This Doomscroll episode is available on video as well as audio. Be sure to follow our guest, Jamilah Lemieux!

Audio Chapters

0:00 — Steve Bannon loses appeal after trying to evade testifying requirements

03:23 — Rudy Giuliani fired from radio show for lying about 2020 election

06:48 — Joe Biden finally starts placing restrictions on Israel's Gaza massacres

09:07 — RFK Jr. says worms ate his brain

10:23 — Stormy Daniels kicks Trump attorneys' butts on the witness stand

12:44 — Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe blasted for collaborating on podcast with Kellyanne Conway

14:53 — Actress Hannah Einbinder calls BS on "cancel culture" whining

22:17 — Bumble CEO proposes nightmarish AI future for dating

29:02 — The Drake vs. Kendrick Lamar feud flares and ends quickly

33:58 — Rent is so expensive, people are living in store signs now

36:55 — Lifetime debuts new movie about mother who cyber-bullied her own daughter

41:47 — Trump supporters' latest fad: Adult diapers

Cover image: Steve Bannon speaking with attendees at the 2022 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. December 26, 2022 Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Lisa’s Upcoming Show Dates

May 28-June 2: Brad Garrett’s comedy club @ MGM, Las Vegas

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode Summary

Like many businesses right now, America’s news media industry is in a crisis. But what’s particularly dangerous about this crisis is that it’s one that most people don’t really know about it. A huge part of the reason why is that many journalists themselves, who are used to explaining how other parts of the world work, don’t seem to understand their own industry.

There’s a lot that’s changed about the media business in the past few decades. The internet and the idea that “information wants to be free” have seriously disrupted the news industry of course. But there’s another trend that’s had very serious implications for journalism that is mostly unknown, and that is the rise of private hedge funds that have almost completely gobbled up America’s newspapers. While that might seem like just another boring stock market story, the conglomeration of newspapers has led to massive job cuts which have in turn led to a lot of important local news being missed or being covered incorrectly.

The death of local news is a very serious problem for America and so today I wanted to talk about the situation with Margot Susca, she is the author of a new book called “Hedged: How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy.”

The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is also available.

Related Content

* Black churches and independent media helped shape African-Americans’ political identities, and Republicans seem to be benefiting from their decline

* How the far right built a political machine that's crushing the opposition

* MAGA media outlets are showcasing the extreme policies a second Trump administration would enact

* Today’s disinformation economy was built on the lying techniques of Big Tobacco

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Introduction

10:22 — What hedge funds are doing to local media

16:51 — How corporate media consolidation facilitates misinformation

20:55 — The importance of local news in civic education and de-radicalization

32:06 — Newspapers didn't actually need hedge funds, they were profitable

38:32 — The nonprofit news ecosystem: A glimmer of hope

Audio Transcript

The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.

MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: This is a complex topic, I think, and it's about finances and stocks, so [00:03:00] most people, when they hear those things, their eyes roll all the way back into their heads. But it's a serious issue. Maybe let's start with how did you get into it because it's not something that you were initially really paying a lot of attention to?

MARGOT SUSCA: I think it's it's fair and I did try to bring some narrative elements to it, but I think it's a fair point. Initially when I started doing research for the book, it was because of a question that I was asked in an interview with NBC News “Think” program that, it was not long after the FCC had eroded some media cross ownership rules and I was asked by the producer of the show about, how did I know that, I was saying, gosh, this is so terrible for democracy that you could now own a TV station or a radio station and a newspaper in the same market.

And I said, this is [00:04:00] terrible. And, this producer said, well, how do you, know it's as bad for democracy as you say? And I was thinking, theoretically, I knew as a politically economist of media, I had studied this, I had several dog eared works.

From, scholars that I had, used over the years, but I didn't really have any data to back it up. So early in 2018, I started studying the newspaper chains. I started looking at some of the, largest publicly traded newspaper chains in the United States to look at layoffs.

Specifically, I wanted to really kind of dig into the issue of layoffs. And over the course of the next several months I was doing a little bit at a time, it became very clear to me that the real story wasn't just the layoffs, but the real story, really, the institutional investors. These were the private equity firms that Controlled most of the shares of [00:05:00] the publicly traded chains but also by then, Alden Global Capital owned owned the digital first media news group newspaper chain.

So it became very clear that the story wasn't just about the chains that I was studying, and it wasn't just about these kind of effects, which I thought layoffs was one of the effects, but it was really about These institutional investors. It was about these wall street firms, but I'm about to write a business book.

I mean, this was not even a section of the paper that I would read. I would read the sports section. I would read the front section of the paper. When I was younger, I wouldn't even read the business section. So it's not, it's kind of funny to think that I would write. A book that was so heavy into, into financial issues.

And I think because I had been a journalist, I was used to having to, research subjects. And, if you looked at the bookshelf that's behind me, it's filled with texts about private equity and hedge funds. And I was very lucky that. [00:06:00] One of my good friends from college is now at a hedge fund and he was one of the first phone calls that I made, which is, what am I, where do I look?

What am I talking about? Where do I even go? And became a resource as I started. Looking at this subject. So, it is a huge issue and it is, as I, and over the next three years, it took three years and, unraveling, 20 years of what became 20 years of us securities and exchange commission documents.

Bankruptcy court documents for a number of the chains some that still exist, some that were merged into others or folded. It became this, steady kind of unraveling of, kind of what had happened to newspapers over the last, 20 years and well, yeah,

SHEFFIELD: And one of the things that you, do talk about in the book is that, the gobbling up of, newspapers and media by hedge funds. It is something that this is part of [00:07:00] a larger trend of private equity firms buying up other industries as well. And, so let's can we maybe talk maybe about the larger context of that? And when did all this stuff start happening and and maybe some of the other industries that have been affected this.

SUSCA: Yeah, so I, I learned, in the course of doing the research that this was part of what other scholars have called this period of financialization, that this wasn't just newspapers weren't just the only things that became the targets, that newspapers became the targets of a certain trend.

Group of private equity firms and hedge funds, but that there were other, other firms and other sectors that have been influenced and affected chances are, if you live in an apartment complex that it probably has a private equity connection if you're, at a major hospital chain, it probably has a private [00:08:00] equity or, have been, in a hospital.

It's probably has a private equity connection. A nurse, a major nursing home company probably has a private equity connection. It is literally in almost every industry that you can think of. That has. Had, other researchers have studied its impacts that have had dire consequences linking it to the 2008 mortgage collapse that a very small number of firms have profited very handsomely off of the destruction of, really on the backs of average Americans.

And what I was really interested in studying once it became clear over the course of. What was a couple of years of research was how this one institution that we have, which is the U. S. Newspaper market, which is meant to be a watchdog on all of these other government officials. And in some cases, industry has been really hamstrung by industries that were meant [00:09:00] to be a watchdog over.

And that's, what's really the most troubling is if it's, if we are, left with private equity influencing, we're supposed to be the watchdogs, we, the one industry that's named in the U S constitution, and if this is supposed to be really the last frontier and with the amount of influence that I was able to trace, I think it's really troubling how much influence there is.

In the U S chain market. and it grew over the time, I started doing while you were

SHEFFIELD: looking at it. Yeah,

SUSCA: that's right. From early 2018 until, from early 2018 until early 2022. And I turned in, the final draft Alden global capital bought a chain, Chatham asset management bought a chain.

And along the way there were all these communications with senators, you know I had foiled the u. s department of labor. There were a number of government agencies that were aware That were at least expressed some [00:10:00] concern. A supreme court case that you know dealt with the fcc so we essentially have what I say in the book's conclusion is a failure at every turn a regulatory a legislative failure as these chains just grew Larger and unchecked by a system that is meant to be.

A guardrail for public for the public.

What hedge funds are doing to local media

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and you mentioned some of these companies. Let's, maybe kind of talk about in detail about some of the specific ones. So, all the global capital, I think, is, the 1 that is often talked about by, if to, to the extent that people are aware of it, but for people who haven't heard of, Alden Global Capital, what is it and how much do they own?

And generally what are their business practices?

SUSCA: So Alden Global Capital owns the well now they own Tribune. So that is the Chicago Tribune. So the Orlando Sentinel. [00:11:00] And that deal went through, gosh, you're going to test me on some of the dates, I think that deal went through in late 2021, and they also, they first became owners of the Media News Group chain, sometimes used synonymously with Digital First which was a chain That includes the Denver Post and a number of other titles kind of regional newspapers.

So that puts them, in charge of, two of, I think, the, most significant regional newspaper chains are, in the country. How many newspapers they own is sometimes up for debate and I would have to, I'm not sure how many it is. I'd have to double check on what that figure is.

Of course, they own the Baltimore Sun, which they just sold, they just offloaded. To the person who owns Sinclair. And that was a hotly debated issue. So what their playbook [00:12:00] is, they started as part of Randall Smith, who was a hedge fund guy who was, I, found in a financial text was described as a profiting off of the misery of other people.

And Heath Freeman, who's the head of Alden, is described as kind of Randall Smith's protégé. And in 2017, so often newspapers get described as this tired old business. In 2017, Ken Dockter, who's kind of a newspaper writes about newspapers for Neiman described and wrote about some leaked Alden financials where he reported on Alden making $170 million in profits from the operation of its newspaper chains.

So I think it's important to note that whereas a publicly traded newspaper company, might have millions of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. When it comes to a hedge fund company, one of the things that happens is if you only [00:13:00] have, five people in that hedge fund, you get to share and split whatever profits exist among a very small group of investors and hedge funds like Alden Global Capital get to choose who they pick as their investors.

And it's oftentimes there's a minimum buy in that hedge funds have for their investors. They don't get to just Like, you and I probably wouldn't get to, they have a very wealthy class of investors that get to be chosen. And yeah,

SHEFFIELD: they're also not really regulated in almost in terms of who is allowed to become a member, whether it's foreign countries or, just individuals of any kind and other businesses.

And they're not required to make disclosures. They are really this black box that is buying up America's information ecosystem that is not overtly reactionary. I mean, like, that's, that really is [00:14:00] the, quintessence of the problem is that, we're, there has been a profusion of, radical far right media. Like for right now, for instance, of course everybody knows about Fox News Channel, but now there's like five alternatives to Fox News Channel that are there even further to the right. So you've got Newsmax, you've got OAN, you've got Real America's Voice, you've got Right Side Broadcasting Network, you've got Salem Media or whatever they, Salem News Channel, I believe they call it.

So there's been a profusion of these far right sources, and then at the same time, there has been kind of this massive concentration in by private equity firms of non overtly right wing media.

And then they are cutting it to the bone at the same time. Like that's one of the other, that's one of the other practices of how they get all this money from their newspapers is they lay off thousands and thousands of people.

SUSCA: Yeah. I mean, that's, it's almost inevitable. You can, the, patterns that emerge.

It's immediate that the [00:15:00] layoffs come. And, I just was reading Gannett's annual report. Gannett is not owned by a hedge fund, but its largest shareholders are some of the world's largest institutional investors. One of its largest is BlackRock, which has like 10 trillion, trillion with a T, like Tom in assets under management.

I mean, these firms have, assets under management that would rival some some countries, GDPs. I mean, these are huge, hugely wealthy, firms. And at the time of its merger with gate house, which was owned by a private equity firm, they employed 21, 000 people. When at the time, these two companies merged Thursday's annual report showed they employ now 10, 000 people.

So in, the span of four years, they have hacked more than half. Of their staff, and largely a lot of those came in the newsroom. I mean, came from people who were doing the work of democracy, who were [00:16:00] covering school boards, who were covering, the kind of county commissions, mayoral races, covering legis state legislatures.

I was reading another report. One in 10 state legislatures is covered by students today. I mean, that should shock everyone. I teach some very talented. Young people, but they're, many of them are still teenagers without that kind of institutional knowledge, to really understand, but into your point about the right wing media ecosystem and the void and this kind of lack of consideration of what happens.

The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, its Spanish language counterpart, is owned by a different hedge fund, a New Jersey based hedge fund named Chatham Asset Management.

How corporate media consolidation facilitates misinformation

SUSCA: And I just saw a friend who just left the Miami Herald a month ago. And she's, she speaks Spanish and she was talking to me about the readership at [00:17:00] El Nuevo Herald is down dramatically because there have been, there has been no investment in El Nuevo Herald since Chatham has taken over at the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald.

So what's happening is that she lives in Miami and she said, what's happening is El Nuevo's readership is going. To this far right am radio ecosystem that is flourishing in Miami Dade County, and it is rife, she said, with miss with misinformation and disinformation. And she said, when it comes to issues of.

LGBTQ issues and, again, we've talked about book banning and some of these other issues, it's just so alarmist and just rife with, factual inaccuracies that, her concern is that people are just not getting any Anything that even resembles, resembles any kind of fair, [00:18:00] accurate coverage.

And, that's the reality of news. If you call it the news ecosystem is without reliable local coverage, people are turning to this, to complete, complete, the, information void. Is just, it should shock all of us, really.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And like another another way that this is happening is, that there are these right wing organizations that are creating websites, which they're marketing, they're describing themselves kind of as a newspaper, but in fact, they are a propaganda operation owned by big donors or even the Republican party itself.

Of that state that they're in. And so like you've got, and there's now, a pretty, there are many states that have these things that are running in them. So there, there's a chain of things called the star. So Arizona star, Virginia star, et cetera. And then they've also got their other [00:19:00] ones as well.

And, and then of course the talk radio ecosystem is still there as well. So like all of these things are happening and it's almost like. I, feel like a lot of people who, especially, if you live in the the Ella corridor from, Boston to dc like local media there does exist and, is, has at least some, stronger foothold compared to the, in the rest of the country.

So, like, for instance, even in Southern California, so like here, I live in the Los Angeles area, which is the biggest. The, geographically the biggest metro area in the United States, second biggest in terms of population, all of our newspapers, that are like the sort of local.

So like the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Orange County Register, those are both owned by Alden Global Capital. And those, are, Papers have just become a shell of themselves. They really don't cover much of anything. And like, you pick up their [00:20:00] physical copy. It's literally like 10 pages or, they're, a section or less and like, it's, really affecting people's ability to know anything and.

We're in this situation now where if the, where in many cases, the only people that are talking about stuff are these horribly biased, reactionary extremists who are trying to shove an agenda on people like another example is. You've got this paper that's owned by the the Falun Gong cult, the the Epoch Times.

Like, now they're, they are delivering newspapers, physical copies in my neighborhood, and I'm sure a lot of people have seen this happening in their neighborhoods, that they just show up and throw it on your doorstep, whether you ask for it or not. And like, This has real impacts on people's opinions. So that's, I guess I put a lot on the table there, so feel free to pick and choose which one you

respond to.

The importance of local news in civic education and deradicalization

SUSCA: That's, listen, I mean, we should, local news, having a vibrant local news [00:21:00] newspaper in your community slows political part partisanship and it slows voter apathy. So regardless of your political affiliation It should be a bipartisan issue and I think You know that is it should be something that if you really are concerned about democracy Then it should be, something that both, liberals and conservatives care about and that, and it's, funny that you mentioned that, my dad is an MSNBC watcher and over the Christmas holiday, I was down and he was kind of, he's been kind of sick and he had it on and, I am not a cable news viewer because I just find it toxic and he had it on and it was, I was like, This, and I said to him, like, this is toxic, like, this is bizarre, I mean, this is, this is left wing Fox News, and it was just, like, this is just pumping [00:22:00] partisanship into, the living room, I mean, it's just, by design, as, it has partisanship as a feature, not a bug, and, that newspaper and his community, which he doesn't subscribe to, has been absolutely gutted. And I just think there are so many communities where, again, if you had that kind of, it used to bind people. So, where you're turning and, the other point that I would make is, there, there has been a lot of research from Columbia on these pink slime outlets, which are these kinds of hyper partisan dark money funded sites that you're talking about.

The other place is that Chevron funds. A local news site. I put that in air quotes in California. So that's the other reality is like, we're not just getting political dark money or political sites or hyper partisan cable sites that are driving a wedge places, but that we [00:23:00] have actual corporations funding sites, right?

So Chevron funding a local news site. I mean, imagine if there was, you're not going to get OSHA violations covered, by, and I'm not saying there are OSHA violations that Chevron is, has, but certainly if there were, they're not going to be covered. Imagine Chevron covering any kind of real climate change news in that community.

Never going to happen, that is also a real concern. So, I mean, this is really a time where we have to, I never believed in, in government, funded. I mean, we've always had the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Of course, the public broadcasting system, but there have been other scholars, Victor Picard at the University of Pennsylvania, who has advocated for, the return of a, a stronger publicly financed model.

And as a former journalist, I always thought, [00:24:00] Oh, well, that's going to interfere with our independence. But, after the, I finished this book and I saw Victor at a conference in October and I said, I think I'm really coming around to, to your view, which is the alternatives are just too dire to ignore.

And I'm not sure I know exactly what that would look like. There have been some others who have experimented with some plans. But, this is the continuation of this thread of hedge fund and private equity ownership of an audience that completely disengages or goes completely partisan. 10 more years of this, I think the consequences are, just almost too, almost too difficult to, even think about, and I don't think I'm being, I don't think I'm being, You're not

SHEFFIELD: exaggerating.

Yeah.

SUSCA: Yeah, I don't think so. I mean, I really think it's, just really dark to think [00:25:00] about, how severed. We are how polarized we are as a nation.

SHEFFIELD: Well, and it's also that the idea that of local media as a sort of a dissolver of partisanship, because, the 1 of the problems of why there's so much.

I think why there's so much depression and sort of discontent with society is that people have become, addicted to following national and international news that they have no control over themselves and that, and it's just the, these gigantic sort of morality plays, if you will, and that's, It's replaced.

It's like a soap opera of the news and you have no power over it at all. But it's also the thing that they tell you is the thing you have to obsess over. And, like, for somebody who is a [00:26:00] professional political activist or something like, obviously that's different. You may have some limited ability to do something about it.

You're just. As somebody who has a regular job, you're a teacher or, whatever, you're, a job that's not involving political activism. You really don't have anything that you can do about it. But then at the same time, there it's a nationalization and it's taking you away from things where you could.

Have an impact, which is your local community and your state and being concerned about things that are happening there, whether it's trying to get a, like, we're still at this stage where many states, they're, they, have the federal minimum wage floor as an example that, that they, that there are people who are, they would love to have a higher minimum wage, but they don't realize that they could, or that they deserve it.

And so like, and that's just one of many problems that if people were paying more attention to their local circumstances in their communities, that they could do something about it. Or, like, I mean, there's just so many things, but, yeah, [00:27:00] like, and the national press doesn't have the ability to talk about those things.

Of course they don't. Right. And you can't expect them to do it. But you could support your local your local media to do that. And they would tell you about, what's going on with that.

SUSCA: Yeah. And I,

SHEFFIELD: oh, go ahead. No, you can go ahead.

SUSCA: Well, I just, I mean, I think the issue of trust is also a huge, a huge issue, I may not trust, the CNN anchor, because they don't know me, but you know, I trusted the person who I saw, Covering that issue, or I, who I met who was gonna cover my daughter's gymnastics team being cut because the school board didn't have a budget for it.

And I, I got to know them over the course of that budget cycle, so I think that there are issues. Yeah. Because you can actually see them.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah,

SUSCA: absolutely. So I, that's, that's, something that I've been thinking a lot about too, and you know how all of these are kind of tied.

