throwing at other people the idea being that you’re a smug person who thinks that your views are the ones that come from on high. That has happened during the time, roughly, that a certain person has become president, and about six months before that. I’ve found it fascinating. Woke will be all but unusable in ten years.JM: Now, I would say that it has it. It's 2021, woke is now a word that is very much in quotation marks. Nobody would use woke in common parlance to mean that you understand the politics of Ta-Nahisi Coates. Now woke is used to make fun of people of a certain kind of leftist political persuasion who are beyond reasonable address. And so what's happened is that it has become a pejorative word, which happens to words all over the language, all over languages all the time. And so random example, reduce. Reduce used to mean to lead back to, and it could lead back to something good, something bad, something large, something small. You could reduce something to its former glory 500 years ago. That meant just take it back. Now, you could also reduce something to its former misery. It's the misery meaning that ended up taking over, that pejorative meaning. That happens a lot in language, more than what's called amelioration for reasons that we need not get into. But words tend to putrefy, essentially, and that is what happened with woke very quickly in this decade and the last one, partly because the internet makes these things come around and go around faster.AK: If I'm hearing this right, you're saying woke was part of the Black vernacular and it had a particular political valence which has been taken over and turned around, and now it's become a derogatory term almost to call someone woke.JM: Exactly.AK: Nobody would say I am woke as a matter of pride. Do you see a movement to reclaim it as a positive?JM: I can imagine doing kind of linguistic science fiction and writing about the reclaiming of the word, because that does happen with slurs. There's an example that I could give that I don't even need to. We all know. So pretend I talked about that for five minutes — but the term woke, I don't see that happening. For example, you didn't see people saying, yes, I'm a PC and I'm proud of it. People ran away from it and created something new. In 2021, it's too early to say what the new term is going to be, but I can guarantee you that by 2030 there'll be something else which starts meaning something very specific. It may emerge from Black culture and it will be generalized to mean that you've got the proper The Nation politics. I don't think it's going to happen with woke, partly because it's so imprinted now as a way of making fun of somebody. It's just at the point where if somebody said Yes, I am woke, it sounds trivial, it sounds like you don't have your own ideas and you're just looking for something to put on a T-shirt. So I think what we need to do is start listening for what the new term is going to be. These things emerge spontaneously. Nobody's going to create it on Madison Avenue, but it will certainly happen.AK: Is there a particular moment you can point to when you think woke started taking on a pejorative valence? Was it a very purposeful appropriation by the right to discredit a particular kind of social justice awareness or social consciousness, or did it emerge out of an organic movement?JM: Of course, the right started making fun of wokeness, and to me that's 2017, 2018. Where woke became a joke, and that was an unintentional rhyme, was last summer when even people on the left started ridiculing a particular kind of person. Wokebecame a joke in roughly June 2020. It was in the wake of the protests about George Floyd, during the quarantine at its worst, when a lot of people had very little to do and were very angry about it. It tended to focus these sorts of things. So yeah, I think we've seen that transition just over about the past year and change that woke is now unusable outside of quotation marks, just like a word like perky. You can't really say perky, you can only say perky in quotes.AK: There are words that are used by the Black community, if I can use that for a moment and make it a monolith, to communicate in ways that remains separate from and distinct from the use of language by white people. Of course, there's a history to this. There's the history of enslaved people using particular language to communicate, words to communicate, so that their masters, quote unquote, could not understand what was being said. To what extent do you think the fact that woke will not be reclaimed is actually a continuation of that trend where words that come from the Black vernacular, become mainstream, like cool, then subsequently get dropped by the Black community that almost prides itself on coming up with a new term that is exclusive.JM: We're not always aware of how subconscious the use of language generally is, especially when you're talking about at the level of a community. It's one thing to say that Black English represents the creativity of Black people and that when a term gets worn out, Black people make up a new term. That doesn't actually refer to a process that's been observed among human beings. The truth is that these terms tend to emerge spontaneously based on probabilistic processes. It isn't that, say, the teens are making up new slang to confuse their parents. I'm going to give you a term: diglossia. Most people in the world have two levels that they speak on, the high and the low. In America, it can be hard to quite imagine that unless you think about Black people. We’re a very boring country linguistically in many ways. But Black people have the high, the standard, the low, quote unquote, although there's nothing low about it, which is Black English. If something jumps from the low to the high, it's not that Black people think, well, now we must create something new. It's that the word no longer feels L, low, and all language is eternally creative in its own right. You need terms for things. And so next thing you know, a new term will be spontaneously invented because the old one wore out or it stopped being part of the L. It stopped feeling like us. And it's usually below the radar. Nobody could know that these things were going to happen. And then you wake up and you have some white guy playing hacky sack and using the term woke, who knew? But that means that it's no longer the guy in Chicago living in a Black neighborhood who uses that. He's going to have some other word he's using after a while.AK: So talk to me about cancel. Where does the term cancel come from and how has the meaning of that changed over time?JM: Well, cancel culture is a really messy term because it starts with the idea that a celebrity who produces some sort of product, writings or performance, recorded performance, is in bad odor and therefore they're going to be canceled like a TV show. And so that person's work is no longer going to be seen. They're no longer going to get hired. I think that the paradigm example would be Bill Cosby. He was cancellable. You can't hire him. You're no longer going to show the sitcom. It's no longer going to stream. I was at a store around when he was cancelled where they were literally giving away DVDs of the TV show for free. And I thought, wow, yeah, he's been