vox--2020-02-20--“Lock her up!” In Phoenix, the signature Trump rally chant was especially ironic

While the Democratic presidential candidates held a slugfest of a debate 300 miles away in Las Vegas , President Donald Trump was in Phoenix Wednesday night for a rally that doubled as a diatribe against law enforcement and intelligence community officials whom he believes have wronged him .
The rally was Trump ’ s second following his impeachment acquittal earlier this month and the first of three scheduled during his trip to Nevada , Arizona , and California .
He devoted a lot of energy to attacking former leaders of the FBI , whom he at once smeared as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let them get away with that , ” Trump added , lamenting that , because of the Russia investigation and impeachment inquiry , “ crooked politicians ” have “ really taken away three years away ” from his presidency .
The rally took place just hours before Trump ’ s longtime confidant Roger Stone is scheduled to be sentenced on seven felony charges that were brought by prosecutors working with then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller , including perjury and obstruction of the investigation into Trump ’ s campaign dealings with Russia .
Considering that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s Phoenix rally came when he brought up Hillary Clinton then nodded and smiled as his fans erupted in the usual refrain of “ lock her up !
” Despite the backdrop of Trump ’ s ongoing interference with the Department of Justice , the president also devoted part of his rally to attacking the Barack Obama-era DOJ for allegedly trying to tip the scales for Hillary Clinton back in 2016 .
“ What do you think he was doing with the attorney general ?
” Trump said , alluding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airport tarmac between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton that spawned conspiracy theories about the subsequent decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her emails .
“ Remember , he said , ‘ Ah , I just happened to see !
I was here to play golf .
It was 120 degrees out !
’ I don ’ t know .
A lot of crooked stuff went on.
” The reality , however , is that following his impeachment acquittal , Trump has been more brazen about inserting himself into the Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case .
Last week , Trump posted angry tweets about prosecutors ’ original seven- to nine-year sentencing recommendation for Stone , which was followed by Attorney General Bill Barr lowering the recommendation — an abrupt change of course that prompted all the prosecutors working the case to quit .
Barr publicly criticized Trump ’ s tweets interfering in the case , but the president disregarded his AG ’ s input by posting more tweets calling for Stone to receive a new trial on Tuesday .
That same day , Trump pardoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures or billionaires who were convicted of corruption-related crimes — a move seemingly aimed at dismissing the sort of obstruction of justice and financial wrongdoing he ’ s been implicated in as well as laying the groundwork for pardoning or commuting the sentence of Stone .
Indeed , on Thursday morning ’ s edition of Fox & Friends , Andrew Napolitano , a senior judicial analyst at Fox News , said he thinks Trump “ might pardon Stone today ” following his sentencing .
The rest of the Phoenix rally was normal stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily debunkable lies to inflate his record of accomplishments and sensationalized crime stories in an effort to demonize undocumented immigrants .
He misled people about his health care record and tried to undermine the democratic process by preemptively circulating conspiracy theories about the Nevada Democratic caucuses , which are scheduled for Saturday .
“ I hear that in Nevada — I ’ m hearing bad things about their vote count , ” Trump said , citing no evidence .
“ I ’ m hearing a lot of bad things are happening , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell they are doing.
” All of this stuff would ’ ve been headline news coming from the mouth of previous presidents .
But for Trump , it was a relatively low-key night in the desert .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

While the Democratic presidential candidates held a slugfest of a debate 300 miles away in Las Vegas, President Donald Trump was in Phoenix Wednesday night for a rally that doubled as a diatribe against law enforcement and intelligence community officials whom he believes have wronged him.
The rally was Trump’s second following his impeachment acquittal earlier this month and the first of three scheduled during his trip to Nevada, Arizona, and California. He devoted a lot of energy to attacking former leaders of the FBI, whom he smeared as “dishonest scum.”
“We can never let them get away with that,” Trump added, lamenting that because of the Russia investigation and impeachment inquiry, “crooked politicians” have “really taken away three years away” from his presidency.
Trump calls former FBI leadership "dishonest scum," suggests they should be punished for what they did to him, then adds, "we can never let them get away with that." pic.twitter.com/vJ0NvZJfpV — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020
The rally took place just hours before Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone is scheduled to be sentenced on seven felony charges that were brought by prosecutors working with then-special counsel Robert Mueller, including perjury and obstruction of the investigation into Trump’s campaign dealings with Russia.
Considering that context, the most ironic moment of Trump’s Phoenix rally came when he brought up Hillary Clinton then nodded and smiled as his fans erupted in the usual refrain of “lock her up!”
Trump brings up Hillary Clinton then nods and gives a thumbs up as his Phoenix crowd chants "lock her up!" pic.twitter.com/6yDzvAaIP5 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020
Despite the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing interference with the Department of Justice, the president also devoted part of his rally to attacking the Barack Obama-era DOJ for supposedly trying to tip the scales for Hillary Clinton back in 2016.
“What do you think he was doing with the attorney general?” Trump said, alluding to a brief 2016 meeting on an Arizona airport tarmac between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton that spawned conspiracy theories about the subsequent decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her emails. “Remember, he said, ‘Ah, I just happened to see! I was here to play golf. It was 120 degrees out!’ I don’t know. A lot of crooked stuff went on.
“Can’t let it happen, folks!” Trump yelled.
One week after publicly interfering in the sentencing of his longtime aide and buddy Roger Stone, Trump pushes conspiracy theories about the infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting pic.twitter.com/2ATNe3gx3A — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020
The reality, however, is that following his impeachment acquittal, Trump has been more brazen about inserting himself into the Justice Department than ever — including in Stone’s case.
Last week, Trump posted angry tweets about prosecutors’ original seven- to nine-year sentencing recommendation for Stone, which was followed by Attorney General Bill Barr lowering the recommendation — an abrupt change of course that prompted all the prosecutors working the case to quit. Barr publicly criticized Trump’s tweets interfering in the case, but the president disregarded his AG’s input by posting more tweets calling for Stone to receive a new trial on Tuesday.
That same day, Trump pardoned or granted commutations of nine former public figures or billionaires who were convicted of corruption-related crimes — a move seemingly aimed at dismissing the sort of obstruction of justice and financial wrongdoing he’s been implicated in as well as laying the groundwork for pardoning or commuting the sentence of Stone.
Indeed, on Thursday morning’s edition of Fox & Friends, Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst at Fox News, said he thinks Trump “might pardon Stone today” following his sentencing.
The rest of the Phoenix rally was normal stuff from a deeply abnormal president
Trump pushed easily debunkable lies to inflate his record of accomplishments and sensationalized crime stories in an effort to demonize undocumented immigrants. He misled people about his health care record and tried to undermine the democratic process by preemptively circulating conspiracy theories about the Nevada Democratic caucuses, which are scheduled for Saturday.
“I hear that in Nevada — I’m hearing bad things about their vote count,” Trump said, citing no evidence. “I’m hearing a lot of bad things are happening, like they don’t know what the hell they are doing.”
"I hear that in Nevada -- I'm hearing bad things about their vote count. I'm hearing a lot of bad things are happening, like they don't know what the hell they are doing" -- Trump preemptively pushes conspiracy theories about the Nevada Democratic caucuses pic.twitter.com/5JWa71sX4j — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020
All this would have been headline news coming from the mouth of previous presidents. But for Trump, it was a relatively low-key night in the desert.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-20--The debate over subtitles, explained