Tied together. And but you know, I think you're what you just brought up is [00:28:00] a really good point. And, I think these local mask mandate, that became so heated these board school board meetings, people screaming about Anthony Fauci at local school board meetings.

I don't know, it just, became just fodder for, it was, I think, a signal of how, how polarized we were I don't, it's,

yeah, it's, well, it's also interesting time.

SHEFFIELD: Well, and the other, as another example of this, that besides, the decay of local media is that, or an example of the decay of local media affecting people's ability to know things that affect them directly is that with these, book bannings that, that, have been happening, especially in Florida, but not just Florida, many other localities and states that these groups that were nationally controlled and operated They would descend into school board meetings and they would be professional activists who had been trained, for extensively to know how to [00:29:00] kind of bully a school board system.

And, they've done that also to try to suppress LGBTQ teens in, schools and teachers. Just from even acknowledging that they have a spouse of the same sex or, just even basic stuff like that. And, then the local media, if they're even there at all, which in many cases they're not but if they are there, they come in and they don't know who these groups are because their staff is, extremely young, extremely untrained.

They have no political memory. And so, they just show up and they're like, Oh, well, look, here's some concerned parents who are talking about, obscene material and they have no context and they don't provide the audience anything. They don't, they have, even if they hadn't tried to actively misinform them, that's what they've done.

And this stuff like this is going to keep happening and happens every single day. Across America because of the decay of local media, [00:30:00]

SUSCA: it's such a good point and I think, it's trying to stress to students that, my journalism students that, people will actively try to, manipulate you as a journalist, from, in trying to be.

weary of that and trying to be, you know, trying to understand that from whether or not that's a, politician spokesperson, or in this case, the deliberate action of, these kinds of people who paratroop into a local event and claim that they're being affected by, a book about, Jason Reynolds book that's, in a library or, the hate you give being in the library, it's, just, astounding when that young reporter is, expected to cover.

The beat of four people because of layoffs, because a hedge fund is, won't staff, fully staff a robust newsroom. I mean, it's, a really interesting point. And that is [00:31:00] the effect that is a direct line from ownership. To an audience that is underserved by a newsroom under this kind of control.

I was talking to one of my students, a first year student from a town in New England, a small town in New England, who said that, when she was a member of like a student liaison to the board of education, she received death threats from a group. That's very similar to what you're talking about.

I mean, it's just, Imagine giving death, I mean, death threats to a 16 year old who's trying to make her community better. A community, like you're saying, who, kind of paratrooped in to try to actively go against a mask mandate in, one of these small towns. It's just, it's, just, it's mind boggling what some of these groups are doing and it's just, there's a local news ecosystem that is ill equipped to try to inform citizens about the realities of these, of, as you say, this kind [00:32:00] of power structure that exists behind it.

It's, just outrageous.

Newspapers didn't actually need hedge funds, they were profitable

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and to go back to something you were saying earlier about kind of the financialization of the economy. The, newspaper industry itself wasn't actually unprofitable. Most of these, local dailies, I mean, they went from making gigantic obscene profits to making a smaller amount of profit, but it was still profitable. And like, I, that's a, that is a fact that I think often has gotten lost when people who might defend some of these hedge funds or, giant media conglomerates, they never acknowledged that reality, that they weren't saving anything like the industry itself, obviously you had needed to make some changes and, there were mistakes in terms of training and, some business model stuff, but it wasn't in.

A, it wasn't just massive money sinkhole that they like to portray it as. It, [00:33:00] that's just something not true.

SUSCA: Someone said to me once, well, these private equity firms, they saved journalism, and I, said, well, where's the evidence of that? Where's the evidence that they saved journalism?

I just don't see that if you can, cause I'm, my thing is I, always say to people, Where is your evidence? Where is your evidence? Because I have now, 20, 000 pages of documents. I mean, I'm looking at SEC documents. I've got, bankruptcy court documents that show, annual reports, shareholder meeting, documents.

Just give me the report. Give me the record. And the favorite, someone said recently on Facebook, they said, well, I was there. They say, I was there. I was in the newsroom. I said, Okay, well, where's your, other than you being there, Bob, where was your evidence? Do you have a document or a report? Something, show me, and I think this idea again, that, newspapers used to be among portfolio winners, I mean, they, you, I had one [00:34:00] person say to me as a former editor at the South Florida Sun Sentinel he said, which was in tribunes portfolio, and he said, the only way we could have made more money, this is from, they made so much money from advertising in the late eighties and into the nineties.

He said, the only way we could have made more money is if our printing presses printed 10 bills. I mean, it was a wildly profitable business, but into the two thousands, into the two thousands. Certainly the digital transition. There were changes even in 2021. Newspapers still beat S and P 500 averages and it doesn't get discussed.

And, I start one chapter even talking about Warren Buffett who called the newspaper industry toast. And I was still like so upset about this and because Warren Buffett isn't, didn't run a private equity firm. He wasn't, he was a newspaper owner. For almost a decade. And he had been [00:35:00] a longtime investor.

We own the Buffalo news, which is for, a long time, but in a long time, investor in the Washington post

SHEFFIELD: as well, right.

SUSCA: when he owned this newspaper chain and he said, so he, he bought it and this newspaper chain, and then he sold it to Lee enterprises. And he called the newspaper industry toast.

And one of the things that got reported in the Financial Times, but didn't get reported as widely as him calling the newspaper industry toast, is that BH Finance, so the subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, when he sold his newspaper chain to Lee Enterprises, He also refinanced some debt that Lee Enterprises had to a different private equity firm and a different Wall Street bank firm.

And so what, and what's going to end up happening is that BH Finance, the subsidiary [00:36:00] of Berkshire Hathaway, is going to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of the debt. that Lee Enterprises, a different newspaper chain, has. So, he's calling the newspaper industry toast, but here, Berkshire Hathaway is also making tons of money for its shareholders off of the debt that a different, that a newspaper newspaper chain has.

So, you see, it's like people, you profit off of this, story that you're telling of a newspaper's insolvency, and it just, there's a part of me that just, as the accountability part of my title, I'm a professor of journalism, democracy, and accountability, like, it just drives me bonkers that, that can be, that narrative can be allowed to exist.

SHEFFIELD: Well, okay, so, let's, [00:37:00] of the things that are in the book that we didn't talk about. formally yet. What would, what are like one or two things that you want to make sure that we do?

SUSCA: Okay, so I, yeah, so I think that, one of the things that I would just emphasize is that, not to say that the U. S. newspaper system is a perfect system, not to say that it worked for everyone throughout American history, It certainly, I think, was the best established system that we had to provide voice for, for, communities across America to, to right wrongs, to right institutional failures.

And I think that, we're losing that system. Day, by day, weekly newspapers are closing at an alarming rate. Daily newspapers, more than 200 have closed in the last 15 years. And I think [00:38:00] that, behind those closures there are not, behind those closures, are certainly there are profit motivations.

So I think that the one thing that I would say is that, we're losing functioning system that is meant to hold government officials accountable. And I think that's a really troubling, troubling reality. And I think that it's not too late to try to get some interventions.

The nonprofit news ecosystem: A glimmer of hope

SUSCA: And one of the things that I would emphasize is that there is a growing nonprofit news ecosystem.

Even since I finished the book when I wrote finished the book, there were 400 nonprofit newsrooms in the United States. And today their number about 425 nonprofit newsrooms. So I think that this is a really encouraging sign. There's been a massive philanthropic. A commitment from the MacArthur Foundation and the Knight [00:39:00] Foundation to, give 500 million to the local news ecosystem.

Much of it will be geared toward the nonprofit news space. So I think that there are some hopeful moments for the local space. It may not be the newspaper space, and I don't think it has to be the newspaper space, but I think that. It's going to be up to citizens to try to, be active and engaged and it's not, they're going to have to be, to reach out and try to engage with some of these nonprofit newsrooms.

In their communities. Hopefully they are in their communities. And, to try to find these reputable news outlets because, the alternatives are are pretty, pretty bad.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I agree. Well, it's been a great conversation. Margo. I I think the book is definitely something that people should be looking at, especially if you are, somebody who works in the news [00:40:00] media, like those are the people who absolutely should read this book.

You need to understand your own business and understand what's happening to it, even if it's boring and not exciting to you immediately, it eventually once you get into it, you'll realize It's a lot scarier and a lot more. To you. So at the very least, they should be reading this. And I think everybody else should be reading it too.

So, we'll encourage everybody to do that and I'll put it up on the screen. So it's the book is hedged how private investment funds helped. Destroy American newspapers and undermine democracy. And then you are also on social media over at Margot Susca. That's M-A-R-G-O-T-S-U-S-C-A for those who are listening. Thanks for being here.

SUSCA: Okay. Thanks, Matt, for having me.

SHEFFIELD: All right. So that is our program for today. I appreciate everybody for joining us for the conversation. And of course, you can get more if you go to theoryofchange.show you the full episodes with the audio video and transcript of [00:41:00] everything. And if you are a paid subscribing member, thank you very much.

You also have unlimited access to everything. And theory of change is part of the flux media network. So go to flux.community for more podcasts and articles about politics, religion, media, and society. And if you can support us with a paid subscription, obviously I definitely appreciate that. But if you can't right now, I understand that's a difficult circumstances for people.

And different at different times. And, but if you can leave a nice review on Apple podcasts or Spotify or something like that, is much appreciated. And if you are a watching on YouTube, please click the like and subscribe. But that is it for this episode. I appreciate everybody for being here and I'll see you next time.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

In this special Doomscroll episode, Matt tells about his time working in right-wing political comedy, including constant pressure from reactionary Christian colleagues about racy jokes. The video of this discussion is available.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Introduction

02:01 — Matt's upcoming memoir

10:13 — Launching a YouTube politics show in 2007, before the internet wheel was invented

17:35 — Taking right-wing comedy into broadcast syndication

Cover photo: A screenshot from “The Flipside,” the syndicated comedy news TV show on which Matt worked as an executive producer

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode Summary

Protestant televangelists have been infamous for decades for their lavish lifestyles and nefarious scandals. They’ve also been extremely successful at promoting far-right political viewpoints to people who just want to watch some devotional preaching.

The radicalization of American evangelicalism is finally beginning to attract the journalistic and scholarly attention it deserves, but there is something very similar happening among some Roman Catholics in this country that has not be reported on enough. One of the prime culprits is a cable TV channel called Eternal Word Television Network which many people outside of EWTN’s elderly demographic have never heard of.

While it may not be the most famous brand among political junkies, EWTN’s influence on Catholicism in America and around the world is substantial. By its own account, EWTN reaches 400 million households in more than 150 countries. It also owns a radio network with 380 affiliates, several news services, and the influential national Catholic Register newspaper.

At its founding in 1981 EWTN wasn’t about mixing far-right political agendas with religious services. But in the years since, it’s gone all in for Donald Trump and a host of extremist Catholic figures who are bent on canceling anyone with progressive views in the church, even Pope Francis himself.

Joining us in this episode to discuss is Molly Olmsted. She is a staff writer at Slate, and she wrote an extended article about EWTN that is definitely a must-read.

This episode of Theory of Change aired previously on July 30, 2022. The transcript of the conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is available.

Related Content

* The Christian Right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it became a force for Republicans

* Far-right Christians think they’re living in a Bible story, and that you are as well

* In the Republican coalition, Evangelicals bring the votes, Catholics bring the brains

* Charismatic Protestantism is reshaping faith among Latinos, and American politics as well

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Introduction and background on EWTN

06:37 — The beginning of EWTN's shift to the far right

09:40 — Raymond Arroyo, EWTN host and Fox News commentator

12:16 — Once it shifted far-right, EWTN has been buying up other Catholic news sources

16:51 — EWTN and the rise of far-right American Catholicism

27:10 — The theological framework of being more Catholic than the pope

Audio Transcript

The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.

MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So I gave a little intro about what EWTN is, but let’s maybe just go through a little bit of the history. So it started in 1981 and who was the founder of it? And how is it structured?

MOLLY OLMSTEAD: Her name was actually—Rita Rizzo was the name she was born with, but most people know her as Mother Angelica.

She was this poor girl [00:04:00] who grew up in Ohio, in this neighborhood that was ruled by the Black Hand, this mob basically. And it was just this really violent, intense childhood that was governed by a lot of illness and death. And it was a bit of a horrific childhood actually. So she eventually just sort of sought comfort in religion, that she found to be compatible with her experience of suffering, which has really formed a lot of the shape of EWTN as it exists today.

It is one that really does expect a sort of intense form of the faith, one that’s slightly less forgiving. And so Mother Angelica, well before she was Mother Angelica, she became a nun. And she moved on down to start a monastery in Alabama. Initially her intent was actually to work with the black population in the South, which she never actually ended up doing, because she almost immediately, through her charisma and levels of charm, was able to start an entire media network.

It’s something that she got hooked on quickly. I think she realized she was really good at fundraising. Really good at being able to capture people’s attention. And she really wanted to proselytize and spread her version of the faith.

So when she became Mother Angelica, when she was head of the order, she actually was a woman who had a lot of people really devoted to her. And she amassed quite a bit of power through this charisma, despite the fact that she was technically a cloistered nun.

SHEFFIELD: And one of her inspirations for this, for what she was doing, was Pat Robertson, the Protestant televangelist. Talk about that a little bit as, as far as that went, if you could.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. It is interesting to see how [00:06:00] Catholic media have sort of taken a lot of the lessons they learned from really influential Protestant televangelists, given that so much of the Catholic media branding is often to differentiate itself from Protestants.

But in this case, we found that Mother Angelica really learned from them the tricks of the trade in some ways, and actually ended up hiring a bunch of people who came from this Protestant televangelist world who were able to help her figure out how to run her network.

It’s funny, because I think there was also this charismatic Catholic movement that was happening at the time, which is very– it emphasizes speaking in tongues, that sort of dramatic thing, which we tend to think of as a Pentecostal thing now, but it, there is actually a history of this in the Catholic charismatic movement.

And she got into that for a bit. She later sort of distanced herself from it as, so I think she thought of it as maybe something sort of silly she got into, but there’s so much of the sort of drama of Protestant televangelism that she was able to adopt and really speak directly to the listeners in a way that I think made her a lot more successful than maybe if the bishops, who are a bit stuffier, tried to do it on their own.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And for the longest time their programming, it was less dramatic than it is now. And it was not really political. I mean, it was primarily a lot of devotional stuff, so sermons and showing various ceremonies and speeches from various religious leaders.

But eventually that kind of started to change over time. When do you think that they started becoming political? What was the first step, if you will? Was it bringing on the more news content do you think?

OLMSTEAD: Yeah, there, it was a [00:08:00] bit of a slow shift in some ways, it’s one of those things where in retrospect, the broader context was also changing of how people thought about religion and politics, but there was a specific moment where she seemed to really snap, which is when there was a World Youth Day in the nineties. And the Pope was there, it was a big deal.

And it was this huge moment for EWTN, because they were carrying the whole thing live. So they were really the ones who were sort of spreading this big, massive moment in which Catholics were coming from all over the world to the United States. So this was a time when Mother Angelica herself had been slowly turning away from her earlier, more loosey goosey, hippie moments and was becoming more personally socially conservative, which seemed to be a general trend she’d been on for some years at that point.

But these stations of the cross which I’m sure is something that’s in every World Youth Day, it was being acted out by a troop of mimes, which is kind of funny. And then when the mime came out who was supposed to represent Jesus, it actually turned out that that mime was a woman, which I’m sure they did to sort of be really inclusive and a little bit different, reach out to all the young people.

But Mother Angelica was horrified and she pretty much snapped. And she, in her show soon afterwards, gave this really incensed diatribe in when she just poked her finger at the camera and was like ‘You evil, liberal American church.’

Because she really believed that the Catholic church, as it was represented by Rome, was true and good and doing the right, normal thing; that the Americans were derailing it to try and make it something really into gender politics [00:10:00] and just breaking all the rules. And so immediately she enacted all these strict rules for her own nuns.

She had them wear a more traditional habit. She sealed them back up in their cloister, tightened the rules, and then every show after that was increasingly political in nature, where she was really going on about these sort of conservative– not fully partisan, but largely partisan politics. That was a big turning point.

SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm. And I guess one of the other stops along the way was their their creation of a weekly news show called The World Over with this guy named Raymond Arroyo. Talk a little bit about him and where he is in the Republican media landscape.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. Raymond Arroyo was kind of Mother Angelica’s anointed son. She seemed to really love him. He wrote her biography actually. He is their most inflammatory host by far. His weekly shows, if you watch any of them, it’s consistent, it’s all partisan politics.

It is basically a Fox News segment that just has some Catholic elements sprinkled in, is how I would describe it. His guests come on are typically priests and other Catholic figures who are willing to talk about the same partisan politics.

And Raymond Arroyo, who again, he’s sort of the face of the network or at least on the news side, now that Mother Angelica has died. He’s like the big face that still is out there. He himself is frequently on Fox News. He goes on Lara Ingraham’s show regularly. They have a segment together and sometimes he even hosts for her.

So he is really keyed into the Fox News network. He’s just hyperpartisan to an extreme of the kind where he was downplaying the January 6th insurrection, of the kind where he’s always sort of [00:12:00] floating ideas about black violence, particularly when it comes to riots. It’s pretty extreme and it very rarely has anything significant to do with Catholic matters, as you would’ve expected from the early days of EWTN’s programs.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, and the other thing about him as a media figure is the way that Fox has included him, is extremely different from how they regard other right wing television enterprises. So like they absolutely hate Newsmax. They absolutely hate OAN. They ban anyone who’s affiliated with those entities, but they see EWTN as a source of branding for them. And so that’s why they bring him on so extensively.

And I have to say just on a irrelevant personal sidenote, he kind of looks like Peewee Herman, I have to say.

OLMSTEAD: He does. And I think that’s part of the reason he hasn’t been more successful on Fox. I just think he doesn’t quite have those sort of tougher look. Yeah.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. But he’s, of course, not the only political person. They have several other ones, they’ve been expanding their news, quote unquote since his show came on the air, but EWTN has been just on, on a really expansionist impulse. They’ve been buying up these new services. And in the Catholic media, there traditionally had been really two kind of large enterprises that were kind of pushing and pulling against each other in a mostly friendly rivalry. But EWTN bought one of them. Can you talk about that dynamic a little bit?

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. I mean, they really are eating up everything else, and you haven’t mentioned this, maybe we’ll get to it later, but huge international expansion as well. But there’s two, there were two major Catholic sort of news wire services. One that was a little bit– it wasn’t fully, it wasn’t progressive, but it was centrist, at least. Whereas there is a conservative one that is actually [00:14:00] free to the public and free for all dioceses who want to print news to be able to use.

And part of the reason that it was free is because it really wanted to be able to sort of expand its perspective throughout the Catholic church. So I’m talking about Catholic News Service.

SHEFFIELD: Well then of course there’s the National Catholic Register as well, and then not a news service, but yeah. Yes, those are some similar things.

OLMSTEAD: Also have the National Catholic Register, whereas there is the progressive National Catholic Reporter, and those have that pull and push situation going on.

But the rest of Catholic media is pretty much being gutted. And so what you have found yourself in a situation is where EWTN essentially dominates the entire Catholic media market, along with the properties that it owns.

SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm.

OLMSTEAD: So now there’s virtually, I mean you have America magazine, which I think is largely for sort of the liberal intellectual types. And then Commonweal, which is also pretty progressive, but virtually–

SHEFFIELD: Small circulation though.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. Small circulation. And then you have the National Catholic Reporter, which a lot of what it has was based, I mean it ran a lot of things pulled from the news wire service that is now being gutted. So we are ending up in a situation in which the vast majority of Catholic media is owned by EWTN and is conservative in nature.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. One of the things that I’ve always found interesting about Catholic media is that it gets dramatically less scrutiny compared to– I mean the mainstream media doesn’t really pay attention to religion generally, unfortunately. But at least every once in a while, they’ll run a report from someone, saying, oh my God, look at what these televangelists are doing. What is Jerry Falwell doing? What is Pat Robertson doing? Franklin Graham, et cetera.

They might run those once in a while, but there’s literally no coverage of what’s happening in Catholic media.

This [00:16:00] is a serious issue, because you quoted from some of the the viewers of EWTN. And they’re just, they’re so devoted to it, and it is warping their minds. So I’m going to quote from somebody that you quoted, it’s a 95 year old viewer of EWTN.

She said: “I have trouble falling asleep since my husband passed away two years ago. In January of 2021, I scrolled through the television at midnight, I came across your channel and daily mass. I am so thankful to have EWTN in my home. It is so hard being alone. You have become my family.”

And that’s, I’m sure, not a dissimilar perspective to a lot of their viewers. These are people that they just are looking for comfort, or religious devotion, or just something to speak to things that they care about, and it’s radicalizing them and, they don’t even know it.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. There was some, I don’t think I included all of this, but I heard that a lot of people were alienated from their parents because of QAnon, people who were alienated from their parents, because they got sucked into this sort of EWTN world. Because a lot of people watch it in retirement homes, or just in general it is attractive to a lot of older Catholics.

And then you also have, I talked to one professor who told me he teaches at a Catholic university. And he told me a lot of his students, EWTN had been sort of their big Catholic media source as well. So you’re seeing it not just with the older people, but with a huge number of these intensely fanatic young Catholics as well. And it’s quite influential.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. They’ve been having some conflicts with the pope recently. How does the church take their recent radicalization? It’s not, it’s not owned by the church.

OLMSTEAD: Right. Yeah. It is not owned by the church. Actually, this is another thing I think I couldn’t get into, but Mother Angelica– EWTN was about to undergo a visitation from the church, which essentially means [00:18:00] they were they were going to investigate the problematic things about it.

And she was worried the bishops were going to then take it over because technically, as a religious sister, she could not directly disobey the–

SHEFFIELD: She’s an employee of the church.

OLMSTEAD: She’s an employee of the church, exactly. So what she did is, right before that visitation came to happen, she was like, I need to get, I need to make sure that this is a lay run institution so that they can’t take this away from us. So she signed off her ownership of it. So that it was run by a lay board that then the church had no ownership over. So this happened decades ago.

And the result has been, there is no oversight. They can’t do anything about it, but Pope Francis has said, he didn’t say it was EWTN, but he was like a conservative television network in the United States. That’s the only one. He was like, ‘they are the work of the devil.’

He was very direct about ‘these people are corrupting the church by selling division.’

And the way that a lot of the people who defend EWTN are able to sort of deal with that is by saying that– I mean, Pope Francis doesn’t watch EWTN, I’m assuming or read any of it. So they’re just assuming someone was whispering that in his ear, who was maybe sort of a liberal advisor who had it out for them kind of thing.

That’s how they tend to react to that. But the one and only thing that I have heard sort of speculation about them trying to intervene is like a little bit of backdoor, backdoor like discussions especially over Raymond Arroyo’s show, which seems to be the main issue. So there was a little bit of talking to– having these discussions about, can you get him to pipe down and just sort of voicing that they were not a big fan of it.

And then also, they’re trying to keep a close eye on [00:20:00] them by– they appointed the CEO to this Vatican board essentially for communications. It is an advisory position.

And then they also might be keeping an eye on the local bishop in Alabama, but still there’s nothing they can do. It’s totally a lay-run organization, which I do think a lot of people agree is for the best. The Pope shouldn’t be able to just take control over things, willy-nilly take control over media, but it is a situation where they’re also pretty reliant on EWTN, because there’s so few Catholic media networks that they do need EWTN to broadcast things for them to get their appearances out there. And so there’s also a little bit of dependency issue there as well.

SHEFFIELD: You mentioned the international presence of EWTN, and I mean, that’s not just a source of viewers. It’s the great source of revenue for them. But it seems like also that they are kind of in many ways, kind of serving as a center for building out opposition to Pope Francis across the globe for different cardinals who don’t like him or archbishops who want to criticize him.

They say they have household reach of 400 million people. And it’s, I just find it incredible that the American press really doesn’t cover EWTN at all. I mean, why, why do you think the mainstream media doesn’t pay attention to religion as much?

OLMSTEAD: Well, first off. I will say that. I don’t know how much we can trust that number because there’s no.

SHEFFIELD: Oh, sure. Yeah.

OLMSTEAD: Journal thing to check that.

SHEFFIELD: That’s just, but it’s 400 million available.

OLMSTEAD: Right. Right.

SHEFFIELD: Is my guess.

OLMSTEAD: I mean, with Catholic media, I will say, the thing about EWTN is if you, if you ever watch it, it does look like it has a pretty low production value. Like if you watch these shows, they are not particularly glamorous. Even their shinier news shows, they do just look like sort of [00:22:00] the, the, the offbrand Fox news vibe. Right. And something about that, I think can make you underestimate them. Because you forget that a lot of the older viewers that they have don’t care that it looks like it’s from the 1960s.

SHEFFIELD: It might be an advantage for them.

OLMSTEAD: Right, exactly. Where like, with the big flashy, evangelical televangelists, there’s that obvious pizazz there. Whereas this can look pretty sleepy which makes it boring, which makes it not interesting.

So you might just not be paying attention to the fact that they’re saying these pretty radical things, and at times hateful things, and it just goes under the radar, because it just looks like the least intimidating thing in the world.

You also have an assumption when you’re dealing with Catholics that because you’re working with a hierarchy, it’s easy to just sort of focus on what’s coming from the top, without remembering that Catholicism is being lived, not in a top down way, but in the same way religion is being lived everywhere.

So even though you do have these, these rules, people choose to ignore them. They choose to have their own version of the faith. It operates culturally, just like everything else. And it’s just a easy thing, I think, to forget.

And also, Catholics are not a, they’re not a political bloc. They don’t operate in the way that white evangelicals do, where they’re quite the same political force.

But experts have been saying a lot that we are underestimating conservative Catholics. Because they are pretty influential. Just they don’t do it in quite the bold and inflammatory way that white evangelicals often do.

SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm. And I think a, a way where that’s demonstrated is that when you look at the way that right wing Republican policy is effected, it’s almost overwhelmingly Catholics who are doing it. So [almost] every single Republican Supreme Court Justice on the court is a Catholic, if I’m not mistaken.

And then you had people like former [00:24:00] attorney general Bill Barr, and there’s a lot of people in Republican politics who are part of this hardcore faction. But what’s, I guess even more concerning is that that faction, which has been around for decades, is actually under attack from an even further-right faction among Catholics.

So you had this outlet, internet outlet, church Militant, it’s run by a very flamboyant, supposedly “ex-gay” guy. And they’re openly aligning themselves with white nationalist groups and, doing things with them and going to events, promoting each other. I mean, this is some serious stuff that’s happening and it seems like it deserves a lot more attention. .

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. I mean the, the Church Militant guys, they kind of, they represent this inflammatory version. There’s also the, there’s these sort of snooty academic versions that are sort of represented by the legal scholars that’s just as, or even more dangerous, but also coming from a very extreme right position.

You have all these different factions. You have the people who want to take us back to this sort of medieval times, before a lot of reforms were made. The Catholic right is not a unified bloc. There’s about four different factions, I would say. There’s crossover between them.

But I would say that what we think of is sort of this traditional EWTN style leading a lot of things in the Supreme Court or even in the judiciary or the Trump administration or whatever, those people are relatively centrist compared to some of the figures we’re seeing out there.

SHEFFIELD: And what’s your sense about EWTN’s perspective on some of these extreme right-wing Catholics or do they talk about them?

OLMSTEAD: Yeah, I asked people about it, and I think they see it as competition more than they– I mean, they’re not worried about it in terms of the worldview. They’re worried about them in terms of audiences that can be taken away from them.

So [00:26:00] you mentioned Church Militant, but we also have this group out of Canada called Life Site News. These two pages have both gotten in trouble for spreading fake news and misinformation.

They’re pretty extreme. And I think a lot of people worry that they’re sort of able to whip people up a little bit more. Able to get them more worked up. And so I think EWTN sees them as this sort of rightward flank. As a potential audience, more than they see them as anything dangerous.

SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm. And now what about the Catholic center to left? In the United States and elsewhere, do they, are they aware of just how influential EWTN has become over their own parishioners? I mean, does this concern them at all?

OLMSTEAD: So I do think the concern is EWTN’s participation in this broader network. So when we are talking about the Catholic right, we are talking about this sort of behemoth that is several institutions working together.

One of them is people in these fundraising type groups that also operate as ways for people, wealthy Catholics to network with people who are high up in the administration or people who are in the judiciary or whatever it is.

So you’ve got this sort of clique that also has deep ties to people in academia, that also has deep ties to people in media. And then also ties to a number of prominent bishops who are sort of the Francis opposition. And so you have this little network that is actually, if you look at who the power players are, you, you see them in every single institution, they’re just popping up over and over again.

And they’re deeply connected. But the media is the part of it that is the way that this really grows and is most threatening. So when they see EWTN’s [00:28:00] influence, I think it worries them as it represents this whole network of people.

SHEFFIELD: It’s kind of fascinating to me, this dynamic though, of the Catholic right. They allegedly are believing in authority and top down obedience. But they don’t behave in that way at all with regard to Pope Francis. And what they’re doing essentially is trying to force this kind of rightwing American– because I mean when you look at maps of political parties around the globe where they are on the left or right, the United States Republican party is way off to the right compared to most political parties in Western countries. And so among Catholics globally, the perspective that these people have is just totally out of step.

And the viewpoints of Pope Francis are– that’s the mainstream basically. And I don’t know if they’re aware that they’re out of the mainstream, or they don’t care, but it, it’s just fascinating that as much as they pretend to, claim to believe in following the magisterium of the church, well, the main thing of that is obeying the pope.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. This is a thing that I have come to understand a little bit better as I spent more time talking to these people. There is like the fringe that believes that the pope is like the “anti-pope” or whatever it is. This is not the sort of position that the EWTN people take.

They see the magisterium, the church, its teachings, its leadership, but the leadership that they sort of choose to draw their inspiration from are those is past popes.

And the conservative bishops. So they don’t so much see the current pope, Pope Francis is part of that. And again, it’s something that there is a tradition of, in that the U.S. has always been rebellious when it comes to the Catholic church. It used to be flipped the other way around where in the [00:30:00] sixties, you had a really conservative Vatican and then the bishops in the U.S. were more liberal. But now it’s extremely the other way.

And we have this very different church here, but yeah, they just, it’s so funny. Because this is the irony is– they used to be all about obeying Rome. And now they have just chosen to believe that that’s what they’re doing, but they’re doing it in a way that is longer term than the missteps of the current pope.

They see it as something that it’s like, ‘we exhibit the true nature of the church, even if the pope who’s leading it right now has strayed from that.’

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Really, this is the old phrase, ‘more Catholic than the pope.’

OLMSTEAD: Yeah.

SHEFFIELD: That’s what it is. And it is an interesting little contrast, because you do kind of see this also with regard to Republicans and law enforcement. So ‘back the blue,’ et cetera, they talk about that all the time, support police. But then at the same time, they also don’t want to prosecute anyone who was invading the capital on January 6th, and was injuring police and attacking them with poles and knives and whatever.

They don’t talk about that stuff. It does kind of point to a larger sort of dynamic in the, the right wing sensibility, which is more that there are no principles, there are only people. That’s who is believed in. So as long as the right people are in power, then they can basically do anything that they want. And it’s, so it’s more about people than it is about principles. That’s that’s my take on it. What do you think ?

OLMSTEAD: I mean, I really think, just looking at this, is it all comes back to the culture wars. I mean, it’s all about finding your tribe in the culture wars.

And if your tribe is the kind that says gay marriage is evil, you’re going to do whatever you can [00:32:00] to buttress it, stay with it. Even if it takes you down these extremes, your identity is so tied up in that, that there’s just no letting go of it. The culture war–

SHEFFIELD: You’re God’s servant, yeah.

OLMSTEAD: Yeah. I mean the culture wars are just, they’re like no other. Here in the U.S., it’s just not like any other country in the way that it’s taken over politics. It’s very much taken over the Catholic church in a way that doesn’t neatly fit the culture wars on paper. I mean the Catholic church just doesn’t fit with it. If you look at the actual policies coming out of Rome, you got some things that are on the left, some things that are on the right.

There’s just– it doesn’t work in the way that it does with Democratic and Republican parties here when we’re talking about partisan politics, but they just try and jam it in there to make it work, because it’s tribal identity above all else.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, alright, well last question before we wrap up here is what kind of response did you get to your article?

OLMSTEAD: I didn’t get anything from EWTN itself. They never responded to me. They never talked to me. Just a lot, I will say for legal reasons, there were a bunch of things I couldn’t publish.

And a lot of people wished that I could have aired more dirty laundry. And I understand that. So there were some people who are really out there hoping that Catholic media are going to be able to pick up the things that I wasn’t able to run with. And so if there’s any Catholic reporters out there who ever see this, hit me up, I have stuff.

But I think for the most part, people felt relieved to see people talking about this, because there’s just been virtually no discussion of it. Otherwise, I got the people you would expect who said I was evil and all that, but mostly I was happy to see that there were people who were like, I’m so glad we’re talking about this.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I hope people can follow you on Twitter. So you’re at Molly stead that’s O L M S T E a D. And then of course, people can find you over on slate.com as well. Thanks for being here, Molly.

OLMSTEAD: Thank you.[00:34:00]

SHEFFIELD: So that is our show for today. Thanks for joining and I appreciate you being here. Please do visit us at flux.community. You can also go directly to the Theory of Change archives at theoryofchange.show. And then if you’d like what we’re doing here, we can use your support. And I appreciate everybody who is supporting us right now. Thanks very much. And if you would like to support us, please go to patreon.com/discoverflux.

I hope to see you on the next show, and that will do it for today. Thanks. I’m Matthew Sheffield.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This Doomscroll episode is available on video as well as audio. Be sure to follow our guest, John Fugelsang.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Trump and RFK were supposed to team up against Biden, but now they hate each other

07:54 — Arizona indicts 2020 fake electors and many Trump attorneys

10:26 — Fox has been barely covering the first presidential criminal trial in history, while massively playing up isolated student protests

16:15 — Great news for employees: FTC bans non-compete agreements

21:33 — George Santos gives up independent congressional comeback after raising zero dollars

26:44 — Oakland church is using psychedelic mushrooms in worship services

Lisa’s Upcoming Show Dates

May

11 — Opening for Todd Barry in the Netflix is a Joke comedy festival. @ Dynasty Typewriter, Los Angeles

12— Opening for Todd Barry at the Improv, Ontario, CA 

May 28-June2: Brad Garrett’s comedy club @ MGM, Las Vegas

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

The past two episodes of Theory of Change have focused on dating and sex, and I wanted to end the miniseries with a conversation that brings in the topic of media as well. Not just because the next episode arc we'll be doing is about the state of journalism, but also because media have played an important role in how people meet and form connections.

It seems forever ago now in 2024, but for many years, one of the ways that people went on dates was through a local newspaper and their personal ads. You’ve likely heard of them, even if you never used them: “Single white female seeking man for tennis and deep conversations.”

There were many other types of classified ad as well: “Got a trip to Spain coming up? Learn Spanish from the comfort of your own home with our great tutors!” And so on. Millions of short messages like these were the original social media feeds for communities, the place to figure out what the regular people around us were up to and what they were looking for.

And as it happened, some people were looking for sex workers. But strippers, escorts, and other such professionals weren't allowed to advertise in the respectable daily newspaper, so instead, they turned to their local alternative newspaper. In their heyday, alt-weeklies, as they were often called, were an industry that brought in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. They also produced a lot of great journalism—and the first real challenge to the bland and cowardly approach that even today dominates so much of mainstream media.

The story of the alternative weekly newspaper and how the former “counterculture” became the mainstream is one that Sam Eifling and his co-producers tell in a new podcast for Audible called “Hold Fast: The Unadulterated Story of the World’s Most Scandalous Website” that’s definitely worth a listen.

The transcript of our conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is also available.

Photo montage: Flux. CC by SA.

Theory of Change is part of the Flux Media network, please support our work and get more content like this by subscribing on Patreon or Substack.

Related Content

* Dating in the present age has become quite the mess, how did it happen?

* How the Christian right is using sex to sell religion

* CNN and Fox are having very different identity crises

* Editorial cartooning is under threat in the age of the meme

* The rise of Donald Trump reshuffled the right-wing media business

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Introduction

07:27 — How Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey’s New Times revolutionized newspaper classified ads and later online adult ads

19:31 — How dating and hooking up via text advertisements worked

30:09 — Alt-weeklies were the first real challengers to the false promise of “objective” news reporting

36:24 — Before the “counterculture” won, libertarians thought they were on the political left

47:04 — How Backpage replaced alt-weeklies for sex workers trying to be safe

52:47 — The bipartisan prosecution of Backpage’s founders

01:05:57 — The personal story of a john named John

01:14:41 — Conclusion

Audio Transcript

The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.

MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: I think a lot of people have never heard of Backpage at this point, whether being too young for it or not being [00:04:00] interested in those types of services. So why don't we start off by describing what Backpage was, and then we can get to where it came from.

SAM EIFLING: Sure. The simplest way to describe Backpage is that it was a knockoff of Craigslist, like a pure just, straight up Craigslist knockoff that eventually, because of the attitudes and past sort of business expertise of the owners, really became the go to red light district for sex ads on the internet for the better part of a decade.

It was a company that grew out of a company I used to work for. It was a newspaper company called New Times Inc. When when I started working there in the early two thousands, it was the biggest chain of alternative news weeklies in America. So these papers you would get, they were free. They were paid for by advertising display ads, which are usually what companies take out and classified ads, which are what individuals mostly take out.

Classified ads could be [00:05:00] selling your couch, selling your car, a help wanted ad.

And part of the New Times model for a long time was to welcome and encourage ads that had a sort of a grey zone of sexuality, right? So it could be massages, it could be escorts. I'm sure there were working prostitutes advertising at the Backpages, Backpages of New Times papers and probably helping to pay my salary and that of other reporters. It really wasn't our business to focus on at the time. But as that model fell apart, as Craigslist came in, especially, and started disrupting the entire online classified ecosystem, and these papers started wondering how are we going to get the money to pay for the journalism, executives at New Times came up with the idea of essentially running the same style of ads that they ran in the papers online in a Craigslist like format.

And over the years, that became increasingly [00:06:00] a lightning rod for attention and negative attention, especially when it came to people who would go to the media or appear in in different venues and say: “I was trafficked via Backpage. Someone held me against my will and advertised me as a sort of basically a prostitute or at that point, really a victim of a crime of sex trafficking on Backpage.”

And with a few of those accusations out of millions and millions of ads, there became this groundswell. The groundswell led to activism. The activism fed into political pressure. Political pressure led to the arrest of the main characters in our show, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin. Years ago it started this chain of, alternative news weeklies, and now we're being arrested by the FBI and charged with essentially facilitating prostitution at probably the largest scale that's ever [00:07:00] been, accused in the history of the U. S. government. They were basically saying, you guys are, in the biggest pimps in the history of of America.

And they were thrown in jail and taken to trial. And so that's sort of where we picked up is, the beginning of the show is the arrest of, of Lacey and Larkin, and by the end we're, we're at a, a federal trial to hear, to hear the government make their case against, against Backpage and the Backpage executives.

How Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey's New Times revolutionized classified ads and weekly newspapers

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's a, and it's a story that. It's a, it's a really important story more than you would think. I think for people who, like, Oh, I would never place a adult classified ad, or, I would never go to a prostitute or whatever.

There's, there's some, a lot of real implications to all this, both where they came from, and, and the case against them.

So let's maybe step back then to the beginning here. In 2024, it's like, It seems a world removed in many ways, this industry that these, these guys really kind of started [00:08:00] and of alternative newspapers.

And a lot of this, I mean, it really got started with the village voice out of out of New York City in the 1950s, and then kind of, there were a bunch of, Sort of self styled underground newspapers that were kind of run by anti war college students primarily in the 60s and 70s. And then it became a business with these guys.

So, why don't you talk, tell us about that and what they were doing. What they, what did they discover that people had missed certainly.

EIFLING: Yeah, it is. it's to me, I'm born, I think age is a big part of this. So I can just say born in 1980.

And when was a college student thinking about getting into newspapers or journalism at all, newspapers were still really king newspapers and magazines. And I think a lot, as a lot of did probably in that age. before there were blogs, before there were podcasts, you might think about starting your own paper, [00:09:00] right?

It was, it was something you could, you could write, you could print, you could, you could report, you could have a voice, you could raise hell and distribute it. And that was a model that had been around for a long time.

In the case of the Village Voice, it started in the mid fifties in New York and sort of set the template, right? Which was a paper that was adversarial to the entrenched power structures in the city, including the existing media, which I think was a big part of what, I anybody now who, gets or a lot of I don't know how many vlogs are picking apart the mainstream media.

Well, that used to be the role of these, kind of insurgent newspapers and news gathering organizations.

But what, what made New Times different, what made New Times successful was that found a business model to go with it. So our, our really our protagonist the show is a guy named Mike Lacey. Mike Lacey was a college student at the at Arizona State University in the early 70s, and he and a bunch of friends put together this anti Vietnam War protest paper. [00:10:00] At first, it was a collective. It was chaotically run. I'm sure with the ideals of the day in mind as they set the business structure, which was basically no business structure at all.

And when I worked at New Times, very famously, Mike Lacey would talk about having donated plasma in the early days to keep the paper going right? These guys were broke. They're having fun. They're raising hell, but they Jim Larkin. Who was not a journalist, but who really enjoyed journalism and appreciated good journalism approached the paper sometime it started and said, look, I think you guys have a really good thing going. I Also think you don't know what you're doing on the business side I have a lot of ideas.

And essentially Larkin didn't invent this model But I think he ran it very well, which was to sell a lot of small ads in the paper that maybe were coming from businesses sort of, they were selling these ads to businesses that were too small to advertise in the in the big [00:11:00] daily, which was the Arizona Republic in phoenix.

So if you ran a very small business, or if you were a one person, if you were like a person giving guitar lessons, you were a handyman, or you were you were the kind of seamstress who would patch up people's clothes. Like this is the kind of stuff that, you know, you probably wouldn't place an ad in the daily, might just flyers around your neighborhood, but here comes this paper. The space is cheaper. You can buy small ads and you can participate in the community through your advertising, right?

You, you become, you have a platform effectively. If you buy a little piece of this paper, the genius of classified ads, the absolute, the key to classified advertising. They're really two one, they are really small, but because they're small, you can sell them basically at a premium on the page. So if one page of advertising holds just one ad, that ad costs a lot of money.[00:12:00]

But you have holds 200 ads collectively, those 200 ads add up to a lot more money than you would charge for the one. It's more work to put them in and also just know, it's, it's it's like any kind of, like, parceling up of a, of real estate, right? The smaller you cut it, the more you can sell, the more total sales value you're probably going to get out of it. So what happened in these papers, New Times especially, but The Voice did this, they could run literally thousands of these ads.

And these ads were run by so many people from so many walks of life that, No one advertiser really had editorial say over the paper, which was key. If you had one big ad and one big advertiser, that company, and it was always a company at that point, that company would expect to have some leverage against paper.

And they would. And dailies they did, anywhere, anywhere a big advertiser is funding a lot of the work of a journalism organization, they have a lot of say whether whether [00:13:00] the journalists even realize it or not, right? The owners make way for for a big advertiser. If there are thousands and thousands of advertisers, if it's that democratic, that collective and that many people are coming in, you can run a lot of material in the paper that could potentially piss a lot of them off.

But be fine because if 10 people walk out, you don't really right? There's so many people advertising that it effectively creates this way of community support, financial support for a newspaper, a news venture, and New Times ran that model very well. They ran it in in Phoenix, and then eventually they saw other weekly papers around the country.

This is in the early, mid nineties. Actually, I guess, yeah, the early, mid nineties is really when they started to expand and they saw other papers that maybe were doing good journalism that had the, had the instincts to cover their city really aggressively and and to connect with a community of readers, but maybe they didn't have the business down.

And so [00:14:00] gradually New Times started buying up these papers. They went to Denver, they went to Miami. They went to San Francisco and where they went, they would buy a paper that maybe wasn't making as much money as it could. They sort of install their software, a way of thinking of it. Their, their business--

SHEFFIELD: Their formula.

EIFLING: Their formula, which they took lot of s**t for over the years, like having a formula, but they became very financially successful. And through that through a zillion teeny tiny ads, right, from people every walk of life, walking, walking into the newspaper with up to the ad window, sometimes dictating an ad, sometimes having it written down they were making at the time I guess 2005, they eventually merged the Village Voice Company and New Times.

And when those two companies merged, they created a company that had Even though Craigslist was eating into their model at that, at that stage, then it combined [00:15:00] revenue of almost 200 million a year.

It was a giant And that was off of, I think, 17 papers. And there was big money to be made, and a lot of. Bare journalism that just would not have any place, in many cases, at the Daily Papers because it was just too it was too unfriendly to kind of the, the ethos that most papers maintain to be to be the kind of like network TV of, of their city, right?

These papers could be HBO or something more aggressive, something a little more adult, something a little more risk taking. And for a lot of journalists that made an attractive place to go try to start a career.

SHEFFIELD: For people, I think, especially who kind of built. This alt weekly model. They, and the people who worked in it, at the, at the high level, I don't think they really understood that how abnormal this was and that this was a moment in history that was so [00:16:00] completely unique.

Nothing like that had ever really been done before. And and it was fleeting with, with the rise of a Craigslist and, and social media.

EIFLING: I think. I think that's right. I think we got a good, I know, 40 year run out of it, which I was lucky enough to grab a little piece of and a lot of my co creators too, we were, we were of a generation that look backward, enjoy the heyday, really the peak. We were there at the financial peak of alternative weeklies and maybe the cultural peak.

And I think as the internet atomized journalism in different ways. The cultural need for a paper that did the things that those papers did also kind of dispersed, right? Like, they were very aggressive about covering music and culture and well, I mean, that's TikTok now, right? That's instagram.

There's so many people [00:17:00] who have become mainstream. Yeah. Experts on those sorts of things in their cities, you no longer need a newspaper to be the arbiter of where to go on a date this right? You don't need to pick up the paper to find concert listings mean, think about the days where, like, you didn't know what movies.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, you got, yeah, you got Fandango. You got Yelp.

EIFLING: You've got all of it, right?

SHEFFIELD: Or even in your maps app.

EIFLING: Yeah, it's, the, it really is the took apart the, departments of, of weekly newspapers, papers too, but just focusing weeklies, it took took and. who just loved those subject areas, I kind of just started doing mean, let's take Craigslist, Craig Newmark.

Sometime, I don't know when he moved to San Francisco, was, he was the Bay Area in the 90s, and was new to town, and had given him recommendations on go shows, what bars to hang out in, or [00:18:00] he was into at the time. those recommendations from people.

And so he decided, man, I now know the well enough. want to give my own recommendations on this stuff. So he started Craig's list of basically just like stuff to do around the Area. And it out of generous spirit. I all had in a certain town and they do we go?

And they say, all right, well, here's my top 10 recommendations. he was kind of doing that on a rolling basis. And as he got a large enough list, he made it gave a more formal structure and kind of operationalized it and built on this classified site, which turned into a literal website of world historic importance and in what it did publishing in America.

And, but it came out that same impulse, It's like, I some cool stuff. I know people are looking for cool stuff. I'm just going to tell him what I think is cool. And this conversation. And so [00:19:00] think that large, that writ by everybody who has a publishing platform now always going to make it really tough for papers to exist because much of what got do was a conversation now lot more people lead a lot more conversations and their, their to and there are benefits to

And, but but it was a completely different time for, for us. Understanding a city understanding was to do and who who had to say it's completely You're right.

How dating and hooking up via text classified ads worked

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and in addition to that, at the sort cultural level it also definitely was the case that this was a unique. Model in terms of what it did for dating and sex and things like that, that, I, and we, you talked about it a little bit earlier but you know, the, the idea that, because, I mean, obviously call, prostitution, the oldest profession.

So people have always done it and they did it before the old [00:20:00] weekly. But doing it became a lot more manageable for people. They pre screen their clients. this was not something that, somebody who was just working really could ever do back the day,

And so with the rise of the, the, adult ads in, in these papers and then later within Backpage know, some of the And dating websites. I mean, this was This was something completely different, but that I, think is interesting and unique about the, the sex ad in the old paper is that these were ads. These were, you were interacting with someone, but it was only based on like now, you, you look at, whether Tinder, Bumble, whatever it is, you see And that tells you nothing really about who they are. Not really.

And [00:21:00] so it's, whereas, with, with these classified ads, you could actually see how somebody thought. thing you could see about it. I mean, what's, what's your

EIFLING: I think that's, yeah, there's a few vectors there that I admit I never dated Via classifieds, right? I'm the, I'm at that generational cusp where I was born earning a salary from that, but I was never my dating scene. So in course of reporting the show, I had to go back and ask people who, who did use classifieds, right?

And, and there are a lot different ways, a lot of different entry points, but one couple who I found in San Francisco who married based on ads that they 90s, Ed and Lisa I talked to, I to their home and I asked them, hey, how did this work? it?

And the way they did which I think a, was common model at the time, And there are certainly like, degrees of classifieds. [00:22:00] Let's just, let's just be, be clear in the way that there are adult dating sites versus just dating sites, right? There, there are certainly a myriad different dating apps.

These that have different levels of of different. They have different cultures, right? Different cultures, different of you're going to find and what people are going to be based on what you can assume they are. And I think the same was true for placing personal ad in a paper. So Ed and Lisa found each other through the mutual appreciation of a paper the San which was competitor to New Times Francisco.

And back then, you place an in the personals section and the personal section would, as say, have just some writing about yourself. Right? It would probably list some you people how old you are. would tell people your your age, usual things.

You might [00:23:00] educational background. You might say what sort of industry or field you work in. And then want to, yeah, I think be charming in a small Sometimes way to be charming is to you're 6'4 right?

That's fine. to be charming is to say you have an athletic build and you really enjoy a certain, certain like exercise pastimes that, know, you want somebody surfer, like say you're surfer, right? Whatever, whatever that is.

And in the and Lisa, Lisa placed the ad and she kind of had charming patter go the models that no longer exist who wanted to respond to that called a number and it was like 1 a minute or 50 a minute and you left voicemail for Lisa. Right? So if I read Lisa's Lisa seems really don't get to swipe on her and she back. Right. have to pay money to [00:24:00] call. 900 number at time, leave a voicemail. It's going to charge credit card.

in that, and this is what happened with Ed he, he had been a college radio DJ in his day. He, he had very good voice and was charming on his message. He mentioned that he think he's, I think he's 6'4 that he, he would tell him that he looked like Jeff Goldblum is the early nineties that Jeff Goldblum, early 90s Goldblum, 6'4 with a radio DJ voice is good.

So he leaves his message and Lisa calls him back. But what she was telling me was that once she plays the ad, and I don't know what she the ad, if anything, the bay Guardian ran for as long as she left in. Because, Probably people are reading it and they're like responding to And as long as ad paper calling the number, that's the money. that was, that was the old model was had to pay to try to court this, you know, this anonymous person who you only know through [00:25:00] 40 words of type or something.

I don't know was. It was it was short. And then you would call and leave the voicemail. So, a little bit people and the way that I think if you're on Tinder, Hinge, whatever. Like, you know, a little bit and you just of hope that you bring your best self and that whatever is the little bit that you can reveal in that small somebody else responds to.

So it very much, I think, of a to that dance, in a different way. And you're without an image of somebody, you really have to you have, you have to, you have to people with other, other wiles, right? have to bring, bring other stuff to table. Yep. Yeah. And then there was also a genre and you guys did talk about it in the show.

Also that there was the, sort of the, the spotted Type of classified personal ad where, essentially proclaim their infatuation with someone that they saw somewhere in a random moment. And like, I, I don't, that sort of thing is gone now, I think. But for those who [00:26:00] aren't familiar with that tell us about those.

I used to love this on Craigslist. So as a sort of a sidebar of this, Craigslist used to run personals. They no longer do. Craigslist dropped out of that game. Amid the pressure that Backpage stirred up, Craigslist was also in the in the crosshairs of Congress and Whereas Backpage basically said come at me bro. Craigslist was like peace too much heat. We're getting out of this game.

But Craigslist used to have the most fun read anywhere. I thought, were the missed Connections, right? It's what you're talking about, which is usually the I was riding the bus, I was on, I was in line at this coffee shop or, or I was riding my bike and I saw this amazing person and we had this tiny interaction and you, it's, it's this kind of letter in a bottle that somebody just throws into the ocean-- is the internet of whatever city and they say, you were wearing this, you were about this tall. You said this to me. I said this to you. I should have gotten your number. And, let's get together.

And it [00:27:00] feels like those are usually written by guys, but they're, they were this wonderful, I don't know, sort of like sub genre of like inner interior monologues that people were having all over the city.

And you really got to see what people wish they'd said in the moment, or maybe there was a reason they couldn't say what they wanted to say, they tried something and it didn't quite work whatever, but you really got to sort of see inside people's hopes romantically and people's regrets, oddly, right?

Like an instant regret situation you say, Oh man, I should have, why didn't I just, if I'd only, I could have. And, and as a genre, I, those have been around a long time. Those were in the Village Voice for years.

There was a the movie, the Madonna movie from the eighties desperately seeking Susan was kind of based on some of the same same premises in those ads, right? So those have been around a long time. But there I think you're right. They're pretty much gone these days. I follow at least one Instagram account. I can't remember what [00:28:00] called that does that in New York, that there are still misconnections partly because. They're so entertaining, which is the other part of what made classified such a strong component of these papers for so long.

They're entertaining. You read that want it. It's like it would be like looking inside of somebody like the city's tender profiles and you're just kind of like scanning these. And what are people, what are people doing to try to find each other? What are the risks that they're taking, which is always part of dating, always part of trying to find somebody is like taking a risk of some kind, right?

And When you see people walking through like I should have taken more of a I have put myself out there. Here's who I am. Here's who I know. you are, you're out there and I can tell you a story. So I actually did. I used to be, this is years ago, but I loved reading those so much.

And it was always so frustrated that people didn't like, walk up to somebody and start a conversation. And so I actually placed a misconnection for myself in the misconnections. I was like, I was in New York. I was like [00:29:00] 26 years old. I was like, look, I can't. I don't understand why nobody talks to anybody.

I'm gonna be at the Natural History Museum. I look like this. I'm gonna be walking around this time. Come up and talk to me if you see me right. I've placed like a like a preview misconnection for people.

And I ended up not even go to the museum. I was too sleepy, too sleepy and lazy that day. But somebody wrote me back this woman, her name is Heather, and she was a cook in New York. And she said, Hey, this was really funny. I also I have the same reaction to these I won't make it to the museum. I'm sorry, but I invited her to a house party we ended up dating for a little while because I was like, Hey, you seem cool. Like come to this party.

And she did. And then here we were in New York. Right. And so, I think that was the one like weirdly successful wormhole I went through on a misconnection to actually connect with somebody, but it was, It came out of that shared sense of like, are people kidding? Like, step and ask her her name, man.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah.

EIFLING: Yeah.[00:30:00]

SHEFFIELD: that's lost and, it's, it's worth remembering it or knowing about it. You never heard

Alt-weeklies as the first real challengers to the false promise of "objective" news reporting

SHEFFIELD: There was a political component as well to these papers that we're talking about as well that, that as you were saying, that a lot of the sort of family papers, as you guys refer to them the general interest newspaper, like the, Cleveland plane dealer, Kansas city star, et cetera, et cetera, Amy Harold. They, strictures on them, editorially speaking that, in, in many ways we're kind of seeing a recapitulation of that with the Republican party nationally, having gone so completely insane that, a lot of the national press organizations, they are afraid to say that and afraid to tell the full truth about the Republican party.

And, but this is a dynamic that has always existed, ever since the [00:31:00] invention of mainstream journalism, quote unquote and the idea of, object objectivity as a, as a business proposition.

And, and it was always absurd because of course, believed it necessarily, especially if it was about something that they knew about I think everybody's had that experience that, when you, when you know about, it's something that I feel that you work in or something that you have is a really big hobby and you read about it.

And, publications, a lot of times you'll be like, nah, that's wrong. Or that's, that's not fair or whatever it is. So it was always a flawed model, but you know, it's collapsing on itself, I think, at the, on the national scale, but you know, the Alt Weekly is kind of, they expose that on the, on the local level as well.

EIFLING: Yeah. There's a, certainly there's always a component of language policing that we all do with ourselves all the time, every day at scale, at a business, the kind of business that a daily wanted [00:32:00] to be, which is essentially a monopoly. In, in town. Right? They want to be the 1 stop shop, but they also wanted to be. For the most part, inoffensive, right?

I think, if you ever read a daily paper, place where you see that attitude, I think, carried out the most is on the, with the, like, the comics. If you, if you read the funny pages, whatever it was. Most newspaper comics really suck. They are so boring. They're not funny. They're, they're really just pretty much like the definition of content as this kind of regurgitated stuff that you open it up and you're like, oh yeah, that's what beatle Bailey is doing today. It's not funny.

And then you think of underground comics, right? Underground comics, Are so dynamic and so lively and so alive and so weird and funny and maybe sexy and dark and touch upon human experience in this way that like the kind of the stuff served up in the paper every day is like just isn't I think you can, you can certainly amplify that out and yeah, that [00:33:00] we're just, you didn't want to offend in certain ways. The, the phrase that you'd always hear working at Dailies and I started my career at Dailies and I went to a journalism school at Northwestern that was oriented toward the culture of Dailies.

And so part of the culture of dailies is people are going to read this over breakfast. Imagine a person who doesn't want to be hit with a certain level of, like, sexuality or, or graphic violence or whatever are the things that could put somebody off as they eat their grapefruit and drink their coffee, right?

You're writing for that person. A person who in the, in the sort of like imagination of the paper is person easily offended who might cancel their subscription or write an angry letter or call the publisher, going to happen. And so most of you're there to do is like not rock the table.

Some news. It's just gonna be scary or, or off putting like there's, [00:34:00] that's just the way news is. But, but so much of what the paper coached internally reporters to do and editors to think about is like, don't offend anybody needlessly, right?

Well, but like, okay, like life is hard and there's a ton of things that we talk about, a ton of subjects we don't talk about that. can hit people the wrong way.

if you never, if you're never going to put yourself in a position to disturbed, well, you're going to have a view of reality that's just a little warped, right. kind of self policing is a big danger of what you're talking about. If, and if you say, I think now certainly there's a lot of, a lot of the culture war, a lot of the sort of left, right bite over reality comes down to what words do we use?

Right. What comes down to, I mean, just, it's just extraordinary to me how how much mileage [00:35:00] the, the sort of like, tut, tut right has gotten out of a pronouns. Right. And I think, and I think really the strategy there is to say, you're policing our language, so we're going to police your language. And it becomes this weird, like mirror upon mirror effect,

But I think that that battlefield has been really opened up, partly because people don't read the dailies anymore. The exist because they kind of moderated things right?

And I I don't moderate in terms of like a debate moderation, but it was a place that that moderates had really the stage, right?

And, and I think we have removed moderates from a lot of the content and a lot of the media that we absorb. And so what we get are people who are really pissed off on both sides feeding algorithms that feed us more of that. And so we're back to having language wars when a of it was just kind of, it was understood like you just you use [00:36:00] certain language.

It didn't use certain language, whereas at new times we got to use certainly certainly in quotes, right? A lot more profanity and a lot more. Color in the language than, than we would ever get away with in the daily. And it was really fun, but it also helped you capture life as it happened and not be not pretend everything was, was PG rated when life is, life isn't.

Alt-weeklies enabled libertarians to intersect with progressives in a way that's almost entirely disappeared

SHEFFIELD: And the other interesting thing is that they were conceived in sort of. This moment where Libertarians saw that they were anti-conservative. And basically, essentially what happened is that a lot of things that were perceived as counter-cultural such as being openness to drugs or.

Like, supporting marijuana legalization or supporting prostitution legalization, or, being saying profanities on stage, things like [00:37:00] that.

EIFLING: Access to abortion, right? Access to abortion is a big one.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And so. Those things became mainstream and so essentially libertarianism bifurcated and joined up with its right wing origins and and and some of that story played out in the in the all weekly world as well.

Right?

EIFLING: I think that's right. I think what used to be counter cultural. Lit. And in some ways it won, right? Like we now, it's not like, i, I wasn't alive in the early seventies, but from all accounts, oh my gosh, there was just no recognition that anything but heterosexuality was the default mode that everybody was issued upon birth.

And we just didn't talk about anything else. Right. And it wasn't until, The riot, which literally happened across the street from the old village voice office and the voice, which was not particularly progressive on this, on this particular issue. They were kind of, an old straight boys club, like everybody else.

At the time they looked out their [00:38:00] window, watched these, this like gay bar blow up and get into a riot with the cops are like, well, we have to go cover this. And have to discuss this issue. We have to talk about civil rights for people who aren't the sort of like nuclear family from the fifties that everybody had been kind of like boxed in by.

I think, I you're right. It, there wasn't a shattering in a way. And I think, though, strangely, we're coming back to it, right? It's coming back around in this way that it felt like many of the, many of the reasons for there to be a counterculture. eventually won the day. I think drug laws, certainly compared to the 70s, are far less draconian nationwide.

That's changing very slowly, but man, what a difference between now and when I was a kid.

I mean, to think that today in New york City, like, they basically just don't prosecute marijuana possession, and to think of the untold lives wrecked by that [00:39:00] before over basically a Nixon era campaign against people he didn't like. I mean, his. Is a big sea change, right?

But now we're back to, for instance, arizona its 160 year old abortion law that roe v. Wade had, had tamped down. We're, we're back in the, we're back in the Civil War. I mean, literally, we're back in Civil War days if you want health care and before, 50 years before women could vote and, and that's where we are, right?

SHEFFIELD: You're also seeing it like in, in Florida with these book ban laws, like, the Republicans went back to it.

And, and then largely it is because the Libertarians let them do it. That's really they need to, wake the f**k up. It's what I would say

EIFLING: I think it's funny because I and I made this joke with my with my co producers on this is, for a long time, I think in recent years, libertarians and the [00:40:00] religious right have been have been sort of linked arms right in places like Texas.

But I think they're both going to be really unhappy. If either of them gets what, what they want, right, if libertarians really get what they want, like the religious rights gonna be pissed off and if, and if religious, if the religious right gets what they want, true libertarians, and I don't think there are that many, frankly, true libertarians I think they're gonna be pissed off.

There's this, politics, weird bet, strange bedfellows and all that. But certainly I think if people were ideologically consistent libertarians instead of this sort of like authoritarians in sheep's clothing, as I think a lot of libertarians have proven to be there, they would be consistent on things like government interference in your personal life, including who you marry, who you have sex with, if it's consenting adults, can you, can you, can you advertise that you are a person who is gonna have sex with people. Can you do it for money?

All of that would seemingly be things libertarians would be in [00:41:00] favor for, I think what we find is libertarianism, these days as it exists, mostly belongs to men, and most of it isn't really ideologically consistent with anything except laws that certain men want to see put in, put into play, frankly if, if I benefit themselves.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah.

EIFLING: Or just to benefit their glandular to world. I mean, I don't even think it's really consistent or don't think a benefit. There's not a benefit to most men For women not to be able to access health care and get an abortion this is like it's like guys have you played this out on your checkerboard of life like what happens if sex becomes life threatening to people. Do you think you're gonna have more sex or less?

And it, it stuns me to, to see the, the zeal with which men want to, men in particular want to clamp down on women's behavior [00:42:00] and to imagine the world think gonna inherit when, when they're successful that. It's not one. not one that is make you happy. It's not gonna, it's not gonna peaceful. it's not gonna be enjoyable. And and yet here we are, we're fighting these fights without, in some like, without sense of history or without the sense of place that I think frankly, good local journalism can provide help ground in a, in a reality.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and yeah, and that is definitely a thing that's missed is that as these conversations and different topics have, have, sort of bifurcated into their own realms, the things that people like let's say if you were primarily interested in reading an alt weekly for the music reviews or the restaurant reviews, like that was why you picked it up. But you would still look at these other because they were there and it was easy. Right. But now if you're, somebody who's just like a hardcore foodie or, you're a heart, you're [00:43:00] dedicated to two or three musical groups or whatever.

You can look at, Only those things. And you don't have to see anything else and you don't get educated about any other issue or any topic. And it really has. I think that's kind of a dilemma that Joe Biden is in right is that I think a lot of people who, I mean, when you ask Americans in polls, do you support same sex marriage or do you support birth control?

Do you support marijuana legalization, any of these variety of things that has a vast majority support. Many of the people who have those viewpoints have no idea that there is a party that is trying to take those things away from you. They want to take your contraception. They want to take your, right to get an abortion.

They're going to do it. They're going to make your kids pray in their fashion in school. These are their goals. And they don't even know that this is happening. Because they, they don't have any exposure to the media.

EIFLING: I think there's also a sense along those lines. I think there's a sense of, well, that's [00:44:00] not really gonna happen. Well, okay. Yes. If you can totally can. has in the past. Think there a lot of people who never thought Roe would be overturned partly because It was so good for the republican base To never be able to get to the end of something, right?

It was this, was this telenovela you would always tune into. Republicans are like, tune in next week with your donation dollars as we try to overturn abortion. Everybody's like, man, they just keep making all kinds of money off this. And then, the strangeness of the Trump administration getting to install three judges in four years bites everybody on the ass.

And you say, No, these guys were serious. Like they were serious. And I think it would be folly not to take them to at their word. I think I think it is more certainly seems more real then it had been for a long time. The idea that really fundamental questions of American democracy and American rights, [00:45:00] that we had been conditioned to expect could could be overturned. And in fact, there wouldn't be a place to go to really appeal that that that wouldn't be like a do over. It's a bit like Brexit, right?

I think there were a lot of people in the UK who are like, we're not really gonna do this, right? Like, we're not this. We're not serious. And then you see,

SHEFFIELD: I don't have to vote on it.

EIFLING: you watch this. Yeah, or like, this just isn't a big deal. And then it passes barely. And then you see this, the news stories the next day about how many Google searches there were In the U. K. For what is Brexit, right? I think we're at that point where it's like, Wait, what is what is a wait? Contraception like we're not going to have contraception like that just doesn't compute with people. And I think there are and this is my area of expertise at all. But I think there are a lot of journalists who are who are working really hard right now to try to do those stories that get beneath the surface of what certain political leaders.

And I think there are a lot of journalists who are who are working really hard right now to try to do those stories that get beneath the surface of what certain political leaders. True religious backgrounds are and what they might ascribe to and what they might do. And it's [00:46:00] way more serious than I think a lot of people have given it credit for.

And, I, I come at it from the journalism world. I think we should have more coverage of the results of elections. I think that'd be terrific. think we live in a country where because of the electoral college, I think we There are really only about 10 states every four years that decide the presidential election.

We have been conditioned to just not really participate in ways that I think really the kinds of and kinds aims that you're describing. Because truly it just does not matter if most of us participate and that's so deeply structural it will never change in

And that, I think it, the well, frankly, to change through action or political attention. may as well just like, watch and go about our, our lives very, very hard turn those things back if [00:47:00] if they flip.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.

How Backpage replaced alt-weeklies for sex workers trying to be safe

SHEFFIELD: Um, so, just now to go back to your, to the story you guys are telling with the, so, so Craigslist comes along and destroys the newspaper industry basically. And a lot of that is their own fault because these executives, they thought that this was forever what they were doing.

They didn't realize it was abnominally. And they, and they thought you could get away running a business with 20 or 30 percent profits forever. When no business was like that almost, like it, well, and yeah, like from literally no business other, other than a few years timespan industry will last that long with that kind of just never happens, never and these guys, they, they, they just sat on their ass and, and their business was taken away from them by their own negligence. And so, and, and that was also the case guys, as, as [00:48:00] you guys talk about that, they, they knew Craigslist was out there, but they didn't really, paid too much attention to it and until it kind of completely destroyed the weekly business.

So then, as you said, they, they went over and started Backpage and Backpage, and I have to say like Backpage in its heyday, it, it was very important for sex workers to be able to, get a living and in a way that was safe for them. And I mean, you, you want to talk about that aspect For for a little bit here, if you,

EIFLING: Yeah, that's. I so I'm not a person who ever used. Backpage or used, I know, like, to me, back, I was a little naïve in, in my 20s and 30s, but on a show this, you sort start to see, like, oh yeah, this is, this was more of a thing.

People would really advertise, like, sexual services, and it would be, be online, and reply to [00:49:00] that, and then they would go exchange money, and have sex, and the world would keep turning, and Backpage would keep a little piece of and take an even smaller piece of and give it to, give it to newspapers to keep them running. What's so wild to me about what Backpage did from people that we talked to making this story and sex workers that we quizzed about it, they all really liked it. And it was, it was such a contrast talking to people who advertise on Backpage or use Backpage or who were sex workers.

And it might not be, look, it might not be prostitution. It could be, it could be running a dungeon. It could be a of different things that people advertise for. So I don't want to say it was like, all prostitution. wouldn't be the case, but, the public perception of a place of a lot of

And there were terrible things that happened out of the ads that people placed in Backpage and on Craigslist. [00:50:00] As, look, I mean, you get millions of people connecting and a lot of them are expecting sex or, or, people get into sexual situations for power dynamics and, and, know, when people got killed, we don't want to minimize that one bit, right?

But it a very small number compared with the millions and millions of ads that were going And what sex workers told us was that in those more or less in the open, as Backpage gave them the opportunity to do, that gave them control of the market in a way that they didn't have when they were advertising in more clandestine ways. Right?

So if you were advertising your services on Backpage, you might have, because it was so available and open and obvious. And just easy to access for anybody. you might dozens [00:51:00] or hundreds of replies from your you don't have to accept dozens or hundreds of people, your clients or your customers, or, know, whatever term you want to use in this your date, you sift through that. You can be really picky. You can find people who have a good reputation among other people, are in your same business. You can vet aggressively. You don't have to take. The first guy who shows up your door, whatever that is.

And so for a lot people who were using Backpage, they felt like they had more They had more safety and they had a better sort of social network that they could use to, to regulate, self regulate the marketplace than they had without it. When it went away the description that we got from sex worker advocate was that it was, it was total chaos, right? It was, it was a lot fear and it was a lot of income lost and it was a big scramble.

And what came immediately afterwards for women who were advertising on Backpage [00:52:00] were men who wanted essentially to be like managers or pimps or whatever term you want to use, people who said hey, I can help you find clients now. Well, listen, man, like pimps suck. Like, You don't, we shouldn't, we shouldn't glorify pimps. Pimps are, pimps are not, like, in a perfect world, we would not have people who take a cut of of dangerous and in, in many cases extremely personal profession for with the, the threats of violence, the threats of like financial imbalance, everything that comes with that taking Backpage at least we were told our reporting on this, really put a lot of women in what they felt was a precarious position which was, again, as I say, kind of a fascinating perspective on because if you follow the congressional hearings,

The bipartisan prosecution of Backpage's founders

EIFLING: If you looked at what the FBI wanted to say, what the, what the feds have said, it really is this even in the federal trial many of these ads were brought in as evidence and the term that the federal government used the prosecutors used [00:53:00] was these are victims on Backpage. It's I don't really see a victim here. I see somebody who's putting a picture of themselves in a low cut on the Internet.

We could we could argue about the merits of that or whether that should be legal or, any number of, of approaches to that. But to call that person, the victim who placed their own ad and is saying, like, come over and, spend time with me and pay me money. And then we'll go our separate ways. Victim seems to me a bit a bit over the line, right?

I think it's I think it's rounding up in situation. but it was the perspective of the government that people advertising on Backpage were were being yeah, we're being exploited. And so it's like, and therefore the people running Backpage were criminals running, basically a criminal enterprise And it's it really, I think, calls, if you really go into it, it really calls into questions a lot of assumptions we have about the place of sex work and advertising sex work in [00:54:00] American society.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it's also I mean numerically You if you look at people making these similar types of ads on Or let's say posts we'll call them making posts of this nature There's a lot more of them on Facebook.

There's a lot more of them on Twitter or Instagram. I mean, that is the reality. Like there are a lot of people who are sex workers who, are their trade on But the fact that it's a lower percentage of the posts, that's really the only difference, on here.

EIFLING: I will tell you one other difference. Facebook is a giant company. New times was small. Twitter is a giant company. New times was didn't have the pockets. They defend themselves in the And I think we've always, as Americans have accepted that going to be some level of discourse [00:55:00] or advertising that talks about prostitution or sexual services.

I mean, I, I wasn't kidding earlier. It used to be in the yellow pages. Like when there were yellow pages back when people did that. There were a lot of escort ads in big cities, which I didn't know or realize because I grew up in a town too small to have escort sections of the yellow pages But but there's always been that presence and it is always been sort of a like marginal like, who's this really hurting? We can't police this bully. Just let it go kind of thing

But I do think when people advertise on. Instagram or twitter or Facebook or whatever platform people are using big platform regulated platform You a really big difference between those platforms and what new Times and Backpage represented is just scale and size and power.

And these guys were of the correct size that they were. They built this big marketplace with a lot of people using millions [00:56:00] of people placing ads. but they were, they, they weren't a public company. They weren't a multi billion dollar company. They, they were a very good size to like shoot down, mount their heads on the wall and move along.

They didn't have to they didn't have to pick apart. Right. They didn't have to pick apart twitter, it is, like

SHEFFIELD: when they, and they also didn't have the political connections as well because, oh, and they're pissing

EIFLING: years was just pissing off. He just pissed off politicians. Absolutely the opposite. Right. And they would tell it and it's hard to this is the kind of thing. It's hard to hard to verify. And so it's hard for me to make the claim. In full. But if you talk to these guys, they would say, absolutely, there's a political motive.

They're all political enemies for years, which in the case of Lacey and Larkin, John McCain, Cindy McCain, his wife, were for years since the 80s very in the sights of their [00:57:00] publications, specifically in Phoenix, Phoenix New Times. And they say that a of this is politically motivated, retaliation for years of thwacking the hell out of them every time they got a chance, which the danger of being an impolite, impolitic, aggressive news organization.

If you start a giant hooker ad website, people might come and put a guy in a way to put you out of business and throw you, you, throw you in jail, right? Like this is, this is the story that we got into.

And it's, it is crazy to think about it in those terms, but. There is a version of of the world in which they were more let's say political or just say maybe even obsequious to power in which they are. They still get to run this website, but they were not. They were really confrontational in a way that I think very few news organizations have that same ethic of [00:58:00] just, Relentless relentless scrutiny of what they saw as powerful and their actions. Right? So I think all of that rolls up over, oh my gosh, 30 years, 40 years of, of, of, of pissing off everybody you can. That comes home to roost eventually. And and I think it does in the story that we've. That we told.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it's interesting also that this is a bipartisan effort that happened to them as well.

And and you guys talk about that and that, but this is, this is another example of how I think that it's, it is very possible for people who strongly disagree with the Christian rights, authoritarian, morality system still be manipulated to do what they want. And that's kind of what happened with Kamala Harris when she was the, Like she was the one who kind of got this ball rolling. If you [00:59:00] want to talk about that.

EIFLING: Yeah, she was one. So there really I remember writing this section of the script because this all is in the recent past and I had to go through and it's what did happen? Once congress, congress, once it got to Congress, which is in 2017, once lacey and Larkin were hauled in front of Congress, they had hearings essentially around accusations that Backpage had facilitated a lot of pretty unsavory crimes some of them involving minors there were, I think it became very in sort of a preview I think, today of a lot of, political discourse that goes online talking about like groomers or, we talk about book bands. In 2017, it was child sex trafficking, right? And I think it's pretty clear now that a lot of the numbers You that advocates and politicians were using at the time to try to the size of that particular problem, which is a nightmare if [01:00:00] it's happening to people, we're way, way, way, way, way overblown, right?

It just was not anywhere near the scope and scale of what people thought might happening. Because there were some very terrible real cases that throw a shadow, throw a long shadow over everything else that's But once it got to, once it got to Congress it became a absolutely a bipartisan for Democrats, for Republicans.

I think Kamala Harris is a great example because she is a Democrat now that VP, but she's also a cop. She was, she was a cop in California. She was, I mean, I say this is sort of like loose terms, but she was, as the head law enforcement agent in California, she was the person who worked with Ken Paxton in Texas, who was a top cop in Texas, basically.

And they both said, linking arms, Kumbaya, Texas and California. These guys have got to go. We're arresting, we're, we're arresting these guys. And so, you Lacey and Larkin went to Sacramento. They were put in a cage. [01:01:00] And so they're in like orange jumpsuits in a cage. I think Lacey compares it to Cairo in the podcast when we interviewed him about And two weeks before her Senate election, right, she's got these big fish on the hook in a courtroom in, in California that that plays well. I think Democrats, look, I think Democrats Always I think back to the crime bill, Bill Clinton's, Bill Clinton's 1990s, right? Democrats love to, in some ways, overcorrect on law and order because they think it gives, it gives them a defense against republicans.

I think what ultimately happens, though, is republicans will call Democrats squishes no matter what happens. But Democrats, at least in my lifetime, have often pushed very hard and been real avatars for, like, strong crackdowns on, on things that are seen to have a marginal value, right? Or affecting, a case like this, which is, advertising for sexual [01:02:00] services.

There just aren't a lot of people who raise their hand and say, you know what? Like, I actually think we should have more freedom to run hooker ads like that. That constituency is, is probably pretty large, but also it's very quiet compared with how exciting it can be to bust people of ill repute for whatever it is.

And by the time it got to Congress in 2017, and they were debating the laws that eventually got passed, fOSTA, sESTA that would change the way that the Internet is regulated. And make it such that a website such as Backpage just won't ever exist again in the U. S.

And the way that that it was conceived. It was. Almost lockstep. It was almost perfect. Democrat Republican hand in hand voting to pass these laws that really changed the way the Internet can work. And It happened to be very ideologically conservative by historical standards, House and Senate, but they were not, they were absolutely not [01:03:00] passing many, many bills of that size with that that like mindedness, right? These are very, we live in very divided political times, and there was no division on this. Republicans, Democrats.

I'm sure there were, if I looked through Who voted against them, like there may be some really, truly committed social libertarians who, didn't think it was a good way to go, but mainstream man, they were, they were all about it for sure.

SHEFFIELD: It's also that it's. hard to have a, it's hard to have a concept of that freedom of speech has, it should protect things that might make you uneasy. In the same, but at the same point, like people were also like there's people haven't drawn the distinction, I think between the, advocating government is something that. That, that I guess, well, in other words, there are more limits that people want on that and [01:04:00] justifiably. So, then, if somebody wants to advertise their, their, their dominatrix website or whatever it is, like, that's not really hurting anybody. If someone wants to be paid to go on a

EIFLING: I think that's the thing that, that we really have to, as grownups look at and say I think, I think that is exactly where to start is like, look, man, who's it hurting? And look, there are definitely, there are definitely ways in which people pressure minors into sexual situations and that's gross. And if there's a hell people like that belong there, but most of the minors who get caught up in which I think would be called outside prostitution or street prostitution, mostly are, I was told by leading expert on this, in are people who are thrown out of their home often because they are gay, right.

There are just a lot of families in which a kid is in an abusive or, or bad situation. They have to leave home early. Maybe they're 15, [01:05:00] 16, I don't know, and, they're younger and they go and now they have to make money. And there people who take advantage of that and it's pretty bad times, right. But so big asterisk on that, right? I can dim Hamas. Like that's, that's that part of that conversation.

But, when it comes to people who want to have sexual experiences with somebody else, I think it is a a very natural, and if it's done in a civil way, probably mutually beneficial and for them and for the world for them come to an agreement and say look, I'm going to pay your time and I am looking to do this that either I've always wanted to try I can't do with my partner don't have a partner for it it's been a something I want to experience and look man, we're all dead for a long time. Like everybody should go have the consensual fun You want to have on this ride around on this rock, because we're not coming back. If you leave it on the table, that's where it's going to stay.

The personal story of a john named John

EIFLING: We talked with we talked with a [01:06:00] guy. So I have, I have friends who are sex workers. I to one of them and I said, Hey, I need to find a client. I need to find somebody who has paid for sexual services to be in the show.

And a friend of mine said, okay, I know a guy I'm going to she's a dominatrix. She said I'll put you in touch with this guy.

His name is John. I interviewed him. He appears in the podcast. Because he, he really didn't want people to recognize him.

And so we took the transcript of the conversation. We gave to an actor. Actor read, reads it. But the story John told me was, I thought pretty damn crazy because he had years earlier discovered via advertisement in the local paper in the city that he lived I think it was under a head right?

It something where it was like very weird language and went in and it was probably a place where you could buy bongs and stuff. and he wound up in this dungeon and he had, I guess what you'd call i, this is, I must admit, this is where my expertise sort of, sort of starts to falter But he had what he would [01:07:00] describe I think it's a pain session.

Probably he's restrained. Probably somebody's whipping him. There's a safe word is experiencing things that he hasn't experienced before. And what he discovers about himself through, over the years, many such sessions is that, um, he has these different kind of sexual tastes and sexual predilections and one thing that he discovered about himself is that only in these kinds of sessions where he has a safe word where there is a professional there who is, assume, just, you I don't know, whipping him or, or whatever's going on. He can tap out of that.

It's such a cathartic environment for him. He can't cry as an adult.

And I think there's a lot of men who would be like, if you ask them, when was the last time you cried to be like, I'm not, I couldn't tell you.

He said only in those kinds of sessions or when he can access the part of himself that feels safe emotionally to release these [01:08:00] big cathartic cries.

And during the course of reporting when I'm kind of, he and I are messaging each other and we're trying to find a time when we can talk, he says, at one point we were supposed to meet at one point. He says he says, hey my, my dad died. I have to cancel. so sorry. We'll reschedule.

When we talked again. He mentioned this about the crime. And he said, look as my, my dad just died. by then, it had been a couple of weeks, I think. And he said, I haven't cried about that yet, but I have a pain session and I'm looking forward to a really big cry.

Man, this is wild s**t. This is a guy who I think if, not to not to cast, there are people, there are people in this country who would say that's despicable. You shouldn't be able to advertise for this stuff. There shouldn't be dungeons There should be a place where a man gets like, tied up and hit with a whip or whatever whatever's on in there.

And to them, I'd say like, yo, this is none of [01:09:00] your business, but man, this guy needs to cry about his dad And this is how he's going to access it. and he's to leave it in a much better mood.

And I think the world will be on balance a better place this is just the kind of stuff that I, I don't want to be in charge of regulating in other people's lives. I think that is like a such a personal experience between him whoever he's paying for their, their time.

And that's just one example. I mean, if you think about that, think about the complexity of what people access about themselves And can enjoy or decide they don't enjoy or whatever is happening through through sex.

It's, it's kind of kind of wild to think that you know better in every case than a guy who's making those choices for himself. Like, my perspective I'm pretty, speaking of I'm pretty, I'm pretty lousy fair about that sort of thing. [01:10:00] Right? Like Right. If that's your, if that's your jam, like, I want you to have access to it, I hope you tip well at the end of it.

I have friends who have really made livings for parts of their lives doing sex work, and I think that's, that is a mostly, actually weirdly healthy economy for people to engage in within boundaries, and And I, it would be so weird to me to take that away from him because I just, it could, because it weirds me out or gives me the icks. Like, that's not my business.

Like, that's not my, I'll do you, man. I'll do me. I'll do you.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, the other thing about this though, is, I think You know, people who again, like of this sort of squishy, moderate person who doesn't agree with the Christian right, but they kind of feel that, these people are icky they make me uncomfortable. What, and what they don't understand you ally with the Christian, right, not only are they going [01:11:00] to abolish the sex dungeon or the, the adult ads. They're also going to get rid of psychotherapy because they hate that also.

They want their one size fits all agenda for you also. And that's why they, they have to be put in a box and not let out because they, they will impose their viewpoint.

Look, because again, like, the rest of us, it doesn't affect us if somebody, wants to go to some pastor and say, you know, be Ned Flanders, and say I feel like I sinned because I saw a woman on a and I feel bad about it.

Like that's if that's your thing. Look, hey, it. But the rest of us will not be put in that box with you. Like you can go put yourself in there, but that's a kink. You need to understand. And these guys. Yeah,

and this is not an exaggeration because like in the state of, of Iowa, for instance, right now, the [01:12:00] radical Republican legislators there are trying to replace school counselors children with their psychological and emotional needs. They're trying, they're replacing them with completely untrained pastors. And this is a that they want and Republicans nationwide, they will do this if people let them like that. You might not like the sex ads or, the adult entertainment or whatever, but they're the frontier keeping you away from these people controlling your life.

Like that's the reality.

EIFLING: I think there is some of that. Yeah, that recognition needs to happen, which is, um, look, going to a dungeon, getting whipped, having a good cry. That's not, that's not my scene. But if I were to take the position that, that, gave, that made me feel a little, a little icky. And I, I don't mind if, if you crack down on that, right?

[01:13:00] Yeah. The line like that, that's, that slope. It is slippery. Like it go and it goes a long way. there are just certain matters that our best left to people who, people who are living those lives and, and have that experience.

I, I grew up in a religious part of the country and I in Northwest Arkansas and sort of, sort of developed a a bit of skepticism and hostility even at times to the Christian position on these things.

But it was. But it was at the time it was, it was very separate, right? There were churches in There were certainly religious organizations and institutions viewpoints on things, but we didn't have to pray in school. I didn't have to go. I didn't have to go. If I had a problem with school, talk to a right?

Like, no, thank you.

What does that guy? No, I I don't, I want to, that's not what that, that's not what that's there for. What is there for that is there's a church, there's a place you can go and do [01:14:00] And and I do think it is, yeah, I think it's, it's a, it's a responsibility of full adults to make good choices based not on how each one individually makes, makes us feel for ourselves, but to consider human experience and make sure that people's different needs and different inclinations can met safely and, and responsibly, right?

I mean, that's it seems really easy you it down to that, but then you think, oh, there just some other people who would really rather they in charge of your life than you.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. All right.

Conclusion

Well, so in terms of the two subjects of the podcast they had a mistrial in 2022, what's the status of their situation?

EIFLING: Well, not to spoil the podcast, but so we did, this was, this was a we worked on this show. Really for four [01:15:00] years, right? We, from the time we started, these guys were arrested in 2018. Big news at the time.

And it in 2020, kind of everybody's in lockdown and trying to come up with ideas of things to do. We got Trevor Aaronson, Michael Mooney and me got and said, We should do this. We should do this show, right? We should do this podcast.

We should do the full story of what's happening with Backpage at the time. Yes, there was this trial scheduled that kept getting pushed back and pushed back and pushed back and eventually happened in 2022.

We didn't yet have we didn't yet have a deal or no, sorry, 2021. We didn't yet have a deal to do the podcast and I was losing my mind. I was like, God, if only we'd been quicker, if this were easier, if we just had, if we all worked at vice or something, we could be doing this, but we, we didn't, we're all independent and this was things move slow,

but it was a very quick mistrial and it was a mistrial for reasons that I think are very consistent with a lot of the rest of the show. Essentially the government [01:16:00] was making repeated insinuations that there was a child sex trafficking angle or a sex trafficking angle to the case. The government brought against Lacey and Larkin.

In fact, there really wasn't like that wasn't those weren't the charges. It was a lot of what was discussed in public, but those weren't in the charges.

And so the judge, after only week or two of testimony, pulled the plug and basically said, Look, the jury's been tainted. This come up too much. It's a mistrial for us. That was great because we weren't making the show yet. So we finally, in 2022, we make our deal with audible.

And so, I think there's a, there, no matter where you are with him personally, and we talked to people who do not these guys, if you listen to the show, plenty of people in there who did not, who were not fans of Lacey and Larkin would is still a tragic ending for two people who, absolutely changed the course of American journalism, changed the course of American history.

And it is a, it's a [01:17:00] dark conclusion for for a business and so many of us led and have so many good memories out of and did amazing work from. But yeah, the, the two of them mean, look, we'll see.

Lacey's strong, and I don't know what kind of sense he's going to get there's a really good chance that when he comes out, he will still be as much, piss and vinegar as he always has been. And and I don't want to, I don't want to say that his, his chapter is yet finished, but but from what we cover in the show, it's, it's pointing to a hard landing for sure.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, this is it's been a great conversation, Sam. Um, So for people who want to check it out they should they can get on audible. right?

EIFLING: Yeah. to audible. You can the shortest way to get there is just audible. com slash hold fast one word it is a subscription service. Podcasting's wild but audible Audible keeps its, its originals close to the vest. So you do have to subscribe. I have been subscribing for a couple of years because I [01:18:00] wanted to get familiar with platform, but there are certainly, if you just like type in Audible, they're free trials. There's like 99 cents for three months. If you're a first timer, it connects to your Amazon account. It's pretty easy to get on there and listen to it.

If you want, you can do this one in a day if you are really so inclined, but yeah, I suggest checking it out if this is at all interesting. Because I think we made a hell of a show, frankly. I worked with some really talented people and we poured a gazillion hours into it. We had access that we would not have in any world had if we had not worked at the companies years and years ago and been welcomed into the homes of guys facing federal trial.

I think they thought we would give them a fair shake. And I think we did. And it's certainly, I think the response we've gotten from the show so far from people in the media has been really positive. So I feel very comfortable recommending it to just go for a ride.

I mean, [01:19:00] if I say it's a show about the alternative press, like I'm sure everybody would fall asleep, but it's about that and sex, power, drugs, guns, and just some crazy stories that if they had not appeared in print, you would not believe they happened. I'll put it that way.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think that is an accurate summation of it. So for people who want to follow you on social media, why don't you spell your last name for them?

EIFLING: Yeah, sure. Last name is Eifling. E I F L I N G. First name Sam. And I think I never really got more creative than just having a weird last name online. Pretty easy to find on that, all social handles. But, uh, yeah. Thank you for the opportunity. This has been a fun conversation.

SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the discussion. If you want to get more, you can go to theoryofchange.show where you can get the video, audio and transcript of all the episodes. And if you are a paid subscribing member, thank you very much for your support. [01:20:00] You have unlimited access to all of the content.

And you can also visit us over at flux.community. Theory of Change is part of the Flux media network. So go there and check us out. We got other podcasts and articles about politics, religion, media, and society and how they all intersect.

I appreciate everybody supporting us. Tell your friends, tell your family, hell tell people you don't like about Theory of Change and Flux. I really appreciate it. Thanks very much and I will see you next time.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community

This is a bonus Doomscroll episode is available only to paid Flux subscribers. Please support independent progressive media and join us! We need your help. Also be sure to follow Matt and Lisa’s guest on this episode, Lance Aksamit.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Senate Dems showed how right-wing ideas should be treated by throwing House Republicans' impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas into the trash can

02:28 — Supreme Court hears case about criminalizing homelessness

05:55 — Taylor Swift attacks Kim Kardashian in coded lyrics

09:15 — Unionization keeps winning, at Disney, Volkswagen, and Sesame Street

12:29 — The crazy woman who ranted against “not real” people on a flight is now a bikini model for Ultra Right Beer

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This Doomscroll episode is available on video as well as audio. Be sure to follow our guest, Lance Aksamit.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Donald Trump’s hush money trial is destroying his carefully coiffed tough-guy image

10:32 — House Freedom Caucus launches committee, doesn't realize acronym for it is “FART”

12:34 — Congress would rather ban TikTok than pass a privacy protection law

15:00 — Marjorie Taylor Greene gets 2 more co-sponsors to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House

17:29 — Trump’s presidential campaign is so desperate for cash that he’s demanding Republicans pay him 5% of all their revenues

19:37 — Tesla forced to recall thousands of Cybertrucks for dangerous gas pedal design

22:03 — The science is settled: Tucker Carlson says evolution is not real

29:33 — Heineken beer is making a flip phone

Lisa’s Upcoming Show Dates

May

11 — Opening for Todd Barry in the Netflix is a Joke comedy festival. @ Dynasty Typewriter, Los Angeles

12— Opening for Todd Barry at the Improv, Ontario, CA 

May 28-June2: Brad Garrett’s comedy club @ MGM, Las Vegas

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Donald Trump has been very public about remaking the Republican party in his political image by boosting people who flatter and praise him the hardest in primary elections. But his longstanding role as leader of the Republican party isn’t just having an effect on the politicians, it is also remaking America’s right-wing subculture in his personal image as well.

Besides being thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian, Trump is also incredibly strange, especially in his attitudes toward women and sex. That strangeness is filtering down into the Republican electorate as a whole, turning MAGA into a sexual fetish as well as a political identity.

It’s really something to see, and joining me in this episode to discuss is Amanda Marcotte, she’s a senior columnist at Salon who has been doing some interesting writing on how the Christian right is using sex to sell religion in the age of TikTok and Trump.

The transcript of our April 2, 2024 conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is also available.

Related Content

* Dating in the present age has become quite the mess, how did it happen?

* Young Republicans can’t get a date — or a clue as to why

* How an oversharing Christian blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalization

* The sexuality of reaction is complicated and contradictory

* No one likes Republican dating websites, but we keep getting more of them anyway

* Anti-LGBT groups promoting ‘conversion therapy’ programs using gender fluidity language to promote them

* New research finds that regardless of their religious views, people are more likely to condemn women having casual sex than men

Audio Chapters

00:00 — MAGA isn't just a political identity, it's a sexual fetish

11:21 — How the "tradwife" lifestyle transformed from a worldview for women into a sex fetish for men

20:33 — Many Mormon social media influencers clearly do not live Mormon doctrines

25:59 — Fundamentalist Christians have realized that sex sells, in their own way

32:09 — Far-right Christians have realized they need unplanned pregnancies, and so they're attacking birth control

39:07 — Controlling women is both a doctrinal and political necessity for the Christian right

41:39 — How far-right activists hoodwink moderate Republicans about reactionary authoritarianism

46:00 — The disastrous effects of oppressive religion on women

50:22 — The role of identity and religion in conservative politics

55:18 — While religion often justifies sexism, there are plenty of non-religious sexist arguments also

Audio Transcript

The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.

MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: I think the American political media doesn't really talk about a lot of this stuff at all, because national journalists have to pretend that nobody has sex and nobody goes on dates. These things don't happen. And so you've basically kind of had the field to yourself a little bit in this regard, I have to say.

So tell us, what the hell is going on with MAGA and the sexualization of MAGA?

AMANDA MARCOTTE: Yeah. I mean, [00:02:00] it's a complicated subject, I suppose. I've been writing about it a lot on different levels. I hadn't even thought of it as something I was specializing in, but I think that what we're seeing is a few threads that Evangelical Christianity has really had a lot of dramatic changes in its self presentation around sexuality and gender issues that, even as their ideological beliefs about these things have not changed at all.

And then you are seeing this dramatic, a lot of the coalition that Donald Trump has built, and one of the reasons that the Republican party has become so incredibly dependent on him is he speaks to this group of, I would say, secular male losers who are very difficult to mobilize. I mean losers kind of are hard to get to vote.

And Trump kind of set off, I call it the dirtbag bat signal for the sort of Joe Rogan audience of male insecurity, just [00:03:00] this rat's nest of that. And I think that those two have kind of come together in this way, it is about sex and dating. It's about masculine self image.

Trump, because he is a sociopathic narcissist, I think he actually has this real talent for sort of speaking to people's deep insecurities, because what is a narcissist, but a person whose entire life is about being a narcissist? Like the conflict between their, both the part of them that has this like overbearing sense of self, this like almost godlike sense of self, and then the secret fear that they actually are the worst, which we see with Trump all the time.

SHEFFIELD: Well, he has so many insecurities of his own that he's very good at playing to other people. I think that's really what it comes down to. And you do see that also in the elections where he's not on the ballot, that there's the Republicans just have much lower turnout. [00:04:00] Because there is really this subset of people who, they like him as a person, or at least they're inspired by him.

MARCOTTE: Yeah, he's an aspirational figure. I mean, he's definitely like, when you look at the chuds that follow Elon Musk and like him on Twitter and whatnot, that's kind of like Pepe the frog dudes.

So much of it is: ‘Oh, wow, he's a big, fat, gross loser like me that smells like a butt and ketchup, and is repulsive in every way. And yet somehow he manages to be successful.’ That speaks to a certain mentality of people that want to be successful without being good at stuff.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and we're certainly seeing that with the Trump Media and Technology Group, recently they had to disclose to the public that they lost $58 million last year and made only [00:05:00] $4 million. So this is par for the course for a Trump business.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I think Timothy Noah, if I recall, he wrote about this recently for the New Republic. I think that there are actually more people that invested in truth social than our users of it.

SHEFFIELD: Oh, wow. That, is hilarious, if that's true, yeah. They have what I think about 63 million shares, I believe, or something like that. Yeah. So there's a lot of, there's more Trump donors than Truth Social users.

MARCOTTE: Either way. Like the point is there, it's such a bad service that people won't take it even though it's free, but they will pay him money for this thing.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, they won't use it, but they'll own the stock in it. If you're too extreme, too right wing crazy for Twitter under Elon Musk, he's basically opened the doors for everyone who is a complete psychopath, right wing nut job and said, come on in on Twitter. And they have, and so there [00:06:00] is basically no market if there even was one to begin with.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I would say there was never really a market for it. And Elon is learning this the hard way too. Like the selling point of these services to those guys, to trolls, to right wing trolls is not their opportunity to speak to other losers like themselves. It's so that they can annoy people that they don't like because they feel on some level rejected, there's always such a mentality of, resentment and envy towards liberals. there's this real right wing rhetoric is all shot through with this real FOMO almost of the sense that that the left is having a good time. And they're the ones that have all the like musicians and artists and comedians and that, and the fun friends and the good parties.

And [00:07:00] so like it, it cultivates this childish desire in some people and we see it all the time on social media to just, well, pull on their ponytail then, and so without the liberals there to troll, there's not really any purpose for a social network of just a bunch of like fascists.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, this vibe exists with their romantic lives such as they are as well, because I mean, it is absolutely the case that when you go on various dating websites, there are no women on profiles saying things like, well, if you like Joe Biden, swipe left. That's just not happening.

And so, whereas in fact, there are a lot of, for very good reason, and I've heard from a lot of women that, they basically I used to Sometimes date Republicans and, once Trump came along, I, just don't bother with it anymore because if you actually like Trump and you're a guy, why you're an [00:08:00] a*****e, why would I want to be with you? It's gotta be very depressing for them.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I think it is true that it's really underestimated how much perceived or an often real romantic rejection is feeling a lot of the, like resentment that a lot of like the men that get in, especially the low propensity voters that Trump kind of pulls on that are difficult to get out.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, the Joe Rogan stans.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I think a lot about the Proud Boys and what, they, when they came onto the radar, I think by then most people's perception of them were just that there were this paramilitary, neofascist organization. What was lost is that in the beginning, the Proud Boys, when Gavin McInnes was kind of putting them together, a huge part of their sales pitch was, we're going to make you better with women.

It was a lie. [00:09:00] Gavin got these guys to do a bunch of stuff that actually made them lonelier and less attractive to women. Like for instance, the Proud Boys only hang out with each other. Like they never speak to women and so they get worse at it, right? Their entire social life kind of is built around right wing politics, which is just a terrible way to meet women.

And so they actually become more unattractive. But what's funny about that is it's just like circular logic. Therefore they become more addicted to the MAGA lifestyle because it's the like only people that will have them anymore.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, it's, a, it is a self fulfilling curse in a sense that they become less effective and then also less able to realize that they're less effective at their dating.

And the other kind of interesting thing that, that isn't talked about a lot with this is [00:10:00] that younger people, generally speaking have been leaving evangelical denominations like the Southern Baptists for a number of years, and they've just been bleeding members.

But since Trump came along, there has been a small percentage of people who were in other Christian denominations who now identify as evangelical. And so it's it has been a little bit of a gravitational effect for them. And because they, feel like, well, that's, these are the people that agree with me politically.

So I guess. Maybe they're on to something where I don't know. It's, I mean, we can't tell what's going on through their heads since--

MARCOTTE: It's interesting. I was reading that book Exvangelicals last night and she had an interesting statistic, which was in 2000, And six, I do believe 23 percent of Americans identified as white evangelicals. That's dropped to 15%, but that includes, like you said, it's actually dropped more in a, in one regard in terms of like people that are like [00:11:00] church going evangelicals because the, a huge percentage of self identified evangelicals, I do believe up to 40 percent now do not attend church, do not belong to a church. They derive that identification from watching like Matt Walsh videos or something.

"Trad wife" has transformed from a worldview for women into a sex fetish for men

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, No, it is. And it's an identity rather than a belief system. And I think we're, we could definitely see that in regards to the whole tra wife thing, which you have been writing about quite a bit recently.

So for people who don't. Know what a what this whole trad wife thing is. What the hell is it? And we'll go from There's a lot to talk about

MARCOTTE: on one hand, I feel like trad wife is kind of like one of those self explanatory terms It just means traditional wife. But actually what it is it's an internet phenomenon It's it's like a hashtag trad wife, right [00:12:00] kind of thing and the idea of it is it's a bunch of social media influencers who present themselves in idyllic terms.

Like they, they have, they're influencers. So everything about them is kind of this like fantasy, but it's like a very politicized fantasy in that, they're, Pushing this idea that women have been tricked by feminism into believing that they should have a life outside the home, that they should want careers, et cetera, et cetera.

And that in fact, the real path to women's happiness is to be a stay at home wife. And not only a stay at home wife, but like a submissive stay at home wife, right? A lot most of them are very christian. A lot of them don't lead with that. But a lot of it is christian propaganda, right?

like right wing christian propaganda and you discover pretty shortly after like You might follow trad wives because [00:13:00] you like their sourdough videos or their You might envy their beautiful kitchens or whatever. They're little sweet, obedient children. But then what you get is this like message that it's because I adopt this like right wing Christian view of male headship in the house and female submission and, look how.

Wonderful. My life is and it's kind of a difficult subject to sort of explain in full to people because a lot of stuff on social media, there's actually a shocking amount of diversity within this kind of world. I mean, they're all selling the same fantasy, right? Of Women's joy is through submission, but some of them are kind of like trying to sell themselves to women.

Some of them are a little more obviously selling themselves to men and kind of pitches changes like person to person. So it kind of can be a diffuse trend. [00:14:00]

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the religious motivations are different also as well for, cause like actually a huge percentage of these women are Mormon.

And a lot of them are evangelical and, some of them are just there because he wants you to go to their only fans also.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and there's some crossover, but yeah, that I do want to be clear that it's like a lot of Mormons and then a lot of evangelicals. And while both have very like Rigid and sexist gender roles expectations, like the theology of them is a little bit different.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and but in terms of it does seem like that the audience, like they. Sort of understand that these are different things that are going on, but, some of them don't quite understand that I think, and so it's interesting because yeah, as you were talking about, I mean, there is quite a bit of.

Kind of a [00:15:00] fetish marketing, sub subtext to a lot of the videos that they're making, whether it's showing the, making sure that they put their breasts very large and out front and so you don't miss them.

MARCOTTE: It's true. so. So much of the trad wife stuff on Tik TOK.

When I first started researching this, I expected it to mostly be like what I was told it was, which was influencers that are selling a fantasy to women of a mad, like an understandable fantasy of kind of almost slipping back to childhood, but as a wife, wouldn't it just be nice to give up on all these adult responsibilities to make money and make decisions and take care of yourself and instead just have a man take care of you.

Right. And there is some of that content, but yeah, a lot of it was just here I am in a negligee, like stirring some vague thing in a pot really hard. I found a photo of one trad wife influencer and I put it up. I didn't even notice this, [00:16:00] like a lot of the people in my comment section did. She was.

Kind of like, sexually posed over a bowl that she was stirring. But when you actually look at it, it's a, colander. It wouldn't have something that you can stir in a colander. Didn't even bother to check that part of her photo.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it's, well, because, yeah, because that's the other half of it is that it's, it is a fantasy to the men as well.

And that fits to the Trumpian worldview as well, because, like you've got on the men's side, of course, this enormous plethora of male content creators and influencers that, that's the fantasy that they're selling that, we will, if you follow my advice, you will be able to be a high value man and, be able to get someone who will do whatever you say.

And and that's, they're, playing into that for people who [00:17:00] actually believe that stuff, that they're kind of like the sort of The virtual Christian wife for them in some sense.

MARCOTTE: Well, and it's funny to me, cause I feel like there's a long tradition in conservative politics of packaging a political message.

It's like self help. Right. But it's gone. It's on steroids in the 21st century as part of the MAGA movement. Like a lot of people. Buying into social media stuff that purports to give you advice on how to make your sex life better, how to make your home life better, how to make your marriage better, how to, be more attractive how to be better at your job, other things like that.

And actually what it is it's, glib b******t that is just reeling you in for what it's real message is, which is this fantasy claim, this nostalgia, this functionally a fascist nostalgia [00:18:00] for the idea that in the past, before Roe versus Wade, before Brown versus the Board of Education, before all these things, life was good and it's only those progressive changes that are why you personally are finding it hard to achieve the things that you want to in life.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and, that's important because, the actual policies that could be made to, if, allow people to have a single income household, they're against that. They're against family leave. They're against higher minimum wage. They're against unions. They're against, national health care.

they're, against all of these things. And so that's why it really is a fantasy and no, and it's, it is destructive in a sense because they are, it's I mean, in some ways it's kind of like the conservative feminism of Sheryl Sandberg, I would say [00:19:00] that, you can have it all, but don't actually do anything about this.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. And at least she was open to the criticism. at least on the surface she was, and they are not, it is interesting. Cause it's like, for instance, like in, in my, like my in depth article that I did on some of the people that are fighting back against trad wives online, like I opened talking about this Mormon influencer named Hannah Nealman.

She runs a little Instagram and all these other social media like feeds called ballerina farm. And that's because she. Used to be a ballerina and now she's a farmer's wife supposedly. And like they have eight children. She's only 33, which is kind of wild to me. And they run this farm and the whole kind of premise of the Instagram feed and their other marketing is that they have somehow made this like [00:20:00] fantasy of self sustainability happen, that they have this farm and they raise these animals and they sell farm goods.

And on that money, they're able to have this Enormous family and this perfect expensive kitchen and this gorgeous house and all this Extremely expensive stuff and what she doesn't really talk about is that it's because her Husband is the son of the jet blue founder not because they make a ton of money on their little farm project.

Many Mormon social media influencers clearly do not live Mormon doctrines

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they I mean that, that is kind of the fantasy behind all of these accounts either, they have money independently from that or they don't but they're just, Pretending to, in the hopes that they can get endorsements and whatnot for their social media.

MARCOTTE: And if you think about that, then that means that kind of by definition, none of these tradwife influencers are actually stay at home wives.

They are professional [00:21:00] content creators. Their job and my job aren't all that different. I'm just more honest about it.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, no, and it's true. And and, but, and some of the more, some of the right wing audience does understand that. And the men in particular. Some men do criticize these content creators for that.

and saying that, well, look, if you really are sincere about wanting to be a, trad wife, you need to get off of social media because you can't be a trad wife if you're a real trad wife, if you're out there, prancing around for a million Instagram followers.

MARCOTTE: It's funny cause, and that's where the Mormon thing, I think really kicks in cause you're ex Mormon, right?

So, that there's like a long tradition there of not necessarily being like, you must be a stay at home, non employed mother. Right. But that there's a lot of discourse about like having a workout from the [00:22:00] home kind of job so that you are present for your children. So it's a little less like overt about the idea that women should not be making money, right?

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It's, still better if you aren't, but yeah. Well, and then to the Mormon thing, and one of the other things that you talked about in that is that, a lot of these women who are making this content, they're not following, they're clearly are not following the Mormon doctrines in their in their lives including specifically, with regard to the.

The undergarments that Mormons are supposed to wear, like they're wearing these clothes that very clearly would not be allowed if you were actually wearing them.

MARCOTTE: I love that so much. I, cannot tell you how much. So, in my reporting on this, I spoke to this wonderful couple. They're named Jordan and McKay Forsyth. They just go by Jordan and McKay online. Look them up. They're so much fun. They're ex Mormon and they did an [00:23:00] how Mormon influencers aren't wearing their garments. And I, and I was like, why is this such a big deal? And they're like, because it's mandatory. And the fact that church is giving them a pass speaks volumes about how much this is propaganda.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the thing is there is a long tradition in Mormon culture of doing this sort of thing, like allowing members who very clearly do not live the expectations and requirements. And they never face any accountability, quote unquote, for that. I mean, like the Jack Dempsey, for instance, the, boxer, the mid 20th century boxer he was regarded as a Mormon, but he didn't follow any of their practices. He smoked, he drank, he, and I think he, was not had any sort of, traditional Christian lifestyle, quote unquote. And they never did anything to him. Never. Whereas if you're a [00:24:00] regular Mormon and they find out that you're smoking and drinking, they will come to you and start harassing you about, Oh, you need to, give that up.

And I mean, even in Mormon culture, unfortunately there are Mormons who will literally go and feel your body to see if you're wearing the garments underneath. It's so creepy. Yeah, these, women are not being subjected to that, obviously.

MARCOTTE: Yeah, no, I mean, look at the pictures. It's impossible.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. But it's, yeah. And yet, there is this, I mean, that, really is though the, this whole milieu, it really does speak to this constant tension that right wing Americans live with every day of their lives because, they know that they can't prove their beliefs that evolution is fake or that, vaccines are, harmful or, or that, or that, well, in the case of Mormons that, Native [00:25:00] Americans were the, our ancient Jews they know none of their beliefs are provable and they also know that their lifestyle mandates are oppressive and annoying.

MARCOTTE: And off-putting.

SHEFFIELD: Off-putting. Yeah. And yet they continue to believe them. When I was Mormon, I was, constantly had that tension in my mind that like for Mormons, their, dating experiences much like as bad as it is for everybody else on dating apps and whatnot in the Mormon culture, they have congregations that you're supposed to go to as a young single adult. And their sole purpose is to get you to marry somebody in that congregation. That's why they exist. And you're also chaperoned by a 60 year old at these events. You can't have your own congregation of young people. No, it has to be run by old people. Yeah, so it's just it's just a horrible tension. They all live in their own cognitive dissonance.

Fundamentalist Christians have realized that sex sells, in their own way

MARCOTTE: Yeah. And [00:26:00] I think evangelicals have a very similar situation going on, which is, you see this happen a lot and it's kind of getting worse. It was bad in the Bush years and it's, been bad for 40, 50 years, but it's, it seems like it's getting even more pronounced as they're trying to sort of vacuum over those contradictions.

On one hand, they know that the prohibitions against sex before marriage, the prohibitions against abortion. and while they're not necessarily all against birth control, it's kind of discouraged or at least, stigmatized. All of this comes together to create a very strong and accurate image of them being just really against sex and, but you know, it's not popular being against sex. Like sex is super popular. So sex is more popular than puppies and ice cream. I always say [00:27:00] most people have sex, like 95 percent of people.

SHEFFIELD: Certainly more than any politician. Yeah.

MARCOTTE: 95 percent of people have sex before marriage. It's incompatible with modern American life. And so what you get is a lot of propaganda and books and videos and sermons where evangelical leaders try to position themselves as we're not against sex. If you follow our rules, you're going to have the best sex of your whole life. It's going to be just so fulfilling. It's just going to be amazing.

It's an obviously false promise, as anyone who has had sex could probably tell you. But of course this pitch is being made to virgins and that's the like bait and switch that they're trying to pull off. And it kind of requires like an ad hoc conspiracy of sorts of everyone just not talking about the fact that in reality [00:28:00] we find that Couples that do wait until marriage and you all follow all the evangelical rules have really high rates of sexual dysfunction and Unhappiness because that just doesn't work.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Because they don't even know who the other person really is, even themselves. That's the other thing. It's just a bunch of ignorance piled upon ignorance, both individually and sort of philosophically, that's really what it comes down to.

But this is very important in becoming very important politically for them as well, I think. Because there's that old saying that right wing Christians used to say about about gay people, that they can't reproduce so they have to recruit. But the opposite is true for the Christian right. That they cannot recruit anymore. And so they have to reproduce. That's the only way that they can get anybody to sign [00:29:00] up for their oppressive alternative lifestyle.

MARCOTTE: Even then most of the loss, like the loss that they're seeing in terms of losing membership is younger people. So you can raise somebody to be evangelical. You can bully them into believing it for a long time, but a lot of them are going to grow up and start to be like, this isn't working for me.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, I mean it is in fact the case like with Mormons, that now there are more former Mormons than there are current Mormons And similar things that are happening with evangelicals as well, to your point.

There is a little bit of pushback though, for among some of these Christian conservative content creators who are women that I think some of them have finally understood what it is that they are advocating for.

So like Allie Beth Stuckey, who is this commentator for the for The Blaze, I believe, and some of these women have begun [00:30:00] to occasionally say, okay, this is really horrible what you guys are saying. Like they have said that recently with there was this right wing fever about a video of women dancing to a rap song in Louisiana that, that it set off. the right wing fascists out there that they were saying, how dare these women, go out there and dance to this jungle song or whatever, why are they not home behind this stove, serving their man.

And, some of these right wing Christian women were like, okay, I'm not down for that. But they, they're, in this weird place where they don't, I don't know if they ever will Come out and just be like, look, you guys are wrong about everything. I don't think they can.

MARCOTTE: I don't think that they can cause they've sort of built their life around this, but it's certainly, yeah, it's certainly younger women. Hopefully you're seeing this and realizing they need to hit the eject button before they've gotten into deep because yeah, [00:31:00] The thing is back in the Bush years, like the Christian right, like definitely kind of marketed itself as a chivalrous movement, right?

You heard a lot about chivalry and there's a certain appeal and rationalization to the idea that, well, there's like a sexual hierarchy, but at least it obligates men to protect and cherish women, right? Like pets admittedly, or children, but not like equals, but there's still man has

SHEFFIELD: to submit to Jesus at least.

MARCOTTE: But now they don't even bother with that. It's just mean. And I think that they've they've given up on that argument and it's, I don't know. Like how you like they've just given up on persuasion, I think, and that's the end problem here.

SHEFFIELD: It's interesting to watch from afar.

Nice not having to be in the middle of it. I bet. [00:32:00] Yeah, if only we didn't have to share a country with these people, that's the only downside. I'd like it to be further afar.

Far-right Christians have realized they need unplanned pregnancies, and so they're attacking birth control

SHEFFIELD: But in the political realm, there's Turning Point USA has really been pushing ramping up a lot of propaganda aimed at young women to try to get them married off and having kids as soon as possible to kind of prevent them from seeing the world on their own or just seeing other people or seeing other cultures, other idea sets.

and they've really kind of pushed that quite a bit. You want to talk about that?

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I mean, I think that there's this, kind of a twofold thing. You have a lot of this kind of trad wife type material out there. That's like hyping this idea that getting married young and all that is a wonderful and great.

And again, I do think that there is a, I don't want to discount that there is like [00:33:00] a surface appeal to the idea that it would be nice to like, Never have to grow up and never have to be responsible for your own decisions, be responsible for household finances, be responsible for going to a job every day and doing it well, right?

And That has a certain appeal. But on the other hand, when you actually see the statistics of where young women are at, you realize that while people might enjoy that fantasy for especially you've come, you've been at work all day and it's been hard and you might go look at some trad wife stuff and think about it for 10 minutes.

And then the next day you're like, nah, I'm not going to do that. So where persuasion is not working, I think we're starting to see force and trickery come in. And obviously the most salient example of the force is the, is Dobbs is repealing Roe versus Wade and starting to ban abortion. But [00:34:00] that's coming with another, there's been a real uptick of and Peter Teal has been funding this a lot too, of propaganda being decimated on online that's trying to get women to give up on the most effective forms of birth control with lies saying it's bad for them.

And I think that's starting to work because it,

SHEFFIELD: if you don't mind, I actually have a clip that I want to play on that. So, yeah, that's why I got a clip on that. Alex Clark, who is a commentator for Turning Point USA, who focuses exclusively on young women, and she's an evangelical, and she basically, her biggest thing is lying about birth control to 20 something.

So I'm going to play a clip where she says some false information about that.

ALEX CLARK: Well, all of a sudden women are waking up to how absolutely toxic hormonal birth control [00:35:00] is. It accelerates aging. It amplifies feelings of anxiety and depression. It depletes our bodies of vitamins and minerals. It makes sex painful. It causes migraines, weight gain. It can affect how attracted we feel to our partner. I

UNIDENTIFED WOMAN: I know that. Oh my gosh. What else? There's, it's, it can cause so many hormonal acne. So people think, Oh, I went on to fix my acne. Well, it can cause acne. It can cause yeah. Infertility issues in the future. Not directly, but because it's depleting all of these essential vitamins.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. All lies. I just want to be very clear. Yeah. When I started the pill, my acne just went away. I had bad acne as a teenager and it just went as soon as I was on the pill. So I'm just going to put that out there. Anyway, like here's what drives me nuts. This has been a talking point that comes and goes for like ever since, like at least since the nineties, right.

And it's always been [00:36:00] untrue. And. What's also really frustrating about it is it's built on this assumption that is flat out untrue, which is that the medical establishment would let women have access to dangerous medications.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah.

MARCOTTE: Or like we do all those things.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. That allow us to have sex.

As if there was so much like support socially for women having like sexual freedom, that, the risks would ever be overlooked. And it's if you've ever been female and been to a doctor, you will find that is not true in the slightest. it's just not how it is. The idea that you, this, is assuming a level of respect for women's ability to make choices that I wish was true in American society, but is not.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it isn't. Well, but of course, the reason that they're doing this is, to what I was saying that they [00:37:00] have to reproduce. It is literally their only way of having any sort of political coalition in the future because, because yeah, they're usually losing young people in droves.

And this is why they become so paranoid about, racial replacement and, all that stuff. And it's, just lies upon lies because of course these illegal immigrants are not allowed to legally vote. So they very clearly are not shifting the vote totals in any way to the Democrats at all.

And the real reason why Republicans are having a harder time demographically speaking is that they're losing young white people. That's actually what it is. Because of how they oppress them.

MARCOTTE: Especially young white women. And I think, a huge part of this. Because, a lot of the anti birth control thing is, not just about getting people to reproduce, but also getting young women to give birth before they're ready.

Before they know they're ready [00:38:00] is, a great way to derail their, I'm, I don't think I'm only speaking for myself when I say before you're like 25, 26 years old, you're not necessarily the best decision maker in terms of who you're sleeping with, maybe Republicans. But I think that there is like a, not to make it too sound too sinister, but I do think that a huge part of this is like hoping that college girls and, very young women get rid of birth control methods that are very effective and switch to condoms, which a lot of men don't want to wear and that they get pregnant and then they find themselves submitting to marriages that they weren't necessarily going to make if they were had a total freedom of choice there.

Now, I don't know how true that is. Cause I think what actually happens is women still do not marry those men and, end up just being single mothers or finding a way to abort [00:39:00] the pregnancy, even where it's banned. But I mean, I think that's the goal

Controlling women is both a doctrinal and political necessity for the Christian right

SHEFFIELD: yeah, well, and they do, I mean, they do openly talk about the idea that when you look at women who are married versus women who are not, that non married women are more likely to vote democratic.

And so by their definition, if we can do anything to make women get married and for whatever reason we don't care we feel like that will help us. And it's, it is, it's magical thinking in some sense though, because, it doesn't, Factor in that, well, maybe the percentage of women who are interested in being married at all are more likely to be conservative because, there's plenty of people out there that are like, well, why, what's the point of getting married?

I don't see the point of it when I can have the same effects as not, without the ceremony. Yeah, I think it's a little bit of contract.

MARCOTTE: I think it probably is a little bit of both, right? That's my, I think that both women that are more conservative probably get married [00:40:00] younger. So thus are more likely to be married.

and then I do think that marriage can make women more conservative because men are more conservative than women. And because we live in a male dominated society, Men's opinions tend to become the dominant one in a married couple more often than not. Like they pull women in their direction more than vice versa.

If not, if nothing but to keep the peace. Right.

SHEFFIELD: Well, and then it's also a matter of interest as well, because women tend to not follow. Politics as a hobby compared to men, but a smaller percentage are interested in it compared to men. And that's, that's just how it is, at least how, things are right now, at least in this country.

Yeah, so I think you're right about that, that and so, like that's, that really is the motivation and it's just so much manipulation. And it's no, I don't think it's sustainable for them. And, but rather than admitting, look, we [00:41:00] have ideas that people hate let's become more moderate. They're not going to do that.

MARCOTTE: We're seeing that we're seeing that a lot, like that play out really. Like dramatically with the Dobbs decision. I think they've been caught really flat footed by how angry it's made people. I've done this work my entire career and I've been caught flat footed, but how angry it's made people.

And I have some long, boring theories as to why that might be, but it doesn't really matter. what's happened is, By banning abortion, they made people more pro choice and more adamant about it.

How far-right activists hoodwink moderate Republicans about reactionary authoritarianism

SHEFFIELD: It made people realize how radical they were. Like, because I think that's, that really is, the linchpin of, reactionary political success is camouflaging their radicalism.

If you talk to your average Republican, or let's say your average Republican leaner, so an independent who says they're not a Republican, but they [00:42:00] vote for them, in their mind, they actually think that the Democratic party is more extreme than the Republican. They really believe this.

MARCOTTE: Yes.

SHEFFIELD: That is the foundation of reactionary organizing is getting is camouflaging extremism and making, conservatives think that they're centrist, basically, I think.

MARCOTTE: Yeah, I think a lot of people like, so I know a lot of like pro choice Republicans and, what I would find in my discussions pre Dobbs with them was that they really wanted to talk about this subject as if it was a matter of personal opinion, as a map instead of policy.

Right. and they wanted to talk about what they can see what they perceived as they saw the abortion issue as a bunch of meanie feminists being mean to the sweet little church ladies who just don't like abortion. And it's no, I don't care if you don't [00:43:00] like abortion, just don't try to ban it.

Right. And by banning it, they've made feminists, they've proved feminists were right all along that it was never about somebody's personal choices. That's why we called it pro choice. Like it was always about letting people choose. The religious right was literally trying to take away extremely crucial health care access.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and they're doing that with this birth control stuff. I mean, that's, there is obviously no fertilized egg at risk in when a woman is using hormonal birth control methods.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. Well, but they, will lie about that through their teeth. It's insane. And to the point where I've, unfortunately that propaganda has gotten so widespread that I hear liberals repeat it all the time.

They think that the birth control pill kills a fertilized egg. It [00:44:00] doesn't, it prevents ovulation. That's how it works.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. But speaking of the, sort of educated Republican, I think, there's another person who kind of really personally, crystallized this, I think recently, which was Katie Britt in her State of the Union response to Joe Biden recently, that she, this is a woman who very clearly is a professional, educated, smart person, independent has always had, a high paying job and works very effectively and intelligently, but at the same time, she knows that's not what she's supposed to do.

MARCOTTE: Yeah, I think one of the reasons her response to the state of the union went over so poorly is like She's actually not all that great at doing the like Syrupy fundamentalist [00:45:00] trad wife bit, right?

I mean how much yeah, it's not her

SHEFFIELD: native language.

MARCOTTE: Yeah Even though she's from alabama and I feel like they just teach you that stuff from the cradle there Yeah I mean, she, had this sort of voice down the Fundy baby voice thing, but like she just could not sell it like but she looks the part.

And again, I think that she was put up to it by a bunch of like male leadership that told her that this was her way forward in the party and this was how she was going to get more power. And, she did her level best, but. And I think that's generally true. Like a lot of Republican women in leadership know that being able to sort of flatter and placate incredibly sexist men is the sort of path to success in their party.

And so they've, made their peace with that, if nothing else.

The disastrous effects of oppressive religion on women

[00:46:00]

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It like, yeah, in some level they have. And yeah, it's just, it is really. It's really unfortunate to see, because I mean, I do personally know people who have had those things happen to them. women that I knew when they were teenagers.

who were so smart and witty and, but then over time they're, they just sort of gave in, lost themselves and it's, it's awful to see. And, I really, that was ultimately one of the reasons that, that I left Mormonism was that I didn't like what it did to women.

But it was subconscious at first. I couldn't see, I didn't have the vocabulary for understanding. Well, why is it that these Mormon girls are so different from the non Mormons? I couldn't see it. I, didn't understand how to say it at first.

And then, eventually I realized that's why I don't want to date [00:47:00] them.

MARCOTTE: It's, funny. yeah, I, often have said my whole like life that like one of the like hardest things for patriarchy to do. Do is to convince men not to see women as human beings, because we obviously are. And, you really have to beat it out of boys and and nonetheless, some still managed to keep hang on to.

Like the obvious fact that like women are people and not just helpmeets put here to serve them. I saw a speech by an abortion provider many years ago where he did talk about like why he got into it. And it was literally that when he was in high school, he had a crush on this girl. And she couldn't get an abortion with her boyfriend that she was dating.

And his just total compassion for her, drove him to go to medical school and become an abortion provider. And I was just like, [00:48:00] well, aren't you sweet? not only were you moved by this girl's play, but you didn't even care that she was dating some boy other than you.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, no, true. And.

but this just bundle of contradictions it, also, it was manifesting recently with the Donald Trump Bible that he's out selling now, that a guy who is literally on trial right now for paying off an adult film star that he had cheated on with his wife while she was pregnant.

It's also selling a Bible for 60.

MARCOTTE: Well, there's a lot of old Testament prophets who did similar stuff. I suppose, well,

maybe not prophets,

but figures like the evangelicals are always comparing Trump to King David and it's like, all right, whatever you guys,

SHEFFIELD: yeah, well, [00:49:00] yeah. And, but, and, that really is how they've kind of justified it.

It is that. They do see him as God's instrument, even if. They acknowledge that he may not live the, the, ideas and and, from a theological standpoint, I do think that also, their theology also makes them vulnerable to somebody like Trump or this type of thinking, because, if you believe, well, I'm, can be forgiven for anything that I do.

I just, I'm already forgiven, I can sin as much as I want, or, or you go to confession and then it's over, like If that's really your mentality and your belief, you actually can get away with any manner of sin, quote unquote.

MARCOTTE: Especially men. I will say in my research on my trad wives piece, like a lot of the religious trauma therapists I spoke with said that they've had a huge influx of patients since Trump, because [00:50:00] the contradictions are more than a lot of people in the church could bear.

And it was a breaking point for them for leaving. So I think we've been seeing an exodus. That's probably in larger numbers than the stats show because of what you said, that it's been offset by people self identifying as evangelical, even though they don't go to church.

The role of identity and religion in conservative politics

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it's, yeah, it is, it's an identity which is another one of these, every accusation is a confession things like, the right wing Christians.

Southern right wing Christians invented identity politics. That's the entirety of what their movement is about. It's not about ideas. They don't have any ideas. They don't have policies. Their policy is the government shouldn't do stuff. But that's not really a policy or an idea.

MARCOTTE: It's true.

They always yell and scream about like people talking about race and gender. And it's well, but it's, like conservative forces, like historically that [00:51:00] invented these categories in order to classify people based on how much power they're allowed to have. . Like the concept of black people didn't exist until racists needed it to justify chattel slavery.

and as a lot of gender theorists point out, the only reason we buy into this myth of like that there are men and there women and there's no in between and there's no ambiguity around those two categories, that they're just a black and white categories. Is that. We need there to be men and women in order to know who's in charge and who's the servant, right?

And I think that liberals are just using categories that we've been handed to criticize them, but we're not, the people who need them as much,

SHEFFIELD: yeah, well, and again, and it's something that the right wing, right wingers don't understand when they talk about, That women need to be feminine and [00:52:00] men need to be masculine.

When they say things like that, they don't understand that people on the left don't deny that either. If somebody wants, if a woman wants to be feminine, quote unquote, nobody says, no, you can't do that. There's nobody out there saying. No, you cannot wear a dress if you like wearing dresses, take that off right now.

MARCOTTE: And one of my favorite contradictions about that is the same people who say that like gender's, inborn, unchanging, and immovable also completely lose their minds. If a man wears a skirt or a woman does sports or yeah, does something considered not of their sort of gender stereotype. And it's well, y'all decide, right.

Is it inborn and therefore unchangeable by any choice I make, or is gender performance that we have to just constantly keep up by what the clothes we wear, the choices we make, the like way we present to the world. I feel like you have to choose. [00:53:00]

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and then from a theology standpoint, if they do claim to believe that, God is this, transcendent, non physical being that contains the essence of everything and everyone, so therefore you can refer to God as female, and that would be correct if you want to but you know, if you do that, like they get massively triggered and angry at you or calling God non binary. of course, like if you're talking about a non physical being that is eternal, of course it is non binary. of course it is but you can't say that to them.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. Every time that they're like, no, God is a man. I just. I'm just like, what does God have junk? I just want to know, does God have junk? I want but I never have the courage to ask that, but I'm always thinking it.

SHEFFIELD: I, I have once in a while asked people, did Jesus die for the [00:54:00] alien? I have asked someone that.

MARCOTTE: That's, a good one.

SHEFFIELD: And yeah, somebody told me that, yes, the answer was yes to that. Then I said, oh, okay, well tell me more. And then they

MARCOTTE: They wouldn't be unsaved because they haven't heard the good word. No, I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, I see. Well, that's the thing, like you're not supposed to, you aren't supposed to think about it too much.

You really aren't like that's all of the, like all of this stuff. That's the one consistent thing they have is that you're not supposed to expect consistency. You're not supposed to think about it. You're just supposed to follow. That's really what it is.

MARCOTTE: Aliens land. Are we supposed to meet them with Bibles and be like, ‘Oh good. You're saved.’

SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I guess so. See, hopefully we'll have that, that, first contact. We can find that out.[00:55:00]

Well, so we're coming up on the hour here. So, is there any other aspect of this that we haven't talked about that you feel like we need to cover here?

MARCOTTE: No, I think aliens is good. That's some fun stuff.

SHEFFIELD: We've reached the natural end point.

While religion often justifies sexism, there are plenty of non-religious sexist arguments also

SHEFFIELD: Um, well, I guess, how about then let's just maybe end that, as much heretics like you and I do enjoy making jokes of this nature.

It is also the case, that a lot of these sexist stereotypes and submission narratives do, they're not dependent on religion necessarily.

MARCOTTE: No. And in fact, I think, maybe less so than when I was like first starting out as a feminist writer, but there was like this whole like notion.

and Jordan Peterson still kind of minds this territory a lot that like, there's something called evolutionary psychology that it, and it's not a real science, [00:56:00] but people present it as it is. And it is also the same kind of just so stories, but they package it as science instead of religion, that women are born to be helpers and men are born to be leaders.

And if you start to dig into it, you find that their claims are just unevidenced in all ways. And they're untestable also.

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. To say, well, this is how things were for humans 20, 000 years ago.

MARCOTTE: Yeah.

SHEFFIELD: It's like, how do you know that.

MARCOTTE: Jordan Peterson and his lobsters is like the kind of thing that sounds persuasive at first glance and then you give it like five minutes thought and you're like, wait, none of that makes any sense. Is our society to look anything like lobster society? These claims here that are not testable, like you said, or like comparisons that don't really hold up under scrutiny.

So there is a secular version of it, but I do find it interesting that I, when I [00:57:00] look at like secular, like conservative spaces, I don't really see as much.

Of the sort of like elaborate Evo psych, like arguments that you used to see. I think it's just Donald Trump has kind of created this permission structure to just be a belligerent jerk about your views without ever even feeling the need to kind of prop up even a half assed fake proof,

SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, and I was talking with somebody, another fellow ex Republican about that. And he made the point that I think was very interesting, which is that all of the arguments you used to see of this nature, they weren't for the general public, they were actually for the moderate Republican.

And once the moderate Republican was just like, yeah, I'll just vote for you no matter what you do. Then they don't even bother with the pretense anymore. And that's a really good point. Interesting idea. Yeah, and so and that is yeah, why I would say, you know the To the extent that there are [00:58:00] still any moderate Republicans out there, you guys need to f*****g stand up for yourself. Come on now.

Fascism is dependent on conservatism to win. It cannot exist without it. And conservatives need to understand that and they need to assert themselves because they are the first ones who will be up against the wall. The conservatives will, that's who they come for.

MARCOTTE: Yeah. I mean, that's. That's literally how Donald Trump is operating, right? He's following the fascist playbook of get the conservatives on your side and then purge them from the party. Hitler did it with the knight of the long knives. Trump does it with tweets, but it's, and that is less violent.

So I'll give him that, but it's kind of the same premise, right? You use them as a ladder to climb the power. And then when. You've gotten there. You just take them out.

SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, so Amanda people who want to keep up with your stuff, how would they do that?

MARCOTTE: I recommend just going to [00:59:00] salon. com. I, write there every day. I have a Twitter account under my name, Amanda Marcotte. I post there once in a blue moon. I also am on Bluesky, which is a little bit more fun for me these days. So, check me out in those places.

SHEFFIELD: All right. Sounds good. It's been a great discussion today.

MARCOTTE: Thank you, I've had a blast.

SHEFFIELD: So that is the program for today, I appreciate everybody joining us for the conversation. And you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show, you can get the video, audio, and transcript of the episodes.

And if you are a paid subscribing member, thank you very much. You are making the show possible. And if you can't afford to subscribe right now, I understand that. But please tell a friend or a family member about the show and ask one of your favorite podcasters to have me on. I do those once in a while as well. Those are always fun.

I appreciate everybody for joining me today and I will see you next time.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community

This is a bonus Doomscroll episode is available only to paid Flux subscribers. Please support independent progressive media by and join us! We need your help. Also be sure to check out our guest Corey Ryan Forrester’s Substack.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — Arizona Republicans reveal that reactionaries have no real principles beyond getting power

05:18 — Another Elon Musk fail: Tesla is laying off 10 percent of workforce

10:06 — Iran attacks Israel with drones and missiles, will it lead to wider war?

15:52 — OJ Simpson's death brought the world together

18:38 — Satanic Temple in Salem Massachusetts attacked with explosive device

21:00 — Houston woman arrested for leaving little children behind while she went on 6-day cruise

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This Doomscroll episode is available on video as well as audio. Be sure to check out our guest Corey Ryan Forrester’s Substack.

Audio Chapters

00:00 — After a lifetime of crime, Donald Trump is finally on trial

08:51 — NH Governor Chris Sununu humiliates himself shilling for Trump

11:48 — RFK Junior's New York campaign director says she's trying to help Trump win

18:39 — Trump's dementia is getting even worse

24:30 — Right-wingers are angry at Scrabble now

Follow or Die!

Doomscroll

Instagram

YouTube

Twitter

Lisa

Instagram

Twitter

Matt

Twitter

Mastodon

Threads

Bluesky

Doomscroll is a podcast from Flux. Check us out more smart, fun, and progressive podcasts and articles!

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe