vox--2020-08-04--America needs a bar and restaurant bailout

You can ’ t eat a meal , down a shot , or sip a cup of coffee while wearing a mask .
So if wearing masks inside is crucial to halting the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic — and at this point , just about everyone in the scientific , medical , and public health communities agrees that it is — people can ’ t be eating or drinking in indoor settings outside the house .
Yet despite this seemingly straightforward logic , many jurisdictions in the US have allowed the partial reopening of bars , restaurants , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , Mayor Muriel Bowser is sufficiently concerned about rising case levels that she has limited travel from high-risk areas and ordered people to wear masks outdoors in most situations .
Maryland Gov .
Larry Hogan issued an expanded mask order on Friday and as of this past weekend , “ all Marylanders over the age of five are required to wear face coverings in the public spaces of all businesses across the state.
” But both Washington , DC , and Maryland have allowed restaurants to reopen for indoor service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no secret why leaders are reluctant to keep restaurants closed .
Restaurants provide jobs , restaurant owners have political clout , and food and beverage sales generate tax revenue .
Closing schools or ordering people to wear masks outside has no direct financial cost , so these measures look more appealing .
But the financial problems with restricting bars and restaurants have a pretty straightforward solution — bail them out — while the public health value of imposing an indoor mask mandate is significant .
Congress should consider bailouts of bars , restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cities that need tax revenue .
It will save lives , create more space for taking public health risks in other areas where the cost benefit is less clear , and ultimately leave the economy in a stronger position .
Public health guidance on Covid-19 has also been shifting and confusing , in part because of leadership failures and in part because science is hard , so our best understanding has shifted over time .
Early in the pandemic , public health authorities actively discouraged the use of masks by the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cleaning surfaces .
We have subsequently learned the good news that surface transmission seems rare in practice .
As Emanuel Goldman writes in the August issue of The Lancet , messaging that suggests high risk of surface transmission “ has been assumed on the basis of studies that have little resemblance to real-life scenarios ” and in practice the risks here , though not nonexistent , are relatively low .
Surface transmission “ isn ’ t thought to be the main way the virus spreads , ” according to current Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance .
Unfortunately , the practices Derek Thompson calls “ hygiene theater , ” where business owners or government officials go to great lengths scrubbing and disinfecting various surfaces , have become fairly entrenched at this point .
Hygiene theater is appealing in part because it ’ s theatrical — you can see someone doing the scrubbing .
But it ’ s also appealing because it can , in principle , be done everywhere .
The fact that it ’ s not really necessary in most cases is probably good news .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of security in some quarters , worsening a failure to keep up with the latest bad news about how transmission actually happens .
By late March , evidence was piling up that the practice of mask-wearing in Asia was right all along , and on April 3 , the CDC started to recommend mask use .
The evidence in favor of masks has only gotten stronger since then because as evidence of surface transmission has faded , evidence of “ airborne ” or aerosol transmission has gotten stronger .
The prior thinking on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry about relatively large droplets — fell rapidly to the ground , hence the emphasis on 6 feet of distance .
Those droplets are an issue , but doctors and scientists are increasingly worried about smaller particles that travel further .
There ’ s a lot of dispute about exactly how to characterize this ( see my Vox colleague Brian Resnick ’ s explainer for details ) but the bottom line is , as Zeynep Tufekci writes , “ we should focus as much on ventilation as we do on distancing , masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees are important.
” That brings us back to bars and restaurants .
If you ’ re eating outside , you ’ re in a well-ventilated space .
And as long as surfaces are reasonably clean and you ’ re not too close to anyone outside your household , you should be fairly safe .
But if you ’ re indoors unmasked , eating and chatting , no amount of disinfecting wipes is going to make things safe unless the restaurant happens to have high-grade ventilation .
And while developing clear standards around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for upgrades is one possible solution , those efforts need to be focused on critical facilities like nursing homes and health care providers , not nice-to-haves like restaurants .
The whole “ airborne ” debate can get very complicated and technical but the basic issue is simple : Officials who recognize it ’ s important to wear masks inside need to also recognize that you can ’ t eat while wearing a mask .
Of course , if restaurants are told they can ’ t serve food inside , they will lose money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to need a big bailout .
But here ’ s the good news .
Businesses face two kinds of costs : fixed and variable .
For restaurants , variable costs are things like the cost of raw food that gets cooked , and the cost of paying people to do the cooking .
When you have more customers , the variable costs increase .
When you have fewer customers , the variable costs go down .
And as annoying as it is to tell a restaurant it needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outdoor dining , it does n't change the fact that a sound business should be able to cover its variable costs .
The problem is fixed costs .
Restaurant owners need to pay rent and make payments on loans regardless of how many customers come through the door .
Since rents were set on the presumption that dining rooms would be full , nobody can cover the rent just doing takeout .
To the extent that restaurants have survived this long is in part because landlords recognize there ’ s no sense in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you won ’ t be able to find a new one .
But rather than relying on ad hoc workouts , we need a real solution : ultra-cheap credit .
Adam Ozimek is the chief economist at Upwork but perhaps more to the point , the owner of a restaurant in Lancaster , Pennsylvania .
Together with John Lettieri of the Economic Innovation Group , he developed a proposal well-suited to independent restaurants ’ needs .
Here ’ s how it works : • Any qualifying business could get a loan worth the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of 2019 expenses .
The loan would be repaid over a 20-year period with a zero percent interest rate and a three-month grace period with no payments .
• Loans would be made and held by private banks , so restaurants could use their existing banking relationships , and the federal government would guarantee the loans and pay banks a modest fee for their trouble .
• The funds should be broadly available for legitimate business uses , including refinancing old loans , paying rent , paying staff , investing in equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the loan to replace old debt with cheaper new debt , cover rent , have cash available to invest in picnic tables or umbrellas , for example , to facilitate outside dining , and then keep selling food with revenue covering variable costs .
This wouldn ’ t save every restaurant or every restaurant job , but it would save a lot of them and make it more economically tolerable to save a lot of lives .
The point of letting restaurants survive the pandemic in a shrunken state is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever .
In principle , with universal mask use and other precautions , the US could get cases down to a level where testing and isolation are sufficient to keep people safe , even with restaurants reopening .
Failing that , there will hopefully be a vaccine in the not-too-distant future .
Either way , as long as restaurants still exist , they should be able to resume business with more customers , more workers , and more sales when circumstances allow .
The problem is that in the interim , there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax revenue to state and local governments .
Solutions here , however , are fairly straightforward .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have rallied behind the correct solution for people who are unemployed : maintain unusually generous unemployment insurance payments until jobs are available for people to take .
Meanwhile , the federal government can currently borrow money for less than the rate of inflation .
The solution to the state and local tax revenue problem is simply to share the borrowing power with lower levels of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The US is dealing with plenty of problems right now , and it doesn ’ t need one level of government to be laying off workers while another layer of government can get cheaper-than-free loans .
And nobody needs a deadly , incurable virus to spread just because cities feel they can ’ t do without the tax revenue generated by happy hour .
The scientific understanding of how the coronavirus works has changed a lot since communities started locking down in early March .
We now know that a wide range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it ’ s done outdoors or with masks , and as long as crowding is kept to a minimum and people are prudent about maintaining distance .
But we also know that 6 feet away isn ’ t good enough if people are going to be unmasked in indoor spaces .
That ’ s good news for brick-and-mortar retailers , who in the vast majority of cases should be able to conduct business safely .
But there ’ s no way to dine indoors at restaurants safely unless Covid-19 is suppressed much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor dining would be substantial , but manageable given the government ’ s current fiscal situation .
And in the long run , the economy and everything else will be much better off if we act decisively and control the virus .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

You can’t eat a meal, down a shot, or sip a cup of coffee while wearing a mask.
So if wearing masks inside is crucial to halting the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic — and at this point, just about everyone in the scientific, medical, and public health communities agrees that it is — people can’t be eating or drinking in indoor settings outside the house.
Yet despite this seemingly straightforward logic, many jurisdictions in the US have allowed the partial reopening of bars, restaurants, and coffee shops.
In Washington, DC, for example, Mayor Muriel Bowser is sufficiently concerned about rising case levels that she has limited travel from high-risk areas and ordered people to wear masks outdoors in most situations. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan issued an expanded mask order on Friday and as of this past weekend, “all Marylanders over the age of five are required to wear face coverings in the public spaces of all businesses across the state.”
My birthday wish has already come true: being mayor of my hometown.
Thank you for all the birthday wishes, and if you want to make another come true, please wear your masks. ❤ — Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) August 2, 2020
But both Washington, DC, and Maryland have allowed restaurants to reopen for indoor service under certain conditions.
