Itemoids

Twitter

Can Movie Fans Ever Have a Nice Thing?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 06 › turner-classic-movies-changes › 674564

Clicking the channel over to Turner Classic Movies, with its ad-free screenings of old films, curated introductions by experts, and interviews with directors and movie historians, is a genuine pleasure. The channel’s deep library, presented with thought and care and largely composed of titles from the history of Warner Bros., MGM, and RKO, is one of the most impressive film archives around, and it’s available to basically any cable subscriber. There are few viewing experiences left in the world of television that I might call “wholesome,” but TCM is one of them.

So last week’s news that TCM—a small part of the Warner Bros. Discovery media umbrella—had been targeted for layoffs and budget cuts by Warner CEO David Zaslav felt like a sad reflection of our current media landscape. TCM’s existence felt anomalous in a world where even big streaming networks are starting to push out ad-supported tiers; its expert curation was a rarity, given that most apps burden the viewer with picking what to watch from thousands of choices with very little guidance. TCM is where I’ve watched many unheralded masterpieces for the first time, scouring through the listings to find noir classics and Golden Age musicals, but also underseen gems such as Kathleen Collins’s Losing Ground and Paul Bartel’s Eating Raoul.

Anxiety about TCM’s future has simmered since Warner Bros. began its merger with Discovery in 2022. Zaslav started to make cuts across the portfolio once the deal was completed, letting employees go and even shelving entire finished films as part of tax write-offs. In January, TCM’s long-running host Ben Mankiewicz reassured fans that the channel’s future was secure, saying Zaslav was passionate about TCM. Six months later, Zaslav slashed the channel’s staff from 90 to “about 20,” according to The Wrap; the cuts included Pola Changnon, TCM’s general manager who’d logged 25 years at the company. Changnon and many of the other people let go had deep institutional knowledge of the network’s library, which informed TCM’s masterful curation.

The news prompted brief, fevered pushback from some of Hollywood’s most esteemed filmmakers, as Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and Paul Thomas Anderson convened for an “emergency call” with Zaslav to head off any more trouble. After the meeting, the filmmakers issued a joint statement calling TCM a “precious resource of cinema” but otherwise held their fire on Zaslav, saying, “It’s clear that TCM and classic cinema are very important to him … We are heartened and encouraged by the conversations we’ve had thus far, and we are committed to working together to ensure the continuation of this cultural touchstone that we all treasure.” Warner Bros. chief content officer Kathleen Finch added, “We remain fully committed to this business, the TCM brand, and its purpose to protect and celebrate culture-defining movies.”

[Read: Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon is a triumph]

After the publicity storm surrounding the layoffs, Zaslav announced that TCM would be put under the creative control of the industry veterans Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy, who currently head Warner’s film group. De Luca’s connection to Paul Thomas Anderson is particularly notable—as the lead executive of New Line Cinema in the ’90s, he green-lit Anderson’s breakout movie, Boogie Nights. He also worked at DreamWorks, the studio co-founded by Spielberg. Given that De Luca runs a film division, it’s hard to imagine he’ll have much time to devote to TCM—but his and Abdy’s appointment at least felt like an act of reassurance, a promise that the channel might not entirely abandon its cinematic mission. Zaslav has also continued his damage control, issuing a statement that these moves will establish “a more sustainable structure behind the screen … so that TCM is set up for long-term success.” He also said that he was bringing back Charles Tabesh, a programmer who was originally part of the layoffs and who was considered crucial to the network’s identity.

But no matter how many well-meaning statements Warner Bros. pushes out about the esteemed place TCM has in its corporate firmament, the trend lines during Zaslav’s tenure have seen the company shrinking staff and selling assets for parts. What happens next could be something of a slow erosion; with far less staff on board, the thoughtfulness behind TCM’s programming seems sure to disappear. Eventually, the channel could go with it. As Vulture’s Josef Adalian wrote last week, this “feels like the beginning of the end”—the dismantling of a channel’s identity, much like what has already happened to well-known cable brands such as Comedy Central and MTV, which now seem to exist mostly to air reruns.

In a perfect world, some benevolent new owner might swoop in and make a grab for the TCM brand—someone like Spielberg, actually, a mini-mogul himself. But the value of TCM is in its deep library, the rights to which would be much harder to pry away. The loss of that library is what tanked another beloved streaming service, the fledgling FilmStruck, which combined the archives of the Criterion Collection with TCM. In 2018, Warner decided to cut its support as the result of a prior corporate merger with AT&T, demonstrating that its love of cinema’s hallowed history could stretch only so far.

The decline of TCM may be slow and miserable, akin to something like Twitter’s current trajectory, where the site’s basic functionality remains but its culture slowly melts away. For now, TCM will trundle on, devotedly airing classics that sometimes literally can’t be shown anywhere else. But its position has become frighteningly precarious—and whatever next round of cuts comes down could prove the deadliest.

Telegram Is the Perfect App for the Terrible 2020s

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 06 › telegram-app-encrypted-messaging-russia › 674558

On Monday, in an 11-minute speech, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the convicted criminal who leads the Wagner mercenary group, reflected on his brief revolt against the Russian government. It was the capstone to a tense and confusing geopolitical crisis—and it took the form of a voice memo on the popular app Telegram, where it was subject to a form of instant feedback. Reviews have been mixed: 155,600 fire emoji to 131,900 clown emoji.

For close followers of the ongoing conflict in Russia and Ukraine, it’s not unusual to see playful reaction emoji sitting just beneath pictures, videos, and text documenting the horrors of war in real time. Since Russia’s invasion, one of the quickest ways to follow the chaos on the ground has been to download Telegram and wade through live updates from citizens, soldiers, and the government—a digital morass of confusing, contradictory information. Just weeks into the Ukraine war, Time proclaimed that the decade-old app was “the digital battle space,” a moniker that held up over the weekend as onlookers used Telegram to try to suss out whether Russia was heading into civil war.

“The RU/UA war is 99% Telegram,” Aric Toler, an investigative journalist for Bellingcat, which has reported extensively on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, told me this week over direct message. “Prigozhin broadcasted, organized, and orchestrated this all from the platform.” The app and individual channels within it—Prigozhin’s has grown to 1.3 million followers since it launched last November—are effectively feeders for the rest of the internet, according to Toler, who monitors, verifies, and reports on Russian and Ukrainian Telegram channels: “Almost every bit of information about the war on Twitter, [Instagram, Facebook, and others] is downstream of Telegram.” Many popular accounts on these social platforms merely repackage what they see on Telegram, often using unreliable programs to translate the channels.

Though public download numbers indicate that it has fewer users than chat platforms such as WhatsApp—700 million versus 2 billion every month—Telegram is the communications platform of choice for many activists, crypto scammers, drug dealers, terrorists, extremists, banned influencers, and conspiracy theorists. Because the app is free to download, lightweight, and marketed as privacy-forward and anti-censorship, it attracts people looking to fly under the radar. It’s a theater of war, a clandestine marketplace, and a safe haven for the deplatformed to build their alternative realities, which makes Telegram an excellent fit for the turbulence of the 2020s and perhaps the most important app in the world today.

The brainchild of brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov, Telegram shares the techno-libertarian sensibilities of its creators, especially its CEO, Pavel. The brothers, who founded a popular Russian social network, VKontakte, launched Telegram around the time Kremlin allies took over the platform. Pavel Durov told The New York Times in 2014 that Telegram was conceived out of a desire to have a free and secure communications platform out of the hands of the Russian state. Since its inception, Durov, known for his nomadic lifestyle and for posting cryptic philosophical messages and shirtless pictures of himself on Instagram, has positioned Telegram as a staunch anti-surveillance tool and rebuffed critics who have argued that the platform offers organization and communication abilities to dangerous groups.

[Read: How Ivermectin became a belief system]

“Our right for privacy is more important than our fear of bad things happening, like terrorism,” he told a crowd at TechCrunch Disrupt in 2015, arguing that ISIS, which used Telegram to claim responsibility for or plan numerous attacks in Europe, “will always find [another] way to communicate.” Durov has touted Telegram’s capacity to act as a form of digital resistance and has publicly fought Russian efforts to view encrypted messages on the platform. And the app has indeed been crucial in nations such as Belarus, where it was used for 2020 election protests, and in China last year during the COVID-lockdown demonstrations.

It’s not just that Telegram offers end-to-end encryption, a feature that shields messages from any outside party that would seek to access them, and one that many tech companies, including Apple and Meta, support. The app’s leadership also takes a pointedly hands-off approach to content moderation even for public-facing content, aside from illegal pornography and explicit “public calls to violence.” Far-right influencers such as Milo Yiannopoulos and neo-Nazi sympathizers such as Nick Fuentes have kept posting on Telegram even after being deplatformed elsewhere; the app offered these influencers a place to amass fans, spout hateful rhetoric, and solicit donations, all without having to compete for eyeballs in an algorithmic feed. Telegram has also enabled the distribution of shooter manifestos as well as information about manufacturing weapons—in 2020, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks anti-Semitism, declared that Telegram was the “online weapon of choice for [the] violent far-right.” And it was allegedly used by some to coordinate the January 6 insurrection, after which it saw a substantial influx of accounts following conspiracy theorists and election deniers. (Shortly after the attack on the Capitol, Telegram said it removed “dozens” of channels for inciting violence.)

Unmoderated free-for-alls that attract dangerous fringe groups are as old as the internet. What makes Telegram different is both its size and its opacity. Although many channels are easily searchable, a great deal of what goes on inside the platform happens in invite-only channels, making it difficult for academics, journalists, or law enforcement to scrutinize or study. A recent Wired investigation of Telegram’s booming gray market for abortion pills turned up 200 public channels containing 47,000 messages, but trying to understand the scope of the market—who was selling legitimate pharmaceuticals and which organizations were fronts or scams—was nearly impossible for the journalists to untangle. Because of the lack of oversight, Telegram channels are the place where information circulates in private after being banned by bigger platforms, as was the case in 2019, when the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto spread widely in Eastern European countries in the weeks after the attack.

“It’s a Wild West kind of platform where anything can kind of happen, so I think there’s a good case to be made that it’s a perfect place for chaos,” Jared Holt, a senior research manager at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue who monitors right extremism, told me.

[Read: The three logics of the Prigozhin putsch]

That chaos is most apparent during frenetic news events. Although Telegram is a valuable firsthand resource during breaking news, it’s also a confusion machine. The platform offers verification for public figures, but it is nevertheless flooded with sketchy eyewitness accounts and strategically placed propaganda. In a recent paper, the scholars Mariëlle Wijermars and Tetyana Lokot observed that, during the Belarus-election protests, Telegram’s marketing of the platform as a secure, prodemocratic organizing tool led dissidents “to perceive it as an ally in their struggle against repressions and digital censorship,” prompting them to sign up in droves. Meanwhile, the Belarusian state also took advantage of Telegram’s lack of moderation and anti-censorship rules to co-opt the grassroots efforts of democratic activists, manipulating citizens by disseminating propaganda on state-run Telegram channels.

It feels fitting that millions are witnessing the chaos of the 2020s—a decade so far marked by competing versions of science and reality, pandemics, political corruption, war, and the rise of global authoritarianism—through the window of an app that acts as a force multiplier for the chaos it documents. Ultimately, the platform reveals a fundamental truth about the internet: It is extremely difficult to untangle whether a particular piece of technology is the cause of so much of the chaos of modern life or merely an outgrowth, a symptom of it all. Telegram appears to be a vital resource in a world that feels like it is unraveling, despite being one of the many forces pulling at the seams.

Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk Problem

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 06 › silicon-valley-elon-musk-zuckerberg-ceos › 674550

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Last week, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg announced their plans to duke it out in a cage fight. But this potential feud is less important than what it tells us about how Musk is influencing the rules of engagement in Silicon Valley.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

The tape of Trump discussing classified documents America’s most popular drug has a puzzling side effect. We finally know why. Goodbye, Ozempic. The Roberts Court draws a line.

A Race to the Bottom

Something strange is happening on Mark Zuckerberg’s Instagram.

For years, he posted periodic, classic dad-and-CEO fare: anniversary shots with his wife. Photos of his kids and dog being cute. Meta product announcements.

In recent months, though, Zuckerberg has been posting more about fighting. Not the kind that involves firing back at critics on behalf of his oft-embattled social-media empire, but actual mixed-martial-arts training. Earlier this month, he posted a video of himself tussling with a jiujitsu champion. On Memorial Day, he posted himself in a camouflage flak vest, flushed after an intense army workout. And last week, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk said they were going to have a cage fight. The men apparently have ongoing personal tensions, and Meta is working on building a Twitter competitor. But announcing in public their intent to fight takes things to another level.

If you rolled your eyes at the cage-fight news: fair enough. The idea of two middle-aged executives, each facing an onslaught of business and public-image problems, literally duking it out is a bit on the nose. But the fight itself—and whether or not it happens—is less important than what it tells us about how Musk is reshaping Silicon Valley. Musk is mainstreaming new standards of behavior, and some of his peers are joining him in misguided acts of masculine aggression and populist appeals.

Leaders such as Musk and Zuckerberg (and, to some extent, even their less-bombastic but quite buff peer Jeff Bezos) have lately been striving to embody and project a specific flavor of masculine—and political—strength. As my colleague Ian Bogost wrote last week, “the nerd-CEO’s mighty body has become an apparatus for securing and extending his power.”

The two executives’ cage-fight announcement is “a reflection of a really tight monoculture of Silicon Valley’s most powerful people, most of whom are men,” Margaret O’Mara, a historian at the University of Washington who researches the tech industry, told me. In other words, the would-be participants embody the industry’s bro culture.

Zuckerberg’s recent interest in waging physical battles marks a departure for the CEO, who a few years ago seemed more interested in emulating someone like Bill Gates, an executive who parlayed his entrepreneurial success into philanthropy, O’Mara added. Zuckerberg has been very famous since he was quite young. His early years at the helm of his social-media empire—“I’m CEO, Bitch” business cards and all—were lightly, and sometimes ungenerously, fictionalized in The Social Network by the time he was in his mid-20s. He has consciously curated his image in the years since.

For a long time, Zuckerberg led Facebook as a “product guy,” focusing on the tech while letting Sheryl Sandberg lead the ads business and communications. But overlapping crises—disinformation, Cambridge Analytica, antitrust—after the 2016 election seemingly changed his approach: First, he struck a contrite tone and embarked on a listening tour in 2017.The response was not resoundingly positive. By the following summer, he had hardened his image at the company, announcing that he was gearing up to be a “wartime” leader. He has struck various stances in public over the years, but coming to blows with business rivals has not been among them—yet.

Musk, meanwhile, has a history of such stunts. At the onset of the war in Ukraine, he tweeted that he would like to battle Vladimir Putin in single combat, and he apparently has ongoing back pain linked to a past fight with a sumo wrestler. That Zuckerberg is playing along shows that the rules of engagement have changed.

Musk has incited a race to the bottom for Silicon Valley leaders. As he becomes more powerful, some  other executives are quietly—and not so quietly—following his lead, cracking down on dissent, slashing jobs, and attempting to wrestle back power from employees. Even as Musk has destabilized Twitter and sparked near-constant controversy in his leadership of the platform, some peers have applauded him. He widened the scope of what CEOs could do, giving observers tacit permission to push boundaries. “He’s someone who’s willing to do things in public that are transgressing the rules of the game,” O’Mara said.

During the first few months of Musk’s Twitter reign, few executives were willing to praise him on the record—though Reed Hastings, then a co-CEO of Netflix, did call Musk “the bravest, most creative person on the planet” in November. A few months later, Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, told Insider that executives around Silicon Valley have been asking, “Do they need to unleash their own Elon within them?” The Washington Post reported this past Saturday that Zuckerberg was undergoing an “Elonization” as he attempts to appeal to Musk’s base, the proposed cage fight being the latest event in his rebrand. (Facebook declined to comment. A request for comment to Twitter’s press email was returned with a poop emoji auto-responder.)

Whether or when the cage match will actually happen is unclear. Musk’s mother, for her part, has lobbied against it. But whether Zuckerberg unleashes his “inner Elon” in a cage or not, both men are seeking to grab attention distinct from their business woes—and succeeding.

The tech industry has long offered wide latitude to bosses, especially male founders. Musk didn’t invent the idea of acting out in public. But he has continued to move the goalposts for all of his peers.

In a video posted on Twitter last week, Dana White, the president of Ultimate Fighting Championship, told TMZ that he had spoken with both men and that they were “absolutely dead serious” about fighting. He added something that I believe gets to the heart of the matter: “Everybody would want to see it.”

Musk responded with two fire emojis.

Related:

The nerds are bullies now. Elon Musk revealed what Twitter always was.

Today’s News

In an audio recording obtained by CNN, former President Donald Trump appears to acknowledge keeping classified national-security documents. Chicago’s air quality momentarily became the worst among major cities in the world after Canadian wildfire smoke blanketed the region. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect today, expands protections for pregnant workers, requiring employers to accommodate pregnancy-related medical conditions.

Dispatches

Up for Debate: Readers weigh in on the public debates they would want to witness.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Wild Horizons / Universal Images Group / Getty

Who’s the Cutest Little Dolphin? Is It You?

By Ed Yong

Across human cultures and languages, adults talk to babies in a very particular way. They raise their pitch and broaden its range, while also shortening and repeating their utterances; the latter features occur even in sign language. Mothers use this exaggerated and musical style of speech (which is sometimes called “motherese”), but so do fathers, older children, and other caregivers. Infants prefer listening to it, which might help them bond with adults and learn language faster.

But to truly understand what baby talk is for, and how it evolved, we need to know which other animals use it, if any.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

How to escape “the worst possible timeline.” The Harry and Meghan podcasts we’ll never get to hear My hometown is getting a $100 billion dose of Bidenomics.

Culture Break

Macall Polay / Columbia Pictures

Read. “The Posting,” a new short story by Sara Freeman, explores the implosion of a marriage. Then, read an interview about her writing process.

Watch. No Hard Feelings, Jennifer Lawrence’s R-rated rom-com, is in theaters now. And thank goodness for it.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

Last week, my Daily colleague Tom Nichols visited us in the New York office (very fun!). We started talking about how delightful and even helpful it can be to write while listening to movie soundtracks. Different songs can complement different writing vibes—during college, for example, I found the frenetic instrumentals of the soundtrack to Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel valuable while writing papers in the library.

So while writing today’s newsletter, I fired up the soundtrack to The Social Network in my AirPods. I recommend you do the same the next time you need to enter deep-focus mode. It was on theme, yes. But it’s also a great album in its own right; the composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won an Oscar for Best Original Score when the movie came out. Listen to its elegant and moody tracks, then take in the cover of the Radiohead song “Creep,” sung by a girls’ choir, in the movie’s perfect trailer.

— Lora

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

The Battle for I-95

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › i-95-reconstruction-josh-shapiro-infrastructure › 674534

Two weeks ago, looking at the burned-out section of I-95 in Philadelphia from above, the safe bet was that this stretch of the East Coast’s most essential arterial would be a traffic nightmare for months to come. The elevated section of the highway had collapsed on June 11 after a tractor trailer flipped over and caught fire.

Instead, on Friday, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro unveiled a temporary fix that reopened the six lanes to traffic—albeit at a slower pace for now. “We showed them good government in action,” Shapiro said on Friday. “This is what we can do when government at all levels comes together to get the job done.”

That hasn’t been the predominant narrative around American infrastructure of late, despite President Joe Biden’s focus on the issue. Byzantine regulations and hyperlocal approval processes hamper everything from clean-energy projects to new housing. When even a congestion-pricing scheme in Lower Manhattan—to pay for transit—is subject to 16-month environmental review, the government’s ability to accomplish much of anything in a timely fashion is thrown into doubt.

But if the speed of this particular restoration project is proof of “good government in action” and thus a counterexample, it is not necessarily an easily replicable one. In many ways, the reconstruction of I-95 enjoyed obvious advantages over most other infrastructure projects, especially ambitious efforts such as installing wind turbines or building a new subway line.

[Read: After 61 years, America’s busiest highway is almost complete]

First, rebuilding something that already existed is much simpler than embarking on a new project that will invariably disturb incumbent interests and residents. The consequences of installing a new rail line, or a new highway, can be studied and debated. There wasn’t a call for dialogue about this destroyed portion of I-95: The collapsed highway would either be fixed or not.

“Even if we think about something as small as a bike lane, putting in a new one requires changing the existing road, which comes with all sorts of really fun politics and regulatory processes,” Katherine Levine Einstein, an associate political-science professor at Boston University, told me. “Whereas rebuilding something that already exists is politically easier to do.”

Beyond that, Einstein said, the two central obstacles to new infrastructure projects are funding and regulatory hurdles. In this case, both were swept aside.

The federal government offered full funding for the project, so money was no object. Shapiro signed an emergency declaration that cleared the path for swift approvals and no-bid contracting. The local, state, and federal governments were all rowing in the same direction.

The Philadelphia collapse is not the only recent example of a fire destroying a discrete chunk of highway and the public sector rallying to set things right. In 2017, a highway collapsed in Atlanta after an intense blaze below it and was rebuilt in six weeks. A section of I-95 in Philadelphia was badly damaged by flames in 1996, too, but reopened with a temporary fix after a week.

“That type of temporary construction in two weeks is certainly an impressive feat, but it’s not unprecedented,” David King, an urban-planning professor at Arizona State University, told me. “When there’s a catastrophic collapse, we’re actually pretty good at rebuilding quickly, and something like I-95 is simply too vital a link to leave broken for any length of time.”

The incident stands out for occurring on one of the nation’s most heavily trafficked highways, in one of its largest cities. The Philadelphia region is also essential for Biden’s political ambitions, the centerpiece of Democratic strength in Pennsylvania. He happened to be in town shortly after the conflagration for the first rally of his reelection bid. “I told the governor there’s no more important project right now in the country as far as I’m concerned,” Biden told the press after taking an aerial tour of the site.

[Read: Our highways are an ever-expanding museum of America’s wars]

The sheer scale of political and media attention ratcheted up the pressure to get this right, quickly. The moment was met with the attention of a new, and ambitious, governor who used the crisis as a showcase for his leadership. Really, he had no alternative.

“When there’s a catastrophic collapse, the elected officials who are in charge get blamed for it whether it’s their fault or not,” King said. “So there’s only political downside to dallying, and there’s only political upside to getting it done. That’s a rare combination.”

Shapiro has been a rising star in the Pennsylvania Democratic firmament for more than a decade, and since winning last fall’s gubernatorial election in a landslide, he’s sought to become a commanding presence in the commonwealth.

The governor quickly established himself as a regular at the I-95 site. In his emergency declaration, he promised to “cut through the red tape.” Photos of him stoically looking down from a police helicopter made the rounds on Twitter, and he lavished praise on the Philadelphia building-trades unions, whose members were put to work night and day to fix the roadway. A 24/7 livestream allowed people to remotely view progress, and meme about it.

Shapiro’s commitment to the reconstruction quickly paid dividends. He won praise for his decisive action from local leaders, including Philadelphia Republicans. (He was aided by the contrast with his gubernatorial predecessor, an unglamorous technocrat, and Philadelphia’s limelight-allergic mayor.)

The editorial board of The Philadelphia Inquirer (the newspaper where I work) joined in the chorus of praise for Shapiro’s performance, but asked that political leaders pay similar attention to other crises in the city.

Some of the examples the board cited also feature infrastructure that is already in place: the city’s crumbling and asbestos-ridden historic school buildings and the beleaguered Market-Frankford elevated-train line, the workhorse of Philadelphia’s mass-transit system.

Even post-pandemic, with ridership less than half of what it was in 2019, the rail line transports 170,000 people each day—more than the number who use the flame-scarred segment of I-95. But Pennsylvania leadership has displayed no urgency to ensure that SEPTA, the Philadelphia area’s transit agency, has the resources to replace its aging railcars.

[Peter A. Shulman: What infrastructure really means]

That highlights the last factor that helped with I-95’s near-instant restoration: Automobile infrastructure has long been privileged over other modes of transit in America. When a passenger-train line between two of the largest cities in California was severed, the wait time for a solution, even a temporary one, was measured in months, not weeks.

“We love highways; we love roads,” Einstein said. “And so the resources were really readily available for this piece of infrastructure.” Until “government at all levels” decides to show some love to other ways of getting around, the I-95 restoration will be the exception to the rule of American infrastructural sclerosis.

Inside the Mind of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2023 › 06 › robert-f-kennedy-jr-presidential-campaign-misinformation-maga-support › 674490

This story seems to be about:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s speech is warbling, crackling, scratchy—sort of like Marge Simpson’s. His voice, he told me, is “fucked up.” The official medical diagnosis is spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological disorder that causes involuntary spasms in the larynx. He didn’t always sound this way; his speaking style changed when he was in his 40s. Kennedy has said he suspects an influenza vaccine might have been the catalyst. This idea is not supported by science.

He was telling me about his life with one arm outstretched on the velvet sofa of his suite at the Bowery Hotel in Lower Manhattan. It was the end of May, and a breeze blew in through the open doors leading to a private terrace. Two of his aides sat nearby, typing and eavesdropping. A security guard stood in the hallway.

Kennedy was finishing a plate of room-service risotto, and his navy tie was carefully tucked into his white button-down shirt. He’s taller, tanner, and buffer than the average 69-year-old. He is, after all, a Kennedy. His blue eyes oscillate between piercing and adrift, depending on the topic of discussion.

He told me that he’s surrounded by “integrative medical people”—naturopaths, osteopaths, healers of all sorts. “A lot of them think that they can cure me,” he said. Last year, Kennedy traveled to Japan for surgery to try to fix his voice. “I’ve got these doctors that have given me a formula,” he said. “They’re not even doctors, actually, these guys.”

I asked him what, exactly, he was taking.

“The stuff that they gave me? I don’t know what it is. It’s supposed to reorient your electric energy.” He believes it’s working.

When he was 19, Kennedy jumped off a dock into shallow water, which he says left him nearly paralyzed. For decades, he could hardly turn his head. Seven years ago, at a convention of chiropractors, a healer performed a 30-minute “manipulation of energy”—making chanting noises while holding his hands six inches over Kennedy’s body. The next morning, his neck felt better. “I don’t know if they had anything to do with each other, but, you know, it was weird,” he said.

Though he’s been a member of the premier American political dynasty his whole life and a noted environmentalist for decades, most people are just now discovering the breadth and depth of Kennedy’s belief system. He has promoted a theory that Wi-Fi radiation causes cancer and “leaky brain,” saying it “opens your blood-brain barrier.” He has suggested that antidepressants might have contributed to the rise in mass shootings. He told me he believes that Ukraine is engaged in a “proxy” war and that Russia’s invasion, although “illegal,” would not have taken place if the United States “didn’t want it to.”

Kennedy reached a new level of notoriety in 2021, after the publication of his conspiratorial treatise The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. It has sold more than 1 million copies, according to his publisher, “despite censorship, boycotts from bookstores and libraries, and hit pieces against the author.” The book cemented his status as one of America’s foremost anti-vaxxers. It also helped lay the foundation for his Democratic presidential primary campaign against Joe Biden.

[Read: The 2024 U.S. presidential race: A cheat sheet]

On the campaign trail, he paints a conspiratorial picture of collusion among state, corporate, media, and pharmaceutical powers. If elected, he has said he would gut the Food and Drug Administration and order the Justice Department to investigate medical journals for “lying to the public.” His most ominous message is also his simplest: He feels his country is being taken away from him. It’s a familiar theme, similar to former President Donald Trump’s. But whereas Trump relies heavily on white identity politics, Kennedy is spinning up a more diverse web of supporters: anti-vaxxers, anti-government individuals, Silicon Valley magnates, “freethinking” celebrities, libertarians, Trump-weary Republicans, and Democrats who believe Biden is too old and feeble for a second term.

So far, Kennedy is polling in the double digits against Biden, sometimes as high as 20 percent. What had initially been written off as a stunt has evolved into a complex threat to both Biden and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Put another way: Kennedy’s support is real.

He is tapping into something burrowed deep in the national psyche. Large numbers of Americans don’t merely scoff at experts and institutions; they loathe them. Falling down conspiratorial internet rabbit holes has become an entirely normal pastime. Study after study confirms a very real “epidemic of loneliness.” Scores of people are bored and depressed and searching for narratives to help explain their anxiety and isolation. Scroll through social media and count how many times you see the phrase Burn it down.

Even though Kennedy remains a long-shot candidate, his presence in the 2024 race cannot be ignored. “My goal is to do the right thing, and whatever God wants is going to happen,” Kennedy told me. He now earnestly believes that in 12 months, he will be the Democratic nominee for president.

“Every individual, like every nation, has a darker side and a lighter side,” Kennedy told me. “And the easiest thing for a political leader to do is to appeal to all those darker angels.”

He was talking about George Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor and subject of Kennedy’s senior thesis at Harvard.

“Most populism begins with a core of idealism, and then it’s hijacked,” he said. “Because the easiest way to keep a populist movement together is by appealing—you employ all the alchemies of demagoguery—and appealing to our greed, our anger, our hatred, our fear, our xenophobia, tribal impulses.”

Does Kennedy consider himself a populist? “He considers himself a Democrat,” his communications director, Stefanie Spear, told me in an email. The most charitable spin on Kennedy’s candidacy is that he aims to be the iconoclastic unifier of a polarized country. He looks in the mirror and sees a man fighting for the rights of the poor and the powerless, as his father did when he ran for president more than half a century ago.

Kennedy markets himself as a maverick, someone outside the system. But he’s very much using his lineage—son of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, nephew of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy—as part of his sales pitch. Now living in Los Angeles with his third wife, the actor Cheryl Hines, he nonetheless launched his campaign in Boston, the center of the Kennedy universe. The phrase I’M A KENNEDY DEMOCRAT is splashed across the center of his campaign website. Visitors can click through a carousel of wistful black-and-white family photos. There he is as a young boy with a gap-toothed smile, offering a salute. There he is visiting his Uncle John in the Oval Office.

[Alan Brinkley: The legacy of John F. Kennedy]

Robert F. Kennedy and his wife, Ethel, with their seven children, in February 1963. (Ethel was expecting their eighth child in June.) The boys, from left, are Robert Jr., 8; David, 7; Michael, 4; and Joe, 10. The girls, from left, are Kathleen, 11; Kerry, 3; and Mary Courtney, 6. (AP)

In reality, his relationship with his family is more complicated. Several of his siblings have criticized his anti-vaccine activism around COVID. Last year, at an anti-vaccine rally in Washington, D.C., Kennedy suggested that Jews in Nazi Germany had more freedom than Americans today. In response, his sister Kerry Kennedy tweeted, “Bobby’s lies and fear-mongering yesterday were both sickening and destructive. I strongly condemn him for his hateful rhetoric.” (He later issued an apology.) In 2019, a trio of notable Kennedys wrote an op-ed in Politico pegged to a recent measles outbreak in the United States. RFK Jr., they said, “has helped to spread dangerous misinformation over social media and is complicit in sowing distrust of the science behind vaccines.” Several Kennedys serve in the Biden administration, and others—including RFK Jr.’s younger sister Rory and his first cousin Patrick—are actively supporting Biden’s reelection effort.

Multiple eras of Kennedy’s life have been marked by violence and despair. He was just 14 years old when his father was assassinated. His second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, struggled with mental illness and died by suicide while the couple was estranged and in the process of divorcing. He told me he believes that “almost every American has been exposed, mostly within their own families, to mental illness, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism.” In 1983, Kennedy himself was arrested for heroin possession and entered rehab. He recently told The Washington Post that he still regularly attends 12-step meetings.

Kennedy maintains a mental list of everyone he’s known who has died. He told me that each morning he spends an hour having a quiet conversation with those people, usually while out hiking alone. He asks the deceased to help him be a good person, a good father, a good writer, a good attorney. He prays for his six children. He’s been doing this for 40 years. The list now holds more than 200 names.

I asked him if he felt that his dad or uncle had sent him any messages encouraging him to run for president.

“I don’t really have two-way conversations of that type,” he said. “And I would mistrust anything that I got from those waters, because I know there’s people throughout history who have heard voices.”

He laughed.

“It’s hard to be the arbiter of your own sanity. It’s dangerous.”

The morning before we met, I watched a recent interview Kennedy had given to ABC News in which he said, “I don’t trust authority.” In our conversation, I asked him how he planned to campaign on this message while simultaneously persuading voters to grant him the most consequential authority in the world.

“My intention is to make authority trustworthy,” he said, sounding like a shrewd politician. “People don’t trust authority, because the trusted authorities have been lying to them. The media lies to the public.”

I was recording our conversation on two separate devices. I asked him if the dual recordings, plus the fact that he could see me taking notes, was enough to convince him that whatever I wrote would be accurate.

“Your quotes of mine may be accurate,” he said. “Do I think that they may be twisted? I think that’s highly likely. ”

I wondered why, if that was the case, he had agreed to talk with me at all.

“I’ll talk to anybody,” he said.

That includes some of the most prominent figures in right-wing politics. He told me that he’d met with Trump before he was inaugurated, and that he had once flown on Trump’s private plane. (Later he said he believes Trump could lead America “down the road to darkness.”) He told me how, as a young man, he had spent several weeks in a tent in Kenya with Roger Ailes—they were filming a nature documentary—and how they had remained friends even though Kennedy disapproved of Ailes’s tactics at Fox News. He also brought up Tucker Carlson. I asked if he’d spoken with the former Fox News host since his firing earlier this spring.

“I’ve texted with him,” Kennedy said.

“What’s he up to?” I asked.

“He’s—you know what he’s up to. He’s starting a Twitter … thing. Yeah, I’m going to go on it. They’ve already contacted me.”

Kennedy told me he’s heard the whispers about the nature of his campaign. Some people believe his candidacy is just a stalking-horse bid to help elect Trump, or at least siphon support away from Biden.

One week before Kennedy entered the race, the longtime Trump ally and self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” Roger Stone wrote a curious Substack post titled “What About Bobby?” in which he suggested the idea of a Trump-Kennedy unity ticket. In a text message to me, Stone said his essay was nothing but a “whimsical” piece of writing, noting that the idea had “legal and political” obstacles. A photo of the two men—plus former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a notable conspiracy theorist—had been circulating on the internet; Stone called it opposition research from Biden’s team. “Contrary to Twitter created mythology, I don’t know Robert Kennedy,” he texted. “I have no role in his campaign, and certainly played no role in his decision to run.”

I asked Kennedy about a recent report that had gotten some attention: Had Steve Bannon encouraged him to enter the race?

[From the July/August 2022 issue: American Rasputin]

“No,” he said. “I mean, let me put it this way: I never heard any encouragement from him. And I never spoke to him.” He then offered a clarification: He had been a guest on Bannon’s podcast during the pandemic once or twice, and the two had met a few years before that.

When I asked Bannon if he had urged Kennedy to challenge Biden, he said, “I don’t want to talk about personal conversations.” He told me he believes Kennedy could be a major political figure. “I was pleasantly surprised when he announced,” he said.

“He’s drawing from many of those Trump voters—the two-time Obama, onetime Trump—that are still disaffected, want change, and maybe haven’t found a permanent home in the Trump movement,” Bannon said. “Populist left, populist right—and where that Venn diagram overlaps—he’s talking to those people.” Bannon told me the audience for his podcast, War Room, “loves” Kennedy. “I think Tucker’s seeing it, Rogan’s seeing it, other people—the Tucker-Rogan-Elon-Bannon-combo-platter right, obviously some of us are farther right than others—I think are seeing it. It’s a new nomenclature in politics,” he said.

“And obviously the Democrats are scared to death of it, so they don’t even want to touch it. They want to pretend it doesn’t exist.”

Photograph by Chris Buck for The Atlantic

Perhaps more than anyone in politics, Kennedy is the embodiment of the crunchy-to-conspiracist pipeline—the pathway from living a life honoring the natural world to questioning, well, everything you thought you knew. For much of his life, he was a respected attorney and environmentalist. In the 1980s, Kennedy began working with the nonprofit Riverkeeper to preserve New York’s Hudson River, and he later co-founded the Waterkeeper Alliance, which is affiliated with conservation efforts around the world. Like many other environmentalists, he grew distrustful of government, convinced that regulatory agencies had fallen under the thrall of the corporations they were supposed to be supervising.

I asked Kennedy if there was a link between his earlier work and his present-day advocacy against vaccines. “The most direct and concrete nexus is mercury,” he said.

In the 2000s, Kennedy said, he read a report about the presence of mercury in fish. “It struck me then that we were living in a science-fiction nightmare where my children and the children of most Americans could now no longer engage in this seminal primal activity of American youth, which is to go fishing with their father and mother at their local fishing hole and come home and safely eat the fish,” he said.

As an environmentalist, Kennedy traveled around the country giving lectures, and about two decades ago, mercury poisoning became a focal point of these talks. He soon noticed a pattern: Mothers would approach him after his speeches, telling him about their children’s developmental issues, which they were convinced could be traced back to vaccines that contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. “They all had kind of the same story,” Kennedy said. “Which was striking to me, because my inclination would be to dismiss them.”

[Read: Inside the mind of an anti-vaxxer]

He said that one of these women, a Minnesotan named Sarah Bridges, showed up on his front porch with a pile of studies 18 inches deep, telling him, “I’m not leaving here until you read those.” Kennedy read the abstracts, and his beliefs about vaccines began to shift. He went on to become the founder of Children’s Health Defense, a prominent anti-vaccine nonprofit.

When I contacted Bridges, she noted that she is a college friend of Kennedy’s sister-in-law and clarified that she had approached Kennedy while visiting his family’s compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, she confirmed that she gave Kennedy a stack of documents related to thimerosal, and that this likely was the beginning of his anti-vaccine journey.

Bridges’s family story is tragic: One of her children ended up in the hospital after receiving the pertussis vaccine. He now lives with a seizure disorder, developmental delays, and autism—conditions Bridges believes were ultimately caused by his reaction to the vaccine, even though studies have shown that vaccines do not cause autism. Bridges says she received compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, colloquially known as “vaccine court,” for her son’s brain damage.

Bridges doesn’t consider herself an anti-vaxxer. She told me that she still talks with Kennedy once in a while, but that she was surprised to learn he was running for president. She’s a lifelong Democrat, and declined to say whether she would support him in the election. She did tell me that she has received two doses of the COVID vaccine. She views the extremity of her son’s reaction as the exception, not the rule. “I think the American public is smart enough that we can have a nuanced conversation: that vaccines can both be a public good and there can be—and there, I think, is—a subset of people who don’t respond to them,” she said.

Kennedy’s campaign manager, the former Ohio congressman and two-time presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, strongly objects to anyone labeling his candidate “anti-vaxx.” When I used the term to describe Kennedy, Kucinich told me that such a characterization was a “left-handed smear” and “a clipped assessment that has been used for political purposes by the adherents of the pharmaceutical industry who want to engage in a sort of absurd reductionism.” Kennedy, he said, stands for vaccine safety.

I asked Kucinich to specify which vaccines Kennedy supports. He seemed flummoxed.

“No!” he said. “This is … no. We’re not—look, no.”

At one point, Kennedy looked me dead in the eye and asked if I knew where the term conspiracy theory came from. I did not. He informed me that the phrase was coined by the CIA after his uncle’s assassination in 1963 as part of a larger effort to discredit anyone who claimed that the shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, hadn’t acted alone. This origin story is not true. A recent Associated Press fact-check dates the term’s usage as far back as 1863, and notes that it also appeared in reports after the shooting of President James Garfield in 1881.

JFK’s assassination and Kennedy’s father’s, just five years apart, are two of the defining moments of modern American life. But they are difficult subjects to discuss with surviving family members without feeling exploitative. Kennedy doesn’t shy away from talking about either murder, and embraces conspiracy theories about both.

“I think the evidence that the CIA murdered my uncle is overwhelming, I would say, beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “As an attorney, I would be very comfortable arguing that case to a jury. I think that the evidence that the CIA murdered my father is circumstantial but very, very, very persuasive. Or very compelling. Let me put it that way—very compelling. And of course the CIA participation in the cover-up of both those murders is also beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s very well documented.” (In a written statement, a CIA spokesperson said: “The notion that CIA was involved in the deaths of either John F. Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy is absolutely false.”)

Two years ago, hundreds of QAnon supporters gathered in Dealey Plaza, the site of JFK’s assassination. They were convinced that JFK Jr., who died in a plane crash in 1999, would dramatically reappear and that Donald Trump would be reinstated as president. I asked Kennedy what he made of all this.

“Are you equating them with people who believe that my uncle was killed by the CIA?” he asked. There was pain in his voice. It was the first time in our conversation that he appeared to get upset.

[From the June 2020 issue: The prophecies of Q]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as pallbearer during his father’s funeral (Photo by Fairchild Archive / Penske Media / Getty)

Unlike many conspiracists, Kennedy will actually listen to and respond to your questions. He’s personable, and does not come off as a jerk. But he gets essential facts wrong, and remains prone to statements that can leave you dumbfounded. Recently, the Fox News host Neil Cavuto had to correct him on air after he claimed that “we”—as in the United States—had “killed 350,000 Ukrainian kids.”

I brought up the QAnon adherents who’d flocked to Dallas because I wanted to know how he felt about the fact that so many disparate conspiracies in America were blending together. I asked him what he would say to Alex Jones, the conspiracist who spent years lying about the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“There’s only so many discussions that you can have, and only so many areas where you can actually, you know, examine the evidence,” Kennedy said. “I’d say, ‘Show me the evidence of what you’re saying, and let’s look at it, and let’s look at whether it is conceivably real.’” He told me he didn’t know exactly what Jones had said about the tragedy. When I explained that Jones had claimed the whole thing was a hoax—and that he had lost a landmark defamation suit—Kennedy said he thought that was an appropriate outcome. “If somebody says something’s wrong, sue them.”

“I mean,” he said, “I know people whose children were killed at Sandy Hook.”

Who will vote for Kennedy?

He was recently endorsed by the Clueless star Alicia Silverstone. Earlier this month, Jack Dorsey, the hippie billionaire and a Twitter co-founder, shared a Fox News clip of Kennedy saying he could beat Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis in 2024. “He can and will,” Dorsey tweeted. Another tech mogul, David Sacks, recently co-hosted a fundraiser for Kennedy, as well as a Twitter Spaces event with him alongside his “PayPal mafia” ally Elon Musk. Sacks, whose Twitter header photo features a banner that reads FREE SPEECH, has an eclectic history of political donations: Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and DeSantis, to name a few.

Kennedy continues to win praise from right-wing activists, influencers, and media outlets. While some of this support feels earnest, like a fawning multithousand-word ode from National Review, others feel like a wink. The New York Post covered his campaign-kickoff event under the headline “‘Never Seen So Many Hot MILFs’: Inside RFK Jr’s White House Bid Launch.”

So far, Kennedy hasn’t staged many rallies. He favors long, winding media appearances. (He’s said that he believes 2024 “will be decided by podcasts.”) He recently talked COVID and 5G conspiracy theories with Joe Rogan, and his conversation with Jordan Peterson was removed from YouTube because of what the company deemed COVID misinformation. The day we met, Kennedy told me that he had just recorded a podcast with the journalist Matt Taibbi.

I asked Taibbi, who wrote for me when I was an editor at Rolling Stone and who now publishes independently on Substack, if he could see himself voting for Kennedy next year.

“Yeah, it’s possible,” Taibbi said. “I didn’t vote for anybody last time, because it was …” He trailed off, stifling laughter. “I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. So if he manages to get the nomination, I would certainly consider it.”

Years ago, in a long Rolling Stone article, Kennedy falsely asserted that the 2004 election had been stolen. The article has since been deleted from the magazine’s online archive.

“I’ve never been a fan of electoral-theft stories,” Taibbi said. “But I don’t have to agree with RFK about everything,” he added. “He’s certainly farther along on his beliefs about the vaccine than I am. But I think he is tapping into something that I definitely feel is legitimate, which is this frustration with the kind of establishment reporting, and this feeling of a lack of choice, and the frustration over issues like Ukraine—you know, that kind of stuff. I totally get his candidacy from that standpoint.”

Kennedy’s campaign operation is lean. He told Sacks and Musk that he has only about 50 people on the payroll. He’s beginning to spend more time in the early-voting state of New Hampshire. I asked Kucinich about Kennedy’s plans for summer: large-scale rallies? A visit to the Iowa State Fair? He could offer no concrete details, and told me to stay tuned.

[Read: The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden]

Despite the buzz and early attention, Kennedy does not have a clear path to the nomination. No incumbent president in modern history has been defeated in a primary. (Kennedy’s uncle Ted came close during his primary challenge to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election.) Following decades of precedent, the Democratic National Committee won’t hold primary debates against a sitting president.

“We’re not spending much time right now thinking about the DNC,” he said. “We’re organizing our own campaign.”

Spokespeople for the DNC, the Biden campaign, and the White House did not offer comment for this article.

“Democrats know RFK Jr. isn’t actually a Democrat,” Jim Messina, who led Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and is in close touch with the Biden 2024 team, said in a statement. “He is not a legitimate candidate in the Democratic primary and shouldn’t be treated like one. His offensive ideas align him with Trump and the other GOP candidates running for president, and are repellent to what Democrats and swing voters are looking for.”

I asked Kennedy what he thought would be more harmful to the country: four more years of Biden or another term for Trump.

“I can’t answer that,” he said.

He paused for a long beat. He shook his head, then pivoted the conversation to Russia.

“I think that either one of them is, you know, I mean, I can conceive of Biden getting us into a nuclear war right now.”

Kennedy’s 2024 campaign, like Trump’s, has an epic We are engaged in a final showdown tenor to it. But maybe this sentiment runs deeper than his current candidacy. These are the opening lines of Kennedy’s 2018 memoir, American Values:

From my youngest days I always had the feeling that we were all involved in some great crusade, that the world was a battleground for good and evil, and that our lives would be consumed in that conflict. It would be my good fortune if I could play an important or heroic role.

[Read: The martyr at CPAC]

Since meeting Kennedy, I’ve thought about what he said about populism—how it emerges, how it’s exploited and weaponized. He seems to believe that he is doing the right thing by running for president, that history has finally found him, as it found his uncle and father. That he is the man—the Kennedy—to lead America through an era of unrelenting chaos. But I don’t know how to believe his message when it’s enveloped in exaggeration, conspiracy, and falsehoods.

The United States has grown only more conspiratorial in the half century since the publication of Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” There are those who refuse to get the COVID vaccine because of the slim potential of adverse side effects, and then there are those who earnestly fear that these innoculations are a way for the federal government to implant microchips in the bodies of citizens. The line between fact and fantasy has blurred, and fewer and fewer Americans are tethered to something larger or more meaningful than themselves.

Kennedy was raised in the Catholic Church and regularly attended Mass for most of his life. These days, he told me, his belief system is drawn from a wide array of sources.

“The first line of the Tao is something to the effect that ‘If it can be said, then it’s not truth’—that the path that is prescribed to you is never the true path, that basically we all have to find our own path to God, and to enlightenment, or nirvana, or whatever you call it,” he said.

He’s now walking his family’s path, determined to prevail in the battle of good against evil. He’s said he’s running under the premise of telling people the truth.

But as with so many of the stories he tells, it’s hard to square Kennedy’s truth with reality.

We’ve Forgotten the Real Value of Debate

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 06 › joe-rogan-rfk-jr-interview-debate › 674515

Last weekend, the vaccine scientist Peter Hotez criticized the influential podcaster Joe Rogan for hosting Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lamenting the fact that a podcast with millions of listeners lent its megaphone to a notorious spreader of vaccine misinformation.

In response, Rogan challenged Hotez to come on his show and debate RFK Jr. with no time limit, offering to donate $100,000 to charity as an incentive. Although Hotez declined, RFK Jr. graciously accepted, leading Elon Musk to muse that Hotez was scared of debate. Given the audiences that Rogan and Musk command and the following that RFK Jr. has cultivated, the tweets sparked a kind of pressure campaign that ratcheted up quickly. Within hours, their Twitter acolytes were hard at work trying to shame Hotez into saying yes. As often happens on social media, the argument went nowhere and both sides stood their ground. Still, it’s worth addressing the claim that someone ought to debate when challenged, because it invokes the heart of the democratic ideal.

Democracy depends on citizens charting society’s course via their elected leaders, and by extension, an informed electorate is better able to choose those leaders wisely. Debate is part of this process: Humans are not all-knowing, and effective discourse can sharpen our views. But not all debates are created equal, and thus not all are worth indulging. The Rogan incident is an example of how we’ve preserved the rhetoric about the value of debate even as our discourse has moved to digital platforms that undermine that value.

As a mass-communication scholar and educator who studies the social effects of our ongoing shift toward networked digital media, I think of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, seven events that unfolded over the course of nearly two months as part of the 1858 campaign to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. They were centered on the issue of slavery in America’s westward expansion; the candidates agreed to begin with one participant making a speech for about an hour, followed by a rebuttal of about 90 minutes, and then another, half-hour response. The format demanded a lot from participants and spectators alike. By contrast, in the first of the 2020 U.S. presidential debates—there were only two—the ground rules called for a 90-minute session, during which six complex topics were given a mere 15 minutes each. Candidates had just two minutes to answer an initial question on multifaceted issues, including health care and terrorism, followed by rapid rebuttals.

As debates shifted from in-person events to ones delivered primarily through electronic media, they evolved to serve specific formats. Television is an action medium, and so production is focused on constant dance-and-pivot camera and dialogue work that doesn’t linger on anything too long. Audiences have been conditioned to crave brevity and visual excitement, and good debaters understand the nuances of the medium in ways that have permanently altered audience expectations and debate prep, the kinds of changes that have altered how audiences receive information in new channels such as streaming video or podcasts.

[Read: To understand anti-vaxxers, consider Aristotle]

A particular media type influences how messages are created and perceived. Research suggests that the same message in a photo will be processed more emotionally than text, because our brains deal with images and words differently. Messages in audio take on different characteristics when TV adds visual layers. One can win a debate on substance but lose it in the public consciousness if the message is incongruent with the audience’s medium-specific expectations.

The Rogan challenge highlights another medium-specific layer, and that is the effect of the social internet. For example, U.S. presidential debates happen simultaneously on TV and online. They are second-screen viewing for many who monitor conversation around these events on Twitter, Facebook, Discord, or elsewhere. In this case, candidate speech is being decoded and amplified in an instant social context. “Binders full of women.” The fly on Mike Pence’s head. “Such a nasty woman.” We sometimes remember these things more than the specifics of the debate because they were moments when social stickiness potentially supersedes the information.

In 2012, Mitt Romney named Russia as our chief global adversary, a statement the press perceived as a gaffe, given the war against al-Qaeda that was ongoing. In a presidential debate that year, Barack Obama responded with a zinger: “And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” From a tactics standpoint, Obama did what he had to do. He bent to a format that asked exactly this of him. The rightness or wrongness of Romney’s assertion and Obama’s reply matter less than the takeaway: How Romney’s statement landed was ultimately the result of a cultural interpretation and context more than it was about evidence or reason, even as debates are ostensibly supposed to be about the latter.

[Read: Romney was right about Putin]

But it’s not just that we’re chattering about the debate as we are half-listening; it’s that we’re doing it in tribal contexts, given how social media splinters us into networks and platforms that align with our beliefs, either by how we build them or by how algorithms learn to show us what we have told it we want. Debate now happens in the context of polarized fandoms for many; political scientists say that the pool of truly persuadable voters has shrunk. We have already decided and sorted before the debate even happens, so if persuasion is out of reach, whom is a debate serving and what is it for?

Rogan, Musk, and everyone else who called on Hotez to challenge RFK Jr. might idealize the value of debate, but even a long-form podcast can favor conjectural broadsides and wild claims. This is an urgent problem given the scale and speed at which debate assertions spread in the electronic age compared with when debates were attended by small groups and information spread slowly. Rogan’s proposal might at first glance resemble Lincoln-Douglas, considering the lack of time limit and singular topic, but the latter happened with some constraints and the participants were readily seen as having equivalent expertise that qualified them for the stage. Conversation, even a lengthy one, can’t get us to a shared truth without prior agreement on basic facts, standards, and methodologies.

Modern debates, then, are usually less a competition to change minds and more like a sporting event, with fans lined up on each side and cheering for a predetermined view. When Rogan challenged Hotez to debate RFK Jr., he was indirectly invoking the Lincoln-Douglas ideal. When Hotez declined, he was acknowledging the reality that debates of this nature are more bloodsport than serious or good-faith inquiry. Rogan’s format has no mechanism for advancing understanding. It treats persuasion outcomes as a black box.

In the sporting context, you see Rogan’s gambit. Debates are entertainment, just as sports are entertainment. Debates bring big ratings to the networks airing them, and so serve media interests (clout and advertising dollars) more than they do the public. Rogan’s challenge was brilliant in its self-service, allowing him to win regardless of whether the challenge was accepted. He got the attention and could say he tried. And if Hotez had agreed, it’d have boosted Rogan’s business by merely happening. Neither scenario prioritizes quality.

“Debate me, you coward!” is a fine bit of rhetorical shame that grafts you to the ideal of debate in a free democracy, but it begs us to look past what debates have become and whom they serve. (At least it’s better than a cage match.)

Tesla’s Superpower Is No Longer Its Cars

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 06 › tesla-charging-stations-ford-gm-nacs › 674423

When you first drive a Tesla, there’s a moment when you just get it. For me, it was cruising around Detroit in a Model S about seven years ago and feeling that instant, supercar-crushing speed without the engine roar that usually accompanies it. Instead of an array of dials and buttons, I worked its controls through a giant touch screen, and used its Autopilot system to help with the monotony of long highway drives. When the Model S debuted in 2012, most other electric cars were impractical, souped-up golf carts. Here was one with sports-car acceleration that didn’t skimp on luxury, either.  

That revelatory Tesla moment? These days, you can have it in a Hyundai, a Ford, a Mercedes, or countless other cars. The playbook Tesla wrote is now being run by almost every car company, and Tesla’s cars feel less special than they once did. Its car lineup is getting old; it leans on heavy price cuts instead of fresh merchandise while the electric competition starts to pass it by. Its so-called self-driving technology is the target of lawsuits, recalls, and even a Justice Department criminal investigation. Over the weekend, The Washington Post linked Tesla’s Autopilot to at least 17 deaths. And even its top investors are begging CEO Elon Musk to log off Twitter and get Tesla’s house in order. (Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.)

But Tesla still has one unbeatable superpower—its chargers. In recent weeks, Ford and General Motors separately announced that their cars will soon install ports on their electric vehicles compatible with Tesla’s plugs, eschewing the Combined Charging System (CCS) plug that seemed destined to be the industry standard in the United States. Just like that, the Tesla plug, once exclusive to its cars, could now very likely be the future of electric driving: Tesla, Ford, and GM alone account for roughly 70 percent of all EVs sold in the U.S., according to reporting from Reuters. If even one other big car company signs on to Tesla’s charging standard, CCS is all but done. Musk has already invited Toyota to join the party. The EV revolution has never hinged more on Tesla than right now.

Even the most hardened Musk critic will admit that the company got its Supercharger network right. With more than 17,000 locations in North America alone, it’s the most extensive public charging network in the world, and is also widely regarded as the most reliable and easiest to use. You pull up, plug in, and are billed for the electricity. Because these are Tesla chargers, they use only Tesla’s plugs, called the North American Charging Standard (NACS). Some Supercharger stations have adapters for other EVs now, but for the most part, they’ve stayed exclusive to Tesla’s vehicles. The chargers available to other EV cars, typically run by third-party companies, are infamous for making drivers use multiple payment apps, breaking down, and being too scarce.

It’s no secret why Tesla’s competitors want in on its network. Ford and GM want to get drivers into as many of their EVs as possible, so they hope to entice them with a network that tamps down on what is perhaps the biggest hurdle to EV take-up right now—anxiety over where to find chargers. And outsourcing this to Tesla represents massive savings; GM CEO Mary Barra has estimated that the move will save her company as much as $400 million previously allocated to building out charging stations in the U.S. and Canada. Since the Ford and GM announcements, charging companies such as ChargePoint and Blink Charging, which have exclusively used CCS plugs, have already said they too will add Tesla’s NACS plugs to their chargers. “These automakers have now realized that, Okay, we’re probably not as confident [with] some of these other third-party outfitters as we used to be, so let’s team with somebody that actually has this figured out,” Robby DeGraff, an analyst with the marketing-research firm AutoPacific, told me.

Other types of plugs could very likely be doomed. One standard plug makes the turn toward EVs so much easier for drivers, “and I think we already know which direction it is going,” Ivan Drury, the director of insights at the car-buying website Edmunds, told me. Drury said he largely sees this as positive for EV owners fed up with the ramshackle charging experience they get elsewhere. “You don’t want to have to go through half a dozen companies and look at all these different apps,” he said. “You want to know that charging is readily available and it’s always going to work.”

One problem is that the $7.5 billion that the federal government is shoveling toward EV charging is, for now, for CCS plugs—possibly throwing the entire effort into disarray. Think of it this way: Imagine it’s the 1980s and the government decides that Betamax is the future of home entertainment. So it spends a ton of taxpayer money to install Betamax players everywhere. But now two huge movie studios say they’re going with VHS instead. For now, companies building chargers will receive this money only if they include at least one CCS plug, but nothing’s stopping them from also planning Tesla plugs too, a spokesperson for the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation told me in an email. That may prove to be good news for the millions of EV drivers who will depend on CCS charging for years to come, but in the longer term, Tesla’s format could still win out.

In the short term, the upside for Tesla should be fast cash, because Ford and GM drivers will pay to use its Superchargers. It’s still struggling to launch new cars, such as the perpetually delayed Cybertruck, an angular, stainless-steel brute of a pickup that looks more like a Mars-exploration vehicle than a Ford F-150 competitor. The new Roadster sports car is also MIA, and the aging Model 3 is getting a face-lift while another car company would’ve replaced it by now. So the company leans on what it can do: fire-sale discounts, and then letting Ford and GM drivers join its charging network. What’s unclear is the exact revenue trade-off between adding Supercharger users and potentially losing car buyers, now that someone who prefers a Chevrolet EV to a Tesla can access Tesla’s best feature. Musk himself isn’t sure, or at least isn’t saying so publicly. At a conference in Austin, Texas, this week, he said this move would “help the rest of the industry” and spur wider EV adoption, though even he expressed some doubt. “I think it’s morally right, but (whether) it’s financially smart remains to be seen,” he said.

But Tesla’s domination is clearly about to reach a whole new level. If the Tesla plug becomes the standard in America, Musk and his company will maintain a huge role in EV charging for years or even decades to come. Legacy car companies are notorious for really only wanting to build cars. For a century, they’ve been happy to let independent dealers sell the cars and gas stations fuel the cars. Musk, however, breaks from the pack by doing everything in-house. He’s long expressed a desire in his Master Plans to become a kind of energy retailer—one that sells solar panels, generator-esque home batteries, and more. Ford and GM outsourcing their vehicle charging to Tesla could go a long way toward making that dream a reality, and soon. But given Musk’s erratic behavior, control-freak management style, and hard-earned reputation for doing whatever he wants, it’s hard not to wonder if this is the guy we all want in charge of the way cars will get around in the future. Considering this move ensures that plenty of people will be relying on Tesla going forward, they may soon have no other choice.