Morning Wire - End of Late Night TV & Segregating Medical Schools | 5.6.23

Episode Date: May 6, 2023

Late night network television comedies are failing, the New England Journal of Medicine publishes a paper pushing for segregated medical school, and India becomes the world’s most populous nation. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.    Boll & Branch: Save 15% off your order with promo code WIRE https://www.bollandbranch.com/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=Radio&utm_campaign=WIRE   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Don't miss the Devil Wears Prada 2 in theaters. Merrill Street, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci are back. In light of the recent scandal, I'm here to restore your credibility. I did not hire you, and all I need to do is bide my time until you've failed. On May 1st, I'm going to make something of this job. Rain. Be the bridges I burn. Night my way. Forever.

I just love my job. Get tickets now, the Devil Wears Prada 2 in theaters May 1st, directed by David Frankel. Late night shows with hosts such as Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert have lost a grip on their audience as their ratings have begun to fall. We have been off the air for a week. You know who else has? Tucker Carlson. We break down what's causing the seismic shift in viewership. I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley. It's May 6th, and this is your Saturday edition of Morning Wire. The New England Journal of Medicine is under fire for publishing a paper that argues in favor of

racially segregating medical students. Their stated rationale is to have a space where black students can be safe from the white students that seem to apparently terrorize them day in and day out. Why do the writers believe this is necessary? And how are critics responding? And for the first time in centuries, the title of the most populous nation on earth will go to a country other than China. Can you guess which country, Georgia?

Of course. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. A new report reveals that CBS was losing approximately $20 million a year on the late, late show with James Corden before it decided to cancel it, while ratings for the late night format overall have been shrinking dramatically in recent years. As these shows have now been forced to go dark over the writer's strike, they could soon be suffering even more. Daily Wire Culture reporter Megan Basham spoke with Brian Stelter, the author of that report,

and she's here to explain what's driving late-night struggles. So, Megan, I know Stelter talked to a lot of people behind the scenes for this report, including network CEOs and some of the former show hosts. What did he find? Yeah, he did. And he talked to the head of CBS and also some current show writers as well. And primarily what he found was a broad awareness that the days for late-night shows as the reigning kings of that 10 p.m. to midnight block, well, they're pretty much over.

These shows are very expensive, especially because of host salaries. The top guys like Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert make over $15 million a year, and yet at the same time, they're losing audience. So CBS's decision to just end the Late Late Show after almost 30 years rather than find a new host to replace Corden is really emblematic of late night's broader woes. Stelter, who is a former CNN host, told me part of this is about the massive competition it faces from streaming and social media. I spoke with a long time late night producers that, you know, late night,

when you used to have a late night show, it was like having a diner on the side of I-95. People are just, you know, always come in and all hours of the day. It's valuable real estate. You're guaranteed people coming in just because people need to eat. And now, like, not only is the diner not there, there's thousands of roads. There's not just one road.

You know, that's what's happened to broadcast TV. And so to quantify that for the six major late-night show, ad revenue is down around 60% from its high in 2016. Well, it's funny because 2016 doesn't seem that long ago, but of course they've also lost their favorite target for jokes since then. Does Stelter think that Trump leaving office is a major factor for this decline? Yeah, that's a really good point, and Stelter did say that he does think that Trump was a disruptive force in late night.

Left-leading viewers craved more jokes at his expense, so the shows naturally kind of moved in that direction. but it also polarized the audience in the long run and that drove a lot of right-leaning viewers away. Donald Trump changed so much about television, including late-back television. And these shows, most of these shows, they went in a very aggressive political direction.

In part because a huge part of the audience wanted that, and in part because that's where the writers and hosts naturally were, and, you know, these shows became perceived as anti-Trump and anti-Republican. that obviously leaves a huge opening for somebody like Greg Gusteld. So as you heard there, Stelter brought up Gutfeld, and he did tell me that the more late night evolved to appeal to those Blue State viewers, the more that left an opening for some counter-programming to appeal to Red State viewers. And not just for right-wing branded hosts,

but also for those willing to challenge kind of the standard left-wing talking points you tend to find on broadcast late night. I think Bill Maher has always been a contrarian, and lately his contrarianism gets a lot more attention from right-wing media. So now he is a reliable source of content for, let's say, shows on Fox in the way that he was not 10 years ago. At the same time, Gus Fidelto on Fox News is a smash success for Fox because he has a unique audience and a unique program. So to me, this is an interesting business case study in trying to find unique openings in the the marketplace. Well, it seems like there could be an opening here if a major network could find a more nonpartisan host. It would be great if they could. Megan, thanks for reporting.

Anytime. That was Daily Wire Culture reporter, Megan Basham. The New England Journal of Medicine is under fire for publishing a paper from seven academics, doctors, and students at the University of California, San Francisco that argues for racial segregation among medical students. The paper argues that segregating medical students by race, along with a broader anti-racism and anti-oppression curriculum, would allow different races to have more open and productive discussions. Here to discuss the papers, Daily Wire Senior Editor Ash Short. Hey, Ash. So what does this paper actually say?

Well, it starts with a lot of academic jargon, saying that medical education was, quote, founded on legacies of colonialism and racism and has perpetuated structural racism by focusing on white students. The paper claims that students of color could be retramed, by studying next to white students, which could result in, quote, imposter syndrome, heightened anxiety, and a reduced sense of belonging. It claims that black medical students, quote, have been socialized to care for the

egos of white people to express their emotions only in ways that are palatable to white audiences and to tread lightly around white fragility in order to maintain their relationships, professional status, and safety. So the writers believe the solution is segregation, segregating students by race. Yes. The idea is that non-white students would be able to be open and honest without alleged fear, while white students could be taught to be, quote, thoughtful allies who are less dominating in integrated spaces. White students would also be taught to, quote, re-evaluate their own internalized racism and sense of superiority that can obstruct anti-racist commitment and action. A lot of assumptions there. Where does this concept originate that black students need to be protected?

from white students. Well, we spoke to Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, founder of Do No Harm, who called the idea of segregated classes morally abhorrent and explained what factors led to where we are now. This idea that racism is prevalent in American medical institutions and that that's the reason that there are health care disparities and that black students are being terrorized or whatever traumatized all the time has been the result of two factors,

the growth of student activists from the 60s and 70s into leadership positions and the emergence of a small crew of very vocal activists these days who are populating the student bodies as well as the faculty of medical schools. And how is this paper received by the journal's readers? Will this idea spread in the medical school community? It might, as so many other aspects of student life have advocated for segregation, such as student housing. Dr. Goldfarb feels strongly about calling out these harmful

race-based ideas before they take over our medical institutions and discourage qualified applicants. I doubt if it's really diffused out into the medical community quite like it has taken over the academic institutions, which are just rife with this sort of nonsense currently. In reality, there are so many young people that want to go into medicine, there are two applicants for every position in medical school. So I don't think the problem is going to be that there are not enough applicants. The problem is going to be that really qualified applicants are going to be excluded because they're not of the right political ideology or not of the right race, frankly. Well, a lot of people sounding the alarm over attempts to bring back segregation. Ash, thanks for

reporting. You're welcome. That's Daily Wire's Senior Editor, Ash Short. For the first time in centuries, China will no longer be the most populous nation on earth as new data from the UN shows India set to overtake the communist country this summer. Here with more on what's driving the shift and what it means for the global balance of power is Daily Wire Senior Editor Cabot Phillips. So, Cabot, what can you tell us? So last month, the United Nations released its annual report

on global population trends and determined that by July, India's population will hit 1.42 billion people, surpassing China, which has held the title of most populous country for centuries. And based on current trends, as Chinese birth rates continue to decline, By the start of the next century, India is projected to double China's population.

Now, what are the expected impacts of a population shift like that? Well, from a global economic standpoint, the ramifications are massive. The economies of both China and India rely heavily on manufacturing, which requires a huge workforce. For years, China has leaned on its population to dominate global manufacturing and offer businesses an enormous and cheap labor pool. But as their workforce begins to age and their population shrinks, and also as Western nations begin to pull production from China, India has stepped in to fill the void. And unlike China,

which has a disproportionately elderly population, India is incredibly young with over 600 million people under the age of 25. That means a cheap pull of labor, which the Indian government is looking to leverage for economic gain. India's prime minister Narendra Modi has been quick to tout the nation's standing as the largest democracy on earth and is encouraging companies seeking an alternative to China to relocate there. As part of that effort, the country has poured billions into expanding their infrastructure, building new railways, highways, and airports, and an attempt to court foreign businesses. And in many ways, they've already seen huge progress. And what sort of progress has India made in recent history? So in recent years, India has really been a democratic success

story. After decades of loose socialist control, the country embraced a free market system, opening up to global trade in the latter part of the 20th century, and they soon began to experience undeniable progress. Since 2000, the country's GDP has increased almost 10-fold from 468 billion. to 3.1 trillion. And during that time, the country's poverty rates have plummeted. According to the UN, in 2005, 55% of Indians were living in what they call multi-dimensional poverty. By 2020, that number was 16%. In 2007, 30% of Indians did not have access to electricity. Today, that number is 7%. And get this, as recently as 2014, just 40% of Indian households had a toilet. Today, that number is 99%. So a lot of progress. And in recent years, that,

Positive movement has accelerated as a growing number of companies have moved manufacturing hubs out of China and into India. Last year, for example, Apple began manufacturing products there. By 2025, 25% of all iPhones are expected to be made in India. And Walmart's making similar investments, saying they hope to export $10 billion worth of goods from India by 27. But it is worth noting the country still faces a number of struggles as it attempts to fully modernize its economy. What are some of those struggles? So Indian officials have been clear. Their biggest concern is simply finding enough work for all the people entering the workforce. That has been a major struggle. At the moment, their labor force participation rate is just 39.8%. For context, that figure is 62% in the U.S. And another key factor in whether India capitalizes on its population growth will be including women in the workforce. Just 66% of Indian women are literate. And for decades, they've been excluded from education and work. According to government data, just one in five Indian women currently hold.

a formal job, and experts say that number will have to increase for the economy to flourish. Now, how does the growth of India impact the global balance of power? That is the big question here. Because China is the greatest threat to American power on the world stage, a strong India is typically viewed by U.S. officials as a positive counterbalance in the region. But China's been clear that they view India as an enemy, so there's also a fear that as India grows, it makes the prospect of a conflict more likely. The two countries have grown increasingly hostile toward one another in recent years, and there have actually been a number of skirmishes along their shared border. In one incident in 2020, the two sides engaged in a massive

hand-to-hand brawl after China began amassing tanks and artillery on a mountain overlooking Indian positions. That fight left 24 soldiers dead, but thankfully did not escalate further. But things have hardly calmed down since then. The exact lines of that shared border, which they call the line of actual control, have never been agreed on by either country, and both sides have continued to build out their military presence there as a show of force. So trying to clearly views the rise of India as a threat and wants to do everything they can to counter their presence in the region. Right. Those kind of situations can escalate quickly. Cabot, thanks for reporting. Anytime. That was Daily Wire senior editor, Cabot Phillips.

Thanks for listening to Morning Wire. We created this show to bring more balance to the national conversation. If you love our show and stay with our mission, consider subscribing, giving us a five-star rating, and most importantly, sharing our podcast with a friend. And if you love Morning Wire, we have some really exciting news. We just massively expanded our Morning Wire merch. We've restocked some of our most popular items, and now we have a lot more, including apparel. Plus, if you go to the website, dailywire.com slash shop,

you can see Cabot and I are actually modeling the gear. Very exciting. As always, purchasing an item is a great way to support our show. Find all of our merch at Dailywire.com slash shop. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back this afternoon with an extra edition of Morning Wire.