canceled. And so that takes care of that. But terms are always generalizing in some way. They're ameliorating. They are pejorating. Something's going to happen to almost any term that's worth its salt. So now cancel culture is not so much about eliminating somebody from the public presence as just deciding that they are no longer fit for polite society, that we don't like them anymore. And so it's not that these people are going to go away. Our technology makes it so that it's pretty hard to cancel anybody completely anyway, but it just means that that person is a persona non grata, they are ostracized. So I think these days we're at this intermediate stage where somebody is determined as non grata, and spontaneously people say we're not trying to cancel you. And the question is, if they're not trying to cancel you, what are they doing? Because the cancelling no longer means that you don't exist. I'm not going to get specific, but about a year ago, it happened to me. I was canceled by a certain august body for, you know, reasons that people can guess. And I was told by the very nice person, we're not cancelling you. Well, of course not. You know, I've got all these writings out there, and it's not like I'm not going to be able to go to conferences and things like that. What I was subjected to was being told that I am unsavory in a very public way. That's the cancellation. So it no longer means what it means. But that's true of so much of language. Nobody’s being cancelled, but it just means that you are having a scarlet letter put upon you.AK: How is it different from censorship or censoring someone?JM: It's not. It's the same thing. Cancel culture is just a more vivid term. Censorship, you think more of the printed page. It doesn't sound as societal. So we say cancel culture because that sounds one, newer; two, meaner; three, less specific than censorship. I would call them different terms for the exact same thing.AK: So I’d push back over here a little bit and to my ear and from the way it's being used, I think about censorship as something that is associated — and I'm getting into the politics of these words now — it's associated with something that the right does.JM: Mm-hmm.AK: Whereas cancel culture is seen as something that is a product of this wokeperformative way of saying I adhere to certain social justice values. Am I correct in kind of thinking about it in this way? People ask me what Banished is about. They immediately assume it's about cancel culture and it is. But to my mind, I always jump in, then say and censorship, because it's not just about the kinds of eliminations that are coming from this left side of the spectrum. I'm interested in things that are being cut out left, right and center.JM: You're quite right. I hadn't thought about that. The person on the left who's accused of censorship is insulted. They feel like they're being accused of something that they're used to hurling at the other side. They often don't realize they're doing the same thing or they think that it's OK if the left does it because the left is right, correct basically. Yes, cancel culture is censorship from the left. Talk about subconscious. I never thought about this, and yet I've been using it in that way for a year.AK: Another term that I grew up in graduate school using quite regularly and without thinking of it as a “problem” is the term problematic. In fact, one of the ways in which you recognized someone was a graduate student over lunch was when they said I'd like to problematize that. So this is another term that has kind of migrated from a different area or different field into mainstream conversation and has come to mean something again politically. When did you first encounter the word, let's start there? And then when did you start noticing that it's beginning to take on a different meaning?JM: Problematic to me is exactly what you said. It's a graduate student in 1993 drinking their latte and talking about something that probably wouldn't interest most people who are not academics. It's the aughts where problematic becomes something someone's doing that the educated person is supposed to morally disapprove of. It seems to me that there's a certain euphemism in the word problematic, because what it usually is is a prelude to something being racist or sexist or fat shaming or something like that. But you start out calling it problematic with the implication that it's difficult, it's tricky, that you have to break something down — avoiding coming right out and being what used to be called a knee jerk liberal. Instead of just yelling it's racist, it’s sexist, I don't like it, you say, well, actually, it's kind of problematic because. I don't know who that person is, but I do, actually. And then, you know, the racism and the sexism is coming. Problematic now means blasphemous. Problematic means that you have sinned, that you're a heretic, that you should not have any Chardonnay and brie. But nobody wants to come right out and say that. We're too sophisticated to call people heretics. And so now often the way you call somebody a heretic is to say isn't he problematic? — that means that he's a witch.AK: OK, so now we're getting into really interesting territory where I'm beginning to think of the word blasphemy. I come from a country where blasphemy means what it literally means and has always meant and has consequences. Over here, blasphemy has taken on a different meaning. It's a way of ostracizing someone from any community and what the rules are specific to that community. What does that word mean today?JM: Well, to the extent that you have a certain kind of hyper woke person who has a religion, it's no longer an Abrahamic religion. It's not Christianity, it's not Judaism, it's not Islam. It's Electism. They have a sense that certain people are not to be tolerated for the same reason that a Christian or someone else would ban the heretic. That is what they call problematic, but really it's blasphemy. Today's blasphemy is not about God. Nobody thinks of it is taking the Lord's name in vain to say, oh, my God, anymore. That was old school blasphemy. But now I find the Middle Ages much easier to understand than I used to just, you know, going online and watching what happens to nice people all the time. That is today's blasphemy. I would almost teach a child blasphemy based on the sort of things that happened to Donald McNeil, Alison Roman, etc., as opposed to Galileo.AK: You've coined the term “the Elect” and we just referred to it. Who are you referring to as the Elect and how exactly are you, are you using that phrase?JM: The Elect is a term that I used to refer to a certain kind of person who has hard leftist views about the way things are supposed to go and feels that being mean to people is justifiable in the name of making the world safe for those views. And so it's not the woke, it's not the hyper woke, it's woke people who are mean, who are The Elect. It's the evangelical, prosecutorial woke. And so by The Elect, I mean the kinds of people who seek to get people fired, who support policies for Black people that hurt Black people but qualify as goodly because they are quote unquote anti-racist. For example, it is Elect to say if Black kids aren't good at standardized tests, then let's eliminate the test because