It’s no secret why leaders are reluctant to keep restaurants closed. Restaurants provide jobs, restaurant owners have political clout, and food and beverage sales generate tax revenue. Closing schools or ordering people to wear masks outside has no direct financial cost, so these measures look more appealing.
But the financial problems with restricting bars and restaurants have a pretty straightforward solution — bail them out — while the public health value of imposing an indoor mask mandate is significant. Congress should consider bailouts of bars, restaurants, and coffee shops, and states and cities that need tax revenue. It will save lives, create more space for taking public health risks in other areas where the cost benefit is less clear, and ultimately leave the economy in a stronger position.
Indoor aerosol transmission is a huge problem
Public health guidance on Covid-19 has also been shifting and confusing, in part because of leadership failures and in part because science is hard, so our best understanding has shifted over time.
Early in the pandemic, public health authorities actively discouraged the use of masks by the public and messaged heavily in favor of hand-washing and cleaning surfaces. We have subsequently learned the good news that surface transmission seems rare in practice. As Emanuel Goldman writes in the August issue of The Lancet, messaging that suggests high risk of surface transmission “has been assumed on the basis of studies that have little resemblance to real-life scenarios” and in practice the risks here, though not nonexistent, are relatively low.
Surface transmission “isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads,” according to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance.
Unfortunately, the practices Derek Thompson calls “hygiene theater,” where business owners or government officials go to great lengths scrubbing and disinfecting various surfaces, have become fairly entrenched at this point. Hygiene theater is appealing in part because it’s theatrical — you can see someone doing the scrubbing. But it’s also appealing because it can, in principle, be done everywhere. The fact that it’s not really necessary in most cases is probably good news. But it has helped bolster a false sense of security in some quarters, worsening a failure to keep up with the latest bad news about how transmission actually happens.
By late March, evidence was piling up that the practice of mask-wearing in Asia was right all along, and on April 3, the CDC started to recommend mask use. The evidence in favor of masks has only gotten stronger since then because as evidence of surface transmission has faded, evidence of “airborne” or aerosol transmission has gotten stronger.
The prior thinking on transmission — that we only had to worry about relatively large droplets — fell rapidly to the ground, hence the emphasis on 6 feet of distance. Those droplets are an issue, but doctors and scientists are increasingly worried about smaller particles that travel further. There’s a lot of dispute about exactly how to characterize this (see my Vox colleague Brian Resnick’s explainer for details) but the bottom line is, as Zeynep Tufekci writes, “we should focus as much on ventilation as we do on distancing, masks, and hand-washing, which every expert agrees are important.”
That brings us back to bars and restaurants. If you’re eating outside, you’re in a well-ventilated space. And as long as surfaces are reasonably clean and you’re not too close to anyone outside your household, you should be fairly safe. But if you’re indoors unmasked, eating and chatting, no amount of disinfecting wipes is going to make things safe unless the restaurant happens to have high-grade ventilation. And while developing clear standards around ventilation, doing tests, and paying for upgrades is one possible solution, those efforts need to be focused on critical facilities like nursing homes and health care providers, not nice-to-haves like restaurants.
The whole “airborne” debate can get very complicated and technical but the basic issue is simple: Officials who recognize it’s important to wear masks inside need to also recognize that you can’t eat while wearing a mask.
Bail restaurants out with free loans
Of course, if restaurants are told they can’t serve food inside, they will lose money and go out of business. They’re going to need a big bailout.
But here’s the good news. Businesses face two kinds of costs: fixed and variable. For restaurants, variable costs are things like the cost of raw food that gets cooked, and the cost of paying people to do the cooking. When you have more customers, the variable costs increase. When you have fewer customers, the variable costs go down. And as annoying as it is to tell a restaurant it needs to be limited to delivery, to-go, and outdoor dining, it doesn't change the fact that a sound business should be able to cover its variable costs.
The problem is fixed costs. Restaurant owners need to pay rent and make payments on loans regardless of how many customers come through the door. Since rents were set on the presumption that dining rooms would be full, nobody can cover the rent just doing takeout. To the extent that restaurants have survived this long is in part because landlords recognize there’s no sense in evicting a tenant at a time when you won’t be able to find a new one. But rather than relying on ad hoc workouts, we need a real solution: ultra-cheap credit.
Adam Ozimek is the chief economist at Upwork but perhaps more to the point, the owner of a restaurant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Together with John Lettieri of the Economic Innovation Group, he developed a proposal well-suited to independent restaurants’ needs. Here’s how it works:
Any qualifying business could get a loan worth the lesser of $5 million or 200 percent of 2019 expenses. The loan would be repaid over a 20-year period with a zero percent interest rate and a three-month grace period with no payments.
Loans would be made and held by private banks, so restaurants could use their existing banking relationships, and the federal government would guarantee the loans and pay banks a modest fee for their trouble.
The funds should be broadly available for legitimate business uses, including refinancing old loans, paying rent, paying staff, investing in equipment, or something else.
Companies could use the loan to replace old debt with cheaper new debt, cover rent, have cash available to invest in picnic tables or umbrellas, for example, to facilitate outside dining, and then keep selling food with revenue covering variable costs. This wouldn’t save every restaurant or every restaurant job, but it would save a lot of them and make it more economically tolerable to save a lot of lives.
Bail out local governments and unemployed people
The point of letting restaurants survive the pandemic in a shrunken state is that the public health crisis won’t last forever. In principle, with universal mask use and other precautions, the US could get cases down to a level where testing and isolation are sufficient to keep people safe, even with restaurants reopening. Failing that, there will hopefully be a vaccine in the not-too-distant future. Either way, as long as restaurants still exist, they should be able to resume business with more customers, more workers, and more sales when circumstances allow.
The problem is that in the interim, there will be lost jobs and a loss of tax revenue to state and local governments.
Solutions here, however, are fairly straightforward. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have rallied behind the correct solution for people who are unemployed: maintain unusually generous unemployment insurance payments until jobs are available for people to take.
Pelosi says $600 UI payments should be tied to the jobless rate, shrink as economy improves. (More on that idea here: https://t.co/27X5Wh4LaO)
She cites Yale study we reported on that found no evidence the payments are discouraging people from working: https://t.co/0cDrflhQPn — Kate Davidson (@KateDavidson) August 2, 2020
Meanwhile, the federal government can currently borrow money for less than the rate of inflation. The solution to the state and local tax revenue problem is simply to share the borrowing power with lower levels of government by giving them big piles of money. The US is dealing with plenty of problems right now, and it doesn’t need one level of government to be laying off workers while another layer of government can get cheaper-than-free loans. And nobody needs a deadly, incurable virus to spread just because cities feel they can’t do without the tax revenue generated by happy hour.
The scientific understanding of how the coronavirus works has changed a lot since communities started locking down in early March. We now know that a wide range of activity seems reasonably safe as long as it’s done outdoors or with masks, and as long as crowding is kept to a minimum and people are prudent about maintaining distance. But we also know that 6 feet away isn’t good enough if people are going to be unmasked in indoor spaces.
That’s good news for brick-and-mortar retailers, who in the vast majority of cases should be able to conduct business safely. But there’s no way to dine indoors at restaurants safely unless Covid-19 is suppressed much more. The economic havoc of shuttering indoor dining would be substantial, but manageable given the government’s current fiscal situation. And in the long run, the economy and everything else will be much better off if we act decisively and control the virus.


vox--2020-08-04--How Trump should change the way journalists understand “objectivity”

The American media ecosystem has become saturated with misinformation and noise because the press remains committed to a set of norms that are ill-adapted to the digital age .
As I argued here and here , the obsession with “ objectivity ” in particular has led to an obsession with “ balance ” or “ fairness ” that makes it easy for bad-faith actors to get away with pushing falsehoods .
One of the most prominent examples of this is how cable news outlets treat people like Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway .
The thing about Conway is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows she ’ s a liar .
Yet CNN and MSNBC continue to give her a platform to spread those lies because they see their job as giving government officials — even ones who eschew the truth — a platform .
And that ’ s how bad-faith actors exploit press norms and keep flooding the information space with nonsense .
Some of the most interesting thinking on this topic has come from Tom Rosenstiel , a media scholar and the executive director of the American Press Institute .
Rosenstiel recently responded to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who argued that newsrooms are facing a long-overdue reckoning over the very meaning of objectivity .
Lowery ’ s point — and it ’ s a good one — is that objectivity has come to mean presenting neutral arguments to an imaginary reader who is “ invariably assumed to be white.
” And the problem isn ’ t that objectivity varies according to race , but that this assumption means “ the contours of acceptable public debate have largely been determined through the white gaze.
” Rosenstiel , who has co-written a book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital age , agreed with Lowery , but used his piece as an opportunity to clarify what “ objectivity ” has traditionally meant for journalists and how it ’ s “ been turned on its head.