The debate over subtitles, explained

Following Parasite ’ s surprise Oscar win for Best Picture earlier this month , an age-old debate has roared to life once more : Which is better , subtitling or dubbing ?
If you ’ ve never thought about the question before , it might seem puzzling to you that one could make for a better or worse viewing experience than the other .
But there are fierce proponents for both options , and anyone who ’ s ever been in an anime fandom or group of international film lovers probably has experienced firsthand just how heated the debate can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubs is far more complex and provocative than it might initially seem .
The basic considerations , such as acting quality , translation quality , and personal preference , are all important .
But the debate also walks the lines of race and xenophobia , classism and intellectualism , accessibility and ableism .
Shortly after Parasite , a Korean-language film , won Best Picture , all of those issues leaped to the forefront of the public conversation surrounding the film — arguably adding even more angles to a debate that was already convoluted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , complicated , and political When it comes to subtitles and dubbing , many people take an all-or-nothing approach and have strenuous arguments for why one is better than the other .
Subtitles translate a film ’ s dialogue into written text superimposed on the screen , thus allowing you to read along and follow the actors as they speak in their native language .
Dubbing , or voice-over , most often involves getting actors to read a translation of the script in the language common to the region where the film is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s typical for many regions to offer both subtitled and dubbed versions of many films , when possible .
The primary argument in favor of subtitles is that they allow you to follow the action and dialogue while experiencing the actors ’ full performance .
Additionally , they often function interchangeably with captioning to help viewers ( including those who are deaf or hard of hearing ) more clearly understand dialogue in their own native language than reading subtitles alone would .
The main complaint about subtitles is that it can be difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that can subsequently make processing the media you ’ re consuming more difficult .
A corollary complaint is that often subtitled translations will discard more of the actual spoken dialogue you hear in the original language , due to time constraints — humans need to be able to read all the words on the screen before the dialogue moves on .
And localization could remove nuances in script translations , so there are concerns about loss of quality and full meaning .
For example , a 1978 survey of the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , on average , a full third of a film ’ s original dialogue would be discarded through the subtitling process .
One of the big arguments in favor of dubbing is that it preserves the cinematic experience more fully than subtitling while also allowing for more film dialogue to be translated .
There are other , more insidious , political arguments , too , but we ’ ll get to those in a minute .
The primary complaint about dubbing , regardless of the language being dubbed , is that voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can be grating to experience , especially if you ’ re not used to it .
Dubbing , the argument goes , can distract many people from the cinematic experience far more than subtitling .
A tangential argument is that any time you replace the original dialogue , you inevitably lose valuable nuance .
It ’ s also costlier to produce a dub , which means a dubbed film or series can take considerably longer to produce and distribute overseas , though this process has sped up thanks to technological advances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubbing process alone for a film took around 6–8 weeks ; these days , Netflix demands dubbing turnaround times of mere days .
But of course , that ’ s all assuming the film even gets dubbed in your language to begin with .
If you ’ re an anime fan , the topic of subs and dubs is even more complicated .
Between the 1960s and the mid-2000s , many anime series were inaccessible overseas unless they were translated and distributed by fans , usually illegally .
The rare exception was when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international TV networks , like Sailor Moon or Dragon Ball Z .
In countries where anime is an export , these TV runs were nearly always in dubbed format , with no subtitles .
Fan translations ( or fansubs ) were usually distributed illegally , but they could help generate overseas interest for a show .
They could also be of questionable quality , and often contained copious translation notes that necessitated pausing to read .
On the flip side , professionally dubbed voice acting was often painfully overdone , which was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So if you were a fan and wanted your anime however you could get it , you often were faced with the devil ’ s choice of unofficial subtitling with dubious translations , or officially translated dubs featuring wild voice acting .
Fansub communities often engaged in intense back and forth over whether subs or dubs were superior .
If you grew up watching various anime series on Cartoon Network , you might well be used to the over-the-top conceit of voice acting , and you might even resent people who imply that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associate subtitling with messy fan-made translations , you might prefer dubbing ; waiting for a studio-produced dub of a series tends to mean that the translation is more effectively done .
There are usually officially produced subtitles as well , but those don ’ t always guarantee a smooth or a faithful translation , either .
You can probably already see from these factors that what might seem at first like just a simple matter of personal preference gets immediately complicated by issues of production , access , regional factors , and translation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many film lovers and anime fans .
So the debate surrounding subs and dubs has been an ongoing , extremely contentious , and highly charged topic for decades .
Netflix has added fuel to the fire as of late due to its intense focus on providing international content to a global audience .
Netflix has been aggressively pursuing subtitled content as well as dubbed properties , and the audiences for each have been accordingly expanding .
And in January , Parasite ’ s impressive awards-season run brought those audiences into conflict .
Parasite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrier ” of subtitles In January , Parasite director Bong Joon-ho planted his flag in the subtitle camp , stating during his Golden Globes acceptance speech ( for Best Foreign Language Film ) that “ once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles , you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.
” After Parasite ’ s Oscar win , it seemed that fans of foreign films had punched a sizable hole through that wall .
But on February 10 , the day after the Oscars , an opinion piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blogger Kevin Drum went viral .
in the piece , originally headlined “ Dubbing is better than subtitles , ” Drum made several outrageous and baffling statements : He claimed that “ No one likes subtitles ” and that subtitles obscure actors “ reading lines , ” even though subtitles let you hear the original actors performing their lines in the film ’ s scripted language .
In an early version of the piece , Drum also asserted that subtitles are “ only common in countries too poor to afford a dubbing industry.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ updated version of the story , in which it was amended to , “ They ’ re only common in markets where film revenues aren ’ t high enough for studios to recoup the cost of producing dubbed versions.
” On top of all this , Drum noted that he hadn ’ t even seen Parasite .
The backlash to Drum ’ s piece was scathing .
“ If you poured holy water on this article it would start foaming and screeching , ” read one tweet that seemed to sum up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s argument about subtitling obscuring line-reading strange , while many others shared their own experiences as international viewers seeking out or being reliant upon subtitles .
Some readers additionally pointed out that the take had elements of racism and ableism , and some argued that everything , including films in your native language , should come with subtitles as a default option .
Among those who spoke out were vehement detractors of dubbing , who argued that dubbing is an atrocious experience for the viewer .
The argument for subtitles often seems inextricable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was true for this round of debate : Drum published a follow-up piece that seemed to engage more with the social media furor than with his own argument .
Elaborating on why he thought subtitles are bad , he wrote : The number of people who asserted throughout the debate that they ’ d rather hear actors performing in their native languages would suggest otherwise .
But Drum also clarified that the original context for his piece was the hyperbolic annoyance he felt in response to a piece about Parasite ’ s Oscar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which she framed Bong ’ s “ one-inch tall ” quote as a “ challenge ” for Americans who “ just don ’ t like reading subtitles.
” Drum called it “ faux sophistication ” to claim that subtitles are infallible .
But both in the responses to Drum ’ s piece and the concurrent discussion around subtitles , something of the opposite attitude seemed primarily on display .
Many media consumers have not only espoused an unwillingness to read subtitles but also rejected the whole pro-reading argument on principle — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s a hefty dose of condescension and intellectual snobbery on all sides of the debate — and some ableism , too A less widely acknowledged part of the debate around subtitles seems to be related to the mode by which we consume media .
A prevalent argument that emerged in response both to Parasite ’ s win generally and Drum ’ s argument specifically was that having to read subtitles felt like a chore .
One person who spoke out against subtitles after Parasite ’ s win was retired esports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200,000 followers after buying Parasite on DVD that he just wasn ’ t up for watching a movie with subtitles — only to quickly walk away from the backlash .
Kershner insisted that he ’ d “ just wanted to lay down , watch it , chill out and fall asleep , ” which subtitles wouldn ’ t let him do .
In response , one Twitter user replied , “ You can ’ t go into a movie that just won best picture wanting to chill and fall asleep.. mistake # 1.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ versus dubs conversation is that there ’ s a right way and a wrong way to consume media .
And it ’ s an especially incendiary part of the debate , as New York Times tech writer Taylor Lorenz learned when she went to bat for dubbing .
In a series of since-deleted tweets about Drum ’ s piece , Lorenz argued that her “ brain ” just can ’ t follow subtitles : But because Lorenz added that she likes to watch movies while doing other things , the conversation around her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many film lovers attacked Lorenz for being a lazy film-watcher .
Lorenz followed up with an acknowledgment that subtitles are a popular , preferred way of consuming much media , even in native languages : But the outrage around Lorenz ’ s thread seemed to confirm the belief espoused in Wilkinson ’ s initial Vox piece , that Americans don ’ t like the “ challenge ” of reading subtitles while watching films .
Throughout the debate , anyone who dared to say they didn ’ t like subtitles was usually met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like subtitles , proponents said , you were watching a movie wrong , you were uncommitted to the film experience , or you were just being intellectually lazy .
But all of these arguments also fail to acknowledge that the entire conversation can be equally ableist .
Blind film lovers , people with low vision , and those with difficulty reading may appreciate dubbing , while the deaf and hard-of-hearing can benefit from subtitles .
These arguments often also come with additional stigmas .
Someone who has difficulty reading may be unfairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribute to the idea that only unintelligent or lazy people prefer dubs .
So that ’ s yet another layer to add to a debate with many entangled issues .
And we ’ re not done yet .
There ’ s one final significant concern , over and above the many messy factors already discussed , that make the entire subject of subtitles and dubbing even more fraught : the tradition of nationalist propaganda that dubbing is a part of .
Dubbing has its roots in fascist propaganda , and the impact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the one debate that wasn ’ t ultimately going to turn out to be about Nazis ?
Sorry !
The claim that , as Drum put it , “ everyone would prefer to watch movies made in their native tongue , ” may not seem inherently political .
But in fact , thinking that there ’ s something inherently better about seeing a movie in one ’ s native language helped turn dubbing into a major propaganda tool during the 20th century .
The rise of dubbing as a global phenomenon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on nationalism by fascist European regimes during the 1930s and ’ 40s .
For instance , Spanish censorship boards , founded in the late ’ 30s and exacerbated under Francisco Franco ’ s regime , required that , starting in 1941 , all foreign films had to be dubbed into Spanish .
The rise in dubbing coincided with a number of censorship changes to make the films more palatable with perceived Spanish cultural values .
This ban on subtitled films remained in place until 1967 , but its impact can still be felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Nazi regime required all films to be dubbed into German during WWII , dubbing remains the most common form of foreign film viewing , and the German dubbing market is still the largest globally .
The 2018 book Introducing Translational Studies reports that “ Austria is the country with the highest rejection rate ( more than 70 percent ) of subtitles , followed by Italy , Spain , and Germany.
” And dubbing is still being used today in places like Quebec to promote political agendas , as writer Julian Leu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the role of nationalism in the debate .
On the one hand , we can talk about the intellectual snobbery that lies behind condescending attitudes toward a film-lover who says they don ’ t like to read subtitles .
But on the other hand , the disdain toward subtitles has been systematically , culturally ingrained in many movie-goers throughout the world by nationalist governments .
And there ’ s evidence that this propaganda machine does have a real-world impact on learning : A 2019 study found that non-English-speaking countries that routinely subtitle their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proficiency , while countries that dub foreign TV into the local language have a lower English-language proficiency .
None of this invalidates the media consumer who wants to watch movies in the background , has trouble following subtitles , has access issues that require the use of dubs , or just prefers dubs .
But a knowledge of the history of dubbing and its role in nationalist propaganda does lend credence to the idea that a preference for dubbing aligns with close-mindedness .
Then again , the scathing attitudes toward dubbing within pro-subtitle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ultimate answer to the subs/dubs debate should simply be , “ choose whatever works for you.
” But the many factors we ’ ve laid out here also illustrate why , to many people , personal preference isn ’ t enough to justify one choice over the other .
So despite Parasite ’ s temporary victory for Team Subtitles , we ’ ll almost certainly see this age-old debate recurring the next time a major foreign film makes a splash .
In the meantime , if you ’ re firmly in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your next foreign film by switching up your typical viewing format .
Who knows ?
You might actually enjoy watching that way — and help demolish the idea that there ’ s a “ right ” and a “ wrong ” way to experience a movie .

Following Parasite’s surprise Oscar win for Best Picture earlier this month, an age-old debate has roared to life once more: Which is better, subtitling or dubbing?
If you’ve never thought about the question before, it might seem puzzling to you that one could make for a better or worse viewing experience than the other. But there are fierce proponents for both options, and anyone who’s ever been in an anime fandom or group of international film lovers probably has experienced firsthand just how heated the debate can get.
The topic of subs versus dubs is far more complex and provocative than it initially might seem. The basic considerations, such as acting quality, translation quality, and personal preference, are all important. But the debate also walks the lines of race and xenophobia, classism and intellectualism, accessibility and ableism.
Shortly after Parasite, a Korean-language film, won Best Picture, all of those issues leaped to the forefront of the public conversation surrounding the film — arguably adding even more angles to an already convoluted debate.
The debate around subtitling is messy, complicated, and political
Anime fans from the 80s and 90s seeing the sub vs. dub argument exploding into the film scene. pic.twitter.com/32qiOieC5T — Steve Kim (@Fobwashed) February 10, 2020
When it comes to subtitles and dubbing, many people take an all-or-nothing approach and argue strenuously for why one is better than the other.
Subtitles translate a film’s dialogue into written text superimposed on the screen, thus allowing you to read along and follow the actors as they speak in their native language. Dubbing, or voiceover, most often involves getting actors to read a translation of the script in the language common to the region where the film is being distributed. Today, it’s typical for many regions to offer both subtitled and dubbed versions of many films, when possible.
The primary argument in favor of subtitles is that they allow you to follow the action and dialogue while experiencing the actors’ full performance. Additionally, they often function interchangeably with captioning to help viewers (including those who are deaf or hard of hearing) more clearly understand dialogue in their native language than reading subtitles alone would.
The main complaint about subtitles is that it can be difficult to read and follow the action, and that can subsequently make processing the media you’re consuming more difficult. A corollary complaint is that often subtitled translations will discard more of the actual spoken dialogue you hear in the original language, due to time constraints — humans need to be able to read all the words on the screen before the dialogue moves on. And localization could remove nuances in script translations, so there are concerns about loss of quality and full meaning. For example, a 1978 survey of the practice of subtitling by the British Film Institute found that, on average, a full third of a film’s original dialogue would be discarded through the subtitling process.
One of the big arguments in favor of dubbing is that it preserves the cinematic experience more fully than subtitling while also allowing for more film dialogue to be translated. There are other, more insidious, political arguments, too, but we’ll get to those in a minute.
The primary complaint about dubbing, regardless of the language being dubbed, is that voice actors can often be wildly over-the-top, which can be grating to experience, especially if you’re not used to it. Dubbing, the argument goes, can distract many people from the cinematic experience far more than subtitling. A tangential argument is that any time you replace the original dialogue, you inevitably lose valuable nuance. It’s also costlier to produce a dub, which means a dubbed film or series can take considerably longer to produce and distribute overseas, though this process has sped up thanks to technological advances. For instance, in 1997, the dubbing process alone for a film took around six to eight weeks; these days, Netflix demands dubbing turnaround times of mere days. But, of course, that’s all assuming the film even gets dubbed in your language to begin with.
If you’re an anime fan, the topic of subs and dubs is even more complicated. Between the 1960s and the mid-2000s, many anime series were inaccessible overseas unless they were translated and distributed by fans, usually illegally. The rare exception was when a popular anime would make it to international TV networks, like Sailor Moon or Dragon Ball Z. In countries where anime is an export, these TV runs were nearly always in dubbed format, with no subtitles.
Fan translations (or fansubs) were usually distributed illegally, but they could help generate overseas interest for a show. They could also be of questionable quality, and often contained copious translation notes that necessitated pausing to read. On the flip side, professionally dubbed voice acting was often painfully overdone, which was an equally jarring experience for many fans. So if you were a fan and wanted your anime however you could get it, you often were faced with the devil’s choice of unofficial subtitling with dubious translations, or officially translated dubs featuring wild voice acting.
Fansub communities often engaged in intense back-and-forth over whether subs or dubs were superior. If you grew up watching various anime series on Cartoon Network, you might well be used to the over-the-top conceit of voice acting, and you might even resent people who imply that dubbing is inferior. Especially if you associate subtitling with messy fan-made translations, you might prefer dubbing; waiting for a studio-produced dub of a series tends to mean that the translation is more effectively done. There are usually officially produced subtitles as well, but those don’t always guarantee a smooth or faithful translation, either.
You can probably already see from these factors that what might seem at first like a simple matter of personal preference gets immediately complicated by issues of production, access, regional factors, and translation. These are all huge concerns for many film lovers and anime fans. So the debate surrounding subs and dubs has been an ongoing, extremely contentious, and highly charged topic for decades.
Netflix has added fuel to the fire of late due to its intense focus on providing international content to a global audience. Netflix has been aggressively pursuing subtitled content as well as dubbed properties, and the audiences for each have been accordingly expanding.
And in January, Parasite’s impressive awards season run brought those audiences into conflict.
Parasite drew attention to the “one-inch-tall barrier” of subtitles
In January, Parasite director Bong Joon-ho planted his flag in the subtitle camp, stating during his Golden Globes acceptance speech (for Best Foreign Language Film) that “once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” After Parasite’s Oscar win, it seemed that fans of foreign films had punched a sizable hole through that wall.
But on February 10, the day after the Oscars, an opinion piece on Mother Jones about subtitles by political blogger Kevin Drum went viral. In the piece, originally headlined “Dubbing is better than subtitles,” Drum made several outrageous and baffling statements: He claimed that “No one likes subtitles” and that subtitles obscure actors “reading lines,” even though subtitles let you hear the original actors performing their lines in the film’s scripted language. In an early version of the piece, he also asserted that subtitles are “only common in countries too poor to afford a dubbing industry.” The line was removed in an updated version of the story, in which it was amended to, “They’re only common in markets where film revenues aren’t high enough for studios to recoup the cost of producing dubbed versions.”
On top of all this, Drum noted that he hadn’t even seen Parasite.
what the fuck pic.twitter.com/7Xkt6h51lG — Max Tani (@maxwelltani) February 10, 2020
The backlash to Drum’s piece was scathing. “If you poured holy water on this article it would start foaming and screeching,” read one tweet that seemed to sum up the public reaction.
Critics called Drum’s argument that subtitles obscure line reading strange, while many others shared their own experiences as international viewers seeking out or being reliant on subtitles. Some readers additionally pointed out that the take had elements of racism and ableism, and some argued that everything, including films in your native language, should come with subtitles as a default option.
Among those who spoke out were vehement detractors of dubbing, who argued that dubbing is an atrocious experience for the viewer. The argument for subtitles often seems inextricable from the argument against dubbing; that was true for this round of debate.
Funny thing about Bong Joon-ho and subtitles, one time I pirated "The Host," turned out to be dubbed and it was the worst voice acting I've ever heard, I quit halfway and found a subtitled version which I watched start to finish and have been firmly anti-dubbing ever since — Todd in the Shadows (@ShadowTodd) February 10, 2020
Drum published a follow-up piece that seemed to engage more with the social media furor than with his own argument. Elaborating on why he thought subtitles are bad, he wrote:
I didn’t say that subtitles are bad in an absolute sense. I said that subtitles detract from the theatrical experience and there are legitimate reasons to dislike them. This seems obvious: if possible, everyone would prefer to watch movies made in their native tongue.
The number of people who asserted throughout the debate that they’d rather hear actors performing in their native languages would suggest otherwise. But Drum also clarified that the original context for his piece was the hyperbolic annoyance he felt in response to a piece about Parasite’s Oscar win by Vox film critic Alissa Wilkinson, in which she framed Bong’s “one-inch-tall” quote as a “challenge” for Americans who “just don’t like reading subtitles.”
First off, “everyone hates subtitles” was, I thought, humorous hyperbole. I meant that most people dislike subtitles. What’s more, the context was my annoyance at Alissa Wilkinson saying that “Americans just don’t like reading subtitles,” a derisive attitude that’s uncalled for since in fact it’s a very global phenomenon.
Drum called it “faux sophistication” to claim that subtitles are infallible. But both in the responses to Drum’s piece and the concurrent discussion around subtitles, something of the opposite attitude seemed primarily on display. Many media consumers have not only espoused an unwillingness to read subtitles but also rejected the whole pro-reading argument on principle — even if it meant facing vehement opposition.
There’s a hefty dose of condescension and intellectual snobbery on all sides of the debate — and some ableism, too
Trying to talk to someone who hates subtitles pic.twitter.com/BSV4jEuQEi — Tamar Herman (@TamarWrites) February 18, 2020
A less widely acknowledged part of the debate around subtitles seems to be related to the mode by which we consume media. A prevalent argument that emerged in response to Parasite’s win generally and Drum’s argument specifically was that having to read subtitles felt like a chore.
One person who spoke out against subtitles after Parasite’s win was retired esports pro Nick Kershner, who told his 200,000 followers after buying Parasite on DVD that he just wasn’t up for watching a movie with subtitles — only to quickly walk away from the backlash.
so no1 wanted to tell me Parasite is all in Korean... bought the movie I’m not about to read subtitles for 2hrs pic.twitter.com/iK5yipFdJO — Nick Kershner (@OpTicMaNiaC) February 11, 2020
Jesus Christ ppl who watch movies with subtitles defend that shit like Taylor Swift fans.... my bad lmao — Nick Kershner (@OpTicMaNiaC) February 11, 2020
Kershner insisted that he’d “just wanted to lay down, watch it, chill out and fall asleep,” which subtitles wouldn’t let him do. In response, one Twitter user replied, “You can’t go into a movie that just won best picture wanting to chill and fall asleep.. mistake #1.”
A recurring part of the subs versus dubs conversation is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to consume media. And it’s an especially incendiary part of the debate, as New York Times tech writer Taylor Lorenz learned when she went to bat for dubbing.
In a series of since-deleted tweets about Drum’s piece, Lorenz argued that her “brain” just can’t follow subtitles:
Dubbing > subtitles every time. Subtitles you have to read so fast, which is so hard. I can never keep up and miss everything that’s going on on screen ... Ppl saying this is a bad take, take it up with my brain lol. I can’t read fast enough to follow along with subtitles! I wish I could, but I can’t. I’m a very slow reader. Also when I watch movies I’m doing other things, so if I look away from the screen Idk what’s happening. :/
But because Lorenz added that she likes to watch movies while doing other things, the conversation around her thread was partly a sideshow in which many film lovers attacked Lorenz for supposedly being a lazy film-watcher.
I genuinely admire how you manage to squeeze in a final twist that makes the take even worse lol! "Guys, you don't understand -- subtitles are bad because I'm not paying attention!" — Daniel Radosh (@danielradosh) February 10, 2020
Lorenz followed up with an acknowledgment that subtitles are a popular way of consuming much media, even in native languages:
It's interesting to know so many ppl's preference for subtitles. Lots of kids I talk to all watch YT w/ subtitles on, and sometimes YTers like Ricegum have made special disses/jokes in the subtitles that u won't see if u watch it without. So I get why ppl like watching that way! — Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) February 10, 2020
But the outrage around Lorenz’s thread seemed to confirm the belief espoused in Wilkinson’s initial Vox piece, that Americans don’t like the “challenge” of reading subtitles while watching films. Throughout the debate, anyone who dared to say they didn’t like subtitles was usually met with condescension. If you didn’t like subtitles, proponents said, you were watching a movie wrong, you were uncommitted to the film experience, or you were just being intellectually lazy.
"Dubbing is better than subtitles" is a bad take, just own your preference for dicking around on your phone to actually watching a movie. — Meredith Clark (@MeredithLClark) February 10, 2020
Why people like subtitles:
✅ - some accents are hard to understand
✅ - low dialogue
✅ - people who are deaf or have difficulty with hearing exist
✅ - helps with spelling and understanding context
Why people don't like subtitles:
- Can't read fast :(( Brain hurty — grace ❁ comms: 9 slots ♡ (@FLXWERIFIC) February 12, 2020
But all these arguments also fail to acknowledge that the entire conversation can be equally ableist. Blind film lovers, people with low vision, and those with difficulty reading may appreciate dubbing, while those who are deaf and hard of hearing can benefit from subtitles.
Gentle reminder that dubbing is actually useful for the visually impaired, dyslexic, and some other disabled,, so while yes it’s dumb that an article said subbing is inferior (I prefer subs) some people literally cant rely on subtitles so let’s not say things like “dubbing sucks” — somehow palpatine has returned (@remembersolo) February 11, 2020
Sub vs. Dub
Subtitles are an accessibility feature for the Deaf and hard of hearing communities.
Dubbing is an accessibility feature for the blind and low vision communities.
Everybody's needs are important. That's it. That's the hot take. — Steve "Man of Wisdom" Spohn (@stevenspohn) February 11, 2020
These arguments often also come with additional stigmas. Someone who has difficulty reading may be unfairly stereotyped as less intelligent, which may contribute to the idea that only unintelligent or lazy people prefer dubs. So that’s yet another layer to add to a debate with many entangled issues.
And we’re not done yet. There’s one final significant concern, over and above the many messy factors already discussed, that make the entire subject of subtitles and dubbing even more fraught: the tradition of nationalist propaganda that dubbing is a part of.
Dubbing has its roots in fascist propaganda, and the impact is still felt globally
Did you think this would be the one debate that wasn’t ultimately going to turn out to be about Nazis? Sorry!
The claim that, as Drum put it, “everyone would prefer to watch movies made in their native tongue,” may not seem inherently political. But in fact, thinking that there’s something inherently better about seeing a movie in one’s native language helped turn dubbing into a major propaganda tool during the 20th century. The rise of dubbing as a global phenomenon was due in part to the emphasis on nationalism by fascist European regimes during the 1930s and ’40s.
For instance, Spanish censorship boards, founded in the late ’30s and exacerbated under Francisco Franco’s regime, required that, starting in 1941, all foreign films had to be dubbed into Spanish. The rise in dubbing coincided with a number of censorship changes to make the films more palatable with perceived Spanish cultural values. This ban on subtitled films remained in place until 1967, but its impact can still be felt today.
Likewise, in occupied countries where the Nazi regime required all films to be dubbed into German during WWII, dubbing remains the most common form of non-native-language film viewing, and the German dubbing market is still the largest globally. The 2018 book Introducing Translational Studies reports that “Austria is the country with the highest rejection rate (more than 70 percent) of subtitles, followed by Italy, Spain, and Germany.” And dubbing is still being used today in places like Quebec to promote political agendas, as writer Julian Leu observes in his recent pro-subtitle breakdown of the role of nationalism in the debate.
On the one hand, we can talk about the intellectual snobbery that lies behind condescending attitudes toward a film lover who says they don’t like to read subtitles. But on the other hand, the disdain toward subtitles has been systematically, culturally ingrained in many moviegoers throughout the world by nationalist governments.
And there’s evidence that this propaganda machine does have a real-world impact on learning: A 2019 study found that non-English-speaking countries that routinely subtitle their non-native television shows have a higher English-language proficiency, while countries that dub non-native TV into the local language have a lower English-language proficiency.
None of this invalidates the media consumer who wants to watch movies in the background, has trouble following subtitles, has access issues that require the use of dubs, or just prefers dubs. But a knowledge of the history of dubbing and its role in nationalist propaganda does lend credence to the idea that a preference for dubbing aligns with closed-mindedness.
Then again, the scathing attitudes toward dubbing within pro-subtitle arguments can seem equally closed-minded. Perhaps the ultimate answer to the subs/dubs debate should simply be “choose whatever works for you.” But the many factors we’ve laid out here also illustrate why, to many people, personal preference isn’t enough to justify one choice over the other.
So despite Parasite’s temporary victory for Team Subtitles, we’ll almost certainly see this age-old debate recurring the next time a major non-English-language film makes a splash.
In the meantime, if you’re firmly in one camp or the other, consider experiencing your next non-English-language film by switching up your typical viewing format. Who knows? You might actually enjoy watching that way — and help demolish the idea that there’s a “right” and a “wrong” way to experience a movie.


vox--2020-02-20--Watch: Elizabeth Warren grills Michael Bloomberg over allegations of sexism and nondisclosure agreem

Watch: Elizabeth Warren grills Michael Bloomberg over allegations of sexism and nondisclosure agreements

In one of the most stunning moments of the Democratic debate on Wednesday , Elizabeth Warren confronted Michael Bloomberg directly and repeatedly about nondisclosure agreements his past employees agreed to sign regarding allegations of a hostile work environment .
Warren and others have been pushing for Bloomberg to release employees of these NDAs — which prevent them from speaking out publicly about alleged experiences with sexism and harassment — for months .
And she ramped up the pressure on Wednesday , following up on a question initially raised by moderator Hallie Jackson .
“ Mr .
Mayor , are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from those nondisclosure agreements ?
So we can hear their side of the story ?
” the Massachusetts Democrat asked .
Bloomberg struggled to respond as Warren pressed him on the subject , arguing that these employees had willingly agreed to the NDAs , and noting , at one point , that the accusations weren ’ t so bad .
“ None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn ’ t like a joke I told , ” he said , eliciting groans from the audience .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his company and foundation that he ’ d helped build successful careers , Bloomberg also emphasized , deploying a common tactic those who have been accused have used in the past to evade responsibility for their alleged behavior .
Warren , however , wasn ’ t having it .
After Bloomberg failed to answer the question , she simply asked him again .
“ I hope you heard his defense .
‘ I ’ ve been nice to some women , ’ ” she said .
“ What we need to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
He has gotten some number of women — dozens , who knows — to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace.
” “ We have very few nondisclosure agreements , ” Bloomberg responded .
But Warren kept calling him out .
“ How many is that ?
” she said repeatedly .
“ Some is how many ?
” Bloomberg , despite multiple attempts , wasn ’ t really able to provide a satisfactory response .
He never directly committed to releasing the women from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided a clear answer for how many women have signed them .
This back-and-forth , which drew an audible reaction from the audience , culminated in Warren emphasizing how the allegations facing Bloomberg posed an obstacle to his electability — and made it tough to draw a contrast between him and President Donald Trump , who ’ s been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women .
A December ABC News report identified 17 women who had taken some legal action against Bloomberg ’ s company , and three of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as playing a role in the toxic workplace culture .
It ’ s still unclear how many people have signed NDAs to keep their allegations confidential and Bloomberg has denied these allegations .
It ’ s worth noting that Warren ’ s point did not equate the potential allegations against Bloomberg with the allegations of assault raised against the president — though she did an effective job of underscoring how his track record could make it tough for him to take on Trump .
“ We are not going to beat Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip , drip , drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against , ” she said .
Bloomberg didn ’ t have much to say in return .

In a stunning moment of the Democratic debate on Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren confronted former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg directly and repeatedly about nondisclosure agreements his past employees agreed to sign regarding allegations of a hostile work environment.
Warren and others have been pushing for Bloomberg to release employees of these NDAs — which prevent them from speaking out publicly about alleged experiences with sexism and harassment — for months. And she ramped up the pressure on Wednesday, following up on a question initially raised by moderator Hallie Jackson.
“Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements? So we can hear their side of the story?” Warren asked. Bloomberg struggled to respond as Warren pressed him on the subject, arguing that these employees had willingly agreed to the NDAs, and noting, at one point, that the accusations weren’t so bad.
“None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” he said, eliciting groans from the audience.
There were plenty of other women who worked at his company and foundation that he’d helped build successful careers, Bloomberg also emphasized, deploying a common tactic those who have been accused have used in the past to evade responsibility for their alleged behavior.
Warren, however, wasn’t having it. After Bloomberg failed to answer the question, she simply asked him again.
“I hope you heard his defense. ‘I’ve been nice to some women,’” she said. “What we need to know is exactly what’s lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women — dozens, who knows — to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace.”
“We have very few nondisclosure agreements,” Bloomberg responded.
That Bloomberg eyeroll pic.twitter.com/ODQaugDSOG — Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) February 20, 2020
But Warren kept calling him out. “How many is that?” she said repeatedly. “Some is how many?”
Bloomberg, despite multiple attempts, wasn’t really able to provide a satisfactory response. He never directly committed to releasing the women from the NDAs they signed — and never provided a clear answer for how many women have signed them.
The full exchange is worth watching.
This back-and-forth, which drew an audible reaction from the audience, culminated in Warren emphasizing how the allegations facing Bloomberg posed an obstacle to his electability — and made it tough to draw a contrast between him and President Donald Trump, who’s been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women.
A December ABC News report identified 17 women who had taken some legal action against Bloomberg’s company, and three of the cases the publication found cited him specifically as playing a role in the toxic workplace culture. It’s still unclear how many people have signed NDAs to keep their allegations confidential and Bloomberg has denied these allegations.
It’s worth noting that Warren’s point did not equate the potential allegations against Bloomberg with the allegations of assault raised against the president — though she did an effective job of underscoring how his track record could make it tough for him to take on Trump.
“We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against,” she said.
Bloomberg didn’t have much to say in return.


vox--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders raked in grassroots fundraising after the debate

As the fiery Democratic debate in Nevada raged on Wednesday night , Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) began fundraising at a blistering pace .
Warren , in particular , lit up the stage in Las Vegas .
As Vox ’ s Emily Stewart noted , the appearance of multibillionaire and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg brought back the Warren who started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and promised to leave a legacy that meant “ plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor ” in the agency ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calmly promising party unity was gone , replaced by the fighter .
And her supporters clearly loved it .
Within hours , Warren ’ s campaign announced they had raised more than $ 2.8 million on Wednesday , their best debate fundraising day of the campaign to date .
During the debate , one of her staffers tweeted that the campaign had raised $ 425,000 in just 30 minutes .
This is very good news for the Warren campaign , given that her fourth quarter fundraising numbers had fallen behind the Q4 hauls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Warren barely edged out fellow progressive Sanders in the fundraising race .
Just after midnight , the Sanders campaign announced the Vermont senator had raised $ 2.7 million from nearly 150,000 individual donations — also their campaign ’ s best debate day .
These are impressive sums for both candidates , and they demonstrate the power of debates to help rally candidates ’ bases — and help voters choose among them .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s ( D-MN ) New Hampshire debate performance a few weeks ago boosted her profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very close third in that state ’ s primary behind Sanders and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
The mere presence of Bloomberg — a man who has spent more than $ 400 million of his own money in advertising to boost his national profile — seemed to shake progressive voters into action , given the numbers posted by Sanders and Warren .
It ’ s too early to tell yet whether this will also boost Warren significantly in the Nevada caucuses , especially since the caucuses ’ well-attended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
Caucuses can be tricky ; they have two voter realignments and report multiple sets of numbers .
The lack of Nevada polls means we also don ’ t have a very good sense of what voters on the ground are thinking right now .
Warren — who has been flagging in national polls since her fourth-place finish in New Hampshire — needed a good performance on Wednesday night .
She overdelivered .

As the fiery Democratic debate in Nevada raged on Wednesday night, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) began fundraising at a blistering pace.
Warren, in particular, lit up the stage in Las Vegas. As Vox’s Emily Stewart noted, the appearance of multibillionaire and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg brought back the Warren who started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and promised to leave a legacy that meant “plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor” in the agency’s creation.
The Warren of past debates calmly promising party unity was gone, replaced by the fighter. And her supporters clearly loved it.
Within hours, Warren’s campaign announced they had raised more than $2.8 million on Wednesday, their best debate fundraising day of the campaign to date. During the debate, one of her staffers tweeted that the campaign had raised $425,000 in just 30 minutes. This is very good news for the Warren campaign, given that her fourth quarter fundraising numbers had fallen behind the Q4 hauls of many of her main competitors last year.
We just had our best debate day of the entire campaign, raising more than $2.8 million.
Will you chip in $2 right now to keep the momentum going? We can only do this together. https://t.co/uXvKIOKVrW — Team Warren (@TeamWarren) February 20, 2020
Warren barely edged out fellow progressive Sanders in the fundraising race. Just after midnight, the Sanders campaign announced the Vermont senator had raised $2.7 million from nearly 150,000 individual donations — also their campaign’s best debate day.
These are impressive sums for both candidates, and they demonstrate the power of debates to help rally candidates’ bases — and help voters choose among them. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-MN) New Hampshire debate performance a few weeks ago boosted her profile so much that she came in a very close third in that state’s primary behind Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
The mere presence of Bloomberg — a man who has spent more than $400 million of his own money in advertising to boost his national profile — seemed to shake progressive voters into action, given the numbers posted by Sanders and Warren.
It’s too early to tell yet whether this will also boost Warren significantly in the Nevada caucuses, especially since the caucuses’ well-attended early voting period already closed before the debate. Caucuses can be tricky; they have two voter realignments and report multiple sets of numbers. The lack of Nevada polls means we also don’t have a very good sense of what voters on the ground are thinking right now.
Warren — who has been flagging in national polls since her fourth-place finish in New Hampshire — needed a good performance on Wednesday night. She overdelivered.


vox--2020-02-20--How to reduce your food’s carbon footprint, in 2 charts

“ Eat local.
” It ’ s a recommendation you ’ ve probably heard before .
Environmental advocates and even the United Nations have hyped a “ locavore ” diet as a way to reduce your carbon footprint and help the climate .
The basic idea is that more transportation leads to more emissions , so you want to reduce the distance your food has to travel to get to you .
And certainly , if you can eat local , that ’ s great .
But it ’ s not the most effective way to reduce your food ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World in Data recently explained , with some great charts , why your focus should really be elsewhere .
“ Eating locally would only have a significant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food ’ s final carbon footprint .
For most foods , this is not the case , ” writes Hannah Ritchie .
“ Emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.
” Take a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different food products , from beef to nuts , and breaks down how much greenhouse gas emissions each stage in the supply chain is responsible for .
The data comes from the biggest meta-analysis of worldwide food systems we ’ ve got so far , published in Science in 2018 .
As you can see , the share of emissions from transport ( shown in red ) is generally pretty tiny ; the distance our food travels to get to us actually accounts for less than 10 percent of most food products ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown in brown ) and changes in land use ( shown in green ) typically account for much more of the emissions from our food .
Translation : What you eat is much more important than whether your food is local .
So , next time you find yourself trying to choose between a couple of different dinner options — local prawns versus non-local fish , let ’ s say — remember that from an emissions standpoint , the fish is the better choice even though it comes from farther away .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate impact for most food products , that ’ s not true for products that travel by air .
Now , very few products actually fall into that category — just 0.16 percent of food is air-freighted , while the vast majority travels by boat ( including those beloved avocados ) .
But it ’ s worth noting which products do travel by air , and avoiding them when they ’ re not in season , since air travel is so bad for the climate .
It can be hard to know which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since they ’ re almost never labeled as such .
But a good rule of thumb is to avoid fresh fruits and vegetables that have a short shelf-life and that come from far away ( check the label for their country of origin ) .
Berries , green beans , and asparagus are examples of foods that are often air-freighted .
Locally sourced berries , green beans , and asparagus , though , have a low carbon footprint .
At this point , you might be wondering where plant-based foods fit into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores and restaurants now selling Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods , it ’ s reasonable to wonder about the carbon footprint of products made from protein sources other than meat .
Some have argued that you can have a lower footprint if you eat beef or lamb sourced from low-impact producers than if you switch to plant-based alternatives .
But the evidence suggests that ’ s just not true .
( Remember that only 0.16 percent of food is air-freighted , and that figure includes fruits and vegetables . )
“ Plant-based foods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dairy , regardless of how they are produced , ” Ritchie writes .
Here ’ s another chart , which shows that less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat when it comes to reducing your carbon footprint .
The data comes from the same 2018 meta-analysis mentioned above , which considered the food systems in 119 countries .
As you can see , beef and lamb are way over on one extreme in terms of the amount of emissions they produce .
By contrast , plant-based protein sources like tofu , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very low carbon footprint .
“ This is certainly true when you compare average emissions .
But it ’ s still true when you compare the extremes : there ’ s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins , and the best producers of meat and dairy , ” Ritchie notes .
Translation : Eating plant-based food is almost always going to be better for the environment than eating even the most sustainable meat .
That said , it ’ s worth noting that some types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than others .
Replacing beef or lamb with chicken or pork — again , regardless of where you get the products from — is an effective way to reduce your carbon footprint .
This is all coming strictly from an emissions standpoint , mind you .
It doesn ’ t take into account animal welfare .
Perhaps you think the welfare of animals like pigs , which show signs of high intelligence , is an important consideration here ; if so , you might think it ’ s a bad idea to substitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we have to slaughter about 200 chickens to get the same amount of meat we ’ d get from one cow , which raises environmental as well as animal welfare concerns .
There are multiple factors to consider when making food choices , and your final decision may shake out differently depending on how you weight each of them .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

“Eat local.” It’s a recommendation you’ve probably heard before. Environmental advocates and even the United Nations have hyped a “locavore” diet as a way to reduce your carbon footprint and help the climate. The basic idea is that more transportation leads to more emissions, so you want to reduce the distance your food has to travel to get to you.
And certainly, if you can eat local, that’s great. But it’s not the most effective way to reduce your food’s carbon footprint.
The website Our World in Data recently explained, with some great charts, why your focus should really be elsewhere.
“Eating locally would only have a significant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food’s final carbon footprint. For most foods, this is not the case,” writes Hannah Ritchie. “Emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.”
Take a look at the chart below, which examines 29 different food products, from beef to nuts, and breaks down how much greenhouse gas emissions each stage in the supply chain is responsible for. The data comes from the biggest meta-analysis of worldwide food systems we’ve got so far, published in Science in 2018.
As you can see, the share of emissions from transport (shown in red) is generally pretty tiny; the distance our food travels to get to us actually accounts for less than 10 percent of most food products’ carbon footprint. Processes on farms (shown in brown) and changes in land use (shown in green) typically account for much more of the emissions from our food.
Translation: What you eat is much more important than whether your food is local.
So, next time you find yourself trying to choose between a couple of different dinner options — local prawns versus non-local fish, let’s say — remember that from an emissions standpoint, the fish is the better choice even though it comes from farther away.
One caveat: Although transport has a small climate impact for most food products, that’s not true for products that travel by air. Now, very few products actually fall into that category — just 0.16 percent of food is air-freighted, while the vast majority travels by boat (including those beloved avocados). But it’s worth noting which products do travel by air, and avoiding them when they’re not in season, since air travel is so bad for the climate.
It can be hard to know which products in your grocery store are air-freighted, since they’re almost never labeled as such. But a good rule of thumb is to avoid fresh fruits and vegetables that have a short shelf-life and that come from far away (check the label for their country of origin). Berries, green beans, and asparagus are examples of foods that are often air-freighted. Locally sourced berries, green beans, and asparagus, though, have a low carbon footprint.
What about “sustainable meat” versus plant-based foods?
At this point, you might be wondering where plant-based foods fit into all this. With so many grocery stores and restaurants now selling Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, it’s reasonable to wonder about the carbon footprint of products made from protein sources other than meat.
Some have argued that you can have a lower footprint if you eat beef or lamb sourced from low-impact producers than if you switch to plant-based alternatives. But the evidence suggests that’s just not true.
“Plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced,” Ritchie writes.
Here’s another chart, which shows that less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat when it comes to reducing your carbon footprint. The data comes from the same 2018 meta-analysis mentioned above, which considered the food systems in 119 countries.
As you can see, beef and lamb are way over on one extreme in terms of the amount of emissions they produce. By contrast, plant-based protein sources like tofu, beans, peas, and nuts have a very low carbon footprint.
“This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy,” Ritchie notes.
Translation: Eating plant-based food is almost always going to be better for the environment than eating even the most sustainable meat.
That said, it’s worth noting that some types of meat are much harsher on the environment than others. Replacing beef or lamb with chicken or pork — again, regardless of where you get the products from — is an effective way to reduce your carbon footprint.
This is all coming strictly from an emissions standpoint, mind you. It doesn’t take into account animal welfare. Perhaps you think the welfare of animals like pigs, which show signs of high intelligence, is an important consideration here; if so, you might think it’s a bad idea to substitute pork for other types of meat. And we have to slaughter about 200 chickens to get the same amount of meat we’d get from one cow, which raises environmental as well as animal welfare concerns.
There are multiple factors to consider when making food choices, and your final decision may shake out differently depending on how you weight each of them.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.