it's racist rather than helping Black kids get better at tests, and that particular kind of thinking. The term is not original to me, but I find it very useful and I hope it settles in. The Elect.AK: I come from a society where freedom of expression is, doesn't exist. There are very strict parameters to what you can and cannot say.JM: You mean academia?AK (laughs): That is the society I inhabit now. That was good. I mean Pakistan. In fact, that's part of my disillusionment with academia. I didn't expect it, especially not in the West and not in the US where freedom of expression is supposedly enshrined in the Constitution. Censorship from the right is something that I'm familiar with. I can even understand those tendencies within the U.S. coming from a more authoritarian mindset, from the political right. To some degree I can get that. What I find troubling, deeply troubling, is that I'm finding that kind of censorship coming from the left. So, talk about cancel culture. And I've been playing around a lot with the notion of why this is the case. And I'm going to present to you a hypothesis and ask you to tell me what you think. After much contemplation, I thought, well, maybe it's a society that has had a lot of freedom, precisely because freedom of expression is enshrined as a constitutional right. When there is so much freedom, it must necessarily produce its own unfreedom to rail against. A concept cannot exist, similarly a practice cannot exist, if it doesn't have its antithesis or antichrist. I'm beginning to wrap my head around what I'm seeing happening, particularly in academia, as this is just freedom coming full circle.JM: Hm. I like that. I am inclined to think that there's something else involved and it's social media. I think if — it's impossible to imagine a world without it now — but if we really did go back to that time when there was just email and the whole world could not talk to itself, I think we wouldn't have this happening on the left because what it is, is a reign of terror. A lot of what goes on on the left in terms of these cancellations is based not on consensus, but on fear. People are really afraid of being called a dirty name. And so you don't speak against the minority of people who are coming over the hill with pitchforks. I think that has a lot to do with it. And what people are so afraid of really is being called a dirty thing on Twitter. It is mostly Twitter. It is mostly being called a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist on Twitter, or Facebook or Instagram, but mostly Twitter. Fifteen years ago, if somebody didn't like something that I wrote or something that I said, they would write a letter and they would send it to my mailbox, or they would write an email to me. That's what people did, and you got used to it. Now that almost never happens. Almost nobody emails me and it's very easy to find my Columbia email. It barely ever happens because those same people, they feel the same way, they put it on Twitter where everybody can see it. That change happened in about 2012 and there's no going back from that. You can see that the impulse of a certain kind of person used to be: I wish I could tell the world that I hate this person, but instead I'm just going to send it to their email because that's the best I can do. That person now can write it in the sky and we're never going to be rid of that kind of person. So, yeah, you have a new era that started in the early 2000-teens.AK: OK, I'm going to turn the camera upon us as academics for a moment and say one of the problems that I have right now is the erosion of academic freedom on college campuses. And I think the people who are responsible for it at the end of the day are us. It's tenured professors. And I know you don't have tenure, but you're a person with enough authority.JM: Close enough.AK: Close enough, so forgive me for lumping you with us, but it's tenured professors who are not speaking up, both in terms of the excesses of the administration, which is increasingly bureaucratized and corporatized, and also in terms of the kind of wider trends of the adjunctification of the faculty itself, which is a deep threat to academic freedom. So I hold tenured academics responsible for that. And it's easy to bash social media for giving fillip to nasty trends. There are nasty people out there. There is a nastiness in all of us and perhaps we feel more comfortable airing it when we're not talking to someone face to face and we can put it out.JM: Exactly.AK: But there is also a niceness to all of us, or at least I desperately want to believe that, right? I really do, because if we don't, I feel like I begin to lose the will to live. What's the point, right? So why do we not use social media in a way that fights against the kind of natural tendencies that it brings out? To what degree can we repurpose that and fight cancel culture and fight this tendency to shut people up by actually reclaiming that space? Maybe we can't, but I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are.JM: We have a moral duty as thinking people in this culture now. Fifty years ago, that duty was to understand that racism is not just calling dirty names, that sexism is not just calling dirty names, that you have to look inside of yourself. And I think practically everybody in this country learned how to do that through the 1970s to a degree that was stunning. And many people today would say that it wasn't important, but I think they either lack historical imagination or they're just not old enough to remember what things were like before. If you walked around in 1950 and talked to educated Americans about how they felt about women and how they felt about Black people, I think many people would be utterly stunned at the difference. Something happened between 1970 and 1980. Now, we have a similar thing that we need to do, which is to learn to not be so damned afraid of being called names on social media. A lot of people are clearly frightened to their socks of somebody saying something nasty to them and then being retweeted. And the truth is, it happens, it flares for a while and it goes away. And Twitter is not the world. Now, of course, some people feel that they don't want to risk their jobs, but I think for most people, it's just that they don't want to be called a dirty name and a dirty name today is you racist. And so they just hold back. And that means that the nasty guys in the schoolyard end up taking over. Even if you try to be nice on Twitter, there are some people — and they're not crazy, they're not trolls, they're not under a bridge; unfortunately, they're ordinary people who are probably very nice in real life — but people will be mean to you for being nice. You know, how dare you praise this? How dare you excuse that? That kind of person cannot be allowed to determine what Twitter is like, though. You just have to let them, you have to let them yell. And I really hope that part of the pendulum shift is that a critical mass of people will learn that you can be called a dirty name on social media, and you know the planet will keep spinning, your friends will keep liking you. It's hard to be yelled at. You get used to it. But I think we need to start learning how to get used to it more.AK: Where do you think the fear comes