” For Rosenstiel , journalistic objectivity was never intended to mean neutrality or balance ; instead , it meant something like the pursuit of truth using objective methods .
Because journalism is conducted by human beings and therefore can never be truly objective , their methods have to be instead .
A journalist ’ s duty is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — and if they can prove one side is lying and the other is telling the truth , that ’ s what they should write .
I reached out to Rosenstiel by phone to talk about that distinction and why the prevailing misunderstanding of objectivity matters .
On one level , this is a very inside-baseball exchange on contemporary journalistic ethics .
But it ’ s also a discussion about how to tell the truth in a media environment that rewards engagement and clicks above all else — a problem that implicates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation , lightly edited for length and clarity , follows .
Most people think journalists should strive for “ objectivity ” in their reporting .
What has that word traditionally meant in our field ?
At first glance people think it means neutrality , but it doesn ’ t .
And it really never has .
That is a marketing gimmick that has led to a kind of undergraduate-level debate about postmodernism and truth , in which people are asking , “ Can anyone ever really be objective ?
” But if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we realize that a lot of great journalism has a point of view .
We give Pulitzer Prizes for opinion journalism and magazine journalism and editorial writing .
And virtually all journalism , even in so-called legacy publications , eventually arrives at some point of view .
What I ’ m trying to stress is that as news is increasingly everywhere and people can get the facts on their own or from wherever they want , journalism ’ s responsibility goes deeper .
It involves sense-making , it involves providing more context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do now more than ever .
Remaining “ neutral ” is not the goal .
The thing is , journalists were never just reporting facts .
They were always choosing which facts to report .
What I said in my Twitter thread is that once we acknowledge this , then we have to ask , “ What does objective actually mean ” ?
The concept that migrated to journalism in the early 20th century was that journalists themselves could never be objective .
It was gradually accepted that the news isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what to cover and how to cover it .
So when this ethos of objectivity first migrated to journalism , the idea was that reporters should function like empirical scientists , relying on a set of methods and practices designed to eliminate personal biases .
Yes .
It ’ s gotten more sophisticated over the years , but the idea was that our methods could be objective precisely because we couldn ’ t be .
So in the same way that in social science we developed random selection of a sample or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something , journalists developed practices for conquering their innate biases — or at least that was the idea .
The more you can adopt an objective method , the better your work will be .
The notion that journalistic objectivity means , “ I have no opinions , I have no consciousness , ” is so patently absurd that it ’ s a straw man .
The only people making this argument were those who didn ’ t understand the concept .
Well , one of the points in your thread is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ turned on its head.
” Can you explain what you mean by that ?
When a lot of journalists start out now , they think , “ I shouldn ’ t be biased in my reporting.
” They don ’ t really have a method .
We don ’ t teach a lot of method in our journalism education .
We don ’ t teach it like ethnography or anthropology , with a lot of method .
We teach it with the apprenticeship model .
“ Go out and write some stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” just as if you were in a newsroom and you learn to do it through practice .
So there ’ s a lot of practice and not a lot of theory in the way we teach this .
All of this makes sense , and I take you to be saying that journalism ought to be about the pursuit of truth , not neutrality or fairness .
But I ’ ve been writing for a while now that there are problems with the incentive structure that makes this damn near impossible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers .
My worry is that the model of journalism developed in the 20th century just doesn ’ t work in the 21st century .
The internet has diminished the power of gatekeepers , and that means there are no referees anymore , no controls on the flow of information .
The increased competition for eyeballs and clicks has created an environment in which bad-faith actors “ flood the zone ” with shit and misinformation that gets amplified by news outlets competing for the same audiences .
I don ’ t see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I think that ’ s a pretty good diagnosis of part of the landscape .
Yes , the zone has been flooded .
And you ’ re right that the press , by and large , are no longer gatekeepers over what the public knows .
To a very large degree today , we are annotators of what they have already heard .
So to annotate to them effectively , to help them sort out truth from fiction , we have to have processes and context .
It involves explaining why we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is being reported , and here ’ s the basis for it and here ’ s how many people we interviewed and here ’ s why we granted anonymity to this person or that person , and so on .
The job today is really to provide guideposts for people who have too much information in front of them .
There ’ s an idea , probably gaining steam , that journalists should eschew objectivity in the conventional sense and just lean into their subjectivity — and be totally transparent about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an understandable impulse because , as you ’ ve explained , journalism is now much more competitive , and that means it ’ s more consumer-driven , so audiences are more likely to support places that feed them exactly what they ’ re looking for .
Why do you think this is a dangerous road to travel down ?
This would be the same kind of simplistic misunderstanding where people think , “ Oh , journalists can never be objective .
Objectivity is bogus .
Journalists are deluded.
” The flip side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only authentic journalism is journalism of opinion , where I just tell you what my biases are and I write what I think.
” The guidepost of journalism , whether it ’ s highly interpretive , whether it ’ s a book , whether it ’ s a magazine piece , or whether it ’ s a quick news story , is that journalists should only write or publish what they can prove , not what they believe .
There are plenty of people who can tell me what they believe without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence-based enterprise , not an opinion-based enterprise .
There are lots of opinion out there that have nothing to do with journalism — that ’ s just speech .
If we think that the solution to a flawed understanding of objectivity is to just be subjective , what ’ s going to happen is we ’ re going to drive people further apart .
And the reporters themselves , when they go out on a story , are going to reconfirm their prejudices time after time , because they ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do I believe is true here ?
And now I ’ m going to seek out evidence to prove what I already think.
” A long time ago somebody said to me , “ Write down what you think the story is before you go to report it , and after you ’ re done reporting , if all you ’ ve come back with is exactly what you set out to find , you didn ’ t do a very good job of reporting.
” I hear from journalists all the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth-seeking journalism out there , but in such a fragmented media environment , it often fails to break through when we ’ re dealing with such insulated audiences .
So I really want to press you on this point .
What are journalists supposed to do in an incentive structure that rewards engagement , not truth ?
Part of the problem has been that the first generation of the internet was built around engagement .
And by engagement , I mean patrons and clickbait .
This has created a bipolar dopamine culture that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off or making us euphoric .
We ’ re entering a phase now where the future , to the extent that journalism has an economic future , is going to be much more based on consumers saying , “ This is valuable , I ’ m going to pay for it , I ’ m going to join , I ’ m going to contribute , I ’ m going to subscribe , I ’ m going to subsidize this.
” It won ’ t be 100 percent of the economic engine of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the majority .
It could be two-thirds .
It could even be up to 75 percent .
The New York Times , the Wall Street Journal are examples , but this will happen locally at some level .
[ Author ’ s note : Vox has recently launched its own reader contribution program . ]
Ultimately , news organizations are going to have to broaden their audience .
You can ’ t just have aging white liberals for your audience anymore .
To do that , to create that kind of value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to produce more work that creates knowledge and value for people , that puts things into some usable sense .
I think a people may be confused by a distinction you ’ re implicitly drawing here , so let ’ s tease it out .
From your point of view , what ’ s the difference between striving for truthful reporting and striving for factually accurate reporting ?
Factually accurate reporting is necessary but insufficient .
Something can be factually accurate and substantially untrue at the same time .
Can you give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean ?
If I quote Neo-Nazis saying a bunch of stuff that is technically accurate ( meaning they actually said it ) , but a total distortion of reality , then I ’ ve quoted them accurately telling their lies .
A strictly factual journalism can muddy the truth , in other words .
A classic example of this is when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported during the 1996 Olympics that Richard Jewell was probably the Olympic bomber , which turned out not to be true .
They never acknowledged that they did anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We accurately reported what the police believed at the time.
” So unlike CNN and NBC and a lot of other news organizations , they never settled with Jewell ’ s lawyers .
They insisted that they were accurate .
They were accurate and substantially untrue .
[ Author ’ s note : After a lengthy legal saga , the Georgia court of appeals ruled that the AJC “ accurately reported ” that Jewell was a suspect . ]
So you need to provide context .
You need to say , “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And after the police had found out that Jewell couldn ’ t actually have made the phone call and also placed the bomb , no one physically could have done those two things within the time frame , that ’ s context that gets you toward the truth .
Likewise , if Trump says something and it ’ s not true and you ’ ve quoted him , you ’ ve been factually accurate as to what he said , but it ’ s also important to point out how what he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s repeated it 28 times and it ’ s been pointed out 27 times , and by now , if he doesn ’ t know this is untrue , he ’ s strategically lying .
You ’ ve said openly that you ’ re worried about journalism ’ s viability in this already weakened state .
Are you still optimistic that we ’ ll adapt to this era and correct course before it ’ s too late ?
If you go into any major news organization right now , they all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also culturally , in terms of racial and intellectual diversity and default biases .
That ’ s all real and true .
But there isn ’ t anyone who seriously thinks that they should replace the front page of those publications or the lineup of NBC News with a lot of opinion and pure subjectivity .
This is obviously what ’ s happened to cable news , but I ’ m not worried that our major institutions are going to fall prey to that in the next six months , or something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism can destroy itself from within , because to the average person , what they think of as journalism is what they see on television .
The work that they see a journalist do is the ranting of cable anchors .
And so journalism can destroy itself from within if that becomes the public model .
It ’ s journalism as theater , and I guess I ’ m not as sanguine as you because I think that model has spread well beyond cable news .
Well , I do worry about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s never seen a journalist work on a story or has never been part of an interview like this — that ’ s journalism .
But that ’ s not what most people see , and it ’ s not the impression they have of journalism in their head .
And yeah , that ’ s a problem .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The American media ecosystem has become saturated with misinformation and noise because the press remains committed to a set of norms that are ill-adapted to the digital age. As I argued here and here, the obsession with “objectivity” in particular has led to an obsession with “balance” or “fairness” that makes it easy for bad-faith actors to get away with pushing falsehoods.
One of the most prominent examples of this is how cable news outlets treat people like Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. The thing about Conway is that she’s a liar. Everyone knows she’s a liar. Yet CNN and MSNBC continue to give her a platform to spread those lies because they see their job as giving government officials — even ones who eschew the truth — a platform. And that’s how bad-faith actors exploit press norms and keep flooding the information space with nonsense.
Some of the most interesting thinking on this topic has come from Tom Rosenstiel, a media scholar and the executive director of the American Press Institute. Rosenstiel recently responded to a terrific essay by reporter Wesley Lowery, who argued that newsrooms are facing a long-overdue reckoning over the very meaning of objectivity.
Lowery’s point — and it’s a good one — is that objectivity has come to mean presenting neutral arguments to an imaginary reader who is “invariably assumed to be white.” And the problem isn’t that objectivity varies according to race, but that this assumption means “the contours of acceptable public debate have largely been determined through the white gaze.”
Rosenstiel, who has co-written a book on the ethics of journalism in the digital age, agreed with Lowery, but used his piece as an opportunity to clarify what “objectivity” has traditionally meant for journalists and how it’s “been turned on its head.” For Rosenstiel, journalistic objectivity was never intended to mean neutrality or balance; instead, it meant something like the pursuit of truth using objective methods. Because journalism is conducted by human beings and therefore can never be truly objective, their methods have to be instead. A journalist’s duty is to write “what they can prove” — and if they can prove one side is lying and the other is telling the truth, that’s what they should write.
I reached out to Rosenstiel by phone to talk about that distinction and why the prevailing misunderstanding of objectivity matters.
On one level, this is a very inside-baseball exchange on contemporary journalistic ethics. But it’s also a discussion about how to tell the truth in a media environment that rewards engagement and clicks above all else — a problem that implicates us all.
A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, follows.
Sean Illing
Most people think journalists should strive for “objectivity” in their reporting. What has that word traditionally meant in our field?
Tom Rosenstiel
At first glance people think it means neutrality, but it doesn’t. And it really never has. That is a marketing gimmick that has led to a kind of undergraduate-level debate about postmodernism and truth, in which people are asking, “Can anyone ever really be objective?”
But if we think about this a little more deeply, we realize that a lot of great journalism has a point of view. We give Pulitzer Prizes for opinion journalism and magazine journalism and editorial writing. And virtually all journalism, even in so-called legacy publications, eventually arrives at some point of view.
What I’m trying to stress is that as news is increasingly everywhere and people can get the facts on their own or from wherever they want, journalism’s responsibility goes deeper. It involves sense-making, it involves providing more context. This is what we have to do now more than ever. Remaining “neutral” is not the goal.
The thing is, journalists were never just reporting facts. They were always choosing which facts to report. What I said in my Twitter thread is that once we acknowledge this, then we have to ask, “What does objective actually mean”? The concept that migrated to journalism in the early 20th century was that journalists themselves could never be objective. It was gradually accepted that the news isn’t mechanistic because it involves people making judgements about what to cover and how to cover it.
Sean Illing
So when this ethos of objectivity first migrated to journalism, the idea was that reporters should function like empirical scientists, relying on a set of methods and practices designed to eliminate personal biases.
Tom Rosenstiel
Yes. It’s gotten more sophisticated over the years, but the idea was that our methods could be objective precisely because we couldn’t be. So in the same way that in social science we developed random selection of a sample or methods for testing the statistical significance of something, journalists developed practices for conquering their innate biases — or at least that was the idea. The more you can adopt an objective method, the better your work will be.
The notion that journalistic objectivity means, “I have no opinions, I have no consciousness,” is so patently absurd that it’s a straw man. The only people making this argument were those who didn’t understand the concept.
Sean Illing
Well, one of the points in your thread is that the original meaning of objectivity has been “turned on its head.” Can you explain what you mean by that?
Tom Rosenstiel
When a lot of journalists start out now, they think, “I shouldn’t be biased in my reporting.” They don’t really have a method. We don’t teach a lot of method in our journalism education. We don’t teach it like ethnography or anthropology, with a lot of method. We teach it with the apprenticeship model. “Go out and write some stories, and I will edit them,” just as if you were in a newsroom and you learn to do it through practice. So there’s a lot of practice and not a lot of theory in the way we teach this.
Sean Illing
All of this makes sense, and I take you to be saying that journalism ought to be about the pursuit of truth, not neutrality or fairness. But I’ve been writing for a while now that there are problems with the incentive structure that makes this damn near impossible. I’ll sum it up for readers.
My worry is that the model of journalism developed in the 20th century just doesn’t work in the 21st century. The internet has diminished the power of gatekeepers, and that means there are no referees anymore, no controls on the flow of information. The increased competition for eyeballs and clicks has created an environment in which bad-faith actors “flood the zone” with shit and misinformation that gets amplified by news outlets competing for the same audiences.
I don’t see a solution to this problem. Do you?
Tom Rosenstiel
I think that’s a pretty good diagnosis of part of the landscape. Yes, the zone has been flooded. And you’re right that the press, by and large, are no longer gatekeepers over what the public knows.
To a very large degree today, we are annotators of what they have already heard. So to annotate to them effectively, to help them sort out truth from fiction, we have to have processes and context. It involves explaining why we should know about this person or why this is being reported, and here’s the basis for it and here’s how many people we interviewed and here’s why we granted anonymity to this person or that person, and so on. The job today is really to provide guideposts for people who have too much information in front of them.
Sean Illing
There’s an idea, probably gaining steam, that journalists should eschew objectivity in the conventional sense and just lean into their subjectivity — and be totally transparent about that with their audiences. And it’s an understandable impulse because, as you’ve explained, journalism is now much more competitive, and that means it’s more consumer-driven, so audiences are more likely to support places that feed them exactly what they’re looking for.
Why do you think this is a dangerous road to travel down?
Tom Rosenstiel
This would be the same kind of simplistic misunderstanding where people think, “Oh, journalists can never be objective. Objectivity is bogus. Journalists are deluded.” The flip side of that is, “Okay, the only authentic journalism is journalism of opinion, where I just tell you what my biases are and I write what I think.”
The guidepost of journalism, whether it’s highly interpretive, whether it’s a book, whether it’s a magazine piece, or whether it’s a quick news story, is that journalists should only write or publish what they can prove, not what they believe.
There are plenty of people who can tell me what they believe without evidence, but journalism should be an evidence-based enterprise, not an opinion-based enterprise. There are lots of opinion out there that have nothing to do with journalism — that’s just speech.
If we think that the solution to a flawed understanding of objectivity is to just be subjective, what’s going to happen is we’re going to drive people further apart. And the reporters themselves, when they go out on a story, are going to reconfirm their prejudices time after time, because they’re going to be so imbued with, “What do I believe is true here? And now I’m going to seek out evidence to prove what I already think.”
A long time ago somebody said to me, “Write down what you think the story is before you go to report it, and after you’re done reporting, if all you’ve come back with is exactly what you set out to find, you didn’t do a very good job of reporting.”
Sean Illing
I hear from journalists all the time that there is a lot of great truth-seeking journalism out there, but in such a fragmented media environment, it often fails to break through when we’re dealing with such insulated audiences. So I really want to press you on this point. What are journalists supposed to do in an incentive structure that rewards engagement, not truth?
Tom Rosenstiel
Part of the problem has been that the first generation of the internet was built around engagement. And by engagement, I mean patrons and clickbait. This has created a bipolar dopamine culture that grabs our attention by either pissing us off or making us euphoric.
We’re entering a phase now where the future, to the extent that journalism has an economic future, is going to be much more based on consumers saying, “This is valuable, I’m going to pay for it, I’m going to join, I’m going to contribute, I’m going to subscribe, I’m going to subsidize this.” It won’t be 100 percent of the economic engine of news, but it’ll probably be the majority. It could be two-thirds. It could even be up to 75 percent. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal are examples, but this will happen locally at some level. [Author’s note: Vox has recently launched its own reader contribution program.]
Ultimately, news organizations are going to have to broaden their audience. You can’t just have aging white liberals for your audience anymore. To do that, to create that kind of value, you’re actually going to have to produce more work that creates knowledge and value for people, that puts things into some usable sense.
Sean Illing
I think a people may be confused by a distinction you’re implicitly drawing here, so let’s tease it out. From your point of view, what’s the difference between striving for truthful reporting and striving for factually accurate reporting?
Tom Rosenstiel
Factually accurate reporting is necessary but insufficient. Something can be factually accurate and substantially untrue at the same time.
Sean Illing
Can you give me a practical example of what you mean?
Tom Rosenstiel
If I quote Neo-Nazis saying a bunch of stuff that is technically accurate (meaning they actually said it), but a total distortion of reality, then I’ve quoted them accurately telling their lies. A strictly factual journalism can muddy the truth, in other words.
A classic example of this is when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported during the 1996 Olympics that Richard Jewell was probably the Olympic bomber, which turned out not to be true. They never acknowledged that they did anything wrong, because they said, “We accurately reported what the police believed at the time.” So unlike CNN and NBC and a lot of other news organizations, they never settled with Jewell’s lawyers. They insisted that they were accurate. They were accurate and substantially untrue. [Author’s note: After a lengthy legal saga, the Georgia court of appeals ruled that the AJC “accurately reported” that Jewell was a suspect.]
So you need to provide context. You need to say, “Why do the police believe this?” And after the police had found out that Jewell couldn’t actually have made the phone call and also placed the bomb, no one physically could have done those two things within the time frame, that’s context that gets you toward the truth.
Likewise, if Trump says something and it’s not true and you’ve quoted him, you’ve been factually accurate as to what he said, but it’s also important to point out how what he said is not only not true, but he’s repeated it 28 times and it’s been pointed out 27 times, and by now, if he doesn’t know this is untrue, he’s strategically lying.
Sean Illing
You’ve said openly that you’re worried about journalism’s viability in this already weakened state. Are you still optimistic that we’ll adapt to this era and correct course before it’s too late?
Tom Rosenstiel
If you go into any major news organization right now, they all have major issues — not just economically but also culturally, in terms of racial and intellectual diversity and default biases. That’s all real and true. But there isn’t anyone who seriously thinks that they should replace the front page of those publications or the lineup of NBC News with a lot of opinion and pure subjectivity.
This is obviously what’s happened to cable news, but I’m not worried that our major institutions are going to fall prey to that in the next six months, or something like that. I do worry that journalism can destroy itself from within, because to the average person, what they think of as journalism is what they see on television. The work that they see a journalist do is the ranting of cable anchors. And so journalism can destroy itself from within if that becomes the public model.
Sean Illing
It’s journalism as theater, and I guess I’m not as sanguine as you because I think that model has spread well beyond cable news.
Tom Rosenstiel
Well, I do worry about that. To the average person who’s never seen a journalist work on a story or has never been part of an interview like this — that’s journalism. But that’s not what most people see, and it’s not the impression they have of journalism in their head. And yeah, that’s a problem.


vox--2020-08-04--Cori Bush wants to be the next progressive to upset a sitting congressman. Today’s her shot.

Missouri voters go to the polls Tuesday to choose a wide range of Democratic and Republican candidates , including gubernatorial candidates for both parties .
One of the most closely watched races is a rematch between Rep. William Lacy Clay , the long-serving Democratic representative of Missouri ’ s First Congressional district and the scion of a St. Louis political dynasty , and Cori Bush , a nurse who unsuccessfully challenged Clay in the 2018 Democratic primary .
At first glance , Bush resembles candidates such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) or Democratic congressional candidate Jamaal Bowman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran as unabashed progressives .
Bush is two decades younger than the 64-year-old Clay , and she seeks a seat that a single family has held for more than half a century .
Lacy Clay entered Congress in 2001 , succeeding his father Bill Clay , who was first elected to the House in 1968 .
The elder Clay is one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus .
But unlike several other highly watched Democratic primaries over the last two years , the race between Clay and Bush is perhaps more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over ideology .
Clay describes himself as “ one of the more progressive members of Congress since my first day.
” He supports Medicare for All and the Green New Deal .
He is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , and he received their endorsement in his race against Bush .
When I asked Clay ’ s campaign what they view as the primary policy differences between the incumbent Congress member and Bush , they sent me a lengthy statement from Clay touting his endorsements from groups such as Planned Parenthood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( a pro-LGBTQ group associated with the Congressional LGBTQ Equality Caucus ) , and the Congressional Black Caucus .
Clay touts himself as “ the only candidate in this race who has helped 22 million Americans gain healthcare coverage and helped double the federal investment in community-based health centers , ” and as “ the only candidate in this race who has stood up to the NRA and authored landmark legislation to give local governments the power to enact their own gun regulations.
” Bush , meanwhile , organized protests in Ferguson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot Michael Brown , and was an outspoken supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) during the senator ’ s 2016 presidential bid .
She was endorsed by Bowman , the New York candidate who recently unseated Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-NY ) .
Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for Bush in 2018 .
Though Bush ’ s campaign does not deny that Clay supports many progressive priorities , its critique of him echoes the views of many Sanders supporters who viewed the Vermont senator ’ s opponents as latecomers to leftist causes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limitations of Democrats ” for whom it is “ easy and safe to co-sponsor a bill , ” said Keenan Korth , a spokesperson for the Bush campaign .
Policy aside , Korth also touts Bush as the “ protest-to-politics candidate ” in the race .
Bush is “ not going to come to Congress and then stop attending these protests until we finally address this pandemic of police brutality.
” The 2018 race did not end well for Bush , with Clay defeating Bush by nearly 20 points .
Like Clay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis Public Radio ’ s Jason Rosenbaum notes , “ Bush prevailed in a number of either majority white or integrated areas of the 1st District in 2018 , ” but Clay “ dominated in a number of Black city wards and county townships.
” Now , however , Bush has the experience of her 2018 race under her belt , as well as the greater name recognition that comes from having challenged Clay before .
Bush was also featured in Knock Down the House , a Netflix documentary highlighting left challengers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but so were Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman .
Incumbent Gov .
Mike Parson ( R ) rose to power under the worst possible circumstances : His predecessor Eric Greitens ( R ) resigned due to allegations that he coerced a woman into performing oral sex on him and then threatened her to keep her quiet .
Parson was lieutenant governor when Greitens left office , putting him next in line for the state ’ s top job .
Parson now hopes to be elected to his first full term in his current job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including state Rep. Jim Neely ( R ) .
Meanwhile , five candidates hope to receive the Democratic nomination for the governor ’ s race , but state auditor Nicole Galloway is likely to prevail .
One local news report said that Galloway is “ considered the runaway favorite to face Mike Parson ” in November .
Polls , meanwhile , show Parson as likely — but hardly certain — to prevail over Galloway in this increasingly red state .
The Real Clear Politics polling average on this race shows Parson leading Galloway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other underdog worth keeping an eye on is Wick Thomas , a candidate in the state house ’ s 19th District .
That race pits Thomas , a self-described “ transgender , non-conforming candidate , ” against incumbent state Rep. Ingrid Burnett ( D ) .
If elected , Thomas could become one of a handful of openly transgender candidates elected to a state legislature .
Thomas combines a kind of shock-your-parents vibe with a strikingly wholesome professional life .
They lead a punk band named Wick and the Tricks , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kansas City Public Library .
In 2015 , after Gov .
Jay Nixon ( D ) cut library spending , Thomas led a group of teens to the governor ’ s office to protest — where they were eventually escorted out by state troopers .
Thomas was also named the “ Best Activist in Missouri ” in 2008 by The Pitch , a Kansas City alternative newspaper , for their work with teenagers and at-risk youth .
Finally , Missouri voters will decide whether to make their state the 38th to expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Republican leaders have resisted .
About 230,000 people could gain health coverage if the voters support Medicaid expansion .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Missouri voters go to the polls Tuesday to choose a wide range of Democratic and Republican candidates, including gubernatorial candidates for both parties.
One of the most closely watched races is a rematch between Rep. William Lacy Clay, the long-serving Democratic representative of Missouri’s First Congressional District and the scion of a St. Louis political dynasty, and Cori Bush, a nurse who unsuccessfully challenged Clay in the 2018 Democratic primary.
At first glance, Bush resembles candidates such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) or Democratic congressional candidate Jamaal Bowman, who defeated veteran Democratic congressmen and who ran as unabashed progressives. Bush is two decades younger than the 64-year-old Clay, and she seeks a seat that a single family has held for more than half a century.
Lacy Clay entered Congress in 2001, succeeding his father Bill Clay, who was first elected to the House in 1968. The elder Clay is one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But unlike several other highly watched Democratic primaries over the last two years, the race between Clay and Bush is perhaps more of a generational dispute than a battle over ideology. Clay describes himself as “one of the more progressive members of Congress since my first day.” He supports Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. He is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and he received their endorsement in his race against Bush.
When I asked Clay’s campaign what they view as the primary policy differences between the incumbent Congress member and Bush, they sent me a lengthy statement from Clay touting his endorsements from groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Equality PAC (a pro-LGBTQ group associated with the Congressional LGBTQ Equality Caucus), and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Clay touts himself as “the only candidate in this race who has helped 22 million Americans gain healthcare coverage and helped double the federal investment in community-based health centers,” and as “the only candidate in this race who has stood up to the NRA and authored landmark legislation to give local governments the power to enact their own gun regulations.”
Bush, meanwhile, organized protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown, and was an outspoken supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during the senator’s 2016 presidential bid. She was endorsed by Bowman, the New York candidate who recently unseated Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for Bush in 2018.
Though Bush’s campaign does not deny that Clay supports many progressive priorities, its critique of him echoes the views of many Sanders supporters who viewed the Vermont senator’s opponents as latecomers to leftist causes. “We saw in the presidential primary the limitations of Democrats” for whom it is “easy and safe to co-sponsor a bill,” said Keenan Korth, a spokesperson for the Bush campaign.
Policy aside, Korth also touts Bush as the “protest-to-politics candidate” in the race. Bush is “not going to come to Congress and then stop attending these protests until we finally address this pandemic of police brutality.”
The 2018 race did not end well for Bush, with Clay defeating Bush by nearly 20 points. Like Clay, Bush is Black, but as St. Louis Public Radio’s Jason Rosenbaum notes, “Bush prevailed in a number of either majority white or integrated areas of the 1st District in 2018,” but Clay “dominated in a number of Black city wards and county townships.”
Now, however, Bush has the experience of her 2018 race under her belt, as well as the greater name recognition that comes from having challenged Clay before. Bush was also featured in Knock Down the House, a Netflix documentary highlighting left challengers to incumbent Democrats.
She remains the underdog, but so were Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman.
Other Missouri races to watch
Incumbent Gov. Mike Parson (R) rose to power under the worst possible circumstances: His predecessor Eric Greitens (R) resigned due to allegations that he coerced a woman into performing oral sex on him and then threatened her to keep her quiet. Parson was lieutenant governor when Greitens left office, putting him next in line for the state’s top job.
Parson now hopes to be elected to his first full term in his current job. He faces three primary challengers, including state Rep. Jim Neely (R).
Meanwhile, five candidates hope to receive the Democratic nomination for the governor’s race, but state auditor Nicole Galloway is likely to prevail. One local news report said that Galloway is “considered the runaway favorite to face Mike Parson” in November.
Polls, meanwhile, show Parson as likely — but hardly certain — to prevail over Galloway in this increasingly red state. The Real Clear Politics polling average on this race shows Parson leading Galloway by just over six points.
One other underdog worth keeping an eye on is Wick Thomas, a candidate in the state house’s 19th District. That race pits Thomas, a self-described “transgender, non-conforming candidate,” against incumbent state Rep. Ingrid Burnett (D). If elected, Thomas could become one of a handful of openly transgender candidates elected to a state legislature.
Thomas combines a kind of shock-your-parents vibe with a strikingly wholesome professional life. They lead a punk band named Wick and the Tricks, but they also worked as a youth librarian for the Kansas City Public Library. In 2015, after Gov. Jay Nixon (D) cut library spending, Thomas led a group of teens to the governor’s office to protest — where they were eventually escorted out by state troopers.
Thomas was also named the “Best Activist in Missouri” in 2008 by The Pitch, a Kansas City alternative newspaper, for their work with teenagers and at-risk youth.
Finally, Missouri voters will decide whether to make their state the 38th to expand Medicaid under Obamacare — something the state’s Republican leaders have resisted. About 230,000 people could gain health coverage if the voters support Medicaid expansion.


vox--2020-08-04--The best $295 I ever spent: Spanish classes as a Latina in Trump’s America

From the outside I looked like a carefree shopper , arriving at Idlewild Books last summer to peruse its memoirs and guidebooks , iced tea in hand .
But my real business was in the back , where two classrooms were letting out and new sessions were about to start .
I was jittery , trying to tune out the racing backbeat of my heart .
I ran my fingertips over an adventure tale showing daredevils hanging from a cliff face .
These guys fearlessly climbed Everest , I thought .
Surely I can summon the courage to scale the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown up speaking buen castellano , bouncing between North and South America .
In my early childhood my family lived in Seattle , then moved to Chile ( where my mother ’ s relatives were ) , and then back to Seattle , all before I was 8 years old .
Once we resettled in the US , my Spanish became warped and weak .
Now , like many second-generation kids , my Spanish is a wonky , lopsided thing .
Language comprehension is often thought of as a ladder , where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ please , ” and “ thank you.
” One step up is “ how much is this ?
” and “ where is the bathroom ?
” The middle rungs are herky-jerky conversations about where you ’ re from and what your job is , and the top rung is fluency , an observation point where you can see as far as philosophical conversations about spirituality , politics , and business .
However , in practice I find my Spanish is more like Chutes and Ladders .
Watch a telenovela on Netflix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking it for a month ?
Slide back 12 squares .
Land on the spot where you need to explain a medical condition ?
Tumble back to square one , flapping your hands to fill in missing words or falling back on English .
There are no “ winners ” because unlike a game , fluency doesn ’ t have a finish line .
No triple-word score will get you to the end .
You are forever bumping around the board .
But there are plenty of “ losers ” — those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is where I was for quite some time .
( Pour one out for the Duolingo owl . )
Throughout my life , I ’ ve made several scrambling attempts to level up my proficiency .
There were the workbooks my mother would push on me in grade school ( “ El gato está encima de la mesa ” ) , the translated edition of Harry Potter ( “ Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal ” ) I thumbed through along with copies of Teen Vogue , and the class I took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Federico García Lorca ( “ La poesía no quiere adeptos , quiere amantes ” ) .
It was during the last attempt that my professor pulled me aside to tell me I would never improve .
According to her , half-fluent native kids like me were linguistically askew , learning by ear , not by rote .
We could speak melodically , but our foundations were uneven because they had never been leveled out by stacks of grammar rulebooks .
You can ’ t ascend a ladder that ’ s propped on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an adult , I packed away my Spanish in deep storage , busting it out only on the rare occasions when I traveled or saw family .
Still , I got frustrated and defensive when the subject would come up , citing arguments I ’ d read on the site Remezcla about how language doesn ’ t define your Latinidad .
I would parade around the names of famed Latinx people who didn ’ t speak Spanish fluently .
“ See ?
” I ’ d shout to my mom , my coworkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Selena Gomez is the poster girl for Latino achievement , and her Spanish is almost nada !
” All this was before the 2016 presidential election .
After that , words en español became a tripwire that set off some ugly confrontations .
I ’ m reminded of viral videos in which restaurant employees or JC Penney shoppers speaking Spanish to each other are terrorized by hate speech from an onlooker .
“ Speak English !
” or “ Go back to where you came from !
” are the usual refrain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of slogans about America that read as implicit threats , of “ wait ’ til Trump gets to you.
” I made a decision — I was heading back to the classroom .
Learning my mother tongue was no longer a way to shore up my own shortcomings ; it had transformed into an act of resistance .
If they ’ re coming for the bilinguals , I thought grimly , they can come for me primero .
I ’ d heard about Idlewild from various friends who had picked out guidebooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending an afternoon reading Yelp reviews from former students , I enrolled in its top-level Spanish class : Film and Conversation .
It was described on Idlewild ’ s website as the “ most advanced class , for those who can speak and understand at a high level.
” I still felt the old trepidation around attending class and opening myself up to critique and embarrassment — the Latina who could falter on the basics , such as the correct pronoun .
My first class , I arrived 15 minutes early .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I migrated to the back of the shop that held two windowed classrooms anchored by large rectangular tables .
There I met my instructor , Juan Vallejo , a spectacled documentary filmmaker from Colombia .
He explained the class structure to me : Every week we ’ d watch a Spanish-language movie , then come together to discuss it , read interviews with the directors , and review words used in the films .
“ You can say if you liked the movie or not , ” Juan explained , “ but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He gestured to some distant horizon line — that illusive lookout point of fluency .
Ah , yes , I thought with a sigh , my goal is always más allá .
Sure enough , our first assignment was the Argentine film Medianeras ( already a word of the day , meaning “ sidewalls ” ) and our class conversation touched on psychotherapy , soul mates , and the recession in Argentina .
Sometimes I felt like the star student , other times the class dunce , but I was welcomed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in circles with one leg in Spanish 101 and the other in Spanish 400 .
There were four of us in total : Margaret , a steely , silver-haired globetrotter with a knowledge of Spanish cinema that rivaled that of our professor ; Thomas , the Theodore Roosevelt of our gang , who spoke softly and carried a big cane ; Addy , a mush-hearted romantic who could roll her Rs like a pro ; and me , the Latina trying to retrace her steps back to her roots .
For seven Fridays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together in our ascent up Mount Español , trying to pull each other along .
Not that we worked in harmony .
We argued about love at first sight ( a three-to-one split ) and Catalan independence ( a stalemate ) .
But even our tug-of-wars provided opportunities to yank each other up to the next ledge .
I wish I could say that by the end of class , I ’ d ascended to the tippy-top of fluency .
Not quite .
I still fumbled through words written on the whiteboard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I said adios to my classmates and packed up my notepad and pen on our last session , Juan took me aside .
My stomach dropped to my shoes .
Here it comes .
I thought .
The moment where he tells me I ’ m a lost cause .
“ Your Spanish is fine , ” Juan said , nodding as if agreeing with himself .
“ Really .
Just keep reading , and it ’ ll come along .
Don ’ t give up.
” “ I won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wasn ’ t entirely sure .
I wanted to improve , but I was also pretty tired of climbing .
Yet post-class , I found small ways to keep the lessons going , whether it was binge-watching Los Espookys or reading an Argentine fashion blog .
Nothing I did created change on a larger scale ; every day , the border wall went up , immigrant families got separated , DREAMers were threatened with deportation .
But I was doing the one tiny thing in my control : removing the invisible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space I occupied .
Three months after my last class ended , my husband and I went to Mexico City on vacation .
Putting my Spanish to the test , I ordered churros , hailed taxis , and bought aguas frescas .
I also went más allá in my conversations with locals , discussing LGBTQ rights , climate change , and the political strife in Chile .
At the end of my week there , I hitched a ride to Valle de Bravo with a local .
It was going to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I loaded my suitcases in the trunk , I asked the driver about the route .
“ Is there a pretty , scenic place to pull over and take photos ?
” I asked her .
“ A high point ?
” She considered for a moment and replied , “ The whole trip is scenic , if you keep your eyes open for the beauty along the way.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

From the outside I looked like a carefree shopper, arriving at Idlewild Books last summer to peruse its memoirs and guidebooks, iced tea in hand. But my real business was in the back, where two classrooms were letting out and new sessions were about to start. I was jittery, trying to tune out the racing backbeat of my heart. I ran my fingertips over an adventure tale showing daredevils hanging from a cliff face. These guys fearlessly climbed Everest, I thought. Surely I can summon the courage to scale the Spanish language again.
I’d grown up speaking buen castellano, bouncing between North and South America. In my early childhood my family lived in Seattle, then moved to Chile (where my mother’s relatives were), and then back to Seattle, all before I was 8 years old. Once we resettled in the US, my Spanish became warped and weak. Now, like many second-generation kids, my Spanish is a wonky, lopsided thing.
Language comprehension is often thought of as a ladder, where the bottom rung is “hello,” “please,” and “thank you.” One step up is “how much is this?” and “where is the bathroom?” The middle rungs are herky-jerky conversations about where you’re from and what your job is, and the top rung is fluency, an observation point where you can see as far as philosophical conversations about spirituality, politics, and business.
However, in practice I find my Spanish is more like Chutes and Ladders. Watch a telenovela on Netflix? Jump up five rungs. Avoid speaking it for a month? Slide back 12 squares. Land on the spot where you need to explain a medical condition? Tumble back to square one, flapping your hands to fill in missing words or falling back on English.
There are no “winners” because unlike a game, fluency doesn’t have a finish line. No triple-word score will get you to the end. You are forever bumping around the board. But there are plenty of “losers” — those who give up trying to learn altogether, which is where I was for quite some time. (Pour one out for the Duolingo owl.)
Throughout my life, I’ve made several scrambling attempts to level up my proficiency. There were the workbooks my mother would push on me in grade school (“El gato está encima de la mesa”), the translated edition of Harry Potter (“Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal”) I thumbed through along with copies of Teen Vogue, and the class I took as a college sophomore wherein I struggled through Federico García Lorca (“La poesía no quiere adeptos, quiere amantes”).
It was during the last attempt that my professor pulled me aside to tell me I would never improve. According to her, half-fluent native kids like me were linguistically askew, learning by ear, not by rote. We could speak melodically, but our foundations were uneven because they had never been leveled out by stacks of grammar rulebooks. You can’t ascend a ladder that’s propped on a warped floor without falling.
As an adult, I packed away my Spanish in deep storage, busting it out only on the rare occasions when I traveled or saw family. Still, I got frustrated and defensive when the subject would come up, citing arguments I’d read on the site Remezcla about how language doesn’t define your Latinidad. I would parade around the names of famed Latinx people who didn’t speak Spanish fluently. “See?” I’d shout to my mom, my coworkers, the supermarket checkout lady, “Selena Gomez is the poster girl for Latino achievement, and her Spanish is almost nada!”
All this was before the 2016 presidential election.
After that, words en español became a tripwire that set off some ugly confrontations. I’m reminded of viral videos in which restaurant employees or JC Penney shoppers speaking Spanish to each other are terrorized by hate speech from an onlooker. “Speak English!” or “Go back to where you came from!” are the usual refrain. It’s a climate of fear, of slogans about America that read as implicit threats, of “wait ’til Trump gets to you.”
I made a decision — I was heading back to the classroom. Learning my mother tongue was no longer a way to shore up my own shortcomings; it had transformed into an act of resistance. If they’re coming for the bilinguals, I thought grimly, they can come for me primero.
I’d heard about Idlewild from various friends who had picked out guidebooks or taken a class there. After spending an afternoon reading Yelp reviews from former students, I enrolled in its top-level Spanish class: Film and Conversation. It was described on Idlewild’s website as the “most advanced class, for those who can speak and understand at a high level.” I still felt the old trepidation around attending class and opening myself up to critique and embarrassment — the Latina who could falter on the basics, such as the correct pronoun.
My first class, I arrived 15 minutes early. After browsing the bookstore’s titles, I migrated to the back of the shop that held two windowed classrooms anchored by large rectangular tables. There I met my instructor, Juan Vallejo, a spectacled documentary filmmaker from Colombia. He explained the class structure to me: Every week we’d watch a Spanish-language movie, then come together to discuss it, read interviews with the directors, and review words used in the films.
“You can say if you liked the movie or not,” Juan explained, “but we’re extending our conversations más allá.” He gestured to some distant horizon line — that illusive lookout point of fluency.
Ah, yes, I thought with a sigh, my goal is always más allá. Sure enough, our first assignment was the Argentine film Medianeras (already a word of the day, meaning “sidewalls”) and our class conversation touched on psychotherapy, soul mates, and the recession in Argentina. Sometimes I felt like the star student, other times the class dunce, but I was welcomed as my wobbly linguistic self, hobbling around in circles with one leg in Spanish 101 and the other in Spanish 400.
There were four of us in total: Margaret, a steely, silver-haired globetrotter with a knowledge of Spanish cinema that rivaled that of our professor; Thomas, the Theodore Roosevelt of our gang, who spoke softly and carried a big cane; Addy, a mush-hearted romantic who could roll her Rs like a pro; and me, the Latina trying to retrace her steps back to her roots. For seven Fridays in a row, we strapped ourselves together in our ascent up Mount Español, trying to pull each other along. Not that we worked in harmony. We argued about love at first sight (a three-to-one split) and Catalan independence (a stalemate). But even our tug-of-wars provided opportunities to yank each other up to the next ledge.
I wish I could say that by the end of class, I’d ascended to the tippy-top of fluency. Not quite. I still fumbled through words written on the whiteboard and read slowly, occasionally sounding things out. As I said adios to my classmates and packed up my notepad and pen on our last session, Juan took me aside. My stomach dropped to my shoes. Here it comes. I thought. The moment where he tells me I’m a lost cause.
“Your Spanish is fine,” Juan said, nodding as if agreeing with himself. “Really. Just keep reading, and it’ll come along. Don’t give up.”
“I won’t,” I replied. Still, I wasn’t entirely sure. I wanted to improve, but I was also pretty tired of climbing.
Yet post-class, I found small ways to keep the lessons going, whether it was binge-watching Los Espookys or reading an Argentine fashion blog. Nothing I did created change on a larger scale; every day, the border wall went up, immigrant families got separated, DREAMers were threatened with deportation. But I was doing the one tiny thing in my control: removing the invisible “English only” sign from whatever space I occupied.
Three months after my last class ended, my husband and I went to Mexico City on vacation. Putting my Spanish to the test, I ordered churros, hailed taxis, and bought aguas frescas. I also went más allá in my conversations with locals, discussing LGBTQ rights, climate change, and the political strife in Chile. At the end of my week there, I hitched a ride to Valle de Bravo with a local. It was going to be a hilly drive, past several mountainous areas. As I loaded my suitcases in the trunk, I asked the driver about the route.
“Is there a pretty, scenic place to pull over and take photos?” I asked her. “A high point?”
She considered for a moment and replied, “The whole trip is scenic, if you keep your eyes open for the beauty along the way.”
Maria Teresa Hart is a travel editor and writer with work published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, and Teen Vogue.


vox--2020-08-04--Mulan is coming to Disney+ as a $30 rental

The coronavirus pandemic has trashed the entertainment industry , and one of its highest-profile targets has been Disney ’ s live-action adaptation of Mulan .
Originally slated to release on March 27 , the film ’ s theatrical debut was moved to July 24 , then August 21 , then taken off the calendar entirely .
But on an earnings call with investors , Disney executives announced that Mulan will be released on Disney+ , the company ’ s streaming service , on September 4 .
It will come with a fee attached : Subscribers will pay an additional $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries without Disney+ — including China , the country in which Mulan is set — the company plans to release the film in theaters that same day .
This is big news for Disney , which had delayed the film to make sure it could maximize profits with a theatrical release .
But theaters around the world closed down in March out of concerns for public health and safety , and they remain closed in many countries .
With US theaters in a state of limbo heading into fall , the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trial balloon that will indicate whether at-home audiences are willing to pay $ 29.99 to see a movie they won ’ t even own .
That sounds like a lot of money , though it ’ s still less than the cost of two or three movie tickets in many cities .
( The average price of a movie ticket nationwide in 2019 hovered around $ 9 . )
Add popcorn and soda and the cost is about the same , albeit without the theatrical experience .
For some audiences , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plethora of at-home entertainment available on streaming platforms may suffice until the film ’ s price drops .
On August 4 , Disney CEO Bob Chapek said the decision was made due to the pandemic and didn ’ t represent a future shift in Disney ’ s business model .
But it ’ s not hard to imagine that if Mulan is very successful on Disney+ , the company will begin to ponder more permanent changes .
The Mulan news is just the latest in a string of recent announcements indicating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insiders have long believed would eventually arrive .
A week earlier , Warner Bros. announced that the summer ’ s other extensively delayed , high-profile release , Christopher Nolan ’ s thriller Tenet , would open in 70 international territories on August 26 before a limited release in US theaters on September 3 .
The film was initially pushed back in the US to ensure a simultaneous release worldwide .
But as other countries reopened after lockdown , so did their theaters .
Meanwhile , the vast majority of US theaters ( with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as states suffer from spiking infection rates and few signs of the virus slowing .
And on July 29 , megaplex chain AMC and Universal , one of Hollywood ’ s six major studios , announced they ’ d struck a deal to shorten the window between a movie ’ s theatrical and digital releases .
Traditionally , a movie wouldn ’ t be available on on-demand platforms ( such as iTunes and Amazon Prime ) until months after it arrived in theaters ; but now , Universal ’ s movies can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in AMC ’ s theaters .
( AMC will share a cut of the profits . )
A month past 2020 ’ s midway point , it seems foolhardy to speculate about what these changes truly mean for the future of movies .
Theaters and theater chains are in danger of going out of business completely .
Even when they do reopen , it will be a long time before they can open at full capacity .
And the fact that concessions are a big part of the theatrical business in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mask and munch popcorn at the same time — is another giant wrinkle .
Movie studios hold the cards for now , but they ’ re not immune to financial turmoil .
With the expensive , large-scale productions that keep the lights on experiencing not only delayed releases but also production challenges , it ’ s not clear how many studios will last , either .
Compact release windows and higher digital-rental fees , if audiences become accustomed to them , may start to seem inevitable .
There are more questions than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they know the future of movies right now is either a fool or trying to sell someone something .
Changes in Hollywood have almost always been propelled by new technologies and social norms , from the addition of sound to the changes in self-censorship models .
The advent of streaming is yet another chapter in that book .
But one thing is clear : The decision by one of the entertainment industry ’ s biggest businesses to deliver a tentpole release like Mulan to its digital service signals that the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contain it , is what ’ s shifting tectonic plates this time around .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Covid-19 pandemic has trashed the entertainment industry, and one of its highest-profile targets has been Disney’s live-action adaptation of Mulan. Originally slated to come out on March 27, the film’s theatrical debut was delayed until July 24, then August 21, before it was taken off the release calendar entirely.
But then, during an August 4 earnings call with investors, Disney executives announced that Mulan would be released on Disney+, the company’s streaming service. The film will begin streaming on Friday, September 4, and it will come with a fee attached: Subscribers who want to see it will pay an additional $29.99 to watch Mulan as a “premium” offering, three months before it becomes available to all Disney+ subscribers in December. In countries without access to Disney+ — including China, the country in which Mulan’s story is set — the film will arrive in theaters that same day.
Related How the coronavirus outbreak is roiling the film and entertainment industries
This is a big deal for Disney, which initially delayed Mulan’s release to ensure it could maximize the film’s profits with a theatrical release. But then theaters around the world closed down in March out of concerns for public health and safety, and they remain closed in many countries. With US theaters in a state of limbo heading into the fall, Disney’s new release plans are a kind of trial balloon that will indicate whether at-home audiences are willing to pay $29.99 for a short window of “premier access” to a movie they won’t even own.
That sounds like a lot of money, even if it’s still less than the cost of two or three movie tickets in many American cities. (The average price of a movie ticket nationwide in 2019 hovered around $9.) Without paying for marked-up concessions like popcorn and soda, Disney+ subscribers may even come out ahead, albeit without the theatrical experience. For some people, that may be enough; for others, the plethora of other at-home entertainment available on streaming platforms may suffice until the film is no longer a premium add-on.
Back when Disney announced its new release plan for Mulan in early August, CEO Bob Chapek said the company’s decision was driven by the Covid-19 pandemic and doesn’t represent a shift in Disney’s business model. But it’s easy to imagine that if Mulan is very successful on Disney+, the company will begin to ponder more permanent changes.
Regardless, the Mulan rollout is just one of several recent developments indicating that the pandemic has hastened seismic changes that industry insiders have long believed would eventually arrive.
On August 26, the summer’s other extensively delayed, high-profile release — Christopher Nolan’s thriller Tenet — opened in 70 international territories, ahead of a limited release in US theaters on September 3. The film was initially pushed back in the US to guarantee a simultaneous release worldwide. But as other countries reopened after lockdown, so did their movie theaters. Meanwhile, the majority of US theaters (with the exception of drive-ins) remain closed as multiple states suffer from spiking infection rates and few signs of the virus slowing.
Related Tenet will be released internationally first because the US is a mess
Previously, at the end of July, the theater chain AMC and Universal, one of Hollywood’s six major studios, announced they’d struck a deal to shorten the window of time that must pass between a movie’s theatrical and digital releases. Traditionally, a movie wouldn’t become available to watch on demand (on platforms such as iTunes and Amazon Prime) until months after it opened in theaters; but now, Universal’s movies can go digital a mere 17 days after debuting in AMC’s multiplexes. (AMC will share a cut of the profits.)
As the summer of 2020 winds down, it seems foolhardy to speculate about what these changes truly mean for the future of movies. Theaters and theater chains are in danger of going out of business completely. Even when they do reopen, it will be a long time before they can open at full capacity. And the fact that concessions are a big part of the theatrical business in the US — but you can’t wear a mask and munch popcorn at the same time — is another giant wrinkle. Movie studios hold the cards for now, but they’re not immune to financial turmoil. With the expensive, large-scale productions that keep the lights on experiencing not only delayed theatrical releases but production challenges, it’s not clear how many studios will survive, either. Shortened release windows and higher digital-rental fees, if audiences become accustomed to them, may start to seem inevitable.
There are currently more questions than answers about what will happen next, and anyone who acts as if they know the future of movies is either a fool or trying to sell something. Changes in Hollywood have almost always been propelled by new technologies and social norms, from the addition of sound to the evolution of self-censorship models. The advent of streaming is yet another chapter in that book. But one thing is clear: The decision by one of the entertainment industry’s biggest businesses to deliver a tentpole release like Mulan to its digital streaming service signals that the Covid-19 pandemic, and the US’s failure to contain it, is what’s shifting tectonic plates this time around.
Mulan will debut September 4 on Disney+, where it will be available to Disney+ subscribers for an additional one-time fee of $29.99.