The Young Turks - Poisoned Ivy

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Homes burned and animals killed: Palestinians describe Israeli settler rampage. Palestinian paramedics said Israel gave them safe passage to save a six-year-old girl in Gaza, but they were all killed afterwards. Columbia’s president to testify in anti-Semitism hearing. Uri Berliner has resigned after penning an op-ed criticizing NPR’s left wing bias. " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Sleep, sleep, sleep. That's what I do. Begha! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host Anna Kasparian, and today's show is difficult. The first segment, it has updates on Gaza, updates on what's happening in the West

Bank. There has been an in-depth investigation conducted by the Washington Post into the death of a six-year-old girl in Gaza by the name of Hind and her family members. So that's the story that I'm having difficulty with. But I hope you guys bear with me as I try to get through it. Later in the show, we'll talk about yet another house hearing involving administrators from an Ivy League institution. This time, Columbia. The question is, is there unchecked anti-Semitism taking place on that campus, so we'll get into the details of that hearing and what's been transpiring over at Columbia. We have some good news coming from the Supreme Court of all places, and it has to do with workers' rights. And so we're going to get into a discussion about that as well in the first hour.

Second hour, as always on Wednesdays, John Ida Rola will come in and join me and talk about a whole host of, I want to say, lighter stories. But while there are some lighter stories in the rundown, including a conflict between Ben Shapiro and Andrew Tate and also a weird thing that's happening in the media about the presidential candidates and their fashion sense, we're going to talk about those stories. We do have some substantive things to get into as well. But look, I'm going to stop rambling on and just get to the rundown. Let's get to the stories. Let's talk about what's in the news today. Over the weekend, at least two Palestinians were killed by Israeli settlers on a rampage in the West Bank near Ramallah. The assault on Palestinians by Israeli settlers began last week on Friday, mere hours after a 14-year-old sheep herder named Biniamen Akamar left a settler outpost and didn't return.

He was tragically later found dead. The IDF said bin Yamin was murdered in a terrorist attack. In a statement Netanyahu said Israeli forces were hunting for the killers and their collaborators. But let's keep it real. One of their own had been killed, which meant that any Palestinian they cross paths with would have to pay for it. And so the collective punishment was underway in the West Bank. Hundreds of settlers roamed the roads and hillsides of al-Mugai. Witnesses said, throwing stones and firing on residents.

They set homes and vehicles ablaze, including a fire truck that had been called to put out the flames engulfing a family business. Palestinians threw rocks back at the attackers, they said, but were easily outmatched. Dozens of settlers engaged in previous assaults in the area, but this attack was much more intense because this time around, there were literally hundreds of people involved. And as these attacks were underway, video obtained by the Washington Post, which you're watching right now, show that the Israeli defense forces, unsurprisingly, did nothing. You can see IDF soldiers calmly walking by as the settlers reigned terror on a Palestinian village. At least 60 homes across the region were attacked, and more than 100 vehicles were burned, according to Yashdin, an Israeli group that monitors settler violence.

Several families lost homes they had built with their life savings. The sheep killed in this farming community left shepherds without a source of income. According to eyewitnesses, one of the Palestinian victims was killed after getting shot in the head as he poked his head above the lip of a rooftop balcony. His body sat unattended for hours because it was unsafe to reach him until the settlers had left the area. Next door, Amir Abu Alia walked with a limp Monday. He said he had been shot in the leg by a settler as he stood in his yard. For other relatives inside the house had wounds from live bullets fired by the attackers

and rubber bullets, which residents said had been fired by Israeli forces at rock-throwing Palestinians. Amir's house was destroyed by settlers who lit it on fire. His brother's home suffered the exact same fate. The IDF is accused of standing by and allowing the death and destruction to take place. But paramedics say that the IDF went even further than that by preventing emergency workers from reaching wounded people. Emergency responders said both settlers and soldiers had obstructed their work. Mujahibu Alia, the paramedic, said that one of the ambulances was initially turned back by the army as it tried to leave the village with casualties on board.

The IDF said ambulances were delayed for a security check and then they were given the authorization to continue. Now, the IDF's version of events should not be trusted. Tarek Abu Amar at the nearby Batun fire department said that his men also came under attack as they rushed to the scene of a fire at a mechanic shop. A video shared by one of the firemen shows them fleeing their vehicle in a panic. The truck was later torched. In reality, we should take a long, hard look at the trends to see who's actually telling the truth here.

Because there has been a clear escalation of violence directed toward Palestinians in the occupied West Bank ever since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power. And terrorizing Palestinians is a brazen method to drive them out of their homes. homes to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Last year Netanyahu approved the highest number of illegal Israeli housing units since 2012, when the watchdog group Peace Now started recording figures. Since October, there have been an average of seven settler attacks per day on Palestinians and their property, more than triple the rate in 2022, and the highest figure since the United

nations began keeping statistics in 2006. Reuters also reports that at least 460 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed by Israeli forces or settlers since the start of the war on Gaza. Keep in mind, Hamas doesn't govern the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Authority does. Palestinian Authority is also attempting to seek Palestinian statehood at the UN, and behind the scenes, the United States is urging other UN countries to vote against it. something you should know about. Netanyahu and Israel's far right government obviously have no interest in doing anything

to respect international laws, much less protect innocent Palestinian civilians. But what about the United States? You know, the country that supplies upward of 60% of Israel's weapons imports? Well, the Biden administration imposed sanctions this year on individual settlers connected to attacks on Palestinians, as well as on two illegal outposts in the West Bank. Quote, there is no justification for the extremist violence against civilians, the State Department said in a statement announcing the latest measure in March. Yet the attacks have continued, according to the Washington Post, and obviously according

to what our own eyes can see. The attacks continued because when no one was looking, Biden cave to Israel's insane finance minister, Basel Smotrich, a far right winger, and weakened the sanctions significantly. According to the U.S. clarification, those named in the sanctions should still be allowed to access their bank accounts for basic sustenance purposes. I mean, that wasn't really defined, and that's a pretty vague way of putting it. But nonetheless, purchases beyond this scope, including foreign transactions, will remain barred, the letter noted, giving Israeli banks the nod to partially reopen the accounts of the handful of settlers targeted, according to the Israeli official. These sanctions are ineffective to say the least. The only real leverage the Biden administration has in pressuring Israel's government to act differently

is the weapons transfers that our president is unwilling to attach any conditions to. So while Biden condemns Putin's conduct in Ukraine or China's treatment of Uighur Muslims, he really has no leg to stand on. He has no moral high ground as he continues to embolden Israel's terror campaigns against innocent civilians, with tens of billions of dollars in bombs and missiles. And that's the reality of the situation. They're just going to keep raining terror not only on Palestinians trapped in Gaza, but also Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

Moving on to our next story, this is difficult. Please bear with me. I hope I can keep it together as I get into the details of this. So let's talk about it. Hinn told emergency call operators she was the only one left alive and begged them to come and rescue her. A new me, a new Washington Post investigation has uncovered more heart-wrenching details about the deaths of a six-year-old Palestinian girl and the men who tried to save her life back in January. As we've seen repeatedly, the post findings conflict with Israel's claims that the Israeli

defense forces were not, in fact, responsible for this tragedy. Now, Hind Rajab, the six-year-old girl and her family lived in the northern part of Gaza city for decades. But they fled further west as attacks by the Israeli defense forces were underway. At 9.32 a.m. on January 28th, the IDF put out a.m. in Arabic on X, asking residents in the west of Gaza City to evacuate immediately. In response, Hin's uncle Bashar and his wife loaded Hind and her four cousins into a car to evacuate the area. Their plan was to drive north out of the evacuation zone and back toward

the family home in northern Gaza City. But they didn't make it that far. The family stopped less than a quarter of a mile from where they started. Around 1 p.m., Hinn's cousin, 15-year-old Lain, called Bashar's brother, Samir. She told him they were surrounded, and the Israeli army had opened fire on their car. Everyone in the vehicle, except for Hind and Layan, were dead, she said. Samir called another uncle, Mohammed, who eventually reached the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. A dispatcher first reached Leyan around 2.30 p.m. The girl screamed and the call dropped.

But while the dispatcher spoke to Lane, 62 gunshots were heard over 6,000 gunshots were heard over 6. seconds in two bursts of fire. It's all recorded on the call. And in case there's any confusion over who's responsible for firing the shots, Stephen Beck, an acoustic analyst who consulted with the FBI for more than a decade, examined the recording at the request of the post and found the number of rounds per minute fired was faster than an automatic AK patterned rifle, which Hamas fighters often use. The rate, he said, was more akin to weapons commonly issued.

to Israeli forces. So this evidence indicates that the family was fired at and killed by the IDF. But unfortunately, there's more. The call with Layan, which began around 2.30, ended in less than a minute. A satellite image captured roughly an hour later shows at least four Israeli armored vehicles around 300 meters up the road from the girls. After the call with Leyen ended, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society operations room called back immediately. That's when Hind answered and told the dispatcher that Leyen was dead.

She also communicated that Israeli tanks were moving toward the car. She can't get one from her? She'll move. She's, she's, she's, or she's coming from the car, or from the car from the car, or from the car? She's from the car. She's on you, from the car, the dabbabba?

No. A very, very, and you're going to I just want you guys to consider what it's like to be a six-year-old kid trapped in a car with a bunch of your dead family members. Scared for your own life. Anyway, I'm sorry, it's just difficult to get through the story. At 5.40 p.m., Fathi Abu Warda, a liaison between the Palestinian Authority's health ministry in Ramallah and Kogh. an arm of the Israeli defense ministry that oversees the Palestinian territories

said that permission for an ambulance to proceed to Hinde arrived in the form of a route map from Kogat. So Israelis are the ones who are communicating the route map. Abu Warda sent the map to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society dispatch team on WhatsApp at 5.40 p.m. according to messages reviewed by the Washington Post. So the map appeared to have been made in Google Maps and had a clear blue line instructing the ambulance drivers to follow a specific route. The paramedics headed out quickly to the location where Hind was trapped using the route that the IDF, the Israeli defense ministry, had apparently given them. The paramedics were driving with the lights of the ambulance flashing when a green laser was seen hovering.

just in front of them. The dispatcher told the ambulance to keep moving slowly, but just seconds later, the line drops. As the call with paramedics drops at 6 p.m., a bang is automatic drops at 6 p.m. A bang is on the call with Hint. At that point, she tells dispatchers, she's okay, but they soon lost contact with her, this time for good. It wasn't until 12 days later on February 12th, when the IDF finally withdrew from the area that a Palestinian civil defense crew was able to reach the horrific scene.

They found Hinn's body in a car riddled with bullets, according to her uncle Samir Hamada, who also arrived at the scene early that morning. The door and pieces of the hood of the family car had been torn off. Samir described his brother's body as dangling from the driver's seat. Holes and Hinn's family car were consistent with a machine gun used by Israeli tanks. The ambulance, which was found about 50 meters away from the car, Hamda was killed in, was completely charred, as you saw on the video. None of the six munitions experts interviewed by the Washington Post could say definitively what munition caused the damage or killed the paramedics based on the ambulance alone because of the time elapsed and the complexity of urban combat.

They agreed, however, the damage to the ambulance was consistent with the potential use of a round fired from Israeli tanks that matched the vehicles captured in satellite imagery, in the area that day. Among the killed Palestinians were, of course, six-year-old Hind Rajab. Bashar Hamada and his 13-year-old daughter lay in along with four other family members. The paramedics who were killed were Yusuf, Zeno, and Ahmad al-Madun. The Israeli defense forces originally claimed that their forces weren't even present or within firing range of the Hamada family car. But later, the U.S. State Department said the Israelis admitted that there had, in fact, been IDF units in the area. So once again, detailed

investigations pour cold water on Israel's denials. After this story published, State Department spokesman Matt Miller said the following. Quote, the death of Hind Rajab is an unspeakable tragedy. So what we are going to do is take the information that is contained in the Washington Post story. We're going to go back to the government of Israel and ask them for further information. We would still welcome a full investigation into this matter and how it occurred in the first place. Let me go ahead and decode Matt Miller's statement for you. The U.S. government is going to do absolutely nothing about it. Nothing is going to change. The conduct of the IDF will continue. More innocent people will be slaughtered, including little

kids like six-year-old Hind. And Americans get to feel super hopeless about it because both political parties are overwhelmingly in support of anything and everything the Israeli government wants to do. And then even if they're found guilty of murdering a six-year-old girl, right, even if that's the case, does anyone really think that the Biden administration or whoever's in charge, it doesn't really matter, even if it was Donald Trump, is anyone really under the illusion that the weapons that we transfer over to Israel are going to have any strings attached? Okay, and like, how many times are we going to see instances of paramedics being targeted, of kids getting killed? It's just going to continue. And that's the worst part

about all of this. You see the faces of the kids who get killed. You see the outcome of the investigations. And then you see the pathetic response by our state department and our federal government. And what they communicate every day to us is the lives of one side matter. What happened to Israeli civilians was it can only be amounted to an atrocity, should only be consider terrorism. And I agree with that take entirely. But when it comes to little girls like Hind, a six year old whose final moments on this earth consisted of her being trapped in a car with her dead relatives, oh, we're going to ask some questions and then hope that the American people will forget about this story. Some of us don't forget. I'm one of them.

These are the kinds of stories that blacken my heart. We've got to take a break. We'll be right back. We have a baggage for a Welcome back, everyone, apologies for not taking a social break. I personally needed a break for myself. So I'm going to read a few comments right now. But I also wanted to note something that's awesome, wonderful, and I don't want to do it when I have tears in my eyes. So let me just get through some comments first.

In our member section, we have the bestest left is, I see a lot of comments about Hind. I'm gonna kind of hold off on those for now so I can get myself together so I can move on with the rundown and give you guys the news and do my job professionally. So I'm gonna read something that's not related to that. This is from the bestest leftist. And I watched your show daily for more than 10 years. It's sad to see the online leftish share selectively clipped videos of your commentary leaving out important nuance.

Most people giving you a hard time don't even know what they're commenting on. I can watch the show and know exactly what is going to be clipped and shared. Do these people think this is helpful for our cause? Can we not have 2% disagreement on issues? Thanks for what you do. I appreciate you writing in and sharing your perspective on this. I think that there are people who are more interested in growing their followers and the way that they do it is by being divisive and they're not interested in being helpful.

There's really no effort or no, there's no strategy to accomplish any real policy goals. They're online all day, yes, they're going to clip me. What's amazing to me is they clip me out of context. And you know, there's that post left watch account on Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it. And usually what I would do is I would quote tweet the out of context videos and say, yes, I did say this. And I further said, I mean, I would just defend myself. But more importantly, I would thank this person for amplifying my common sense argument that most people agree with. You know what he did after that?

He blocked me so he can continue posting out of context clips without giving me. me the ability to weigh in or defend myself. And that's what a coward does. That's what a pathetic low life who sits around and jerks off in front of a computer all day does. Someone who has no interest in accomplishing a damn thing in this country, someone who revels in divisiveness, in dividing people, in trashing people, in smearing people, and honestly, pushing people away from the left, that's what that guy does. total pathetic low life.

So to answer your question, it's not helpful, but being helpful isn't what the intention was to begin with. All right, well, let's talk about what the House was up to today, doing what they do best, wasting everyone's time. But nonetheless, let's talk about the latest hearing that happened in regard to anti-Semitism on college campuses. Are you familiar with Genesis 12-3? Probably not as well as you are a congressman.

It was a covenant that God made with Abraham. And that covenant was real clear. If you bless Israel, I will bless you. If you curse Israel, I will curse you. I mean, do you want Columbia University to be cursed by God? Yeah, that exchange was insane. What's even more insane is it took place during a House committee hearing involving the head, the president of Columbia University.

Minouche Sharfik is her name, and the reason why they were questioning her is because they wanted to continue on with the investigation into anti-Semitism on university campuses. Now she was supposed to take part in the previous hearing, but there were some scheduling conflicts. So she rescheduled with the House committee and was willing to testify before them today. Now, the good news for Shafiq, the president of Columbia, and the bad news for all the politicians looking for a viral soundbite is that she actually handled her testimony without any dramatic moments. Different from the testimony we heard from university presidents previously, but nonetheless, we'll get to more of that hearing momentarily. But first, we do need to tell you about what's been going on at Columbia University on its campus. On October 12th, for instance, just days after the Hamas attacks on Israel,

hundreds of protesters gathered on campus representing both sides. So you have both the pro-Palestinian protesters, pro-Israel protesters, you know, demonstrating at the same time, Columbia administrators ended up closing the campus to the public, in response, and that's been a standard procedure for when protests are scheduled on campus. Now, that same month an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside of Columbia's main library by a former undergraduate who was ripping down Israeli hostage posters. So there are attacks against Jewish students, which should be condemned, which is abhorrent. And in this case, you know, you have a former undergraduate who is meeting a pro-Israel

protester with this kind of disgusting violence. Now separately though, separately, in November, two prominent pro-Palestinian student groups, students for, students for justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace were suspended after they had organized what the university is referring to as an unauthorized student walkout. Okay, so administrators said that the event had proceeded despite warnings and contained threatening rhetoric and intimidation after one person shouted anti-Jewish epithets, protest organizers said they tried to silence the person. And this is the thing that's so frustrating, right?

Because you'll have decent people on the pro-Palestinian side who just want the deaths to stop, who want the killing to stop, who want the killing to stop, who want things like the occupation of the West Bank to stop, who have no interest in minimizing the lives of Israeli civilians. They're just trying to get to a place of peace. And their efforts end up getting co-opted by complete and utter morons who have so much hatred in their hearts that they can't even get themselves to have any sympathy for the people who were slaughtered by Hamas in Israel on October 7th. Okay, I have like no interest in those people.

They're counterproductive, they're hateful, and they go against everything that I think decent people in this debate represent. But let me continue. So the campus became more hostile toward the pro-Palestinian side as well. So we've given you examples of, you know, situations that obviously would make Jewish students at Columbia uncomfortable and feel unsafe. But the pro-Palestinian side was also met with a lot of hostility. So for instance, in January, as we had reported at the time, pro-Palestinian protesters

at the university were sprayed by a foul smelling substance in a possible hate crime. Several of them ended up needing treatment. They went to the hospital to seek medical treatment. Then in February, Colombia revealed a new policy for campus protests. Protests are now only permitted in designated demonstration areas on weekday afternoons and require two days notice to administrators. First time violators receive warnings, repeat violators are brought before a judicial board. So, you know, they're coming down on protests.

We got to make the protests as convenient as possible, which kind of goes against the whole idea of demonstrating and assembling. but okay. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. Finally, a few weeks ago, several students were suspended for, let's just not pull our punches, being complete and utter idiots. The students were accused of playing a role in organizing a March 24th event, Resistance 101, at which the presenters spoke openly in support of Hamas and other US designated terrorist organizations.

The students were told they would be evicted from students. student housing. And listen, let's just differentiate between two groups here, because there is a group of people, and these are people I agree with, who do not justify, who do not provide excuses or who do not celebrate what Hamas did, but have a very sober look and sober perspective and analysis of this war and the ongoing conflict that has been ongoing for many decades. They can explain what led to a group like Hamas being empowered without justifying the slaughter that Hamas carried out on October 7th.

Then there are the groups that think that Hamas amount to wonderful freedom fighters. And everything they've done is totally fine. Yeah, I don't side with those people, I condemn them, I'll condemn them all day every day. It doesn't offend me in being asked to condemn them. What does offend me though is when the people who typically ask to condemn Hamas, do so to deflect from any condemnation of what the IDF is carrying out in Gaza, when they want to draw attention away from the slaughter of innocent people on the Palestinian side. What makes me so frustrated about this ongoing war is the way that

it's politicized and how insane people on the extreme ends of both sides of the spectrum dominate the discussion. That's what annoys me, frustrates me, and oftentimes infuriates me. Now, let's pivot to the hearing. I just wanted to give you guys a rundown, a fair look at what was happening on campus at Columbia. Now we fast forward to what happened today, the congressional hearing. So several months ago, University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth McGill and Harvard President, Caudine Gay, both resigned following there, in my opinion,

my opinion, terrible testimony before the same House committee. Now, Safiq or Shafic, I apologize for mispronouncing her name, was asked to attend the same hearing. She had declined because of scheduling issues, but today she finally showed up and testified before the same committee. Last night though, she published an op-ed titled, What I Plan to Tell Congress Tomorrow. And in it, she wrote the following. For the thousands of Jewish and Israeli members of our community, October 7th had a deep personal impact. many new people who had been killed or taken hostage. At the same time, for other members of our community,

many of whom also have direct ties to the region, October 7th and the ensuing war in Gaza were part of a larger story of Palestinian displacement, as well as a continuing and escalating humanitarian catastrophe. She goes on to explain that while she rightfully condemns any calls for genocide or violence, She also believes that university should be a place for disagreement and debate, and I agree with her on that. She also makes a brief but interesting point regarding the emphasis on identity politics or identitarianism in higher education,

saying that the last half century has seen groups previously excluded from the academy pouring in. Women, black people, Jews, Muslims, and many more. It is a great thing for higher education to reflect society and for groups that have been marginalized or excluded to be welcomed. But in responding to this positive shift, I fear that we may have underinvested in the many things that we share and in the common human experiences that bind us together. That brings us to the hearing today, which was once again led by Elise Stefanik as the chief prosecutor. So here are some of the highlights. Let's talk about the faculty. The hearings touched on three Columbia faculty members, each of whom faces allegations of anti-Semitism. The most egregious case is that of Dr. Joseph and Donnie Mossad, who published a, in my opinion,

unhinged article just one day after October 7th. It described the terrorist attacks as an innovative Palestinian resistance. Here's more. The site of the Palestinian resistance fighters storming Israeli checkpoints, separating Gaza from Israel was astounding. No less awesome were the scenes witnessed by millions of jubilant Arabs who spent the day watching the news of Palestinian fighters, from Gaza breaking through Israel's prison fence or gliding over it by air.

You get the idea. You get the idea of what this piece entailed. Catherine Frank, a law professor at Columbia, was also mentioned in the hearing for her activist role and a comment that all Israeli students who served in the IDF are dangerous and shouldn't be on campus, referring to the Israeli defense forces. So, Shafik stated that Mossad and Ford. Frank were under investigation for their remarks. Massad has also been removed from his role as head of an academic review panel at Columbia.

But one more faculty member comes up and we should discuss him and that's Dr. Muhammad Abdu. So Dr. Abdu was hired as a visiting scholar for the spring 2024 term and was teaching a course called Decolonial Queerness. and abolition. Representative Elise Stefanik asked why he was hired even after his social media post on October 11th that read, quote, I'm with Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. The president of Columbia stated that Abdu will never work at Columbia again. So they discussed what defines anti-Semitism as well.

That was part of this hearing. and the president offered her own personal definition saying, for me personally, any discrimination against people of the Jewish faith is anti-Semitism. Now, Republicans on the committee, though, were not satisfied and they pushed her to not only define hatred toward Jewish people as anti-Semitism, but anyone who questioned Zionism to be defined as an anti-Semite. And listen, I, having a critical perspective of the formation of Israel as a country does not mean that you automatically hate Jewish people. So conflating those two as the same and saying that, you know, being a critic of Zionism

amounts to anti-Semitism, I think is beyond unfair and inaccurate. But nonetheless, what I love about the outcome of this hearing is that she handled it well. The president handled it well. It's not difficult to condemn anti-Semitism on campus. It's not difficult to condemn students who call for genocide, even though let's keep it real. No one on a university campus has been calling for the genocide of Jewish people. But still, if you're asked that question in a hearing, it shouldn't be difficult for you to condemn a state. statement like that theoretically made on a college campus.

So I think she handled this well, I'm happy she handled this well, and I'm even happier that the members of Congress who really don't give a damn about anti-Semitism on college campuses, or in this country for that matter, didn't get the sound bite they so desperately were seeking so they can engage in their campaigns and raise money off of it. That's what our members of Congress are actually interested in doing. Unlike Elise Stefonic didn't give a damn as anti-Semitic statements were being made by those on the right. She provided cover for them, refused to talk about them. I'm not buying her whole, oh, I'm against anti-Semitism shtick at all. And the fact that this has just been politicized

or these types of issues have been used as tools for these goons as they're looking to get reelected really grosses me out. But again, I think Columbia handled this situation really well. I'm glad to see that there has been punishment for those who do engage in anti-Semitic attacks on campus. That's the way that it should be. And we should absolutely allow for calm civil debates on campus. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of paying all this money to get an Ivy League education? What? So you can be in your cutesy little comfort bubble where your ideas are never challenged? That's not an education. And trust me, people will get enough of that once they graduate and they enter their own media filter bubble and get to hear everything

that they want to hear over and over again day in and day out. We're gonna take a break, we'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. I'm Anna Casparian. Just want to read some of the reactions to the stories that we've been talking about today. This is from our super chat section where Canadian citizen says, if Trump loses this year is that the end for him, we haven't talked about Trump yet today. But I don't know, to be honest with you. He is up there in age, but I wouldn't put it past him to try to run again. So I have no idea. Biden's stinky stalking full of lies, writes in and says, so our tax dollars are going to go. toward ending the lives of six-year-olds. This is what happens when people are dehumanized. Totally agree. Chaplain Fred says, hi, Anna, I do not want to sound religious, but my heart breaks for you as you do some of the most heartbreaking news.

Your humanity shines brighter and brighter regardless of how haters may see you. We see and feel you, Anna. Thank you so much, Chaplain Fred. You're awesome. It's always good to hear from you. And Susan writes in and says, lovely Anna, beautiful as usual and healthy hair. Sorry, your voice and emotions are how a lot of us feel but can't say and are allowed to express. Thank you, darling, for carrying that burden.

Thank you for the feedback, everyone. I appreciate that. Let's get to our next story because there is a big update on something I covered last week, having to do with media critique toward NPR. Now the person who engaged in that critique is suffering consequences. So senior NPR editor, Yuri Berliner, who recently penned a lengthy op-ed critiquing the lack of ideological diversity at his place of work, National Public Radio, has resigned. Now, his decision came after he was suspended without pay for five days over his decision to write the piece in the free press. Now, the free press is Barry Weiss's platform.

I think his decision to write for the free press probably had something to do with the backlash that he dealt with over at NPR following his critical piece. We'll get to that in a moment. But he made the announcement on Twitter today sharing a message that he sent to the relatively new CEO over at NPR. Her name is Catherine Marr. He says, my resignation letter to NPR CEO. And when in it, there's a screenshot.

I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don't support calls to defund NPR, I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problem at NPR I cite in my free press essay. Now over the last few days, there have been some old tweets, old speeches, all sorts of things that have been uncovered in regard to the relatively new CEO, Catherine Marr. She's very much on the left wing, she's very much critical of Donald Trump. She provided cover for some of the looting that took place in the summer of 2020, was very much supportive of BLM as we were here at the time as well.

So, you know, there have been some criticisms about how she was chosen as the head of NPR, considering her significant political biases. To be quite frank, though, I think that the CEO, not really involved in the editorial decisions at NPR, the CEO raises money, okay? That's what the CEO does. But the CEO raises money from potential donors who might not really take kindly to fairly, or accurately reporting on both sides when it comes to certain political issues. So look, let's put her aside. I'm sure more will develop about the current CEO at NPR.

But I want to focus on the criticisms or the critiques that Berliner had in regard to NPR and what his resignation means, right? How can we analyze this? And what does it mean for media in general? So I want to go back to the piece that got him in trouble in the first place, right? It was titled, I've been at NPR for 25 years, here's how we lost America's Trust. Now, he summarizes his basic thesis as follows. Its true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different,

the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population. And honestly, I think he's totally right about that. He talks about how there was an increase in, I guess, diversity as it pertains to gender, sex, stuff like that, race, right? But there was no ideological diversity, and that's what he kind of took issue with. He states that the change began during the election of Donald Trump. That's when the coverage really started to change. And there was this obsessive focus on the Russia collusion investigation.

He wrote that persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR's coverage was notably sparse. He took issue with the fact that NPR didn't take responsibility for, you know, the direction the reporting had taken in when it came to Russia collusion. He gave a specific example of how reporters just took whatever Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman had to say at face value. It was almost like gospel, they just printed it without questioning it.

And yeah, that's gonna lead you in the wrong direction. You should fact check and you should be skeptical of any statement coming from any elected lawmaker. Let's just keep it real. But his argument here was that they didn't do that. There was more. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of any, NPR's best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good.

We weren't following the Hunter Biden laptop story because it could help Trump. So look, journalism has basically changed significantly over the last several years. So some people might not know this, but a journalist, like an actual journalist who's not engaging in political activism is not supposed to engage in political activism, number one, and is supposed to simply give readers or viewers, whatever the outlet is, information about the world around them as it is, right? And so the idea that a journalist would say, no, we shouldn't cover this story because it could help Trump, that's activism, that's totally activism, right? And that goes against what traditional journalism is supposed to do, and he took issue with that as well.

He also pointed a finger at the former NPR CEO, John Lansing, who took the position in 2019, only one year before the murder of George Floyd. And then Berliner claims that NPR leadership gave the following guidance in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder. Race and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity, among other questions,

and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system. This isn't creepy at all, this is totally fine. We were given unconscious bias training sessions, growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to start talking about race. Here, let me make a suggestion here. A workplace that is obsessed with race and is encouraged to constantly talk about race, not going to be a great work environment to be in. It's going to be a pretty hostile work environment.

And it's going to lead to a lot of group think. And that was another thing that he pointed to. So here's what this all looked like in practice. He writes stories on how the Beatles and bird names are racially problematic. I came across that story, by the way, about bird names being problematic and didn't want to cover it on the show because I thought it was stupid, but I'll continue. I'm gonna say it again, it was stupid. It was a stupid story.

It was a stupid story. If you're offended by that, that's totally fine. You can be offended by that, no constitutional protections from being offended. But if you think a story about needing to rename birds because bird names are racist is super important as our country burns, as our government funds the slaughter of children in another country, I just, I don't know what to say. It's a stupid story, it's stupid, it's not important, it's just not. There's a lot more stuff happening not only in our country, but around the world that's

way more important that has a bigger impact on people of college. color. Okay, but yeah, let's talk about bird names. Anyway, let's just, I'm like losing my mind here. I'm losing my mind here. I really am, because I just, I don't understand what the real priorities are. Let me start that, that graphic again. Race and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. Journalists were required to ask, I'm sorry, okay, So stories, let's go back, I'm sorry, I lost my place. Stories on how the Beatles and bird names are racially problematic and others that are alarmingly divisive. Justifying looting with claims that fears about crime are racist and suggesting that Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action have been manipulated by white conservatives, which by the way is a pretty freaking racist thing to say.

Oh, these dumb Asians, they're being manipulated by white conservatives. Really, you don't think that's a racist thing to think? Berliner states that eventually an unspoken consensus emerged. And basically that consensus was, you don't question this. This is the direction we're going in. There's no difference of opinion. There's no debate. Highlighting the suffering of Palestinians, and this is the area where I disagreed with him,

because I don't think NPR did this, but he says highlighting the suffering of Palestinians at almost every turn while downplaying the atrocities of October 7th, overlooking how Hamas intentionally puts Palestinian lives in peril, and giving little weight to the explosion of anti-Semitic hate around the world. I just, from the reporting I saw on the conflict, on the war, over at NPR, that is not the sense that I got. But the sense that I did get something that was demonstrably true was that there was one perspective in most of the reporting, and that one perspective was a left-wing

perspective, which is fine. I mean, showing what the left-wing's perspective is on a given topic is important. But it's also important to inform your readers about what the perspective of the other side is, and to share that as accurately as you can. Don't straw man it. Don't draw conclusions that aren't really founded in reality, it's just important to inform the public about what the other side actually is, what they actually believe. Otherwise, the country is going to continue being divided. It will increase in its division. And I just, it's not helpful. It's not helpful to literally omit information to the audience that they should know about. But anyway, so he ends up getting suspended. The reason why he's suspended is because he's supposed to ask for permission

before he does something like write an op-ed for a different publication. He didn't do that. And so he got in trouble. He's suspended without pay for five days. But I'm gonna fast forward a little bit to Graphic 11 here because something else happened. Even though he didn't name a single one of his colleagues that he had an issue with, his colleagues were deeply offended. And so Ben Mullen on X writes about 50 NPR employees sign a letter to CEO Catherine Marr and top editor Edith Chapin calling for, among other things, a public rebuke of the factual inaccuracies and allegiance in Uri Berliner's free press essay. So look, I'm not surprised by this.

Obviously he's going to go out there. He's going to openly write this piece criticizing his place of work and his colleagues, even though he didn't name any of them, his colleagues are going to get offended by that and they're going to lash out. And honestly, I don't blame them for feeling that way. I don't blame them for lashing out. But he obviously hit a nerve here. And in the end, he gets pushed out. So I don't know if this was the right strategy in trying to change things at NPR. In fact, I think that as a veteran editor, he probably had an opportunity to, in subtle ways, move the reporting in a direction that he felt was more appropriate.

Yeah, he'd get some backlash, but at least try, right? And if that doesn't work out, then sure, you write the piece criticizing NPR and see if that works, But I knew it wasn't going to work. I knew he was going to get pushed out. And besides which, after you write something like that, you're going to go back to your place of work where you just criticized your colleagues. You didn't name them, I get it, but you just criticized your colleagues. It's going to be a super hostile place for you to work at.

So what I take from this story following his resignation, it's not really a take. It's more a question. is there a place, and more importantly, is there a market for journalism anymore? Because I feel that most people are seeking outlets that tell them what they want to hear. Most people in America right now don't really look to be challenged. And if they get offered a perspective that might conflict with some of their preconceived notions, they typically don't take well to that. And that's what scares me.

Because while I feel that I've made mistakes in my past and I did not seek out differing perspectives in good faith, and I have to take responsibility for that, I'm in a different place in my life where I want to know what the truth is when it comes to various issues in this country and around the world. And you don't get to the bottom of any incident, any situation, any political news story, unless you have an open mind and you hear out all the different sides that are involved. And you really take care to do fact checking, to investigate

to the best of your ability. That's a lot of hard work. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of heartache sometimes. But is there even an audience for that? Is there a readership for that. Does anyone really want it? I'm sure there are some Americans who do, but I haven't seen a market large enough to actually support that kind of journalistic model. And that's what depresses me. I don't know. I have no idea. But what I do know is if you are someone who's interested in traditional journalism, who wants to go out there and give people accurate information and who wants to take responsibility when you get the story wrong, there might not be a workplace for you in America anymore. That's terrifying. That's what

worries me the most about this story. I mean, Berliner, I think he's going to be fine. He'll find a place to work at. But he'll probably find himself at another place of work that also has an ideological, you know, bent that people are kind of discouraged from deviating from. I just think we need to have a moment as Americans to really consider whether we're okay with being ignorant about half the country, half the country that you don't agree with politically, because hearing their thoughts or hearing their perspective offends you so much. Like that's where we're at right now. And so diversity is great, but it should go beyond skin color or sexual orientation or gender, diversity of thought is where we see the most

personal growth, where we have opportunities for personal growth. But that's not really something that's celebrated or encouraged in newsrooms across this country right now, and that's depressing. All right, let's take a break when we come back, John Ida Rola will join me for the second hour where I will try to cheer up and not be as depressed as I am at this very moment. So stick around for that everybody, we'll see you in a minute.