from? I understand the fear when it's coming from a threat to your livelihood.JM: Mm-hmm.AK: What is it? I'm trying to dig to the deep roots of what are we so bloody afraid of? I've been called many things in my life, sometimes been proud of the fact that I’ve been called many things in my life, which are not necessarily nice things. Being a — aterm that I absolutely detest, but I'll use at the moment — you know, a person of color, I say things that people don't expect a person of color to say. And so then I get labeled as someone who has false onsciousness or someone who's drunk the Kool-Aid and all kinds of things. What is it what is it that we're so scared of?JM: In a different world, you didn't want it to be said that you were godless. In this world, you don't want it to be said that you are a racist or that you are a sexist because that questions your very legitimacy as a human being. And I think you or me as people of color, we can say things about race and get called certain things. But there isn't as much of a sting, especially because, frankly, the charges are often so absurd. You know, like somebody telling me that I don't like myself. Frankly, yes, I do and everybody knows. You can tell. And I'm sure that you feel the same way. Whatever you're being called, it has nothing to do with you. But I will openly admit, I could not bear — and watch it happen now that I say this — I could not bear it getting around that I was a sexist. That's too much. If it got around that I had some sort of woman problem, that I didn't think women were men's equals, it would make me want to curl up in a corner and die. That would be more than I could risk, and I'm quite sure that I don't have that issue. But if somebody decided to start a campaign on Twitter and call me all sorts of things and distort things that I wrote, I would not be up for that. And so I can put myself in other people's place. They feel that way about race. They feel I just couldn't tolerate that. But, you know, if there were an epidemic of people being called sexist for no good reason, I would have to buck up, you know, if I had some skin in that game. And I think that's what has to happen with the racist charge within reason. You don't want to take advantage, but you can't let the people who spend their lives saying mean things on Twitter determine that entire forum because it could be used for such good. You're right. But everybody needs to get some, you see I want to say balls, but that's no good.THEME MUSIC UPAK: Well, I think this entire segment has to be edited out because otherwise you're going to be branded as sexist and we are going to have a campaign. And then you use the term balls, so you just gave …JM: Yeah, I’m, I’m gone.AK: You’re gone. (laughing)JM: Yeah.AK: Thank you John McWhorter for being with us today. This was a delightful conversation. It's always a pleasure to talk to you.JM: Thank you for having me Amna.AK: If you liked what you heard today, and want more exclusive content, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios. Subscribers get access to transcripts, extended interviews, and bonus segments.Before I sign off, I must remind you — I must implore you — to comment, rate, share what you've heard here today. And not just Banished, but the other Booksmart Studios shows like John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Bob Garfield’s Bully Pulpit. Both programs are stimulating and incisive in their analysis.So please share! The success of Booksmart, the impact of our work, depends as much on you as on us. Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. I am Amna Khalid. So long. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Bob talks with Princeton scholar Orestis Papakyriakopoulos about the social media titan's latest assault on transparency, and the all-too-familiar blame-shifting that followed it. That has become standard operating procedure from a company Bob describes as “amoral, except when it's immoral.”TEDDY ROOSEVELT: Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one which we are in.BOB GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield. Episode 4: It Wasn't Me, It Was My Dog. Last week, Facebook abruptly shut down a research program by scholars, at New York University's Ad Observatory, who had been monitoring the company's political advertising inventory.NEWSCASTER: Now, this whole battle started on Tuesday when Facebook disabled the accounts of researchers at the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook explaining, quote, “NYU's Ad Observatory project studied political ads using unauthorized means to access and collect data from Facebook in violation of our terms of service. We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy in line with our privacy program under the FTC order.”BG: Yes, Facebook's product management director, Mike Clark, claimed in a blog post that the company's hands were tied by the government. You know, just like Son of Sam claimed it was his dog who ordered him to kill.Within 24 hours, Wired magazine and others revealed that the FTC consent order provided no such thing. Even the agency's Bureau of Consumer Protection weighed in, with acting director Samuel Levine writing to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg saying, quote, “I am disappointed by how your company has conducted itself in this matter.”Please note that Levine didn't say surprised, just disappointed, because the history of Facebook is the history of Facebook conducting itself in disappointing ways, voicing shame and regret from the bottom of its heart, and then returning to deceptive and greedy business as usual.MARK ZUCKERBERG (MONTAGE): We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake and it was my mistake. This was a major breach of trust and, and I'm really sorry that this happened. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data. And if we can't do that, then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people.NEWSCASTER: In 2003, Zuckerberg apologized in the Harvard Crimson for any harm done after his website FaceMash asked users to rate people's hotness. Three years later, Zuckerberg said Facebook, quote, “really messed this one up,” following user complaints that the newly launched news feed invaded their privacy.NEWSCASTER: Zuckerberg apologized once again in 2007 for an uproar over the company's Beacon advertising system, saying, “I know we can do better.”BG: That last part courtesy of CBS News. So the FTC wasn't surprised about the latest phony excuse for systematic opacity, and neither was Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, a postdoctoral research director at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy. He's speaking to me from Athens, Greece. Orestis, welcome to Bully Pulpit.ORESTIS PAPAKYRIAKOPOULOS: Glad to be here, Bob.BG: All right, we'll get to your work shortly. But I want to begin with the NYU project. What were they studying?OP: So, the NYU researchers had an Ad Observatory project. They were trying to monitor what ads are placed on Facebook and who sees them, like which demographics are targeted and so on — in order to provide additional transparency on how online advertising takes place.BG: And what was the method? Were they, in fact, scraping content or metadata from the site in