Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #10: Elite Media, Democrats' Failures, JFK Files, and More!

Episode Date: October 30, 2021

Krystal and Saagar talk about elite, woke media with Batya Ungar-Sargon, Democratic failures with David Sirota, Biden hiding the JFK files, and more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Batya's book: https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/bad-news/Daily Poster: https://www.dailyposter.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're gonna be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show,

ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Joining us now, a very interesting guest is Batya Ungar Sargon. She is the author of Bad News, How Woke Media is Undermining Democracy. And she joins us now. Gabbatya, it's great to see you. Thanks for coming on the show. Welcome, Batya. Congrats on the book. Thank you so much for having me. You don't understand what an honor it is for me to be

here at the mecca of bipartisan populism you know even when i disagree with you guys i know that you're coming from this position of good faith and i agree with you about so much that it makes me then like reconsider my own positions which is like of course the whole goal of journalism so thank you so much for having me and thank you for what you guys do here every single day. That is very, very high praise because to hear some, anyone reconsidering anything is like in America today's politics. All right. Uh, Baja, you have been at the forefront of kind of highlighting and trying to look at how woke politics can really undermine our democracy, especially within the news media. Why'd you decide to write this book and tell us a little bit about what's in it? All right. So this is not actually the book that I

initially wanted to write. I wanted to write a book called A More Perfect Union based on a lot of reporting I was doing from the South during the Trump administration, where I was finding things that, you know, as a New York City journalist was really, really surprising me. For example, so many of the culture wars that had been waged over the 90s and the early aughts had just been won by the left and nobody was talking about it. Things like marriage equality, things like police reform and how much we need it. These were things that were just no longer issues of debate. And I really wanted to write a book about how we're so much more united about the major issues that this nation was founded on than we are divided. And I just couldn't sell

it. I mean, nobody wanted to buy this book with like all of this good news about where our nation was at and how much unity there is below the surface. And finally, a very kind editor sat me down and said to me, look, you know, if we are not polarized, why do we think we're so polarized about race, about politics? Why don't you write that book? So that's the book that I wrote. Oh, that's really fascinating, actually, that origin story. So you end up writing, instead of the good news, you write the bad news. And the bad news has a lot to do with the state of journalism. And you track the history of the modern media and the class shifts that have happened that have turned it into effectively a monoculture with gigantic blind spots with regards to especially working class issues. Take us back to kind of the origins and, you know, the working class roots of a lot of media outlets

and a lot of journalists themselves. Yeah, so my book is essentially a sort of populist history of American journalism that sadly is also the story of how the media abandoned the working class. So American journalism really started in the 19th century with people like Joseph Pulitzer and Benjamin Day. And these guys, they showed up at a time when the media was really pretty much created for and by the elites, the business elites, the economic elites, and then the political elites. And they kind of looked around themselves and they were like, there are so many more poor and working class people and they're all literate and they have nothing to read. And so they created what was called the penny press. Instead of charging $10 a year for subscription to a newspaper, which was astronomical and totally beyond the pale for working class Americans, they started charging a penny a day for a newspaper. And they got so rich, you guys, because there were so many poor and working class Americans.

And so there was this huge success. It was like they were the number one newspapers of their era. And what I argue in the book is that, you know, partisan media is actually not a problem as long as there are people who are partisan for every sector of society. The problem with today's media is that you have right wing media that's partisan on behalf of the top 5% of conservatives, and you have liberal media that's partisan on behalf of the top 10% of liberals, and nobody who's speaking to the rest of the nation, nobody who's addressing like what you guys do, which is speaking to the vast working class in America who are actually on both sides of the political aisle. You know, Batu, one of the things you highlight is that whenever a press on right and left becomes culturally and educationally part of the people who are in power,

then the press does not exist to uncover power. It exists to just carry water for the powerful, which is just like a self-perpetuating cycle, which exacerbates a lot of what you're talking about, right? Absolutely. And you guys do, again, I'm sorry. I know I keep fangirling, but you do such a good job of pointing this out. Essentially, what I argue is that the moral panic around race that we're seeing that emerged from the media over the last 10 and especially five, two years, what last year is really a way of perpetuating inequality. It's the sort of last stage of the journalism status revolution, where journalists would much rather talk about issues

of race and issues of political polarization than talk about the real class chasm in America that has catapulted them into the elites. Right. Well, they only want to have one part of the conversation about race. They're very interested in trailblazers and these sort of like, you know, let's make the elite class more diverse. They don't actually want to deal with the structural inequities that leads to not only mass class gulfs, but also a disproportionate number of black and brown people being part of that lower class of society that can never, ever escape. And by dividing the working class along racial lines,

well, that's a very convenient way for them to hold power. And that's a very old story, ultimately, in America. But what happened, though? So you start with these working class journalists. You start with, you know, the guy at the local paper who's kind of one of the people and sees things from the ground level up. And now we're at this point where I always tell the story, but when I started MSNBC, I had three co-hosts. I was the only one that wasn't from Massachusetts. So, I mean, that just really underscored for me that it was very, there was like one type of person basically who was ending up in these prominent media positions. And so you end up with, you know, a lot of the same sorts of stories and a lot of the same sort of perspective. When did that start to change? How did we end up in this place?

So it happened, you know, gradually and then all at once as so many things do. So the first publication, I would say, that really started to resist the Day and Pulitzer model was the New York Times, which emerged kind of out of this idea that, well, we can't compete with the penny press for numbers, but if we can convince our advertisers that our readership is a higher class, we can charge more for ads.

And that's exactly what they did. And it's very easy to signal to the working class, we're not for you, right? Like it's very easy to say, like, we are not here to represent you. We're here to represent an elite clientele. So that was the model that the New York Times sort of picked up. And essentially over the course of the 20th century, that model really won out. So in 1937, a study of elite journalists, right, the top of the tier in Washington found that less than half of them had a college degree. Fast forward to 2015, and 92% of American journalists have a college degree. The funnel towards becoming a journalist has become incredibly narrow. And that happened for a number of reasons, you know. So for example,

television emerged, which gave a much more immediate sense of the news. So the newspapers felt like they had to add something. So they wanted interpretive news, which meant they needed people who could write, which meant that there was a premium on a college education, right? Things like that. Then you had the Watergate scandal, where journalism was suddenly this very sexy thing that, you know, you watch movies about, right? And you can take down a president. That also started to bring in a higher class of journalists. But really what sort of like catapulted this was the digital revolution and the collapse of local media. So for a long time, you had just, you know, local newspapers, you would have towns that were one newspaper towns,

right? And so the publisher there could either lean left or right and sacrifice 50% of their readers, or they could sort of hew down the middle of the road and get 100% of the town's readership, right? And with the collapse of local journalism, essentially journalism has become much more digital and much more coastal. So now over 75% of journalists in America

live on one of the coasts, which means that, of course, they're much more liberal. They're also much more affluent. They're much less religious. They're much more pro-choice, et cetera, et cetera. And so there's been this real sequestering of the media. And because it's such a hard industry to break into, you can have places like The New York Times and The Washington Post and NPR only take their interns from the top 1% of universities, right? And that funnel just squeezes the people who make it up the top the way meritocracy does, and everybody else gets dropped down. Yeah. Bacha, what's the way out? What do you think?

I mean, I don't see that changing anytime soon. I mean, I love this show. I can only do so much. It's like two people against an entire system. What's the solution? The solution is what your producer, James Lynch, wrote about. It's working class people overcoming partisan divides to advocate on their own behalf. It's people taking back power from the elites. It's the American people refusing this nonsense of polarization that does not reflect where we are. It's people going out and spending time with people who they disagree with because that is how you become a better person. And that is how we stitch back together the fabric of this nation. Well said. Batya, congrats on the book. Thank you so much. And we're really grateful for your time. That's right. We'll

have a link down there in description, everybody. Everybody go buy it. It's an excellent book, guys. I really highly recommend that you check it out because it does chart the roots of a lot of the dysfunction that we cover on a daily basis. Really nice job. Thank you, Batya. Thanks, Batya. Thank you so much. We'll see you later. Of course, there has been a lot of action this week with regards to Democrats basically destroying their own agenda, led by the president himself.

Joining us now to talk about that is David Sirota as part of our partnership with The Daily Poster. He, of course, is what's your founder and editor of The Daily Poster. Great to see you, David. Good to see you. So you also, in addition, you're a man of many talents, skills, and projects. And along with The Daily Poster, you've been working with Alex Gibney on a new podcast that I think is essential listening for everyone that tracks how the financial crisis led us to this moment of political hell that we're living through now. First, tell us a little bit about that project. And then I want to dig in on this Rolling Stone piece that the two of you co-authored. So the project is called Meltdown. And what it basically

tracks is how the financial crisis obviously happened and then the Democrats, their response. And the Democratic Party's response to the financial crisis was largely to boost Wall Street, betray many of its campaign promises, which created the conditions for first the Tea Party backlash and then Donald Trump's assent. And the reason this is obviously relevant now is because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The idea being that when you promise voters help and then you don't deliver that help, you should expect that there's going to be a right-wing opportunist

there to try to take advantage. And that's why it's such a cautionary tale right now, because as you alluded to in the intro, that seems to be what's happening right now as Democrats continue to pare back their agenda, continue to leak out headlines of them betraying their promises, promises to expand Medicare, promises for paid leave, previously promises for a $15 minimum wage. And it's like the party doesn't seem to remember even its most recent history. Yeah. And, you know, along that lines, this is an auspicious time for us to be talking. And let's put that Rolling Stone piece up there on the screen, which is that we just got the contours, David, of the Biden bill. What exactly do you make of it3.5 trillion bill was supposed to be, just on the top line. I mean, we've now gone from a $6 trillion proposal to Manchin saying he could accept $4 trillion, to $3.5 trillion, down to $1.9 trillion.

And now we're at $1.75 trillion, according to the White House. Things that have been taken out, the much-promised drug pricing provisions, the provisions to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, the paid leave stuff is out. Some of the strongest climate stuff is apparently out. Some of this is still being negotiated. But the point is that the overall contours are a party that is facing an intransigent Republican opposition that does have control of Congress, is using its control of Congress to publicly pare back its own promises at a time when people are desperate for help. And this sounds familiar because this is what happened in 2009 and 2010 to incredibly disastrous consequences, not just on the policy for Americans, but politically for the Democratic Party itself.

And so what we lay out in the Rolling Stone piece is it's a piece of the podcast series Meltdown, which is to say that when you do this, you are undermining not only the economic policies that need to happen, but you are undermining potentially Americans' faith in democracy. I think we forget that there's a connection between economics and democracy, that if you keep going out and promising people you're going to deliver specific economic help to them, and then you keep getting into power and siding with your corporate donors and do not provide that help to people, and then you turn around and you say, we got to protect democracy, there are going to be a lot

of voters who say, I just use democracy to vote you in. And you promised me things and you didn't deliver on those promises. You bailed out on those promises. Why should I care much about democracy? That's the problem here. Yeah. We covered an extraordinary clip of Obama campaigning for the Democrat who's running for governor of New Jersey, where I don't know if you saw this, David, but his whole pitch was basically like, look, I didn't do everything people wanted. And, you know, I really let people down. And then they, lo and behold, they didn't show up to vote for me. And instead of being like, maybe I should have done better, it was like, how could you do that to us? And don't make that mistake again.

Look, this guy, he's not going to deliver for you really either. But you should still go out and vote for him. I mean, I always think back to his signature line when he would say, oh, the Republicans are bad or whatever on the trail and people would boo. He'd say, don't boo, vote. And then people do. And they did. They voted since 2006 on prescription drug reform for Medicare to be able to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices. Democrats have been promising this for well over a decade now.

Time after time, it's wildly popular. Even people like Kyrsten Sinema campaign on this crap. What are voters supposed to do with that information when it's like, we told you not only do we want this, we told you it's one of our top priorities. You said you're going to do it. We voted you into office. And then even on this most basic, obvious, easy reform, you can't do it. Like, what are people supposed to do with that? Right. And then they go out and they say, we have a crisis of democracy.

Please elect us to protect democracy. And lots of voters, it's not to say that lots of voters want to see democracy trampled, voting rights trampled. But it is to say that lots of people may say, I'm not going to turn out at the polls. I'm not going to use democratic institutions. I don't really care if democratic institutions are curtailed and limited. I mean, that's the sentiment that can grow out of a political system that continues to be a boot to the face of the working class. And so what we're seeing right now is another example. Biden and the Democrats got into power

making specific promises, and they have spent months generating headlines that are about paring back and betraying those promises, sending a message to voters over and over and over again that your vote doesn't matter. And so I think that a lot of Democrats have not connected in their mind, Democrats in Washington, they haven't connected in their mind the assault on democracy, the erosion of democracy with their responsibility to actually deliver for people

when people vote for them on specific campaign promises. Yeah. And so, I mean, in the context of all this, what do you think they should do on this bill, David? Would they be better off with nothing? Well, look, I think that there are still negotiations happening, but I would say this, that the House progressives still have the same leverage that they have had throughout this whole process. They have leverage to say we are not voting for something unless it includes an agenda that we make clear. The problem has been, I keep saying this, the problem has been that they have refused to say what their red lines are. Joe Manchin and Sinema have been making headlines for weeks with all sorts of red lines.

They got 25 or 50 red lines that they keep manufacturing. The House progressives haven't, as far as I can tell, have not laid down one single red line, meaning we will not vote for a bill unless it includes X, Y, and Z. So the question is, are there any red lines at all for House progressives? Is there anything they're willing to draw a line on? I think that if they can't draw a red line, it is a pretty pathetic commentary. But I also think if they can figure out which red lines their entire caucus agrees on, they can draw those lines and make those demands with as much agency as Sinema and Manchin have made their demands with. Yeah. David, based on your knowledge of Senator Sanders, having known him for a long time,

obviously worked quite a bit with him, he has really committed himself to expanding Medicare to include vision, dental, hearing. According to this framework, and we should say we're recording this on Thursday, so we're reading the reports of what's going to be in it, But we haven't actually listened to Biden's speech yet. According to those reports, vision and dental are out, but hearing is in. Do you think that Senator Sanders would support a bill that only has the hearing expansion as part of the Medicare benefit expansion? Well, first of all, there's an interesting question is when did eyes and teeth become not part of the human body? I mean, when was that decision made? What kind of a Washington decision is that? It kind of reminds me of ketchup being a vegetable. It's on that level, but even more ridiculous. So as it relates to Bernie Sanders, I mean, I think this is a big moment for him.

I believe, I genuinely believe that the expansion of Medicare is not just important for the policy itself. It's important for the entire campaign for Medicare for all, which millions of people believe in and were told to believe in, rightly so, via his campaign. So I think that there being not a real Medicare expansion, I mean, there's a small, it looks like there's a small Medicare expansion, but not having a real full Medicare expansion to cover things, medical services for parts of the human body, that is a potential problem for not just the policy today, but for the effort to expand Medicare, ultimately the long-term effort for Medicare for all. And so I think he's going to have to consider that. I think he probably is considering how much of a line in the sand to draw because if you don't get a real Medicare expansion in this, you're essentially saying that we can't

even expand Medicare to cover teeth and eyes, parts of the human body, existing Medicare for existing recipients. What are we really saying about the prospect for expanding it generally? That's why I think this particular part of the fight is so important. Yeah, well said. So a lot of bad news, but we do have a little glimmer of good news for our people and for your people, which I'm sure there is some overlap, which is that as part of our continuing partnership with The Daily Poster, we want to offer, you are offering to our subscribers, our premium subscribers, a discount to The Daily Poster. And we are also offering to your subscribers a discount to become premium subs to Breaking Points. You're going to send out an email, I think with the link to your people,

we're going to send out an email with a link to our people. So you can become a Daily Poster subscriber for 20% off, significant discount, and get first access to the incredible journalism that you guys are doing over there. So again, if you're a premium subscriber for us, you're going to get that link in your email box.

There you go. Thanks, David. We really appreciate it. Thanks to the partnership. Thanks for all of that link in your email box. There you go. Thanks, David. We really appreciate it. Thanks to the partnership. Thanks for all of your work. Really appreciate it. Back you 100%. Thanks, man.

All right, guys. So back in 1992, Congress passed a law requiring the government to release any and all documents that have to do with the JFK assassination and Sager. For some reason, president after president continues to push off the deadlines of some of these key disclosures. Trump did it back in 2017. And now President Biden, with the deadline approaching, also actually used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to further delay release of these vital records. So here was his quote, and we have the New York Post tear sheet about this. Biden delays release of JFK assassination records, blaming COVID-19 pandemic. Okay. He said, temporary continued

postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure. They're now saying the most sensitive information will be released in December 2022, and material that has already been deemed appropriate for release in the public will be dumped on December 15th of this year. So, once again, and most of these are CIA records, of course. Once again, the release of these records is being kicked into the future, and we'll see if they come up with more excuses to further delay this release,

which was, again, ordered by law in 1992. I love that they blame COVID. I'm like, yeah, was it COVID back in 2017? Come on, man. Yeah. I mean, you've got years now to get on top of this. Just to give you a sense of some of what would be in this release, there's all kinds of details of a CIA plot to kill Castro. There's another memo about

a 1963 Pentagon plan for an engineered provocation that could be blamed on Castro as a pretext for going to war, effectively. There's a lot of history on the CIA's Miami office. And then there are things specifically related to the plot. Some of the, you know, sketchy associates of Oswald, his ties to a CIA-backed exile group, potential indications that one of the key witnesses actually lied to Congress about Oswald's ties to that group. So there's a lot here that could be of interest, whether with regards to the JFK assassination plot or just all of the shady crap that the CIA was doing back then and, of course, continues to do today. But we're not going to find out about it. Well, I was going to say, you know more about it than me. In terms of the documents, are we really going to learn anything around the activities? Oh, it's impossible to say. Because, so the way the law is set up, there are some exemptions here.

Basically, they can say, oh, well, this is against our national security as effectively. Like, it's going to reveal secrets that will harm our national security. I mean, first of all, this is like 60 years ago, guys. I mean, are we still, like, so it's a lame excuse. But even with that big loophole, they're supposed to, by the law, justify each and every exemption. So you can't just blank and say, oh, we can't release this whole memo because it'll harm our national security. You're supposed to line by line effectively justify each thing that you think the exemption applies to and give a reason. They say that the legislature, there's actually a bunch of legal experts and academics who are saying, you're breaking the law right now.

This isn't just something you can push off indefinitely. There was a law that was passed. It has certain rules and requirements, and you are breaking that law. They say there's a stringent process and legal standard for postponing the release of a record that requires the president to certify why any single file is being withheld. And Biden, with this blanket statement saying, ah, well, COVID, so we're going to do it later, does not come close to meeting that threshold. Yeah, and that's the fascinating part in terms of the threshold, but also the data, or sorry, the documents that we could learn. I don't know.

The more I've dug into it, the less hope I've actually gotten around these documents. It was kind of like with the UFO report. It was just so obvious that they were going to— They're going to find a way. They're going to find a way. And I love they always try to do these executive summaries and things. And then, as I understand it too, because they can still have redactions, they could just fully redact like entire portions of it, like they did in the past with some documents. And

then they still are not required to release any of that, but then they won't even do the trouble of that, which is a whole other question of like, well, okay, is there actually anything in here? I would love to know the answer to that question. So one researcher, Jefferson Morley, who has filed a bunch of lawsuits to try to get our hands, the public's hands, his hands on some of these files, he says that their refusal to comply, quote, can only be interpreted as evidence of bad faith,

malicious intent, and obstruction of Congress. And I think that's really fair. I mean, look, I personally think there's a lot of evidence to indicate that the CIA was at least way more involved than the public knows, but we don't know. I'll just put that out there that that's my own personal belief. But even if it's not, why are you continuing to hide these documents about your activities across a range of activities, specifically with regards to the Miami office, with what they were doing with regards to Castro, with these exile groups that they were backing and propping up? Like, why are these things still so many years later being kept a secret? And so I think to say, you know, that

it's bad faith and it's obstruction of Congress, like that's just effectively stating a fact right now. Another thing I looked up, because I think that this is interesting, is how many Americans like me believe others were involved. The most recent poll I could find found 61% of Americans. So it's basically like two thirds to one third. Two thirds do not buy

the official narrative that it was a lone gunman. They think that others were involved. And I went through demographic by demographic. It's also interesting who. So a lot of it's pretty consistent across age. Like every generation is basically like, no, that's that's not what happened. There's a fairly significant racial divide. So white Americans are the most likely to believe the official narrative and black Americans are the least likely to believe the official narrative. 76% of black people in the most recent poll do not buy the official narrative. And look, again, it makes sense when you have a group of people who've been like consistently lied to and screwed over by the federal government that they'd be like, no, this doesn't make any sense. This doesn't add up.

There's more going on here that y'all aren't telling us about. My main suspicion is that it would just reveal all sorts up to just insane level shenanigans that if we know what's already come out is that they were willing to stage an attack in order to invade Cuba, what else are they keeping secret in terms of what was actually going on there? And that it would basically just validate all of the mostly correct Cuban conspiracy theories that, you know, we were trying everything in our power at the time in order to kill Castro

and destabilize the regime. To make his beard fall out because we thought that was the source of his power. I mean, just like completely insane stuff that they were cooking up.

That's like my main suspicion around why it remains. But look, I mean, who knows? I'd love to learn more. Yes, I would love to learn more. Also, as I said to you, I really miss having

Sean McCarthy on Twitter at a time like this to tell us his thoughts on. He was a great follow. He really was. He was a great follow. What exactly was going on here? Jack on Twitter, free Sean McCarthy.

Anyway, the wait continues indefinitely for these files to ever be released. And that's all we have to say about that. There we go. We'll have more for you guys later. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? There we go. We'll have more for you guys later. proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind

Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy.

But to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts this is an iHeart podcast