Podcasts

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares49 Views

    Being born in north-east England gives you grit, says Fiona Hill

    by

    There is a “resilience and grit” that comes from being born in the north-east of England, says Fiona Hill, who went from a working-class childhood in County Durham to a top intelligence job at the heart of the White House.But, she believes, it is also a big reason why she and other notable high achievers have had the success they have. The secret of success could be being from the north-east.Hill has talked to a number of figures from – or with strong links to – the north-east for her new Forged in the North podcast series, which will be launched at Durham book festival in October.They include two global figures originally from the same part of Wallsend: the Cramlington primary school teacher turned superstar Sting, and the Yale historian Paul Kennedy.“It’s basically just listening to two people who seem on the surface so completely different but have this common origin story,” says Hill.Other podcast guests are Lee Hall, the writer of Billy Elliot; Brendan Foster, the founder of the Great North Run; the north-east mayor, Kim McGuinness; the Dragons’ Den entrepreneur Sara Davies; the dramatist Peter Straughan; and the Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson, who lives in Stockton-on-Tees.Hill was born and brought up in Bishop Auckland, the daughter of a coalminer and a midwife. She and her accent went on to be a foreign affairs adviser to US presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump and she is considered one of the world’s leading experts on Russia and Putin.Last year she was named as one of three advisers to oversee the UK government’s strategic defence review.The new series is born, Hill says, of a belief that “too much happens down in London, as if the rest of the country doesn’t exist”.The hope is to “put the spotlight on a region that is normally only in the headlines for something going wrong: child poverty, the lowest life expectancy, worst nutrition”, she says.“The north-east is home of the Industrial Revolution – literally the engines of prosperity. Two hundred years ago, it was the forefront of innovation, and we’re saying, there’s still a lot of potential for innovation.”Hill turns 60 this year and is planning a trip back to the north-east from her home in the US. She says: “I’ve always wanted to walk along a portion of Hadrian’s Wall, I want to go back up the Northumberland coast. I want to come back for all the stories and storytelling I remember as a kid from the region.”It was in this context that the idea of the podcast series came about, with the aim of telling stories about the north “not just how it was, but how it is and how it might be”.Many cultural figures have talked passionately about the importance of where they are from. The Hull-born playwright Richard Bean once said: “Thank God I wasn’t born in Guildford. Thank God I was born somewhere there is tragedy and comedy every other second.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHill says coming from the north-east gives “a certain resilience and grit”. “Being from the north-east grounds you, it’s an anchor, a solid base with a strong sense of what’s right and wrong and a clear perspective and values.”She points to a recent poll revealing how people from the north-east have a stronger attachment to their region than other parts of England. “There’s a sense of solidarity that’s been forged in adversity. Everyone’s thrown all kinds of rubbish at the north historically … but it has a resilience.”The importance of investing in people while they are young is a theme of the podcast discussions, says Hill, who got a grant from the Durham Miners’ Association to take a Russian language course to pursue her ambition to go to university.Straughan and Hall got started with enterprise grants and through locally funded theatres. Interestingly, McGuinness and Davies, both younger interviewees, say they had to make their own luck, with Davies using her savings to start her successful business.McGuinness says the series resonated with her ambition for the north-east to be a cultural powerhouse. “This important podcast shines a light on how with the right support, talent can truly thrive.“Funding in our region’s art sector has been outpaced by the south for some time. I’m determined to fix that cultural chasm and the cycle of regional inequality, positioning the north-east as a strong contender in the UK economy.” More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares78 Views

      in World Politics

      Project 2025 and Donald Trump’s Dangerous Dismantling of the US Federal Government

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh, or the Rajput, and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle, or the WASP, examine US President Donald Trump’s cuts to the US federal government. Their wide-ranging discussion blends sharp historical insight with ideological critique, seeking to make sense of today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      They emphasize that this topic has global resonance, since the world still depends on the stability and leadership of the United States. The discussion, therefore, becomes both an internal American debate and an international concern.

      Trump’s attack on federal agencies

      Atul and Glenn begin by cataloging specific Trump-era actions they view as evidence of a systematic weakening of the federal apparatus. These include the removal of officials such as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Billy Long. They argue that such moves, combined with a broader hollowing out of institutions like the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the CIA, US Agency for International Development and NASA, represent an intentional “gutting” of agencies crucial to governance and public welfare.

      Atul and Glenn insist that these institutions exist not only for technical governance but also for maintaining the credibility of the American democratic model. If the credibility of these institutions collapses, it erodes public trust and damages the US’s global standing.

      Norquist’s philosophy and Ronald Reagan’s agenda

      Glenn situates Trump’s efforts within a longer ideological arc. He traces them back to US President Ronald Reagan’s “revolution,” which reduced faith in government and elevated conservative economic philosophy. Reagan’s agenda, amplified by figures such as Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist — who is famous for wanting to shrink government so small he could “drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” — and bolstered by conservative think tanks, paved the way for what Glenn calls today’s “Trumpian revolution.”

      Atul adds that the Reagan years were not just an American turning point, but part of a broader global shift toward neoliberalism, deregulation and privatization. The ideological groundwork laid in that era, they contend, continues to shape political agendas today.

      Trump and Project 2025

      Central to the conversation is Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation initiative Atul and Glenn describe as a radical blueprint. Its goals include cutting the federal workforce by half and dramatically expanding presidential powers. They stress that these proposals would not only disrupt government efficiency and accountability but also tilt the balance of power sharply toward the executive branch.

      Atul and Glenn emphasize that the size of the workforce reflects the government’s ability to deliver services, regulate markets and provide stability in times of crisis. Reducing this by half would, in their view, leave the country dangerously exposed.

      Federal layoffs under Trump 2.0

      Atul and Glenn note that Trump’s current plans echo his first term, but with greater intensity. They state that proposals to eliminate 50% of the federal workforce are unprecedented in scope. They interpret these layoffs as more than cost-cutting; they are an ideological purge designed to weaken federal institutions and concentrate loyalty directly under presidential control. Such measures would ripple outward beyond Washington to ordinary citizens who depend on federal programs, grants and regulatory oversight for health, education and economic stability.

      Presidential control: a threat to US democracy?

      Glenn links Trump’s approach to the legal philosophy of Carl Schmitt, “[Adolf] Hitler’s legal theorist,” who defended the primacy of unchecked executive authority in Nazi Germany. Schmitt’s concept of the unitary executive resonates with Trump’s own political movement, Glenn argues, by undermining checks and balances and normalizing near-absolute presidential power. This strikes at the heart of democratic governance.

      Atul points out that the American system was designed around the separation of powers. If that foundation is eroded, the US risks losing what has long been its distinctive democratic safeguard.

      The Republican Party’s evolution

      The conversation also turns to the broader Republican Party. Atul and Glenn argue that decades of conservative activism, think tank influence and shifting party priorities have steered the Grand Old Party toward radical centralization of power. They suggest that what once seemed like outlandish ideas are now mainstream within the Republican platform, particularly under Trump’s leadership. This shift is both political and cultural, representing a redefinition of what conservatism means in the US.

      Fascism, strongmen and the future

      Atul and Glenn conclude with a sober warning: Left unchecked, the United States risks sliding from liberal democracy into what they call a “conservative autocracy.” They point to echoes of strongman politics and fascist ideology, stressing the long-term danger of normalizing authoritarian principles. At the same time, they note Trump’s diverse support base — including many immigrants who align with cultural conservatism and share a disdain for bureaucracy — as evidence that these dynamics are both complex and deeply embedded in American society.

      They highlight that this contradiction of immigrants supporting an anti-immigrant politician reveals how cultural and ideological affinities can often outweigh personal experience. The episode ends as a call to reflect on the fragility of democratic institutions and the vigilance required to protect them.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 175 Shares101 Views

      in World Politics

      FO° Podcasts: Why Has Trump Deployed Thousands of National Guard Troops in Washington, DC?

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Ankit Jain, a voting rights attorney and the shadow senator of Washington, DC. Together, they discuss the city’s unusual political status, US President Donald Trump’s interventions in the capital and broader questions about crime, governance, statehood and the future of American democracy.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      What is a shadow senator?

      Jain begins by clarifying his unusual role as one of DC’s two elected shadow senators. Unlike other states, Washington, DC, has no voting representation in Congress. To push for statehood and defend its autonomy, the city created two non-voting senators and one non-voting representative. Jain, elected in November 2024 and sworn in this January, explains that his position is part-advocate, part-lobbyist and part-symbolic lawmaker. His chief responsibility is to fight for DC to become the 51st state and secure full representation for its 700,000 residents.

      Turmoil in Washington, DC?

      Singh turns the conversation to Trump’s controversial policy decisions in the capital. Jain describes how Trump took control of the Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days, placing it under a presidentially appointed official. Trump also sent in hundreds of federal agents and more than 2,000 National Guard troops. The stated aim was to reduce crime, but Jain argues the real goal was to reshape policing “in his own image,” encouraging brutality and overriding DC laws on cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He points to raids that terrified the Latino community and recalls seeing federal troops idling around tourist sites like the National Mall rather than addressing real problems.

      DC’s governance structure

      Jain then explains how fragile DC’s self-government really is. While the city elects a mayor and council, the federal government controls the judiciary and prosecution of adult crimes. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the US Attorney — also a presidential appointee — handles prosecutions. Right now, one in five local court seats sits vacant, slowing trials and fueling more crime. The US Attorney’s office, meanwhile, suffers from mass firings that gutted its capacity. Even when DC passes its own laws, Congress can block or repeal them within 30 to 60 days. To Jain, this makes self-rule an illusion, unlike London or other world capitals, where residents govern their own affairs.

      Crime in DC

      Trump has repeatedly claimed that crime in Washington is spiraling. Jain challenges this, citing objective data: Crime is down 25% year-on-year, violent crime is at a 30-year low and overall rates remain below pre-COVID-19 levels. He accuses Trump of spreading lies to justify costly deployments that burn “millions of [taxpayer] dollars a day” without solving problems.

      Jain acknowledges DC still faces crime and homelessness, but argues solutions require smarter police deployment, housing reform and more funding for mental health. It does not need troop surges and headline-grabbing raids. He also notes that federal restrictions like the Height Act prevent the city from building enough affordable housing, driving rents higher and fueling homelessness.

      Trump’s attacks on DC

      Jain sees Trump’s interventions as part of a larger pattern. By stripping money from DC’s budget, firing federal workers and blocking judicial nominations, Trump is deliberately weakening the city. These moves deepen DC’s “mini-recession” and leave essential services, from schools to emergency response, undermanned. In Jain’s view, Trump’s goal is not to fix urban challenges but to create crises, then claim sweeping authority to impose his preferred policies.

      Should Washington, DC, be a state?

      For Jain, it is clear that Washington, DC, should be a state. He argues that nearly every problem facing the capital — crime policy, housing shortages, budget manipulation — stems from the fact that DC is not a state. Its residents pay taxes, serve in the military and number more than Wyoming or Vermont, yet they lack voting representation. Jain calls it a modern case of “taxation without representation,” pointing out that no other democratic nation in the world denies its capital city’s residents the vote. Statehood, he insists, is the only path to justice.

      The National Guard in other cities?

      Singh raises Trump’s threats to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois. Jain warns this is no idle talk — DC is simply the test case. Because it is not a state, it was an easy target. If successful, Trump could expand the model to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coercing them into repealing policies or cutting federal funds. Jain calls this a “dangerous precedent” and urges Senate Democrats to resist using every tool available, including the filibuster, to stop such power grabs.

      Democrats need an upgrade

      Finally, Singh raises a broader critique: Democrats have failed urban America. Jain concedes there is truth in this. Democrats, he says, often rely too much on the “old guard” and resist fresh ideas. Still, he pushes back against Republican attacks, noting that Grand Old Party-led cities often have higher crime rates, largely because of permissive gun laws. He argues that Democrats need to show a new vision while Republicans must stop blocking gun control measures and sabotaging agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

      To Jain, Trump’s actions in DC reveal a deeper threat: an authoritarian drift that undermines American democracy itself. If left unchecked, he warns, it could spread from Washington to the rest of the nation.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Marc Maron’s Podcast Helped Me See a Creative Future

      by

      On Monday, the comedian Marc Maron said that he would be ending his podcast, which has been running since 2009. I have been listening to Maron’s delightfully surly interview show, “WTF With Marc Maron,” since its early days. In the year 2025 it is hard to believe that a comedian interviewing other comedians could feel utterly fresh and transgressive, but I swear that it once did.Maron has described creating the podcast as a Hail Mary. He had just divorced his second wife and lost his radio job on the failing Air America network. Maron told New York magazine’s Jada Yuan in 2012, “I had nothing. My manager had hung me out to dry. I was barely solvent. It was sort of like, How do I not die broke?”That year — 2012 — was a difficult one for me. I found out I was pregnant on my second day of work at a new, challenging job, and within another two weeks was so sick I could barely leave the bathroom. I ended up quitting because I simply could not do it, and I didn’t know when I would feel better. When I could finally hold down food six months into my pregnancy, I would waddle through my neighborhood, listening to Maron work through his neuroses and challenge his guests to do the same.The podcast made me feel as if, even though I was unemployed and depressed, I could also come back from career humiliation in a way that could be creatively satisfying, and that one day I would be able to talk about it without shame. I wasn’t sure how it would look or how long it might take, only that it was possible.What always set “WTF” apart from other audio interview shows was Maron’s vulnerability and presence. The podcast tends to open with a long rant from Maron, which feels like he’s opening up his brain and inviting the audience to peer into the jumble: his relationship angst, the high jinks of his beloved feral cats, his creative struggles, his petty grievances, his grief over a partner, the director Lynn Shelton, who died suddenly and too young.That openness always extended to his guests, which tended to provoke from them genuine and unexpected responses. The comedian Todd Glass came out publicly on the pod in 2012, and my personal favorite moment was when Ali Wong pumped breast milk on air in 2016.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Michelle Obama 2.0 – the reinvention of the former first lady

      by

      Hello and welcome to The Long Wave. This week, I review Michelle Obama’s new podcast, IMO, which is surprising in the ways it breaks with the Michelle of the past.I came to sneer – and stayed to cheerView image in fullscreenFirst, a disclaimer: I had never fully bought into the Michelle Obama hype. I felt her now legendary line “When they go low, we go high” encapsulated a troubling and complacent form of respectability politics, in which Black people have to maintain coolness and grace under fire to be taken seriously. As the first lady, Michelle often seemed like a sanitising presence, wheeled out so that her national treasure status could serve as a smokescreen to obscure more honest and damning assessments of Barack Obama’s political record.Also, I am not a huge fan of the celebrity podcast genre, which is a vehicle for high-profile figures to chat to their friends in return for huge pay packets. So I was sceptical when Michelle’s podcast was launched in March. Yet when I listened to it, I was immediately charmed and hooked. In truth, I came to sneer and stayed to cheer. She is honest, reflective and vulnerable in ways that are profoundly resonant of a universal Black female experience, something that her icon status had rarely spoken to previously. The irony is that just as Michelle is finding her voice, her popularity appears to be falling – the podcast received poor ratings on launch, though it’s arguably the best thing she’s ever done.A great orator has the conversation of her lifeView image in fullscreenThe most arresting thing about IMO, despite the genuinely interesting high-profile Black guests such as Keke Palmer and the Wayans brothers, is Obama herself. She has always been one of the great orators in US politics – one of the superpowers that made her and Barack, another impressive public speaker, such a compelling couple on the world stage. In her podcast, Michelle uses this talent to reflect on her life and the challenges of ageing, losing her parents and the constant demands placed upon her.The fact that she co-hosts the show with her brother, Craig Robinson – a genial and down-to-earth foil for her confessions – gives the podcast such an intimate air that you feel like you’re in the presence of everyday people, not celebrities. I found myself listening not to hear any snippets of political gossip or insight into the Obamas’ lifestyle, but to receive some exceptionally articulated wisdom from an older Black woman who has seen a lot and gone through milestones we will all experience.She is also funny. Her account of how differently men and women socialise is familiar and hilarious. Michelle describes catching up with her female friends as a “multiday event”, something that leaves Barack perplexed as to why it takes two days for a basic meetup.There is pathos and uncertainty, too. In a recent episode, Michelle talks about the death of her mother, who lived in the White House during the Obamas’ tenure. Michelle says that, at 61, only now does she feel that she has finally become an adult, having had to reckon with her own mortality after the loss of her parents. The former first lady has revealed that she is in therapy, and that she is still trying to navigate this phase of her life.And, in a striking segment, she speaks with barely restrained annoyance about her reasons for not attending Trump’s inauguration, an absence that triggered divorce rumours that have been swirling for months. She says “it took everything in [her] power” to choose what was right for her in that moment. Yet that decision was met with “ridicule” because people couldn’t believe she was saying no to the inauguration for any other reason than she just did not want to be there – they had to “assume my marriage was falling apart”. Oof. It caught my breath.Beyond Black Girl Magicskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenThis Michelle is worlds away from the Michelle of the 2010s. The publishing juggernaut and icon of Black social mobility, who rose to first lady from a bungalow in the south side of Chicago, was the product of a particular moment in feminist and racial discourse.The start of that decade brought the rise of Black Girl Magic, a cultural movement that focused on the exceptional achievements and power of Black women. It intersected with Black Joy, which moved away from defining the Black experience primarily through racism and struggle. Both unfolded against the backdrop of “lean in” feminism, which glorified hard graft, corporate success and having it all. The result was the marketing of women such as Michelle to promote popular narratives of inspiration and empowerment.That energy has since dissipated, losing steam culturally and overtaken by more urgent battles. The gains of the Black Lives Matter movement triggered a rightwing backlash against diversity and inclusion that is spearheaded by Trump. Now the Obamas seem like relics of a naively optimistic and complacent time.‘We got out of the White House alive – but what happened to me?’View image in fullscreenBut all that change and disappointment seems to have freed Michelle from the expectation that she should project graceful power and guru-like wisdom at all times. The podcast may not be the runaway hit it might have been 10 years ago, but that speaks to its authenticity and refreshing lack of a cynical big marketing campaign. Michelle is not trying to catch a moment – she even looks different. Gone is the silk-pressed hair, the minimalist jewellery and the pencil dresses. She now embraces boho braids, long colourful nails and bold gold jewellery. In an episode of IMO, she asks herself: “What happened that eight years that we were in the White House? We got out alive; I hope we made the country proud. But what happened to me?” There is so much urgency in her voice. And though her high-octane political experience may not be relatable to the average person, that question is one that I and many women of a certain age are asking as we emerge, blinking into the light, from the tunnel of navigating racism, establishing careers against the odds and having families. What happened to me?To receive the complete version of The Long Wave in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here. More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The rule of law in Trump’s America and what it means for Mel Gibson’s guns – podcast

      by

      Archive: ABC News, Face the Nation, CBS News, CNN, PBS, NBC News, Fox News, WHAS11
      Buy a ticket to the Guardian’s special event, looking at 100 days of Trump’s presidency, with Jonathan Freedland
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      A crack in the manosphere: Joe Rogan’s guests are revolting | Sam Wolfson

      by

      Sam Harris is the kind of guest Joe Rogan loves to have on his podcast: he dresses awkwardly in a sport coat with jeans; he undertook a PhD in neuroscience after a transformative experience with MDMA; his tone is accessible yet patronising; he has a sense of academic authority which belies a set of controversial views that include calling Islam “uniquely uncivil” and almost unfettered support for Israeli attacks on Gaza; he made an app called Waking Up, which promises to be “a new operating system for your mind”. Rogan has hosted Harris on his podcast many times and the pair call each other good friends.But even Harris seems perturbed by Rogan’s more wholehearted embrace of Musk and Maga. “He’s in over his head on so many topics of great consequence,” Harris told his listeners of his own podcast last week. “He’ll bring someone in to shoot the shit on ‘how the Holocaust is not what you think it was’ or ‘maybe Churchill was the bad guy in world war two’ … or he’ll talk to someone like Trump or Tucker Carlson, who lie as freely as they breathe, and doesn’t push back against any of their lies … It is irresponsible, and it’s directly harmful.”Joe Rogan’s podcast success has in large part been about building a community of regular guests from the worlds of comedy, wrestling, psychedelics and non-fiction publishing, a kind of Rogansphere that has begun to feel like a subculture. He hosts his favourite guests time after time, with many of them building entire careers off their appearances on the show.But recently, various members of the Rogansphere have started to turn against their leader. They can’t understand how the host of the most popular podcast in the world seems to have gone from examining both sides to defending Elon Musk at every turn and providing a platform for second world war revisionists.View image in fullscreenIn the past few months, Rogan has called people who thought Elon Musk’s hand gesture was a Nazi salute “dumb”, “crazy”, “illogical and weird” and defended it by saying it’s how Americans used to give the pledge of allegiance in the 1940s. Weeks later, he gave a very sympathetic interview to the podcaster Darryl Cooper, who has previously called Winston Churchill the main villain of the second world war and tweeted an image of Nazis in Paris, saying it was “infinitely preferable” to the drag “Last Supper” scene at the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony.Rogan wasn’t always like this. Over the past decade he has built his podcast into by far the most successful in the world, weathering numerous controversies. He spent much of his career being mislabelled as ideologically rightwing or misogynistic when in fact he’s more of a simpleton who agrees with almost everyone who comes on his show, even when the things they’re saying are contradictory. He has been a staunch believer “in just asking questions” but not so much in listening to or processing the answers. He has supported both Bernie Sanders and RFK Jr, and has taken conflicting views on everything from trans rights to Ye, sometimes hilariously so.The best thing you could say about Rogan is that he is distrustful of all mainstream narratives, in an indiscriminate way. That’s led to him promoting a number of conspiracy theories that fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines and the climate crisis, but also vocally criticising the war in Gaza and the influence of lobbyists in Washington DC.But his outlook has shifted since Trump was elected for the second time, a victory many credit to a good performance on Rogan’s podcast and Rogan’s subsequent endorsement. On Saturday night at a UFC fight, Rogan ran into Trump, warmly embraced him and said: “I’m so happy for you sir.” Many of his biggest fans, those that discuss episodes in detail on Reddit and Discord, are complaining that he has become a shill for the elites he used to claim to distrust.Rogan has tended to brush off these critiques in the past, saying he’s just an interested comedian asking questions. But even Rogan’s comedy friends have started to bristle at his unwavering support for Musk. Rogan values comedy above all else, investing much of the riches from his podcast in the Austin comedy scene, buying up clubs and appearing regularly as a panellist on Kill Tony, the open-mic standup podcast that takes shots at perceived wokeism. Rogan has a regular cast of comedians on his podcast including Shane Gillis, Kyle Dunnigan and Tim Dillon. These comedians give Rogan his street credibility, and he in turn has given them a huge platform.While they haven’t turned on Rogan yet, they are incredibly disparaging about Musk. Dillon called Musk’s White House press conference “the grossest and cringiest shit anyone has seen for a long time … I disagree with close friends of mine who think Elon Musk is the new Jesus.” Gillis laughed about Musk’s salute on his podcast, and said he thought Musk was “psychotic” and “fucking weird” for lying about how good he is at video games.Rogan meanwhile has recently called Musk “a super genius that’s been fucked with” and “one of the smartest people alive”.This emerging divide between Rogan and his comedic milieu came to a head last month at the recording of Kill Tony’s first special for Netflix (filmed at Rogan’s Comedy Mothership club in Austin). Both Dunnigan and Rogan were on the panel together but Dunnigan was in character, hilariously, as Musk. It was a brilliant and vicious send-up of Musk’s bizarre humour and minimal intelligence that had everyone laughing except Rogan, who avoided making eye contact or saying almost anything for the entire episode. It seemed as though he didn’t want to give any impression to Musk that he was was mocking him.There are no simple ideological lines being drawn between Rogan and the guests that are turning on him. Douglas Murray, for example, is an incredibly conservative pro-Israel historian who supports the withdrawal of visas from students who demonstrated on college campuses last year and has said he wants to ban “all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries”. In many ways he is to the right of Rogan, and used much of his appearance losing a debate on the podcast with his fellow guest Dave Smith over Gaza. Yet he also used his time to admonish Rogan for having too many amateur and conspiracy theory-minded historians on the podcast. “I feel you’ve opened the door to quite a lot of people. You’ve now got a big platform and have been throwing out counter-historical stuff but a very dangerous kind.”Rogan had very little in the way of a meaningful defence. Defending why he had the conspiracy theorist and Pizzagate proponent Ian Carroll on his program, Rogan replied: “I just think I’d like to talk to this person … I brought him on because I want to find out, like, how does one get involved in the whole conspiracy theory business? Because his whole thing is just conspiracies.”There are no smart guys here; both Murray and Rogan have tendency to use circuitous straw man arguments that suit their specific brand of politics. But it does show cracks in the cultural wing of Trumpism.Rogan himself seems to be backing down from a full-throated endorsement of the president’s policies, calling the Venezuelan deportations “horrific” and “bad for the cause”, and calling Trump’s feud with Canada over tariffs “stupid”. Last month he said healthcare should “100% should be socially funded” and was celebrated by Bernie Sanders for doing so.Yet these acknowledgements of bad policies haven’t translated into a lack of enthusiasm for either Trump or Musk, yet. But with Rogan it only takes one convincing guest to change his mind.What’s more, Rogan’s main constituency of listeners, young men, appear to be feeling buyer’s remorse about Trump, with new polling suggesting the group is swinging away from the president. Where his audience go, Rogan tends to follow.On his podcast, Harris told his listeners: “Our society is as politically shattered as it is in part because of how Joe [Rogan] has interacted with information.” Rogan might revel in criticism from progressives, but barbs from his friends are likely to sting. How long Trump can count on Rogan’s cuddles and warm wishes might depend on whether his favourite guests begin to ostracize him. More

    • 300 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The week in audio: Die Die DEI; Drama on 4: The Film; Good Hang with Amy Poehler; Confessions of a Female Founder and more

      by

      The Slow Newscast: Die Die DEI (Tortoise Media)Drama on 4: The Film (Radio 4) | BBC SoundsGood Hang with Amy Poehler (The Ringer)Confessions of a Female Founder with Meghan (Lemonada)Working Hard, Hardly Working (Grace Beverley) | Apple podcastsThe Slow Newscast is usually worth a listen. Take Die Die DEI, from the week before last. Queasy and pointed, it tackles the issue of the Trump administration’s “war on woke”. As soon as the orange man-baby got into office, his government started shutting down inclusion programmes, and corporate US followed. Why? It’s not about saving money, or terminology-wrangling. It’s far more deeply prejudiced.View image in fullscreenWritten and presented by Stephen Armstrong, the show focuses on one particular member of the Trump administration: the deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, Stephen Miller. Described baldly by one contributor as “a violently rightwing racist who is pushing a white nationalist agenda”, he is far from a nice guy. But Armstrong is wise enough to tell Miller’s story gradually. He was brought up in liberal, multiracial Santa Monica, California. Yet as a kid he dumps one of his friends by telling him exactly why he doesn’t like him. “Among that list of things,” recalls the friend, “was my Latino heritage. That was one of the things that disqualified me from being his friend.”We follow Miller through his college years, a controversial rape case (not his: he supported some lacrosse players who were falsely accused of sexual assault) and into the Senate. There, he uses the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) approach against itself, telling white people that they are, in fact, victims. “Hijacked victimhood” is what it’s called: the idea that your lifestyle – your life – is put in a precarious position because other people are different from you. The way Miller plays it, it’s a zero-sum game. You must triumph and “they” – people not like you – must be vanquished.Armstrong’s script is excellent. I could quote from any part of the show, but he really hits his stride towards the end. “Don’t get distracted by absurdities. This administration is throwing out so many bouncing, multicoloured balls that it’s almost impossible to focus on what’s important. The trick is to watch Stephen Miller. When he says something, it matters… The truth is, his views haven’t changed since he dumped his best friend for being Latino.”There’s something at once modern and classic about Armstrong’s script, and I thought about this while listening to Drama on 4: The Film, a small gem of a radio play about a movie. Its subject is a true story. In 1945, Sidney Bernstein, a film-maker and producer, was given hundreds of hours of footage from the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Shot by British army crews for the Ministry of Information, the footage was basic but devastating, full of appalling, cruel, hellish murder. How to make this into a film that would both engage and expose the public to the horrors of the Holocaust? How to do justice to the suffering? Amazingly, Bernstein asked Alfred Hitchcock to help. And Hitch, initially reluctant, said yes.Written by Martin Jameson, The Film is a Radio 4 drama of ye olde school: rather stagey, with theatrical speeches and performances. But it’s also nicely paced, well acted, clear, moral. I found myself almost relieved that it exists. Not just because it’s about the Holocaust, which should never be forgotten, but because it’s an interesting real-life story that’s a play, as opposed to an episode of a clever news podcast. Old-fashioned audio.View image in fullscreenHere’s an example of new-fashioned audio, and it’s one that promises much. Amy Poehler, delightfully funny comedian and actor, has decided “about four or five years too late” to give us a podcast. The pitch for Good Hang with Amy Poehler must have had producers drooling: Poehler simply scrolls her contacts list, calls up a famous mate and has a chat, avoiding anything controversial in favour of having a laugh.Her first episode was with Tina Fey, who, being Tina Fey, took over and gave us insight (she works 12 hour days, plus “homework” in the evening) and wit (she’s worried about becoming one of those older Hollywood types who just “tells it like it is”). But, God, it only takes a couple of episodes before we find ourselves riding on fumes. All is slapdash and self-congratulatory. An episode with actor Ike Barinholtz gives us almost nothing. There’s a passing reference to him getting in an ecstasy mess in Amsterdam when he was younger, but we breeze past, and by the end of the show we know him no better. In every episode, Poehler enthuses so much about her guest – to their face! – that it feels performative. She laughs too much and for too long. Are these incredibly successful, creative, funny people so insecure that they need bolstering every other sentence? (Yes, clearly.)View image in fullscreenIn a similar vein, please welcome Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s latest podcast venture, Confessions of a Female Founder. Actually, don’t bother, unless OMG-yes-sister-and-you-look-so-good-while-doing-it is your thing. Honestly, I think it’s just how they talk over there. Their idea of a good hang, or a good podcast, is different from ours, and involves a lot less piss-taking.Meghan’s first show is with Whitney Wolfe Herd, founder of dating app Bumble, but, nope, we don’t learn anything much, except about how Megs and Whits met (it was NYE and Wolfe Herd was wearing a rhinestone cowboy costume! The embarrassment!) and how supportive they are of each other.View image in fullscreenIf you want a decent podcast from a 28-year-old entrepreneur who’s already built three companies and is generous with her business tips, then I recommend Grace Beverley’s Working Hard, Hardly Working, now on episode 133. She also interrupts her guests too much to talk about her own life, but you get far more corporate insight and life practicality. The world, it seems, is full of these frantically perfectionist, success-obsessed, greige-swathed young women trying to get their life to work. I’d say relax, but they can’t. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Andy Beshear Slams Gavin Newsom for Having Steve Bannon on Podcast

      by

      “I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform — ever, anywhere,” the Democratic governor of Kentucky said of President Trump’s former chief strategist.Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky sharply disagreed with a decision by Gov. Gavin Newsom of California to host Steve Bannon, one of the architects of the MAGA movement, on Mr. Newsom’s new podcast this week, saying Mr. Bannon’s voice should not be elevated “on any platform ever, anywhere.”Mr. Beshear, a Democrat who was vetted to be former Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024 and who is considered a possible candidate for president in 2028, made his comments on Thursday, shortly before speaking to House Democrats gathered for a planning retreat in Northern Virginia this week.“I think that Governor Newsom bringing on different voices is great,” Mr. Beshear told a small group of reporters. “We shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone. But Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform — ever, anywhere.”Mr. Beshear was speaking to the conference along with two other Democratic governors who are considered possible 2028 contenders: Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.Mr. Newsom is also considered a potential 2028 candidate. He started a podcast this month, bringing on big-name conservatives including Mr. Bannon, a fierce Trump loyalist, and Charlie Kirk, who leads Turning Point USA, the conservative network.Mr. Newsom’s decision to host Mr. Kirk and especially Mr. Bannon has received some blowback. Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman who did not run for re-election in 2022 after becoming a vocal Trump critic, said in a video that hosting them was “insane.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More