some clandestine fashion, as Facebook alleged?OP: No, actually, they've developed a plugin that you put on your browser, the Ad Observer, and they asked users all over the world to use their plugin, and practically the plugin was recording what the users saw. So in this way, they could see which ads a user was targeted.BG: Wait, so when Facebook invoked protecting user privacy, all of the users had proactively downloaded the browser extension and were giving explicit permission to the NYU people to see what ads they were being served.OP: Exactly, but when Facebook uses the term users, they mean the advertisers who placed the ads. The advertisers did not give their permission to NYU to collect the information about the targeted ads.BG: [chuckling]OP: Yeah, exactly.BG: I see, so the advertisers who pay money to have their ads seen we're skittish about having their ads seen.OP: Exactly.BG: Now, the whole point of the Facebook algorithm is that consumers get more and more content they have demonstrated interest in by clicking on it or commenting or sharing. That very same algorithm, though, takes the same user behavior data and allows advertisers to micro target to exactly the consumer profile they're most interested in, whether to buy a car or toothpaste or a political worldview.OP: Yeah, so Facebook's business model until today is to use this data they collect to place personalized advertisements and they sell the space and they sell the tool they've developed so advertisers can place their ads.BG: Selling the tools they've developed. This gets to the next sensitive area of privacy, because the FTC order that the company invoked last week came with a five billion dollar fine for violating an earlier 2012 consent decree after Facebook was caught not only being careless, but mercenary with users personal data. Can you remind me what the specifics were of the original complaint?OP: Sure. So back in 2012, the FTC claimed that Facebook was violating numerous privacy rules. And more specifically, for example, users believed that they had put their accounts to private settings or some information that they had on their profile were not public, but advertisers still had the opportunity to collect this data. Another example of what was violated back then is that although users were deleting their profiles or saying that taking their information down, third party entities were still able to collect this data, although the users had removed their consent access on the platform.BG: So then came the new order in 2019, in which the FTC said Facebook was found to be, quote, “deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.” Can you summarize the 2019 case?OP: Sure. So going back to 2012, because Facebook violated specific rules, the FTC said that Facebook needs to change how it functions to make more clearer representations of what holds in privacy terms and what not, to inform users as well as to switch off all these back doors that gave data about users to third party individuals. And although Facebook started doing that, for example, what happened is that although new apps were not able to get this data, if you had an older up, you still were able to collect information. And this is the window that was exploited also by Cambridge Analytica, that the company used an app that was created in the past for a different purpose and started collecting data about users, and these data the users have not given their consent to give the data to the company.BG: And this wasn't like, oops, careless of me. This had to have been done with malice aforethought.OP: Yeah. So definitely Cambridge Analytica did it because they found an opportunity there to collect all this data. I don't know if Facebook knew about the backdoor or not, but definitely they did not do their job right.BG: And then sat on the information for two years before the story finally blew up in the media.OP: And going back to now to 2019, the FTC said, hey, Facebook did not conform to our claims. There are still issues with data privacy and Facebook need to conform to the older rules. Plus, there were some new issues that appeared. For example, Facebook need to make more transparency in how they use their face recognition technology and their platform. The FTC implemented stronger accountability mechanisms in cases that Facebook violates against the norm, and so on.BG: So once again, disappointing but unsurprising. And just ,as is was the case with Cambridge Analytica, simply astonishing indifference to the abuse of its targeting algorithm. And this is whether permitting Trump friendly or Boris Johnson friendly foreign agents to spread toxic lies in a political campaign, or the Myanmar Buddhist military to incite pogroms with false accusations against the Muslim Rohingya minority. I've often described the company as amoral, except when it is immoral. Would you care to argue against that proposition?OP: So definitely Facebook as every company, they look at their self-interest. This is what they were doing in the past and they are keep doing now. Their model is to collect as much data they can and find ways to sell it to get the most profit out of it. That also means that not disclosing a lot of things that are going on on the platform because these might make them accountable and also make them impose restrictions on their business model.BG: And in fact, in the Cambridge Analytica affair, there were a number of universities and the United States Senate trying to look into how it could have all taken place. Facebook vowed transparency, but instead actually tried to stymie some researchers by failing to make its API fully available and so on. How cooperative were they even when they were most in the crucible following Cambridge Analytica?OP: Generally, Facebook I think that transparency efforts of Facebook belong more to the marketing part of the company rather than an actual effort of the company to be more open with scientists and policy makers and so on. So they always try to give minimal data under rules that protect them 100 percent. And also the quality of the data information they provide usually is not able to answer key questions about the nature of the platform, how does it affect the society, the democracy and so on.BG: All right. Let's talk about your work at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton. According to your center's website, your research, quote “provides ideas, frameworks and practical solutions towards just, inclusive and participatory socioalgorithmic ecosystems through the application of data intensive algorithms and social theories.” So what, what do you do?OP: So, for example, in the case of Facebook and online platforms in general, we try to understand how the tools and the algorithms they deploy are used politically, to place political ads to influence the public opinion. And as part of it, we look at Facebook, Google and YouTube, which belongs to Google, for example — or other platforms like TikTok, which are used a lot for political communication — and we ask who has access to the tools of the platforms, how do the tools of the platforms function and what effects they might have in the society. Like, who sees an ad, why, why they don't see an ad, is there probably a potential from discrimination, to are there other issues