Pushkin.

Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making better decisions.

I'm Maria Kannakova and I'm Nate Silver.

Stay in the show.

Have you been canceled ever?

Maria, I have not been canceled.

Have you ever been canceled night?

Oh people have tried.

If you listened to the last episode with elehone, you know you come at the King, you best not miss fucking blue Sky.

Idiots on fucking Twitter and now they moved to Blue Sky.

Yeah, well that's how you really feel, Nate about.

No, it's a strategy of the week.

No, No, it is and sometimes of the strong.

Today in the show, we're going to be talking a little bit about Jimmy Kimmel.

Maria, I think you're going to have some historical points of view.

I'll just I'll just be rampting.

Evidence.

I'll just have takes.

We will we will go into some historical context in a discussion of free speech and how it has evolved throughout the history of the United States.

So on.

On that note, Nate, let's let's talk some Jimmy Kimmel.

Last week, Jimmy Kimmel's show was canceled indefinitely by the powers that be at Disney and ABC, and we are taping this on Monday, September twenty second.

We just found out that Jimmy Kimmel Live Show is going to be returning.

By the time you guys here this Wednesday will have been last night.

But I do want to stress that we have not actually seen or heard the return yet.

But yes, they just made an announcement that they will be bringing Me Kimmel back to the air after discussions with mister Kimmel about the future.

And the original cancelation was very, very different from anything we've talked about on the show in terms of like cancel no, no, in some ways hold on, may I finish in terms of cancel culture because it was coming from Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, who exerted pressure on the brass at Disney to cancel the show and made some very veiled but not that veiled threats that you know, we're probably going to pull your license.

It was like, hey, we can do it's the easy way of the hodway.

You sound exactly exactly.

It sounded like we were back in the Sopranos, you know, or or you know Sopranos because a much worse written version of the Sopranos, someone who didn't actually know how to write and decided the easy way or the hard way was the way to write this dialogue.

But yeah, so that's what happened.

And that's why I said, that's a different from what we've been talking about, because there's you know, cancel culture, and then there's the chairman of the FCC saying, hey, if you can say anything we don't like, we're gonna yank your license.

So in response, you know, there were tons of protests.

There was a lot of people canceling their subscriptions to you know, Hulu, ABC, ESPN, all of these things.

And Nate, I'm actually very curious.

I do want to give some background to this in a second, but while we're setting kind of the present day context, I'm curious what you think the you know, financial impact of this was, because I actually I saw a lot of people canceling subscriptions that I wouldn't have expected, and I wonder, you know, I wonder if this is in any way a financial decision as well, whether that actually had an effect or not.

I don't know.

I want to think that it did, but I'm actually just curious what you what your take on that particular element is.

Yeah, and I worked for Disney for ten years.

I've ESPN and ABC News, so full disclosure, you know, I have you know, a pension which is a Disney stock.

But I also hate their guts, so that bias probably outweighs my financial motivation.

But like, look, these companies tend to make decisions very expediently.

Is one way I would put it.

Right, Maybe you have people who have vision about individual products, right, but like I think at the end of the day, Bob Eiger cares about theme parks and movies and big franchise IP right use gigantic projects and like and probably sees ABC News as this thing that like, you know, still I think probably makes money.

I mean, TV news does not get the ratings at once to you, but it's not that expensive to produce as compared to like scripted drama or things like that.

But like, increasingly these big.

Networks have wondered, do we even want to be in the news business at all?

Right, Like the head of Disney doesn't really care about like the creative or journalistic integrity accept to the extent that like you know, it might create problems for talent down the line.

So yeah, look, the president I would draw is to the Washington.

Post, which is all by Jeff Bezos.

I'm a keen observer of media, particularly when it comes to covering American domestic politics.

Right, I would say five or ten years ago and people would say, well, you know, the New York Times is the most presigious and highest grossing newspaper at least center left newspaper media brand in America.

But the Washington Post is nipping at their heels.

They have a lot of talent on domestic politics.

They're kind of coequal.

They break a lot of stories, they win a lot of Pulitzers, and they've made one decision after another have led to a lot of the other kind of cancelations, canceled subscriptions, you know, when they squashed a op ed endorsing Kamala Harris.

And again I don't really think that like newspapers should be in the business of endorsing candidate, at least for national office.

Have always found that strange in some ways.

I find that as six between otbed and news kind of strange.

But that led to I think maybe tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of canceled subscriptions.

And meanwhile, if you look at the talent, right, like, if you took like the fifty biggest name brands at the Washington Post from two years ago, I think literally half might be gone and absolutely are voluntary based on on feel like did not have editorial support of the masthead.

And you know that's a challenge.

I mean it might be in a world where like, you know, I think the Washington Post has significantly declined in both revenue and relevance, right and like, yeah, I know.

I mean they're going to be very sensitive things like like Hulu subscriptions.

That's the way these businesses work, right.

Like again, ordinarily, sometimes I think boycotts are a little pretentious and cilly.

Like the way these big.

Gigantic, generic kind of media brands work is, you know, they don't want to get yelled at by people, right, They're risk averse, and so if they're like, well, this could jeopardize our whole business, and I think that's that's probably part of it.

I Mean, one thing to understand.

About Trump is he does a lot of things that I think are very extreme and objectionable.

And I think this is one of the clear things that like is classic authoritarian capital a right, you look at Turkey or Russia or other countries where there's been to pull back from democracy, and like finding a pretense to cancel broadcast licenses, is is capital a authoritarian?

They did kind of pulled back, and Carr kind of said, well, I was just pontificating, and well, it's important that they, you know, and people have a heuristic where they're kind of discount what it is, you know, they.

They could have not pulled back.

Yes, this is true now, but lo I will.

Say it's I criticize them in my newsletter over that we can like, you know, I will say good for Disney for uncancelling Kimmell, who, by the way, did fuck up in some let me just you know.

The fuck up is that he said or strongly implied that the person who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk was MAGA, and that MAGA was trying to MAGA made America creager and was trying to deny the fact that like he was MAGA.

And you know, Kimmel said that on Monday Evenings episode based on really no evidence whatsoever, based on kind of like you know what I think are properly called kind of conspiracy theories on Blue Sky and Twitter and know and everyone uses that phrase insensitivity, Like I think this to a certain extent, the job of comedians is to press the line on sensitivity.

So I think sensitivity is like a dumb euphemism, right, He Jimmy Kimmel spread misinformation.

But I'll tell you what, who hasn't at some point it's script TV.

It's not like to be known the reason I'm lest forgiving, but like it's far far below a canceling offense, right or a firing offense.

Yeah, And just to give a bit of history to that particular point.

But then I also want to go even a little further back to highlight something else that you said.

There was a pretty substantial Supreme Court decision back in nineteen sixty four New York Times versus Sullivan, And that decision came out of an ad that The New York Times had run, and they basically were trying to contribute donations to defend MLK on perjury charges.

And the ad had some factual inaccuracies, and LB Sullivan, who's the Sullivan of the case, said that he felt personally criticized even though he was never actually mentioned by name in the ad.

He sent a request to The Times to retract the information and wanted damages.

The Times refused anyway, this went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times and establish the standard known as the actual malice standard or reckless disregard of the truth.

So basically, if you want to win a libel suit, you have to prove that the person who was making this statement knew it was false and acted with an malicious purpose, right, with an intent to harm the subject.

Which was a huge, kind of huge win for free speech because these factual inaccuracies that were in the ad, they weren't on purpose, right, It's not like they wanted to take this guy down and so but they just said, you know, okay, yeah, like factual inaccuracies, but it's not enough to suspend our license and to get rid of this.

And this was kind of a landmark First Amendment free speech decision, but something that I want to kind of go back even further in history.

The reason, by the way that I invoke the actual malice standard is I think that Jimmy came well you know, also you can be factually inaccurate and not actually fullifol of that standard.

Right, you didn't say it knowing that you were blatantly saying something untrue.

I think at the time he probably thought that he was saying something.

That was right.

Whether you know he was correct journalistically or not is a different story.

But going even further back, Nate, one of the things that you said was that, you know, networks, places like Disney are constantly way playing this calculus, right.

They don't want to get criticized, and they're trying to figure out, like what do we do, how do we sidestep that?

And it's really interesting to me because I think that all of the free speech attacks in the United States have shown this kind of constant calculus, and it's not always worked out the way that the person thought it was.

So I think this the oldest kind of attack goes back to seventeen ninety eight with the Sedition Act, right, And this was John Adams when he basically said they were in a war with France.

It wasn't a declared war, and he wanted to silence media critics of the government, and so he passed an act that said it was unlawful to publish any quote, false, scandalous and malicious writing against the government end quote.

And the measures were huge, fins up to two thousand dollars.

I mean, how much is that, I don't even know.

In seventeen ninety eight, like that's insane, two years in prison.

And so a lot of publications started censoring themselves.

But what ended up happening, and they actually used it very punitively.

They ended up sending people to jail.

Several newspapers had to shut down.

But what ended up happening was that there was a huge backlash against this right.

This was the end of the Federalists.

Jefferson came to power on like a huge wave of support, and even later the Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court, who had been very pro Sedition Act, he was impeached for this.

So basically everyone was galvanized against it.

So it ended up just having a huge, huge backlash to that.

Attempt to stem free speech happened again during World War One with Woodrow Wilson, who was a scholar who had actually defended free speech, and he tried to get another Sedition Act.

Then we had McCarthyism in the fifties who tried to bully journalists and do all of that that again big backlash people did.

The people who stood up to McCarthyism have fared much better in the eyes of history than the people like McCarthy himself.

Then we've got New York Times versus Sullivan.

Then we get Richard Nixon, and so it's very funny when you started saying that you think the best kind of example is the Washington Post.

I thought you were going to go in a totally different direction, because the other time that an FCC license was threatened was against the Washington Post when they were trying to publish the Pentagon Papers.

They published them anyway, and obviously they won that battle.

But Nixon was probably, other than Trump, the single most vindictive president against the media.

He ousted Stuart Lourie for an article that he wrote in nineteen seventy one for the La Times, so he actually just banned him from the White House.

And you know, he basically said that the press, whom he started calling the media that comes from Nixon, was the enemy, and told his Vice president Spiro Agnew, to constantly attack the media.

He referred to them as a small and unelected elite and basically create a rift so that people wouldn't trust the media.

And he even threatened lawsuits if anyone used tricky Dick in print, so that you know, it became incredibly petty, and he did kind of this.

Trump is really taking a page out of his playbook in a way, because he had the irs investigate tax returns by Seymour, Hirsh and other journalists that the White House didn't really like.

And so the thing that I found that I thought was the most ridiculous is this was pre Watergate, Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt discussed murdering a journalist, Jack Anderson, like actually killing him, so that he would stop basically the leaks that were damaging to Dixon into the administration and stop any further criticism of the administration.

They considered things like putting LSD on his steering wheel so that he would start hallucinating while driving his car and get into a car crash, which isn't.

Free osc Yeah, exactly.

I don't think they realized how LSD.

Yeah.

Anyway, and then Lyddy, this is a quote from Lyddy.

He said, I would have knifed him or broken his neck end quote.

So this is all to say that, you know, we see these sorts of attacks in the past, and every single time they have not worked out well, but every single time the media has actually fought back.

Right the Washington Post published Pentagon papers, Laurie had a career in journalism, like people would hire him after that, and Seymour Hirsch obviously Pulitzer Prize, like all of these people are storied journalists and people who had the support of the country.

And with Kimmel at the beginning, it was the first time that an organization had gotten a threat from the FCC and rather than saying no, fuck you, you know, we're the media and this is freedom of press, said okay, okay, we'll fire you until they didn't.

So this is I think a very interesting moment.

But those historical precedents I think are really interesting to keep in mind, especially because they did not turn out well for the government.

And we'll be right back after this break.

I think with anything we're covering in today's age, you have to be aware that most commentators have a bias towards thinking history begins when their age eight, you know what I mean.

In the longer sweep of like how does this moment in America relate to There's a lot of miles in the sixties, right, the Civil War.

I mean that, you know, I think I think one has to be careful with those comparisons, and it might be concerning enough that we seem to be losing decades of progress.

On some issues, right, yep.

I mean there was the other president, which is you know, do you know who Jimmy Kimmel.

Used on ABC.

I don't remember Bill Maher because Bill Maher's politically incorrect got canceled because he said the nine to eleven terrorists were courageous and we.

Are not lobbying cruise missiles from thousands of miles away, right.

He said that like seven days after nine eleven.

It was litigated in the press for a much longer time.

Eventually his show was.

Let lapse, and then he went to HBO and I'm sure made lots of money and became more than ye you know, part of cancelation.

And now I want to be clear, I thought that their cancel culture was a thing that liberals I call them progressives because it's a very illiberal attitude, right, that progressives really were bloodthirsty for a number of years kind of picking in the year twenty twenty or so, I thought it was an embarrassment to the liberal tradition of free speech.

I think there hetty and jealous, and they don't understand how in a relatively free country that when you suppress speech, it usually only makes it more compelling and like and more powerful.

Right, And they thought they could contain the information ecosystem.

They accomplished nothing that they wanted.

And you know, they have direct moral responsibility for contributing to a climate in which free speech is compromised.

With that said, Maria, as you said, people have always been hypocritical about free speech.

The definition's always been contingent and evolving in practice, right.

And so you know, if you were around for September eleventh when Bill mahrg got canceled, the Dixie Chicks and Phil Donahue and and other you know people, you know you're not like, you're not surprised very much by by any of this.

And now if I'm Trump, now it's my turn.

Now it's my turn.

And I felt, I think justifiably, there was a lot of bullshit from progressives when they were in power, right, and we went rever right and by the way, I don't think progressives have often stood up for like the higher minded principles either, right, they don't think like good poker players, where it's like, okay, what is the equilibrium If everybody adopts this attitude, it's kind of contient, like the golden rule, right, have decided to get along, if you know, literally just put yourself in the person's shoes and say, eventually your public is going to win back in office.

And by the way, eventually we'll be a Democrat back in office, maybe in in I guess for early in Trump term three and a half years, right, you know, turnabout will be fair play then, But like perpetually you're losing it.

No, I think that we forget that.

We forget that free speech was created to protect speech we don't like, but not speech that we agree with.

People forget this all the time.

They're like, yes, free speech.

Wait, you said something that I disagree with.

You can't say that.

And we've said this on the show before, and you know, I don't want to constantly give you history lessons, but remember we talked about Skochie, Illinois, Nate and kind of and the ACLU on this show before.

For people who missed that episode.

I was basically kind of a case that went to the Supreme Court that involved letting neo Nazis march in a Jewish in a predominantly Jewish community, and the ACL you took it on, and I remember, I still remember learning about that and being like, holy shit, Like fuck those guys.

But yes, like you have to protect the speech that you most disagree with, because that's the whole point, right, that is what free speech means.

It means that we can disagree.

It means that we can have civil discourse.

It means that we can all have all of these different ideas, and it's okay.

So I actually nate agree with you that, you know, the liberals went way too far.

I think this was the case in academia, you know.

I think this was the case at my alma mater, Harvard, where certain professors lost their jobs right for I was saying idea, you know, for engaging in research that was not politically correct, and that's not what academia is about.

As long as you are not academically dishonest, as long as you're actually kind of trying to figure out what the truth is, you know, you're allowed to hold different opinions.

But I think that as you say, this isn't like we've devolved, like this is horrifying, like that this is now the spiral right, and instead you need to kind of reset and go back to those first principles and say, Okay, you know, free speech, we're for it.

The Supreme Court has to say this country is for free speech, and the FCC can't be threatening licenses because of something somebody said that they don't like, and we can't be in a climate, you know.

After that, Trump doubled down and said, yeah, you know, you shouldn't criticize the president.

If we don't like you or you say something bad about me, there are going to be consequences.

I mean, it's insane right for a president to say that, But we're at the point where people there are a lot of people who don't think it's insane and who are like, yeah, serves you right, you shouldn't criticize the president.

And the funniest thing is what has prompted this whole conversation is the death of Charlie Kirk, who I think, you know, I didn't know him and I didn't know much about him until he died.

To be perfectly honest, But I think he would be someone who actually would be opposed to all of this because he was a proponent of free speech.

No, and you know a lot of these videos have circulated on social media of him, like debating on college campus is kind of like his big thing, and like, you know, he he was good at that.

And the whole idea was it's an open for him, come debate me, bro right, and like here, I'll get myself in trouble with probably only a very small fraction or audience.

Right, you know, there aren't that many I don't think super eloquent spokespeople for the Trumpian movement.

Okay, and yet half the country forty nine point nine percent, he won the popular vote.

You know, half the country voted for it last time.

And like and like, you know, you have to live in that world.

And if you're not going to, like, you know, give a platform to Ben Shapiro or Charlie kan, who the fuck are you going to give a plat form too?

You know what I mean, you have to be willing to have you know, again, I believe in speech broadly, not I just don't think of speech as the free amendment.

But I believe in like we have to have a more tolerant tolerance is a word I would use, right, A more tolerant ecosystem for disagreement.

Absolutely more tolerant.

And I would also say kinder right where your knee jerk reaction isn't like fuck this person.

But okay, you know this doesn't sound right to me, But where are you coming from?

Like to try to understand, to at least try to come from a place of kindness and not a place of pitchforks, and like, let's burn you down, which is I think, you know, to bring this back to Kimmel, which is I think the natural end of all of this rhetoric is, you know, we're going to burn you down, and we're going to remove you from the air, and we're going to threaten the license of your parent company, and we're going to show you whose boss.

And as you started off you know the segment by saying, Nate, you know, this is authoritarianism with a capital A one oh one, right, Like this is the playbook?

Like this is what you do is you take opposition, You take things that you don't agree with, and instead of tolerating them having discourse, you just remove it, you say no, and then you remove the people and next step jail right like that, that's what happens.

Next you start jailing the journalist.

You don't just remove them from air.

And this has happened in the United States before, and we had come a long long way since then, and now it seems like we're devolving again.

The United States has been falling right on all of the rankings of freedom of press and freedom of society, all of those global rankings.

All of a sudden, the United States has gone from being a leader to you know, in some cases, falling out of the top ten.

And that's not where you want to be going.

We'll be back right after this.

Like I said, we're taping this on Monday, and I'm very curious to know what Kimmel is going to sound like when he comes on the air, because there's also, as we talked about last week Nate chilling effects right and self censorship, and you can imagine a future where people are like, Okay, well, I'm just going to tread really lightly and not talk about certain people and not talk about certain topics and engage in self censorship, which people have been doing for a number of years.

And I think that happened with the first wave of actual cancel culture.

I just I keep wanting to stress that the Kimmel thing is different because it was coming from the FCC.

So that's censorship.

That's media censorship, which is a very different thing.

It's different.

I mean there are you know, different does not necessarily mean worse or better.

I mean, I feel like people are like.

In this case, I think it means worse.

I understand that word does not, but I think government censorship is worse than well.

I kind of believe in the fourth estate in a sense of like media both kind of upper highbrow media meaning like the New York Times and publications like that, and kind of lower media like mass entertainment.

Like you know, they have a lot of shared cultural powers, like I don't.

I think they're equal to a branch of government de facto in terms of the amount of power they have and when they act in unison, right, when you organize attemps to cancel people that may originate, you know, from progressive to now them a livelihood, like I I it's different.

It's probably less capital a authoritarian.

Yeah, it's also awful, Like I I'm not I'm not trying to say anything nice about the Jeff Bezoss of the world.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's really scary on that level too.

Yeah, And you know, I would like to see more liberals, especially they want to have the moral hot ground.

If progressors want to say, we're just in a fucking wrestling match with the GOP and will win through not brute force, but will win a maybe we're we think we're smarter, will win a tactically battle or whatever else.

Right, you know, I would like to say I've seen a couple like Abby Phillip, who was an anchor on CNN right, had a good segment about this.

But like, I would like to see more liberals say we fucked.

Up, right, we fucked up by abandoning free speech as a principle, by pretending.

You know, all these people that do the cancel and they never have any heterodox quote unquote opinions themselves, right, they always like have tuikie cutter opinions because they're not Actually, I mean, I don't like these people, so I'm not going to say anything overly generous, right, you know, I think a lot of people formulate their political beliefs because of pure pressure.

Right.

And one of the problems with journalism and kind of the liberal academy more broadly is like, and that includes a lot of fucking lonely souls who who are looking to be joiners, right, And I'm I'm against that, you know.

I think if you've never pissed an audience off or your own audience off, then like, how can you have lived in a very complicated world like we live in for you know, decades and not at some point had an opinion that differed from your tribe?

Right?

You know, that's totally fine if you each want to go in like and open a.

Nice little you know, pasta restaurant or something and get along with your customers.

Right.

But if you're a political commentator and you've never said anything that pisses someone off, then you are fucking like terrible at your job.

You shouldn't be canceled scent upliveing cancelation.

Right.

But like, but you just tell that you don't have any independent minded opinions and if you always align with one party, the parties are these weird monstrosities.

It's like saying I think that like PEPSI coo everything that It's like being a fanily of like PepsiCo or Coca Cola or something.

Right, Like, everything this gigantic, faciless corporation makes is the best thing on earth.

Right, It's you know, that's what the political parties are.

They're these kind of mediocre, gigantic brands that are trying to cater to the mass consumer and are pretty darn good at it.

Right.

But like, but you're just being a fanboy if you're always on the always advocating the party line.

Oh, absolutely, absolutely, you're being a brown spokesperson.

I think actually the the uh tie that you made to like coke or Pepsi or something like that is a really good one.

Right, You're just being a brand spokesperson for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

And this is why this is something that you and I talk about on the show frequently.

I don't think either one of us likes the two party system.

One of the main problems I have with it is that it discourages independent thinking.

Right.

Too many people are like, oh, i'm a this, I'm a that you apply the label and then you figure out what do I think based on that, not what do I think?

Therefore, what do you know who do I support people don't get that granular, or of course some people do.

But that kind of critical independent thinking is something that we should be encouraging, we should be fostering.

We should be creating a culture where people are rewarded for heterodoxy, not for its own sake, but just for having their own mind and for being able to say what they think.

And there are you know, you can agree, you can disagree, but yeah, we should be living in a society where people think for themselves.

And this is something that both parties are absolutely to blame for, and we are not in a good place right now.

So I really hope that everyone comes to their senses, including the Supreme Court, that we actually start supporting free speech and what it actually means right, which means that Jimmy Kimmel could have fucked up something that he said and then said, oh, you know, this wasn't actually true, and he wasn't removed from the air.

It's kind of that sort of a culture, as opposed to one where we start getting threats and trying to strong arm people into cow towing whatever the party line happens to be right, which could be liberal and it could be Republican and it could be either one.

I think that that's such an incredibly dangerous moment.

It really does bring me back to the Soviet Union and that is not a good feeling.

Yeah, and usould create more sigma for cowardice.

I mean, you know there were some people like in the whole Charlie kirk Kimmel thing, I mean, like you know Ted Cruz of all people.

Oh, I was about to say I actually agreed with Ted Cruz for once in my life.

I was like, what is happening, Ted, Crew?

Like this is bad?

You probably are more familiar with the research on this, right, But like when when a small number of people who are influential or actually have something to lose, right when they speak up.

You know, even Michael Eisner, the former CEO of Disney, I don't know if he's a friend of me with Bob byker or right, but he said, what the fuck are you doing?

Bob?

Right, And like, I'm sure that's you know, Disney's company, where people are usually pretty nice, right, And so that might have had an influence too, Right.

Yes, there's a lot of research on that night.

It's a very good point, and yes, all it takes is one even just one influential voice, and that can completely change the dynamic and what people feel empowered to say or do.

But this is a really interesting topic and I think one that we are going to keep revisiting on this show.

And I hope Nate that our show is still on the air even if we say something that you know, the FCC might not like.

What's your most cancelable opinion?

See, that's like a question you can answer.

Yeah, well, let's come back to that.

I think that'll be an interesting and interesting segment.

No, I actually I think that that is an interesting segment.

What's the most cansful opinion?

That It's like, it's actually your seventh most canceful opinion probably you know what I.

Mean, right right?

You have to do the game theory of that and you have to play that out.

Well.

We hope you feel more educated about free speech, which is something that really is core to risky business and to our ability to have this show, and to me as an ex Soviet immigrant, it's something near and dear to my heart.

So good luck, Jimmy Kimmel.

I hope that your return to the air was a good one.

Let us know what you think of the show reach out to Us at Risky Business at pushkin dot Fm.

Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanakova and by.

Me Nate Silvery.

The show was a cool production of Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia.

This episode was produced by Isaac Carter.

Our associate producer is Sonia gerwit Lydia, Jean Kott and daphnew Chen are our editors, and our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.

Mixing by Sarah Bruger.

If you like this show, please rate and review us so other people can find us too, but once again, only if you like us.

We don't want those bad reviews out there.

Thanks for tuning in.