Chapo Trap House - Bonus: Axios and Allies feat. Jael Holzman

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

Will talks to musician and climate journalist Jael Holzman (Ekko Astral, Heatmap News) about her experience as a congressional reporter at outlets like Axios and Politico, and the conditions that led her to quit. We discuss the institutionalized bias against accurate reporting on topics like climate change and trans rights & healthcare, the outrageous complacency with baseless stories from the likes of LibsofTikTok, and other incidents of casual “lavender scare” that permeate the D.C. press corp. Check out Jael’s medium post on quitting congressional journalism here: https://medium.com/@jaelholzman/why-im-leaving-congressional-journalism-ee97e2bbebf6 And get into Ekko Astral here: https://ekkoastral.bandcamp.com/album/pink-balloons

Hello, everybody. It's Will here, and we've got some Chapo bonus content coming at you. Today, Chris and I are continuing, I guess, sort of our unofficial series that began with our anonymous source from Columbia University that looks at some of the moral compromises of the American workplace and how it's increasingly untenable. I'm calling this series, Fuck It, I Quit. Moving on from the world of academia to journalism, our guest today, you may know her as the front woman of the indie punk sensation that is Chris's current favorite band, Echo Astral, it's Jael Holzman. Jael, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me on. Well first

I'd like to thank you for ending your career in journalism to pursue something socially redeemable, like making good music. So first of all, congratulations on shifting to music full time. Well, if I may, I'm not fully quitting journalism entirely. I just quit the part that ripped the heart and soul out of me. Well, there is still potential to do good work here.

But we were getting your perspective because you really saw how the sausage was made on the congressional beat in DC. And before we get into sort of what led you to this departure from the part that ripped your heart and soul out of you. Maybe you could tell us just a little bit about who you are, where you're from and how you got into journalism and the DC congressional beat in the first place. Sure. So for those of you who don't know me, my name is JL Olsman. I have been a reporter in the Washington Beltway area up until the last few weeks. For about eight years, I started the week that Donald Trump was inaugurated. Before that even, I mean, I've been in the area my whole life.

I grew up in Rockville, Maryland. I'm used to the shadow of I-95. But on that, I mean, I went into journalism because I wanted to make a difference. I still do believe that the art of telling the truth and speaking it to power can be one of the most valuable things in a society. And so I was fortunate enough the first week of—the week that Donald Trump was inaugurated I managed to get a job at one of the multiple prestigious DC publications that I wound up working on over the years Roll call wound up working at Politico and Axios as well And over those years I covered climate change and our countries struggle to adequately deal with rising global temperatures, at least

in part due to fossil fuel emissions, methane emissions from agriculture and the like. What complicated that, I mean, I was on an absolute success track, the classic, you know, start small and then build up kind of DC journalism thing that has created a name out of so many journalists. Jake Sherman would have been envious of the path that I was on at his age. But I mean, I in 2020, when the lockdown started, came to reckon with my own unfortunate truth, which is that I had known I was trans, I'd known as a woman for the past 10 years previous, I was a closeted kid in the beltway for many years. And so when lockdown happened, I reckoned with that and wound up coming out as trans as a member

of the Congressional Press Corps. And then four years afterwards was to my knowledge, the only out trans woman reporting in Congress. A fact that did not matter to my sources. I remained in good company and in respectful environments, even amongst many Republican staffers. The only place where I ever found myself truly uncomfortable was with reporters, and we can talk about why that is. But in truth, I found it to be an intolerable amount of cognitive dissonance over the years to be welcomed as an out trans woman by people as a peer and as a colleague.

When it came to talking about how the things in their day to day could make a difference in mine and in my community, being met with the absolute coldest of shoulders. Eventually, a series of events led me to quit and publish an essay about why I quit congressional journalism. It was at least partially motivated by an incident that involved Senators John Fetterman and Bob Casey from Pennsylvania and a decision from some Democrats to request to withdraw funding for a large LGBTQ community center in Philadelphia over baseless accusations from the the person known as lips of tik-tok higher right chick Regarding sex parties happening at the establishment and somehow federal funding going to them. None of it was true. In fact, the slides that she had posted when she made the accusations said,

no sex parties allowed. But all of my colleagues reported breathlessly about sex party allegations and federal funding, clearly for the clicks. So after, you know, trying to confront people that I knew and failing to have people change their ways for the last time, I decided to, you know, make the Lorax and just bolt. And for the last month, I've been on ever since I posted the essay, I've been on tour with a couple of other bands that really rock. And pretty soon I'll be starting my job at a fossil free climate news outlet that I'm very proud to get to work at. Jael, to talk about that, like, the breaking point. You mentioned Federman and Casey

and the defunding of an LGBTQ youth center in Pennsylvania, but like, a lot of, and this kind of spurious sort of breathless reporting about sex parties and things like that, but this also involves a favorite of ours on the show, Madison Cawthorn and the reporting on his supposed sex parties. Because you talk about how the erroneous reporting regarding Madison Cawthorn also contributed to this breaking point. Well, I mean, that is one of several incidents that occurred while I was at the employ of an establishment by the name of Politico that deeply affected me and led me to develop a kind of internal signifier around how congressional journalists see trans people and the existence of trans folks. What happened with Madison Cawthorn was that the outlet published a story that purported

to show him in lingerie around the time that he was trying to keep his seat in Congress. It was around the time that he had made some spurious claims about people having sex parties or orgies who worked in Congress and You know one can understand why a news outlet obtaining photos of a guy who said that in lingerie, you know Whether or not it's politico's job to be TMZ is one thing if it helps the public is another but you know, they ran with these photos and They didn't have any proof, or at least didn't show any in the story of knowing where they were taken, when they were taken, or even if they had the original photos.

I think the story itself said that this was like some sort of screenshot of the photo, which in the age of AI sounds pretty reckless as a media institution, but they ran with them anyway and it went viral. It was one of the most read stories on their page. It was all over the place. People for the organization were making jokes about it at the time, but myself as a out trans employee at the organization,

I mean, I didn't really care that much about offense. Like if people wanna laugh at a Republican in lingerie, like I do understand the contradictions there. But what was frustrating was the kind of queer slime of it all, the lavender scare of it all, where the outlet itself was not reporting in an aggressive fashion on the attacks on LGBTQ people, but was willing to get clicks off of a Joe, in effect, or like a sensational photo. Of course, Madison Cawthorn, shortly after the article published, said that this was

not at a sex party, it was on a cruise, before he was in Congress. Yeah. Which, you can make any jokes about Madison Cawthorn, but your whole story is gone there. Why did you even run the thing? And that was one of many incidents that happened to me including one of several while I was at politico that led to me Ultimately falling out of of what used to be my dream and that's that's a hard thing to swallow sometimes JL when I was reading your piece and another interview with you about this decision to depart from Axios.

I'm struck by the contrast between what you say was the respectful treatment by your sources and like people you worked with versus the coverage of an issue like trans people and trans healthcare. And like, what do you think accounts for this disparity or this compartmentalization between seeing you as a normal human being and sort of like leading with like the most lurid or spurious or just invented and irresponsible sort of fear mongering around the issue of trans people and trans youth in particular?

Well, first of all, it's really important to think about the context here. Dear listener, do you see people in the streets like shouting about trans kids? No, this is something very fringe controlled by a very small group of well-financed communications professionals. But that does work within the Beltway, where if you just set up a firm and you get people to start using Dylan Mulvaney as shorthand for corporate backlash, you can just rise a tide of anti-trans sentiment in the culture. So that's one. I mean, and number two, I mean, the reason I was treated with such respect is because a lot of the people in the boatway know this is bullshit. And they're waiting for someone

to finally point out what this really is. But my experience as a reporter who was out as trans, a climate journalist who's quite legible and well read on how scientific certainty should be communicated to the American public was that inside of these prestigious news organizations, and I only know the ones that I've worked on, worked in rather, but like I can tell, they're afraid of offending people who don't like trans people. Like, I know this firsthand because I've had that said to my face. Like, it's hard. And do they assume that that imaginary reader who's offended by the existence of trans people or frightened by them is some sort of silent majority?

Or are they purposely playing to what they know is a moral minority of people who have a, as I think a very crucial point you made, a well-funded communications apparatus behind them? Absolutely. I mean, so a story that I haven't had the chance to really talk about that much, but I'm happy to chat about here is the big reason why I ultimately left Politico, which was that I wound up writing multiple stories about trans folks for them. It was first through the context of as a climate journalist, I investigated how anti-trans activists had somehow lined up at the heart of a very large environmental protest in Nevada against the

nation's largest lithium mine, a Thacker Pass. And that story went viral. It was big for the company and it was big for me. Afterwards, I went to Politico and I said, Hey, like we should just let me cook a little bit. Like I'm really good at covering this and I have the background in scientific certainty and you'd be commended for letting a trans journalist like find the story no one is telling right I mean that's what journalism is supposed to be about but unlike in climate where scientific denial and the intent of that is allowed to be aired out because it's socially acceptable to talk about now like everyone understands

that oil companies have been funding climate denial for a long time, right? Instead, after I spent quite a bit of time doing interviews and researching, and I came to them and I said, look, the story that no one's telling is that they're going after adults. A lot of these people are not who they claim to be,

and their credentials are not entirely honest. And most importantly, they do not care if the people who lose access to this care will die, which is definitely going to happen if it does. And I was told point blank by someone very high at Politico that they would never run a story in a million years like that because they would never under any circumstances, let someone like make someone who is an anti-trans sentiment look like biggest was the quote. And I, to me that was the beginning of a journey where I had soul searching and I was like,

is this even an industry for me? Like if this is what Politico is like, and I'll just say, like the people inside of that company, think what you will about their reporting. Everyone in this business is trying to do the right thing. A lot of these people I'm still ride or die for, I would take a bullet for. I do not blame them as people.

But if an institution like Politico or like the Times or the Post, et cetera, is because of the nature of modern American mainstream press and the way it has to approach these issues. If that is where they're coming out with my existence, how can I be complicit in that? And how can I play a role? What's the point of a diverse newsroom? What's the point of diverse perspectives? It was an earth-shattering thing for me, and that was what led me to dedicate a lot more of my time to Echo Astral. That's what led me to leave Politico before the conclusion of the story that I wound up working on, which became a far more boilerplate story about trans, about families with trans

kids fleeing that I wound up asking to be third byline on after doing a lot of work for because I was concerned they wouldn't stand up for my safety. It changed my life because, you know, it's one thing to read accusations from activists. It's another thing to be in the heart of it and find out, oh, wait, no, they really just won't do it. And it's for reasons that are systemic and not necessarily personal. Jay, I mean, when you said that they told you point blank that we would never allow someone who has an anti-trans point of view to be depicted as a bigot.

What's fascinating about that to me is once again, this process of compartmentalization, because I would hazard a guess that in most newsrooms, they have gotten over the idea that I would like someone who is opposed to gay people that are just like, I don't think we should teach kids about homosexuality, or I don't think that, you know, gay writers or authors should be part of the curriculum. Everybody understands what that person's point of view is, and it's bigotry against gay people. How do these people in the so called like liberal media, how have they carved out this exception for trans people, both youth

and adults, where the people who are I don't know shall we say strenuously opposed to the public public acceptance of Trans people are given this wide latitude and like really like the thumb on the scale For them for the like the reasonable point of view counter the comparison that I like to make often is their own climate reasonable point of view counter. The comparison that I like to make often is around climate. About 15 to 20 years ago, it was acceptable in mainstream press to quote climate deniers in stories where scientists were presenting their findings and to regularly quote climate

deniers in stories about the politics around decarbonization. That was commonly accepted and in fact encouraged by editorial to be balanced. And I think the reason that happened is because people didn't understand how certain it was. This is a new issue to journalists and when you are stuck with piles and piles and piles of things to respond to, you have all that work, deadlines. It can be hard to educate yourself in a deep fashion. Reporters, the day to day, it's like, okay, I'm going to get so deep enough that I can understand this issue well enough to write a story that tells people what they need to know without me getting a correction.

That is like bare minimum what you do in journalism. And the problem here is that trans existence is something well documented, backed up. The science is pretty clear. But on the internet, anti-trans activists have spent a lot of time making it harder to find these resources. The media has not been invested in this issue enough beyond Pride Month packages and like, you know, tipping point Time magazine covers. It's not like there's a reporter on a

healthcare team. Like there's not someone in charge of covering healthcare at name your news organization that is spending months learning the ins and outs of how certain this is, unless they then have to quote those people anyway to avoid looking biased. Like I have not seen much in the way of any mainstream news organization assign the person covering healthcare to cover trans people. It's usually someone else or it becomes a one-off and then they ditch it. Yeah. I mean, I like, I want to get back to this idea that like, you know, journalists, they got a lot on their plate. I want to get back to this idea that like, you know, journalists, they got a lot on their plate. There's a lot to do. So like, in terms of filling in the gaps of like a complicated issue, I returned down to this idea of like these well-funded PR shops and like people you can

always go to for a quote, or that can provide you, you know, their version of statistics. And I, once again, I have to return to the idea that like, if you went to the Family Research Council for, you know, a quote on, I don't know, should this gay author be included in a school curriculum, you would know that what you were getting was like the point of view of the anti gay right. But like, on the when it comes to trans issues, they do seem to be getting a lot of cover because there are so many liberals who have bought into this as well so that they can sort of cover it is like it's not really a right or left

issue in the same way other culture war issues are like very legible to the press. Do you agree? So I decided to as you were speaking, I mean, this example is happening all the time, the lack of context around who is being presented in a news story. So let's, let's unpack this one because it's recent and I am expecting it to become regularly newsworthy. So yesterday the New York Times reported Biden officials pushed to remove age limits for trans surgery, documents show. Ooh, scary, right? So the documents that they're referencing

when you read lower down in the story were filed by James Cantor, someone that the New York Times describes as, a psychologist and longstanding critic of gender treatments for minors. Now, as my friends on the internet have rightfully pointed out by now, this person has A, no experience treating any of these kids, B, has compared homosexuality to pedophilia, and C, has a

well-documented history of working with pretty ideological groups against access to this care. So you are already kind of just laundering, effectively laundering, pretty explicitly anti-trans propaganda essentially without giving the accurate sourcing, you know? But in a way that they would never launder for his just strictly anti-gay attitudes. Yeah. And it's similar to homosexuality, bestiality, etc. etc. I mean, I think of the like the gold standard for this type of reporting is the the Emily Yaffe piece in Barry Weiss's free press that was like headline,

you know, like mother, you know, my child was bullied into transitioning. And then like they did this whole article. And then the actual daughter in question was just like, Hey, I'm right here. I wasn't bullied into any of this I'm doing great You could talk to me for the article and Emily obvious response was literally the story isn't about you It's just like what she's right there in the headline. What are you talking about? It's not about her Well, I mean, you know and then the Times is unfortunately guilty of this too often

When when Emily Bazelon she that is all this whole thing this whole row with the Times began a couple of years ago with Emily Bazelon, this whole thing, this whole row with the Times began a couple of years ago with Emily Bazelon, fantastic journalist, but did this meticulous story, I think overly didactic and technical about the debate over transitioning for minors that lacked the accurate context around who was saying what for a reader to know that some of the criticisms were coming from people with activist agendas against access to the care. Instead, they'd wind up being like former trans person or concerned parent or therapist. And I think the big problem came not from the publication of the story, but from the reaction. Because what happened was, you know, other journalists,

including trans journalists who had previously written for the Times, gave a letter to the Times and said, look, like beyond it being offensive what you did, there's just really bad journalism here. And you really should try and do a better job because you wouldn't do this with anything else. And what happened? Solzberger the head of the publisher for the Times

writes a thing saying we stand by our reporting because that's what you do in a free press you stand by your reporting and I think That's the problem. You know, that's it's like they're afraid of offending people and I believe he also said we're not activists Which is a very handy deflection when you want to activists, which is a very handy deflection when you want to pick a side in a controversial social issue and have it redound to the right and not the left you say Oh, well, we're not activists so we're gonna exclude points of view that make anti-trans people seem insane or like bigots or exaggerate the issue well beyond the scope of As you said like are people in the streets

Freaking out over this. No, it's it's people in Like, are people in the streets freaking out over this? No, it's people in well-heeled DC office buildings and places like the Manhattan Institute. But I wanna get back to this idea of, something that's lost in this reporting is, when you talk about trans healthcare for both for youth, adults, whoever, what do we mean when we say that?

Like, it's an umbrella term that covers a lot. Like what is covered by trans health care? And more importantly, what are the practical effects of removing, as many states are planning to do right now, support for that type of gender-affirming health care? Thank you for asking. I wish most news organizations did that. So first of all, care can be stretched into two buckets, social and medical. On a social level, it is part of the scientifically backed care to use someone's names and pronouns. It is not merely a cultural or social decision, it is one that doctors recommend as a part of dealing with gender and sexual dysphoria. That is part

of the treatment. Then on medical sides, like an actual hormone intervention or surgical intervention, at least for adults, they range. All of that fits under the definition of care. What happens when you take that away is something underexplored is putting it quite mildly by both the press as well as the government. And that is for people who can still produce hormones or who are not going to have a massive medical issue immediately, they're still going to suffer from debilitating mental health issues, from not being able to transition. Forcible detransition is something that could drastically increase suicidality risk and self-harm risk in individuals. And that is something that stares like a cliff over anyone who

knows a trans person who has unfortunately died. For those of us like myself who cannot produce hormones themselves anymore without pharmaceuticals, losing access to that means immediately going into a state of menopause, which anyone who knows menopause knows, it drastically increases your risks of many other health issues. And I don't want to die by the time I'm 35. I'm at risk of heart issues because of my family, only if I lose access to this stuff. Otherwise, my doctors say I'm fine. So it really comes down to the life or death when it comes to access. And that's something that no one will explore. And I got to tell you, I can't tell you how many times I sat down with a reporter in Congress, I sat down with an editor in DC, and I explained all this to them. And I got either crickets, they looked bored, or they told me the only way they could run it is if a trans person ran it because they didn't want to say the wrong thing. And

that's when I mean no one is doing it because they're afraid of offending people. It also includes some of us, right? If someone uses the wrong word by accident, good faith can go a way, but if you're going to get offended by someone who's really courageously trying to tell the truth on what's happening There will be consequences to that too It's it's I wish more people spoke about the stakes. They're massive Another another thing that I've noticed in the like for instance the New York Times or other outlets their engagement with this issue is you mentioned a pretty clearly this this notion of people who have de-transitioned or experienced regret or feel like that they

were cajoled or bullied into making a major life decision that they now regret. And, you know, like the retort to that is that like, of what we can tell, the number of people who this encompasses is vanishingly small. But then the retort to that retort is we just don't know yet. We just don't have enough information at this point. What can you say as a science reporter to that particular line of argument? Roughly 97% of the scientific community that studies the matter in climate say that climate

change as we know it today, rising global temperatures that could harm all of us in terms of its impacts on our lived environment. 97% are certain that we are causing that. Roughly the same percentage of adults report that they received care, that are trans, that received care and report good results that their lives were better off. I'm not saying that de-transitioners are climate deniers,

but statistically, statistically by focusing on them, you are focusing on roughly the same kind of minority. And that's what's most dangerous. It is like taking the squabbling over a tiny decimal point in temperature raise and going, well, is that oil being burned? Huh? Is that a cow fart? Huh? Should we ban burgers over that? Huh? It's like, okay, come on.

Look at the bigger picture here and what really matters to your day to day, what matters to your future, and what matters to others. You mentioned in another interview I read that Media Matters pointed out that the New York Times failed to quote a trans person to quote directly from a trans person in the majority of its coverage. And I think that speaks to this issue because if you avoid directly seeking a quote from people who are trans, you also avoid what's likely to be the response,

which is, I'm quite happy with the care and transition or just I'm quite happy with my life. Thank you very much. Don't need that. Don't need any other. You can you can you take that as anecdotal or not. But like I think there is a definite refusal to directly quote from people because they're going to say something that the coverage doesn't want to highlight. I mean, I think that as patients, people see us as advocates or activists and therefore

biased. And I see this as well in my music. I mean, I've sung about being trans on records before and I sing about other things that happen to other people in real life. And I can't tell you how often simply talking about what happens in the real world gets me called politics. I think Pitchfork called our album progressive politics in the top of the review and I loved the 8.0 but no I'm not like like no I'm not what does that even mean progressive politics like that means absolutely nothing to me to anyone else and these are buzzwords that we are

using because we have to meet a deadline for our editor and that is where where we hit the, that's where the rubber meets the road on this problem and the car hits the fucking wall is because if we see the, the existence of a medical patient and whether or not they get care as something that can become debatable by politicians and not by doctors, then that is really handing the keys to everyone's medical care to politicians. I think that when Florida, the state of Florida, they made a decision to restrict health care access to not only kids, but also adults. And that decision was based off of, according to academics at Yale, a view of pharmaceuticals and of prescribing and of such a high bar for what would lead

to a drug actually being okay to use, that it would take hundreds of other drugs away from patients. Like, heart medication was one of those. I think it was like a double-blind requirement. And we're seeing the same thing play out in the UK on a national level. That's really the problem is it's really politicians getting the right to say whether or not you get a drug, which can apply to vaccines, which can apply to cancer can apply to all kinds of things. So I mean, trans people are kind of like a bit of a like an iceberg tip on this. And I try to point to that to say like, why aren't you covering the big story? Why are you focused on these kids? You know, these these such a tiny sliver of kids who ended up not doing this? I mean, it's a sad situation, but also treat them with empathy.

Yeah, people ask me all the time, well, what are your politics? Are you a progressive? And I say, fuck no. My politics are head empty. Head empty blues. That's what I believe in. That's what I stand for. Joel, I want to go back to like a sort of a more bird's eye view of the media. You say that you broke in in boom times for political reporting, right as Donald Trump was inaugurated.

And you said, and I'm quoting from you here, I've seen the reaction to the 2016 election. The media's kind of correction and then overcorrection and then over, overcorrection. Could you specifically talk about like, what is that process and like, what is that referring to and the media's overcorrection and over, overcorrection to the election of Donald Trump?

So they all said it was impossible. And after his election pounced in an aggressive watchdog fashion, breathless coverage about what was happening inside of his administration to a point that I mean it easily could border on excessive a lot of the time. That persists to this day through coverage of the trials, through the palace intrigue. But what also occurred was the public backlash to such an aggressive treatment of one particular figure. So much so that what I've seen inside of the Beltway over the years is at first it was, okay, we got to take this seriously. And then it was, well, are we taking this too seriously? And then it became, well, we cannot take this too seriously. And we also cannot be serious

about how serious we are taking it. We must become so detached from the stakes of what we are doing and essentially wash our hands and just be happy that we have a job is kind of where a lot of journalists have landed to the detriment of our public because if they're not looking for new stories and simply reacting every day to get to the weekend all of the time because they're all exhausted and tired of all of this, but won't leave and let anyone else who's motivated do it, then we're fucked. We're fucked. And I've had this conversation over so many beers with them. It's this way on trans lives in particular, and that's personal for me, but you can pick

so many other issues where you might think that they're reporting it because they intentionally want it to be that way. When in reality, it's like a reaction to a reaction at this point, which is sad. I mean, speaking of that reaction to a reaction, like how cognizant, like how sort of guilty are people in newsrooms in DC about the fact that they are in their own personal opinions in life pretty much straight down the line libs and that like are they are they so cowed by the sort of being chastised by being members of the liberal media that they go out of their way to credit the

opinions and beliefs of people who are diametrically opposed to what they actually believe in? So I would correct you on one thing which is that I think it's wrong to say that all of the people there are libs. I sure as shit am not. But I think that as institutions, it certainly can be sad. A lot of these people are kind of where I was, where you came in at one point and then everything changed over the years and you needed to stay employed and you wanted to believe that it could get better.

Everyone knows, it's wild. I published this essay that was about why I quit and about my cognitive dissonance, about me watching my friends who know better write about sex parties but not about the stakes of the accusations. The only people who didn't engage with the essay were the people that I was writing about. I would get DMs from people saying they were sorry. I would get DMs from people saying they agreed. But one month later, not a single Beltway organization published a single story about the future of trans life in America during Pride Month in the 2024 presidential election

cycle. And that is a testament to how people feel stuck and lethargic about their role in all of this at this point. They just go drink a beer. I mean, I guess I want to turn back to this like cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization on this issue in particular. What is it? I mean, is it only the product of a well-heeled PR apparatus that scrambles people's brains so thoroughly on this issue where they were like, you know, back to this idea that these people would never dream of, you know, freaking out about like a teenage kid coming out to their parents

as being gay. But like if that same teenager comes out as trans, it's now like a huge it's now subject to all kinds of speculation and dubious sourcing and, you know, sort of like mythology is basically what like, what, what accounts for this, this bifurcation between people being like, oh, I'm totally accepting of gay people, but trans people are sort of like, oh, this is some weird new, you know, the Rubicon that we've crossed. Sorry to use a cliche. Well, take it even one step further. These people knew a trans person finally.

I mean, for a lot of reporters on the Hill, I was the first trans person that they knew. And I wasn't just some random person. I was someone who had been in those press galleries every day for years. I showed up and everyone treated me with a welcoming hug. Everyone fucking loved me. But when it came to me raising things that clearly were worth writing about, it wasn't I'm sorry you're dealing with that, was the refrain. I'm sorry you're dealing with that. Oh, I'm so sorry.

Even now, like, oh, no one ended up really writing anything after your essay. I'm so sorry. And I think it's a combination of the well-oiled communications apparatus as well as a fear that they'll lose access because so much of the reporting these daysiled communications apparatus as well as a fear that they'll lose access because so much of the reporting these days is built off of that, which if you're kind of kowtowing to an incorrect state of facts because you're afraid of losing the kind of sourcing that keeps you paid, that is a bad situation for you as well as the country to be in. You know, like, oh, I'm afraid this person won't talk to me anymore

because I used pronouns that were accurate is a thing that's real. The Ron DeSantis administration in Florida was criticizing reporters and posting their press inquiries online during the primary whenever they would use accurate terminology for trans medical care. And I think that's probably the situation with these reporters as well. They don't want to get shamed. They don't want to lose their ability to talk to somebody. And if they do lose that, I mean, a lot of these people rely on that vaunted Beltway audience that wants those names. Yeah, but I mean, doesn't that sort of conflict with the sort of mythological

stance of journalism as being adversarial to those in power? Because you think like, oh, Ron DeSantis' press outfit won't pick up my phone calls. Fuck them, right? Like, just, you can still write a story about Ron DeSantis without getting, you know, his fucking comms people's quotes if they don't want to talk to you. I mean, you can make an argument that access journalism does help people. I don't know what access political had when they managed to publish that the Dobbs decision, but I think the country is better off for it.

That being said, everything that you said is absolutely true. And I said it all over my essay. I think that the reason reporters aren't covering this this issue of trans health care is because they're fucking afraid of offending anti-trans readers and also trans people who get upset at the incorrect pronoun. And so without any options, people instead have reverted to silence. I think the same thing is probably true with the violence against Palestinians today. It is a situation where reporters do not want to offend Jewish readers or the Israeli American pack,

but they simultaneously do not want to somehow offend Arab American readers and or loud leftists on Twitter. And so instead they use the safest possible language and even openly avoid using terminology that the ICC uses to describe this situation. So, I mean, if you're if you're looking at why reporters aren't aren't writing about things the way they are, it's fucking money and people, man. It's just like it's the oldest trick. It's working the refs. Yeah, I mean, but I guess like, you know, there's no way to cover politics in this country or like the reality of the world about pissing someone off and that's sort of like

the job description of being a journalist in a little bit. Would you agree with that? Well, yeah, and I mean, it's actually the phrases used by the people who are spreading the worst ideas. I mean, you know, like every time that someone misgenders a trans person, they say freedom of speech. And so why isn't the press holding these people to account? I mean, you don't even have like the basic, like, where is the story where they go up to like, I would love to see fucking a reporter walk up to a Republican and go, do you want schools to check his genitals?

Like, that would be a really amusing story. And I think all of us would love to see that on video. But instead, I think they're afraid of offending someone who gets asked about genitals. But it's them who's bringing up the genitals. Like, I don't want to be talking about genitals on Choppa Trabhouse. Like, it's like they're the ones who brought this into the mix, not us. Like, just stop talking about penises and vaginas. I think, Chris, do you have anything you'd like to add? Or do you have anything you'd like to contribute, at least on Jail's music career? Look, I would love, Jail, to have you on my separate music podcast because there are a million music questions I would love to ask you. No pressure to agree now.

I'll coordinate. Yeah, the answer is yes. Great, great, great. But I do. I just I guess I have one question from this discussion that's pretty specific. But just like if you were running a newsroom, is there any value, journalistic value in covering like libs of TikTok and their whole thing, even if it is just to point out how idiotic, wrong and often overtly evil it is.

Similarly with the 3% of dissenting climate scientists and the people who push their opinions as a countervailing force, or is it more like complete blackout of that information just because we have evidence of its wrongness? Well, I mean, I'll say, I mean, first and foremost that the struggles that I've had with the news media's inability to cover this issue and my personal nature with it is a lot of what's informed my music and my work moving forward. A lot of the record was written while I was dealing with the fallout of that story at Politico and all of the bungled nature of it. And like I think it's easy to look at the situation and go, well, let's not quote these people. But in reality, what we should be doing is investigating the shit out of them.

You know, where's all the money for this coming from? Who is behind this? What is their end game? What's their plan? What do they want next? I mean, these are some pretty basic questions, and it's not going to be the ridiculous liars like Kaya Reichik, who openly says she's like, what's wrong with lying? It's not a crime. Like, that's not who you should be talking to. You should be talking to the people who submit official documents to court or to regulators, somehow denying very clear science.

You should be talking to people who are writing bills that would honestly kill a lot of trans people and you should be asking them the serious questions instead of not asking anything and writing about John Fetterman and sex parties. No one wants to hear. Nobody wants to hear about John Fetterman and sex parties. Honestly, great band name, John Fetterman, Sex Party. Great band name.

Personally, I would like more news coverage of Chaya Reichik and Libs of TikTok, but purely in the sort of society pages, like the British Pabs, like Baz Bammingboyne of the Daily Mirror. Do we hear wedding bells in the future for Libs of TikTok? My sources say no. Jael, I want to thank you so much for your time and I would like to encourage everyone to check out some of what you've already written but also to check out Echo Astral. I think they got a

fun new sound I think you kids will really enjoy. The youngins. I will add in yes the album completely rips and everybody should go check out Pink Balloons, which is the name of the album. That does it for us today, Jael. I want to thank you so much for your time. Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Cheers, everybody.

Bye. I'm a real tough girl, I've a bad in my life and a life I've charted Pink balloons, pink balloons, pink balloons, yeah, pink balloons go all Hell I'm the blues I'm a rocker, I'm quick to roam I could probably run agaaard I'll be buried alive before I ever find a friend