that may come as a side effect of seeing specific ads, and other further research questions.BG: Now, I want to go back very briefly to the NYU people. Facebook claimed they had offered those researchers an alternative method with its very own FORT researcher platform, which in the name of science and transparency and societal good, it beneficently makes available to scholars. In fact, FORT stands for Facebook Open Research and Transparency. But you read that Mike Clark blog post about NYU and you were like, yeah, right, because you and your team tried to take the FORT and found it heavily defended.OP: Exactly, and they said first they have a political ads library that is open to the public and they also provide the FORT data set where researchers can get access. And to start with the minor thing, the political ads library's too general and does not actually provide information about who placed an ad to whom. You can also more or less see some general statistics about ads, like general demographics and location, who saw it, as well as the content of the ad.BG: It seems to me as if someone was being investigated for murder and the person of interest says to the cops, here is the evidence you may choose from. I will provide this. You can use this and only this for making your case.OP: Exactly, that's the one thing, and they also claim that they have the FORT data set. And it's interesting because back in February, the group I am in, we tried to get access to that data set and they provided us with a contract which we had to sign in order to get the data set without telling us what the data set includes. And this agreement that Facebook gave us said that actually Facebook possesses the power to decide if our research can get published or not. So we could do some research. They could review it then and they would say, OK, this is publishable or this is not, otherwise you need to remove that or that and so on. Which we found really problematic. Research need to be free, otherwise it becomes censored. And we asked them first, OK, can you tell us more? We cannot sign a contract without knowing what data we are getting, of course. And second, are we going to have the freedom to answer our research question? And the first answers of Facebook was we are not able to negotiate the terms we are proposing because this is mandated by the FTC and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Which of course did not hold. The FTC decrees don't say anything about how researchers can access Facebook data.BG: When Facebook played the FTC card last week, you were you were like, oh, I've seen this movie before. They're invoking government regulation that in fact, doesn't regulate the thing that they're trying to hide.OP: Exactly. And because we saw how they treated the NYU researchers, and we were frustrated that they used again the FTC argument, we said, OK, we need to speak up and talk about our own experience because this cannot go on.BG: So just to reiterate, it's a mystery package that you don't get to unwrap until you've signed an onerous contract, which specifies, among other things, that if Facebook doesn't like what you want to publish based on your access to FORT, then it just censors you. I want to return to the letter that the FTC official wrote to Mark Zuckerberg after the NYU controversy erupted last week. He addressed the subject of Facebook's trustworthiness to keep its word, not only only the long haul, but like in any time period whatsoever. He observes, quote, “Only last week, Facebook's general counsel, Jennifer Newstead, committed the company to ‘timely, transparent communication to Bureau of Consumer Protection staff about significant developments.' Yet the FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week. Had you honored your commitment to contact us in advance, we would have pointed out to you that the consent decree does not bar Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest.” They broke their promise and they did it absolutely immediately. How is anybody supposed to, in academia or elsewhere, supposed to deal with a company that appears to be out of control?OP: I think that the answer is not company specific, but more general, like there need to be regulations that define what data online platforms and tech companies should provide to researchers, as well as how, because it's not only about the data that Facebook holds, it's also the data that Google holds and all the other platforms. And although focus is usually on Facebook, the other platforms also have a very high degree of opacity. So I do believe that policymakers and politicians need to step up and say, we need to bring regulation that forces Facebook and the other platforms to change how they function, to change what they disclose and what they not.BG: All right, so there was a 2012 consent decree in which Facebook promised to make corrections to how it does business. It violated that consent decree, leading to the 2019 update, which expanded the government regulation and also fined them five billion dollars. Now, I know you're a data scientist and an engineer, but I'm going to ask you now to be a lawyer, too, because in the 2019 decree, the FTC said, quote, “It is ordered that respondent (that's Facebook) in connection with any product or service, shall not misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to which the respondent maintains the privacy or security of covered information” — including, and this skips a few lines, “the extent to which the respondent makes or has made covered information accessible to third parties.” Now, I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that what happened last week with NYU is explicitly a violation of that clause. They misrepresented the way they treat covered information, data that is, under the pretext of privacy or security. Is there going to be a 2021 update to the 2019 update to the 2012 order?OP: I'm not a lawyer, but Facebook tries to exploit ambiguity in ways that conforms to their interests. And for example, that is to say that we are protecting users privacy in order to not allow the NYU researchers to understand how their tools are used.BG: All right. You say ambiguity. This looks pretty expressly stated to me, but I guess this isn't your table. I will ask you what this all means. What are the implications of this dust-up involving a, you know, relatively small research project? What are the implications for the rest of us?OP: It is an issue for the academic community because we as academics struggle to understand technological tools and how they affect the society with very little help in general. And really, this tool has also been invaluable for a lot of researchers and was a useful resource to understand Facebook ads, but generally it also shows how much power we have as academics. And we we need to make calls to policymakers to change things, because the research and the knowledge we can extract will be useful for them and the rest of the society.BG: And concerning your work at Princeton, I know you haven't published yet, but I wonder if there's a sneak preview that you can offer of, if not your absolute finding some interesting tidbits along the way.OP: First, we find limitations, strong limitations, what the data the provided can actually say, like we find unexplainable moderation practices like why ads were removed or not removed, although they define specific guidelines about how ads should be. We also find that a lot of ads are related to protected groups. And there are questions to understand how these protected groups were targeted and make political statements about it. But also, it's not also about our research. Like we are able to access only the data that Facebook gives through their political ads library. So there are thousands or even millions of ads that are placed and researchers cannot get access to them at all. And that's why NYU's project was such a great resource, because there was no other way to get information about these advertisements. I find it personally troubling that there is so much opacity about online ads, but on other ads, like on TV or on radio, you get so much information. And they know there are legal and historical reasons why they are treated differently, but they should not.BG: I want to ask you one final thing, Orestis. Like the wildfires that right now are ravaging Greece and California and elsewhere around the world, authoritarianism is raging. Disinformation has become not just an art, but a science. Millions and millions of people are foolishly swallowing lies and disinformation fed them by cynical politicians. The world is literally in flames. Why do companies like Facebook not rush to provide whatever data they can in support of better academic understanding of what is happening on our screens and in our psyches?OP: I think they followed the idea of the less we provide, the safer we are. I do believe that if we had access to data, we could find positive effects of social media as well. So I don't believe that everything is bad. It's not black and white, but I think they believe that the less they give, the more protected they are because they are afraid that if a very strong regulation is passed, they will lose the ability to, to keep having the same business model they have until today with the same profits.BG: Orestis, thank you so much for joining me.OP: Thanks for having me Bob.BG: Orestis Papakyriakopoulos is a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy. Papakyriakopoulos was perhaps admirably circumspect in casting doubt more on capitalist self-interest than Facebook per se. But whenever these blowups occur, I think back to the first scene of the 2010 movie The Social Network, in which Zuckerberg, played by actor Jesse Eisenberg, is getting dumped by his girlfriend.GIRLFRIEND: You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. You're gonna go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an a*****e.BG: OK, we're done here. Before I sign off, though, I must remind you, I must implore you to comment, rate, share what you've heard here today. And not just Bully Pulpit, but the other Booksmart Studios shows like John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley and Amna Khalid's Banished, both of which programs are like, whoa — tell friends, neighbors, family members, stop strangers on the street. The success of Booksmart, the impact of our work depends as much on you as on us. So please spread the word.Also, if you become a paying subscriber to Booksmart Studios, you will get extended interviews, additional content of other kinds, access to the hosts and in my case, continued access to my weekly column, which is, for the moment, free to sample. Now then, Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Chris Mandra and N'Dinga Gaba are our audio engineers. Bully Pulpit is a production of Bookmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

Lexicon Valley is back! This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

In the fourth episode of High Noon, Inez Stepman talks with Professor John McWhorter, a professor of linguistics at Columbia University and host of a podcast on his subject of expertise called Lexicon Valley. He is also a co-host of the popular Glenn Show, along with Glenn Loury on Bloggingheads TV, as well as an important and valued commentator on matters of race and identity.Stepman and McWhorter discuss the subjects of two different books he has out right now. The first, on the history of English profanities, is Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter, Then, Now and Forever. The second, The Elect, lays out how the ideology surrounding race and identity has moved from mere political commitment to unquestionable religion, and how damaging that is to our ability to think, respect one other, and have adult conversations.--High Noon is an intellectual download featuring conversations that make possible a free society. Inviting interesting thinkers from all parts of the political spectrum to discuss the most controversial subjects of the day in a way that hopes to advance our common American future. Hosted by Inez Stepman of Independent Women's Forum. You can listen to the latest High Noon episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community at iwf.org/connect. Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most. Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day. Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel. Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram #IWF #HighNoonPodcast #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Profanity used to be about someone swearing insincerely to God. Then the Reformation came along and made profanity about sex and the body. Today, our most unspeakable words are slurs against other groups at a time when BLM, #MeToo, and cancel culture are driving our cultural narrative. We talk about the past, present, and future of profanity. GUEST: John McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University. He’s a contributing editor to The Atlantic and host of Slate’s Lexicon Valley podcast. His new book is Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John McWhorter teaches linguistics and music history at Columbia University, is the author of more than 20 books, a contributor to The Atlantic and the host of the Slate podcast Lexicon Valley. If you're a fan of The Unspeakable, you may know John best from his commentary around issues of race. Since 2007, he has been in regular conversation with economist Glenn Loury on the Bloggingheads platform, where is his known as a uniquely honest voice on the complexities-and often the hypocrisies-of certain progressive antiracist orthodoxies. Last summer, he began writing a new book on this subject. The Elect: The Threat to a Progressive America from Anti-Black Antiracists is being made available in serialized form on Substack and will be published later this year. Meanwhile, yet another book, Nine Nasty Words, is out this week. Meghan spoke with John about his work over the last several years, his relationship to academia (including being raised by a leftist professor mom), and how the inspiration for The Elect came from none other than cookbook author Alison Roman.   Guest Bio:    John McWhorter teaches linguistics and music history at Columbia University. His new book about the new antiracist movement, The Elect, is cu being rolled out on his Substack. His book on language Nine Nasty Words, is out this week. You can find him in regular conversation with economist Glenn Loury on The Glenn Show at Bloggingheads.tv.

After a long and arduous finals period, Harry gets an unexpected surprise in Divination, and oh yeah Buckbeak is going to be murdered. So. Email us at restrictedsectionpod@gmail.com to tell us what you thought of Professor Trelawney's Prediction or even what you think of us! We'd love to read your email on the show. Be sure to subscribe to know right away about new episodes, and rate and review! SUPPORT US ON OUR PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/therestrictedsection THANK YOU LOVE YOU BUY OUR MERCH: https://www.bonfire.com/store/restrictedsectionpod/ THANK YOU LOVE YOU IG: https://www.instagram.com/restrictedsectionpod/ TW: https://twitter.com/restrictedpod FB: https://www.facebook.com/groups/rspoddetentioncrew/ Check out our other amazing Movie Night Crew Network podcasts! This episode featured: Christina Kann: IG @yagirloftheworld TW @christina_kann TikTok @tinafontina Christina plugged Lexicon Valley. Brooke Matherly: IG @passion_for_parks TW @grumpybrooke Brooke plugged just hiking in general. Try AllTrails and/or the 60 Hikes in 60 Miles series. Special guest Alexis Ortiz! Alexis plugged generally getting a cup of destiny, which you can find on Etsy, as well as Last Tango in Halifax.

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about race, racism, and “anti-racism” in America. They discuss how conceptions of racism have changed, the ubiquitous threat of being branded a “racist,” the contradictions within identity politics, recent echoes of the OJ verdict, willingness among progressives to lose the 2020 election, racism as the all-purpose explanation of racial disparities in the U.S., double standards for the black community, the war on drugs, the lure of identity politics, police violence, the enduring riddle of affirmative action, the politics of “black face,” and other topics. John McWhorter is a professor of linguistics, philosophy, and music history at Columbia University, and writes for various publications on language issues and race issues such as Time, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Beast, CNN, and The Atlantic. He also hosts the podcast Lexicon Valley at Slate. He most recently wrote Talking Back Talking Black: Truths About America’s Lingua Franca. Twitter: @JohnHMcWhorter

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we'll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he's a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you're listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd.

Vat dit met 'n bietjie sout! (Gerhard van Huyssteen). Sê ons in Afrikaans jy moet iets met 'n knippie/knypie/korreltjie sout neem/vat? En waar kom die uitdrukking vandaan? Kry ons ook dieselfde wisseling in Engels (tussen "a pinch/grain of salt")? Hierdie vrae word aan die hand van uitgebreide korpusdata ondersoek en toegelig. Lexicon Valley · VivA se webwerf

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap the Season 5 finale of The Walking Dead, “Conquer.”   Mike is the host ofSlate's Lexicon Valley podcast and a senior producer forSlatepodcasts, and Chris is a producer for theSlate Video team.   Slate Plus members were able to download an early release, ad-free version of Slate's Walking Dead podcast. To learn more and to try Slate Plus free for two weeks, visit Slate.com/DeadPlus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 15 of The Walking Dead, “Try.”   Mike is the host ofSlate's Lexicon Valley podcast and a senior producer forSlatepodcasts, and Chris is a producer for theSlate Video team.   Slate Plus members can download an ad-free version of Slate's Walking Dead podcast. To learn more and to try Slate Plus free for two weeks, visit Slate.com/DeadPlus.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 14 of The Walking Dead, “Spend.”   Mike is the host ofSlate's Lexicon Valley podcast and a senior producer forSlatepodcasts, and Chris is a producer for theSlate Video team.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 13 of The Walking Dead, “Forget.”   Mike is the host ofSlate's Lexicon Valley podcast and a senior producer forSlatepodcasts, and Chris is a producer for theSlate Video team.   Slate Plus members can download Slate's Walking Dead podcast immediately following the broadcast of new episodes on AMC. To learn more and to try Slate Plus free for two weeks, visit: Slate.com/DeadPlus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 12 of The Walking Dead, “Remember.”   Mike is the host of Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast and a senior producer for Slate podcasts, and Chris is a producer for the Slate Video team.   Slate Plus members can download Slate's Walking Dead podcast immediately following the broadcast of new episodes on AMC. To learn more and to try Slate Plus free for two weeks, visit: Slate.com/DeadPlus   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 11 of The Walking Dead, "The Distance.” Mike is a senior producer and the host of Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast, and Chris is a Slate video producer.     Slate Plus members can download Slate's Walking Dead podcast immediately following the broadcast of new episodes on AMC. To learn more, try Slate Plus free for two weeks at Slate.com/DeadPlus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade recap Episode 10 of The Walking Dead, "Them." Mike is a senior producer and the host of Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast, and Chris is a Slate video producer.   Slate Plus members can download Slate's Walking Dead podcast immediately following the broadcast of new episodes on AMC. Learn more and try Slate Plus free for two weeks at Slate.com/DeadPlus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back! With the return of Season 5, listen to a recap of the midseason premiere, "What Happened and What's Going On.” This is Slate's Walking Dead podcast recap and spoiler special, hosted by Mike Vuolo and Chris Wade. Mike is the host of Lexicon Valley and a senior producer for Slate podcasts. Chris is a producer for the Slate Video team. Be forewarned: We'll do our best to make this a weekly recap, but we might miss a week or two. For the second half of Season 5, Slate Plus members will have early access to the podcast. Approximately twenty-four hours after the podcast has been published for members, we'll allow non-members to access the latest episode.  Slate Plus members can also leave questions and comments for Mike and Chris on the podcast show page. Complete Slate's podcast listener survey! Tell us about yourself and your favorite podcasts so Slate can serve you better. We'd appreciate two minutes of your time. Go to slate.com/survey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices