vox--2020-01-25--Senate Republicans’ disingenuous outrage over Schiff’s “head on a pike” comment, briefly explained

During his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial on Friday , impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff made a comment that set some Republicans off .
“ CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that GOP senators were warned , ‘ Vote against the president — and your head will be on a pike , ’ ” he said .
“ Now , I don ’ t know if that ’ s true.
” He added , “ I hope it ’ s not true , ” before arguing that this is the sort of statement a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ king would make .
The outrage was swift — even inside the chamber .
Sen. Susan Collins shook her head , according to Politico , and loudly said , “ Not true.
” Others appeared similarly dismayed .
And the tone in the room apparently changed .
After lawmakers left the trial , several continued to voice their concerns .
“ I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on a pike .
That ’ s where he lost me , ” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of frustration and then cap it off with an insult , ” said Sen. James Lankford .
“ He has basically offended every Republican senator in there tonight , ” added Sen. John Barrasso .
While Republicans didn ’ t indicate how these comments would affect any potential vote on witnesses next week , they did latch onto them as a new way to criticize the Democrats ’ otherwise painstakingly thorough case for removal .
And in doing so , they obscured much of the context around them .
For one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not making the assertion himself .
Additionally , while the specific quote itself has spurred strong reactions for obvious reasons — the point it ’ s trying to make is one that ’ s an apparent political reality : If lawmakers break with Trump on impeachment , there will likely be backlash — whether that ’ s from the administration or the Republican base .
The pushback on Schiff echoed some of the attacks Republicans had levied against Rep. Jerry Nadler earlier in the week for violating Senate decorum : It felt like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discredit the Democratic arguments that had very little to do with the actual substance at all .
Republicans are under significant pressure to stick with the president House Democrats ’ reference to the CBS News report were in line with points that the impeachment managers made on Friday about the need for Congress to check the President , so he doesn ’ t act like a “ king ” or “ dictator.
” “ I was struck by the irony of the idea , when we ’ re talking about a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch , a head on a pike , ” Schiff said .
When lawmakers have opposed him in the past , Trump has , in fact , not exactly taken it too kindly .
Most recently , Rep. Matt Gaetz , a staunch Trump ally , voted in favor of checking presidential war powers when it comes to military action in Iran , a position that went against the White House ’ s .
“ White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s phone calls , text messages , ‘ smoke signals or his kneelings in the snow , ’ ” an official told The Washington Post after the vote took place .
Former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford , too , garnered severe blowback for his critiques of the president , who ultimately endorsed his primary challenger in 2018 .
Trump ’ s tendency to quash such opposition is well-known in Washington , Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) emphasized to reporters .
“ Well , that ’ s one of the worst kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and this president will do to someone who crosses him , and he ’ s made that clear from day one.
” Members of the Republican base , with whom Trump has an 88 percent approval rating , according to Gallup , have often rejected breaks with the president as well .
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis , a vulnerable Republican who initially refused to support Trump declaring a national emergency to fund the border wall , is among the lawmakers to experience the consequences of going against the president firsthand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he dealt with the threat of a potential primary challenger after announcing his opposition .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) has said that any Republican that does not vote in favor of calling Hunter Biden as a witness , if that question emerges , would be in electoral danger .
“ If you vote against Hunter Biden , you ’ re voting to lose your election , basically .
Seriously .
That ’ s what it is , ” he previously told Politico .
So while Schiff ’ s specific reference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even Republicans would seem to agree with the premise of its central metaphor .
Which makes the outrage over the lawmaker ’ s decision to include it in his arguments seem less about whether the report was true , and more about finding something to distract focus from the charges Trump faces .

During his closing arguments at the Senate impeachment trial on Friday, impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff made a comment that set some Republicans off.
“CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike,’” he said. “I don’t know if that’s true.”
He added, “I hope it’s not true,” before arguing that it was the sort of statement a president who believes himself to be a king would make.
The outrage was swift, even inside the chamber, where the tone of the proceedings reportedly changed.
Sen. Susan Collins shook her head, according to Politico, and loudly said, “Not true.” Others appeared similarly dismayed.
After lawmakers left the trial, several continued to voice their concerns. “I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on a pike. That’s where he lost me,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “Nothing like going through three days of frustration and then cap it off with an insult,” said Sen. James Lankford. “He has basically offended every Republican senator in there tonight,” added Sen. John Barrasso.
Though Republicans didn’t indicate how Schiff’s remarks would affect a potential vote on witnesses next week, they did latch on to them as a new means of criticizing the Democrats’ otherwise painstakingly thorough case for Trump’s removal. And in doing so, they obscured much of the context around the comments.
For one, Schiff was citing a news report, not making the assertion himself. Additionally, though the specific quote spurred strong reactions, the point it tried to make is one that’s an apparent political reality: If lawmakers break with Trump on impeachment, they will likely face backlash, whether from the administration or the Republican base.
The pushback on Schiff echoed some of the attacks Republicans had levied against Rep. Jerry Nadler earlier in the week for violating Senate decorum: It felt like Republicans were simply looking for a reason to discredit the Democratic arguments that had very little to do with their actual substance.
Republicans are under significant pressure to stick with the president
House Democrats’ reference to the CBS News report were in line with points the impeachment managers made on Friday about the need for Congress to check the president so that he doesn’t act like a “king” or “dictator.”
“I was struck by the irony of the idea, when we’re talking about a president who would make himself a monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch, a head on a pike,” Schiff said.
When lawmakers have opposed him in the past, Trump has, in fact, not taken kindly to it. Most recently, Rep. Matt Gaetz, a staunch Trump ally, voted in favor of checking presidential war powers when it comes to military action in Iran, a position that went against that of the White House. An unnamed senior White House official said the White House would not be returning Gaetz’s phone calls, text messages, “smoke signals or his kneelings in the snow,” the Washington Post reported after the vote.
Former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford also garnered severe blowback for his critiques of the president, who ultimately endorsed his primary challenger in 2018.
Trump’s tendency to quash such opposition is well-known in Washington, Sen. Dick Durbin emphasized to reporters. “Well, that’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, is what this White House and this president will do to someone who crosses him, and he’s made that clear from day one.”
Members of the Republican base, with whom Trump has an 88 percent approval rating, according to Gallup, have often rejected breaks with the president as well.
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a vulnerable Republican who initially refused to support Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to help fund the border wall, is another lawmaker who experienced the consequences of going against the president. Though Tillis ultimately reversed his position, he dealt with the threat of a potential primary challenger after announcing his opposition.
Sen. Rand Paul has said that any Republican who does not vote in favor of calling Hunter Biden as a witness, if that question emerges, would be in electoral danger. “If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” he previously told Politico.
So while Schiff’s specific reference to the CBS report might be in dispute, even Republicans would seem to agree with the premise of its central metaphor — which makes the outrage over his decision to include it in his arguments seem less about the report’s veracity and more about finding something to distract voters from the charges Trump faces.


vox--2020-01-25--Schiff closed his arguments with an emotional appeal, but GOP senators seem unmoved

House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff had a dire message for senators during his closing remarks in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial on Friday night : Removing Trump isn ’ t just about punishment for past behavior — it ’ s about the saving the future of American democracy as well .
Friday marked the final day of opening arguments for House impeachment managers , and for Schiff , who has taken on the role of lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial .
Since Wednesday , the House team has painstakingly built a case against Trump by detailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a White House visit from Ukraine as he sought political favors .
During his closing argument , Schiff had one request for senators : put politics aside .
“ Whether you like the president , or dislike the president , is immaterial .
It ’ s all about the Constitution and his misconduct , ” Schiff said .
“ What matters is whether he is a danger to the country , because he will do it again .
And none of us can have confidence , based on his record , that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is telling us every day that he will.
” The lawmaker pointed to the evidence compiled by his party as crystal-clear proof of Trump ’ s misconduct — which managers presented to the Senate in logical , chronological order .
And he reminded them the president has himself has released evidence of attempts to pressure Ukraine .
Schiff went on to argue that it is Congress ’ constitutional duty to hold presidents accountable for their actions , and pointed to polls that show Americans — Republican and Democrat — want both a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The American people do not agree on much , but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth — and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency , ” he said .
By not following the will of the people , Schiff said , senators place themselves in danger of all their other achievements being overshadowed by their removal vote .
Quoting Abraham Lincoln , Schiff said , “ Fellow citizens , we can not escape history , ” and told his Senate colleagues , “ Sometimes I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our conduct.
” As he invoked the disdain of future generations , Schiff also encouraged senators to think beyond the US ’ borders , noting that the country ’ s system of democracy has encouraged other countries in the past , while arguing it is in danger of doing so no longer .
“ The founders gave us more than words .
They gave us inspiration .
They may have receded into mythology , but they inspire us still .
And more than us , they inspire the rest of the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize what they see .
It ’ s a terrible tragedy for them ; it is a worst tragedy for us , ” he said .
And he closed with a request : “ Americans get a fair trial — and so I ask you , I implore you .
Give America a fair trial .
Give America a fair trial .
She ’ s worth it.
” The presentation was praised by Schiff ’ s Democratic colleagues , and the managers ’ work has been lauded throughout the week .
On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for telling senators , “ You know you can ’ t trust this president to do what ’ s right for this country , ” sparking the Twitter hashtag # RightMatters .
And several GOP lawmakers , including Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , commented on how much they respected the presentations of the managers .
But respect for the managers isn ’ t enough for the president ’ s removal .
In order for Trump to be removed , at least 20 GOP senators would have to break from their party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Republicans for his rhetoric in general , it isn ’ t clear he changed any minds .
In fact , Republicans found a lot to complain about Friday , with Sen. John Kennedy arguing the House Democrats ’ arguments went on too long — “ Very few souls are saved after the first 20 minutes of a sermon , ” Kennedy said — and others lamenting a lack of new evidence , like Sen. John Barrasso , who told reporters , “ They ran out of things to say three days ago.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has noted , Republicans would have been able to hear new evidence and testimony had they not blocked resolutions drafted by Senate Democrats calling for the consideration of both .
Those resolutions failed Tuesday and early Wednesday , with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promising to take up the issue of new witness testimony once senators have a chance to ask House impeachment managers and White House counsel questions , something expected to happen next week .
One remark of Schiff ’ s incensed Republicans in particular , however : his mention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ally told GOP senators “ vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.
” Journalists in the room noted Republican senators reacted strongly to Schiff bringing up the report , which he argued showed Trump sees himself as having the unchecked power of an absolute monarch .
And after the session concluded , GOP senators made their displeasure clear .
Alaska ’ s Sen. Lisa Murkowski , whose support Senate Democrats are counting on in their fight to include witnesses in the trial , said Schiff “ overreached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on the pike .
That ’ s where he lost me.
” “ I was visibly upset with it , ” Sen. James Lankford said .
“ That ’ s insulting and demeaning to everyone to say that we somehow live in fear and that the president has threatened all of us.
” And Barrasso said , “ Whatever gains he may have made , he lost all of it — plus some — tonight.
” A number of Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their seats , “ That ’ s not true.
” Even without the outrage over the pike comments , Schiff and his fellow impeachment managers were well aware of the pushback against their arguments .
Ahead of the trial , many Republicans , including McConnell , said they did not plan to be impartial jurors and suggested they would not vote to remove the president , regardless of the evidence the House presented .
There is no sign the managers ’ work changed this paradigm , meaning Trump ’ s acquittal still @ @ @ @

House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff had a dire message for senators during his closing remarks in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Friday night: Removing Trump isn’t just about punishment for past behavior — it’s about the saving the future of American democracy, too.
Friday marked the final day of opening arguments for House impeachment managers and for Schiff, who has taken on the role of lead prosecutor in the trial. Since Wednesday, the House team has painstakingly built a case against Trump by detailing his efforts to withhold military aid and a White House visit from Ukraine as he sought political favors. During his closing argument, Schiff had one request for senators: Put politics aside.
“Whether you like the president or dislike the president is immaterial. It’s all about the Constitution and his misconduct,” Schiff said. “What matters is whether he is a danger to the country, because he will do it again. And none of us have can have confidence, based on his record, that he will not do it again. Because he is telling us every day that he will.”
Schiff's closing: "It doesn't matter if you like him... what matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again." pic.twitter.com/EqtPXqM72C — Zach Wolf (@zbyronwolf) January 25, 2020
The lawmaker pointed to the evidence compiled by his party as crystal-clear proof of Trump’s misconduct, which managers presented to the Senate in logical, chronological order. He also reminded them that the president himself has released evidence of his attempts to pressure Ukraine.
Schiff argued it is Congress’ constitutional duty to hold presidents accountable for their actions, pointing to polls that show Americans both Republican and Democrat want a fair trial — and one that includes witnesses.
“The American people do not agree on much, but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth — and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency,” Schiff said.
By not following the will of the people, Schiff said, senators place themselves in danger of their other achievements being overshadowed by their removal vote. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, Schiff said, “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history,” and told his Senate colleagues, “Sometimes I think how unforgiving history can be of our conduct.”
As he invoked the disdain of future generations, Schiff encouraged senators to think beyond US borders, noting that the country’s system of democracy had encouraged other countries in the past and arguing it is in danger of doing so no longer.
“The founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They may have receded into mythology, but they inspire us still. And more than us, they inspire the rest of the world. ... And increasingly they don’t recognize what they see. It’s a terrible tragedy for them; it is a worst tragedy for us,” Schiff said.
He closed with a request: “Americans get a fair trial — and so I ask you, I implore you. Give America a fair trial. Give America a fair trial. She’s worth it.”
Schiff’s Democratic colleagues praised his closing arguments, and the work of House impeachment managers overall has been lauded throughout the week. On Thursday, for instance, Schiff went viral for telling senators, “You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” sparking the Twitter hashtag #RightMatters. Several GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), commented on how much they respected the managers’ presentations.
But respect for the managers isn’t enough for the president’s removal from office. In order for that to happen, at least 20 GOP senators would have to break from their party — and despite Schiff being praised by some Republicans for his general rhetoric, it isn’t clear he changed any minds.
Schiff gave a powerful closing argument, but Republicans appeared unmoved
In fact, Republicans found a lot to complain about Friday, with Sen. John Kennedy arguing that the House Democrats’ arguments went on too long — “Very few souls are saved after the first 20 minutes of a sermon,” Kennedy said — and others, like Sen. John Barrasso, lamenting a lack of new evidence.
“They ran out of things to say three days ago,” Barrasso told reporters.
As Vox’s Aaron Rupar has noted, Republicans would have been able to hear new evidence and testimony had they not blocked resolutions drafted by Senate Democrats calling for the consideration of both.
Those resolutions failed Tuesday and early Wednesday, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promising to take up the issue of new witness testimony once senators had a chance to ask questions of both House impeachment managers and White House counsel, something that’s expected to happen next week.
One particular remark of Schiff’s incensed Republicans, however: his mention of a CBS News report, which alleged a Trump ally told GOP senators that if they voted against the president, their “head will be on a pike.”
In opening statements, House managers examined the debunked conspiracy theories invoked by Pres. Trump.
A @POTUS confidant tells CBS News that GOP senators were warned: “vote against the president & your head will be on a pike.”
Here's @nancycordes https://t.co/LV1Y6QveIh pic.twitter.com/tLB9EpoWr8 — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 23, 2020
Journalists in the room noted Republican senators reacted strongly to Schiff’s mention of the report, which he argued showed how Trump sees himself as having the unchecked power of an absolute monarch. After the session concluded, GOP senators made their displeasure clear.
Alaska’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose support Senate Democrats are counting on in their fight to include witnesses in the trial, said Schiff “overreached,” adding, “I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on the pike. That’s where he lost me.”
“I was visibly upset with it,” Sen. James Lankford said. “That’s insulting and demeaning to everyone to say that we somehow live in fear and that the president has threatened all of us.”
And Barrasso said, “Whatever gains he may have made, he lost all of it — plus some — tonight.”
A number of Republican senators reportedly responded to Schiff from their seats, audibly saying, “That’s not true.”
Even without outrage over the pike comments, Schiff and his fellow impeachment managers were well aware of the pushback against their arguments. Ahead of the trial, many Republicans, including McConnell, said they did not plan to be impartial jurors and suggested they would not vote to remove the president, regardless of the evidence the House presented. There is no sign the managers’ work changed this paradigm, meaning Trump’s acquittal remains very likely.


The McConnell effect

The Senate trial is officially underway .
What ’ s happened so far ?
How will the trial proceed from @ @ @ @ @ will any Republicans defect ?
Vox ’ s Li Zhou has the answers on this @ @ @ @ @ Impeachment , Explained .
Then Andrew Prokop and I talk Mitch McConnell : who he @ @ @ @ @ , how he amassed so much power , and what his actions reveal about the @ @ @ @ @ .
Contrary to much of the rhetoric on the left , McConnell is not the @ @ @ @ @ ; he is merely a manifestation of the dysfunction that already exists .
You can @ @ @ @ @ on Apple , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get podcasts .

The Senate trial is officially underway. What’s happened so far? How will the trial proceed from here on out? And will any Republicans defect? Vox’s Li Zhou has the answers on this week’s episode of Impeachment, Explained.
Then Andrew Prokop and I talk Mitch McConnell: who he is, what motivates him, how he amassed so much power, and what his actions reveal about the underlying forces driving American politics. Contrary to much of the rhetoric on the left, McConnell is not the source of our political dysfunction; he is merely a manifestation of the dysfunction that already exists.
You can subscribe to Impeachment, Explained on Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get podcasts.


vox--2020-01-25--Books you can read about the US-Mexico border instead of American Dirt

Welcome to Vox ’ s weekly book link roundup , a curated selection of the internet ’ s best writing on books and related subjects .
Here ’ s the best the web has to offer for the week of January 19 , 2020 .
• Well , best beloveds , you may have heard a great deal of discussion about the new book American Dirt this week .
( If not and you need a primer , don ’ t worry , we explained the whole thing . )
Apropos of that controversy , the Texas Observer has rounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and immigration by Latinx authors : Racism and gatekeeping in the publishing industry are big , systemic problems ; at least American Dirt has started a much-needed conversation on the subject .
What can readers do ?
One small step is to commit to read more books by Latinx authors .
In service of that goal—and inspired by the recommendations writers are already trading on Twitter—we ’ ve put together a by-no-means-exhaustive list of 17 outstanding books on the border and immigration .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , our list skews toward Texans—but we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as genres ranging from fiction to memoir and poetry .
There ’ s no shortage of talented Latinx writers with all kinds of stories to tell .
Let ’ s make space for them .
• Also apropos of the American Dirt controversy , at Words Without Borders , M. Lynx Qualey considers which literature we expect to be “ humanizing ” : As Edward Said helped us see with Orientalism , people can be quite well versed in a foreign literature and use this knowledge to support real-life brutality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq War read my beloved Muhammad Khudayyir , although I hope they never had anything so beautiful in their hands .
Moreover , we usually ask literature to be humanizing only when it ’ s from Over There .
I have never heard of anyone asking French literature to humanize the French .
We can be awful , loud Americans in Paris ; of course , there might be consequences .
• Qualey also wrote at Book Riot this week .
She ’ s looking at the just-unsealed Nobel Prize nominations for 1969 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rage that Simone de Beauvoir did not win : So it is that we just found out—in mid-January 2020—which 103 authors were nominated in 1969 .
That was the year Irish absurdist Samuel Beckett won the prize .
One hundred and three is a good number of authors to choose from .
By comparison , there were 70 authors nominated in 1967 , a year that five women were nominated .
• Marlon James and his editor are starting a books podcast !
It ’ s called Marlon and Jake Read Dead People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times : Morrissey likened its tone to two friends “ sitting at a bar talking about their favorite football teams over beers.
” For James , this irreverent approach avoids the pitfalls associated with both sides of the ever-churning debate about the status of the literary canon .
“ Too often the canon means ‘ these books are untouchable and let ’ s talk about them in that way , ’ ” he said .
“ People fought about ‘ Moby-Dick ’ in the 1800s .
Why can ’ t we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the New York Times , Vanessa Friedman reports that fashion is having its Virginia Woolf moment : Or to be specific , the orchard of Woolf ’ s home in England , Monk ’ s House , did , as did her relationship with Vita Sackville-West and one of her most famous literary creations , the gender-bending time-traveling character Orlando .
Which is , perhaps , a clue to Woolf ’ s sudden super-relevance , given the broader conversation around gender , as well as the way digital life has collapsed time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from almost every era at once .
As the Givenchy show notes read , “ Hours , days and decades melt away.
” • At the Walrus , Philip Sayers thinks through a pile of recent novels in which men reckon with toxic masculinity : All three seek to put the reader into uncomfortably close proximity with ugly masculine entitlement and toxic behaviour .
These works of fiction add something important to the current conversation on masculinity .
Like Tolentino and McBee , they get that it ’ s all too easy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect for femininity .
If , as Tolentino argues , “ communication about morality ” has become rote , then perhaps we have to find new ways of communicating ; perhaps , in rethinking our language , we might equip ourselves for urgent moral action .
This is one way of understanding the work that literature can do .
• At Forge , the great Maris Kreizman walks us through how to find your next great read : The key is to find the right book for you—the book with that unquantifiable factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether it ’ s a smart new hardcover by a favorite reporter or a dog-eared copy of a Jacqueline Susann novel you found on the sidewalk .
Really , the point is to stay in love with books — that ’ s what will keep you reading in the post–book report era of your life .
• At the Millions , Clare Beams looks at the legacy of Amos Bronson Alcott ( father to Little Women author Louisa May Alcott ) and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody , the woman who chronicled said legacy : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real-life Bronson Alcott take the form of wonderings , additions , or , on one occasion , a lengthy bracketed aside : “ [ N.B .
I generally agree with the views that Mr. Alcott brings out from his pupils ; but in this instance I disagreed ; and I am inclined to think that he unconsciously led them into his own views ; by contradistinguishing mercy and justice… ] .
” Here is the set-apart space in Peabody ’ s own book where she permits herself to think her own thoughts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her worry about the way Alcott is reaching inside his students ’ heads and shaping their thoughts to mirror his own .
• At n+1 , the editors consider what happened to publishing in the 2010s : No one wakes up in the morning hoping to be as vapid as possible .
But eventually you internalize the squeeze .
Everyone down the chain adjusts their individual decisions to the whim of the retailer , or to their best guess at the whim of the retailer .
If it ’ s Barnes & Noble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t work , that the store won ’ t carry the title unless you change it .
If it ’ s Amazon , you may not hear anything at all .
You go back and adjust your list of wildly optimistic comparative titles — it ’ s The Big Short , but .
.
.
for meteorology !
But is anyone still talking about The Big Short ?
Maybe it ’ s Hillbilly Elegy , but for meteorology .
• Anne Brontë ’ s bicentennial was this month .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in defense of the least famous Brontë sister : Chronology can be cruel .
It couldn ’ t be otherwise , but it seems a pity that Anne Brontë ’ s bicentenary comes last , as if she is plodding patiently behind her bolder , flashier sisters , the way she is so often portrayed by biographers and critics .
But perhaps 2020 will turn out to be the best year to celebrate her work , as the # MeToo movement inspires searching , complicated literature , and gives us new ways of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passage in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall that feels almost painfully current .
And here ’ s the week in books at Vox : • It is absolutely fine to rip your books in half • The Hunger Games is getting a prequel that centers on the villain : a young President Snow • Anne Brontë is the least famous Brontë sister .
But she might have been the most radical .
• The controversy over the new immigration novel American Dirt , explained • Harvey Weinstein ’ s trial matters .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
As always , you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books .
Happy reading !

Welcome to Vox’s weekly book link roundup, a curated selection of the internet’s best writing on books and related subjects. Here’s the best the web has to offer for the week of January 19, 2020.
Well, best beloveds, you may have heard a great deal of discussion about the new book American Dirt this week. (If not and you need a primer, don’t worry, we explained the whole thing.) Apropos of that controversy, the Texas Observer has rounded up 17 books about the US-Mexico border and immigration by Latinx authors:
Racism and gatekeeping in the publishing industry are big, systemic problems; at least American Dirt has started a much-needed conversation on the subject. What can readers do? One small step is to commit to read more books by Latinx authors. In service of that goal—and inspired by the recommendations writers are already trading on Twitter—we’ve put together a by-no-means-exhaustive list of 17 outstanding books on the border and immigration. Perhaps unsurprisingly, our list skews toward Texans—but we’ve also included authors from elsewhere, as well as genres ranging from fiction to memoir and poetry. There’s no shortage of talented Latinx writers with all kinds of stories to tell. Let’s make space for them.
Also apropos of the American Dirt controversy, at Words Without Borders, M. Lynx Qualey considers which literature we expect to be “humanizing”:
As Edward Said helped us see with Orientalism, people can be quite well versed in a foreign literature and use this knowledge to support real-life brutality. Perhaps some of the architects of the Iraq War read my beloved Muhammad Khudayyir, although I hope they never had anything so beautiful in their hands. Moreover, we usually ask literature to be humanizing only when it’s from Over There. I have never heard of anyone asking French literature to humanize the French. We can be awful, loud Americans in Paris; of course, there might be consequences.
Qualey also wrote at Book Riot this week. She’s looking at the just-unsealed Nobel Prize nominations for 1969, and now I am filled with rage that Simone de Beauvoir did not win:
So it is that we just found out—in mid-January 2020—which 103 authors were nominated in 1969. That was the year Irish absurdist Samuel Beckett won the prize. One hundred and three is a good number of authors to choose from. By comparison, there were 70 authors nominated in 1967, a year that five women were nominated.
Marlon James and his editor are starting a books podcast! It’s called Marlon and Jake Read Dead People. They talked about it with the New York Times:
Morrissey likened its tone to two friends “sitting at a bar talking about their favorite football teams over beers.” For James, this irreverent approach avoids the pitfalls associated with both sides of the ever-churning debate about the status of the literary canon. “Too often the canon means ‘these books are untouchable and let’s talk about them in that way,’” he said. “People fought about ‘Moby-Dick’ in the 1800s. Why can’t we fight about it now?”
At the New York Times, Vanessa Friedman reports that fashion is having its Virginia Woolf moment:
Or to be specific, the orchard of Woolf’s home in England, Monk’s House, did, as did her relationship with Vita Sackville-West and one of her most famous literary creations, the gender-bending time-traveling character Orlando. Which is, perhaps, a clue to Woolf’s sudden super-relevance, given the broader conversation around gender, as well as the way digital life has collapsed time, allowing everyone access to almost everything from almost every era at once. As the Givenchy show notes read, “Hours, days and decades melt away.”
At the Walrus, Philip Sayers thinks through a pile of recent novels in which men reckon with toxic masculinity:
All three seek to put the reader into uncomfortably close proximity with ugly masculine entitlement and toxic behaviour. These works of fiction add something important to the current conversation on masculinity. Like Tolentino and McBee, they get that it’s all too easy to fall back on the empty rhetoric of respect for femininity. If, as Tolentino argues, “communication about morality” has become rote, then perhaps we have to find new ways of communicating; perhaps, in rethinking our language, we might equip ourselves for urgent moral action. This is one way of understanding the work that literature can do.
At Forge, the great Maris Kreizman walks us through how to find your next great read:
The key is to find the right book for you—the book with that unquantifiable factor that in some way excites you, whether it’s a smart new hardcover by a favorite reporter or a dog-eared copy of a Jacqueline Susann novel you found on the sidewalk. Really, the point is to stay in love with books — that’s what will keep you reading in the post–book report era of your life.
At the Millions, Clare Beams looks at the legacy of Amos Bronson Alcott (father to Little Women author Louisa May Alcott) and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, the woman who chronicled said legacy:
Elizabeth Peabody’s disagreements with the real-life Bronson Alcott take the form of wonderings, additions, or, on one occasion, a lengthy bracketed aside: “[N.B. I generally agree with the views that Mr. Alcott brings out from his pupils; but in this instance I disagreed; and I am inclined to think that he unconsciously led them into his own views; by contradistinguishing mercy and justice…].” Here is the set-apart space in Peabody’s own book where she permits herself to think her own thoughts. Here and only here can she express her worry about the way Alcott is reaching inside his students’ heads and shaping their thoughts to mirror his own.
At n+1, the editors consider what happened to publishing in the 2010s:
No one wakes up in the morning hoping to be as vapid as possible. But eventually you internalize the squeeze. Everyone down the chain adjusts their individual decisions to the whim of the retailer, or to their best guess at the whim of the retailer. If it’s Barnes & Noble, you may hear that a cover doesn’t work, that the store won’t carry the title unless you change it. If it’s Amazon, you may not hear anything at all. You go back and adjust your list of wildly optimistic comparative titles — it’s The Big Short, but . . . for meteorology! But is anyone still talking about The Big Short? Maybe it’s Hillbilly Elegy, but for meteorology.
Anne Brontë’s bicentennial was this month. At the Times Literary Supplement, Samantha Ellis writes in defense of the least famous Brontë sister:
Chronology can be cruel. It couldn’t be otherwise, but it seems a pity that Anne Brontë’s bicentenary comes last, as if she is plodding patiently behind her bolder, flashier sisters, the way she is so often portrayed by biographers and critics. But perhaps 2020 will turn out to be the best year to celebrate her work, as the #MeToo movement inspires searching, complicated literature, and gives us new ways of reading the Victorians. There is a passage in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall that feels almost painfully current.
And here’s the week in books at Vox:
As always, you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books. Happy reading!


vox--2020-01-26--In Dick Johnson Is Dead, a father and daughter imagine his death with humor and love

Watching Kirsten Johnson ’ s 2016 directorial debut , Cameraperson , I found myself thinking both of St. Augustine and of Jacques Derrida , who wrote that photographs were tightly knit with death .
Looking at an image , Derrida said , you are seeing not exactly a person but the body of a person , frozen in time , disconnected from their full being , which reminds you of both their death and of your own .
And in Camera Lucida , Roland Barthes ’ s book on photography written in the wake of his mother ’ s death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linking reminders of mortality and the images that photographs produce .
Cameraperson was one of the best films of the 2010s , a memoir of Johnson ’ s decades working as a documentary cameraperson .
Stitched together mostly from footage from prior projects that had landed on the cutting room floor , the film explores — in a way that evokes Derrida and Barthes — how an image can turn a person into an object to be looked at .
A corpse , rather than a being .
The move from Cameraperson to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , feels natural ; it ’ s called Dick Johnson Is Dead , and in it , Johnson zooms in on her aging father and her relationship with him as they both begin to come to terms with his inevitable eventual passing .
Dick Johnson Is Dead is a little hard to describe in detail , because some of the joy of the movie comes from experiencing Kirsten ’ s and Dick ’ s exploration process as creative collaborators , right alongside them .
( I guess what I ’ m saying is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoil it for you . )
It ’ s a very playful film .
In some sequences , Johnson stages her father ’ s arrival in heaven .
In others , we ’ re not sure if we ’ re looking at something that really happened or something that ’ s imagined .
Some scenes are shot in a vérité style as Dick plays with his grandchildren , or packs up his office after retiring , or talks about his late wife , Kirsten ’ s mother , who had Alzheimer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone who ’ s lost a parent — and , I suspect , a lot of people who haven ’ t — Dick Johnson Is Dead feels more like a gift than a harrowing viewing experience .
We are invited into the intimate experience of helplessly watching someone , or even ourselves , lose the capacities they once had and face what that means .
But the presentation of this uncomfortable truth is accomplished with generosity and love .
And most of all , Dick Johnson Is Dead is an exercise in imagination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death of a loved one and their hopes for the hereafter might magnify or blunt the blow of death when it finally comes .
( Johnson ’ s parents are devout Seventh-Day Adventists , the faith she was raised in , and the ways belief and doubt shape how we confront death are an important part of the movie . )
Which means that in some ways Dick Johnson Is Dead is a gentle rebuke to Derrida ’ s and Barthes ’ s ideas about the link between images of people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a counterpoint to the idea that this is something to fear .
American culture fears death , hides it , tries to forget it ’ s going to happen , and goes to great lengths to stave it off .
But Dick Johnson Is Dead suggests that learning to confront reminders of death , to even conjure them for yourself and examine them closely , takes some of the sting out of death and replaces it with love .
To love someone is to accept that one day , death will part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of knowing that is built into the act of loving .
But we go on loving anyway .
Dick Johnson Is Dead premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January .
It will begin streaming on Netflix in 2020 .

Watching Kirsten Johnson’s 2016 directorial debut, Cameraperson, I found myself thinking both of St. Augustine and of Jacques Derrida, who wrote that photographs were tightly knit with death. Looking at an image, Derrida said, you are seeing not exactly a person but the body of a person, frozen in time, disconnected from their full being, which reminds you of both their death and of your own. And in Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes’s book on photography written in the wake of his mother’s death, Barthes comes to similar conclusions, linking reminders of mortality and the images that photographs produce.
Cameraperson was one of the best films of the 2010s, a memoir of Johnson’s decades working as a documentary cameraperson. Stitched together mostly from footage from prior projects that had landed on the cutting room floor, the film explores — in a way that evokes Derrida and Barthes — how an image can turn a person into an object to be looked at. A corpse, rather than a being.
Rating: 5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
The move from Cameraperson to Johnson’s second feature, then, feels natural; it’s called Dick Johnson Is Dead, and in it, Johnson zooms in on her aging father and her relationship with him as they both begin to come to terms with his inevitable eventual passing.
Dick Johnson Is Dead is a little hard to describe in detail, because some of the joy of the movie comes from experiencing Kirsten’s and Dick’s exploration process as creative collaborators, right alongside them. (I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t want to spoil it for you.) It’s a very playful film. In some sequences, Johnson stages her father’s arrival in heaven. In others, we’re not sure if we’re looking at something that really happened or something that’s imagined. Some scenes are shot in a vérité style as Dick plays with his grandchildren, or packs up his office after retiring, or talks about his late wife, Kirsten’s mother, who had Alzheimer’s and died several years ago.
For anyone who’s lost a parent — and, I suspect, a lot of people who haven’t — Dick Johnson Is Dead feels more like a gift than a harrowing viewing experience. We are invited into the intimate experience of helplessly watching someone, or even ourselves, lose the capacities they once had and face what that means. But the presentation of this uncomfortable truth is accomplished with generosity and love.
And most of all, Dick Johnson Is Dead is an exercise in imagination, and an inquiry into whether imagining the death of a loved one and their hopes for the hereafter might magnify or blunt the blow of death when it finally comes. (Johnson’s parents are devout Seventh-Day Adventists, the faith she was raised in, and the ways belief and doubt shape how we confront death are an important part of the movie.)
Which means that in some ways Dick Johnson Is Dead is a gentle rebuke to Derrida’s and Barthes’s ideas about the link between images of people and mortality — or maybe, more accurately, a counterpoint to the idea that this is something to fear.
American culture fears death, hides it, tries to forget it’s going to happen, and goes to great lengths to stave it off. But Dick Johnson Is Dead suggests that learning to confront reminders of death, to even conjure them for yourself and examine them closely, takes some of the sting out of death and replaces it with love. To love someone is to accept that one day, death will part the two of you. The pain of knowing that is built into the act of loving. But we go on loving anyway.
Dick Johnson Is Dead premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January. It is now streaming on Netflix.


vox--2020-01-26--The next Democratic debate will take place right before the New Hampshire primary

The next Democratic debate will take place after the first voters have already weighed in on the 2020 race .
Slated for February 7 in Manchester , New Hampshire , the debate is the first of a trio happening that month as individuals in all four early states head to the polls ( or caucuses ) .
Scheduled just days after Iowa ’ s caucuses and less than a week before New Hampshire ’ s February 11 primary , the debate , hosted by ABC , WMUR-TV , and Apple News , is poised to inform last-minute voter decisions both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen reports , roughly two-thirds of voters in New Hampshire still haven ’ t made a final decision about their top candidate .
It ’ s possible candidates ’ last-ditch debate appearances — and arguments — could make the difference .
In the first debate after votes are cast in Iowa , candidates will for the first time in the 2020 primary race have two distinct pathways to making the stage .
The first option is to meet a delegate threshold : Any candidate who leaves Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic National Convention will automatically have a spot on the stage .
The second pathway is identical to the standards put in place by the Democratic National Committee for the seventh debate in January : Candidates must achieve 225,00 unique donors and poll either at 5 percent or better in four qualifying national or early-state polls , or at 7 percent in two qualifying early-state polls .
The deadline to qualify for the eighth Democratic debate is midnight on February 6 , the day before the debate is scheduled to take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place next month are slated for February 19 and 25 in Las Vegas and Charleston , South Carolina , respectively .
Currently , the set of candidates who have qualified to be on stage in the first of three February debates is the same as this month ’ s debate : Similarly , a slew of remaining candidates could get left out once again : The state of the race , briefly explained There ’ s a four-way race for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire : A recent poll from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren , Buttigieg , and Biden are all within striking distance of one another in Iowa .
Similarly , in New Hampshire , those same frontrunners are polling very closely with one another , with Sanders leading the RealClearPolitics average in both states .
...
But voters are still making up their minds : Even though we ’ re just weeks away from voters heading to the polls , the race is still very fluid as a majority of people continue to finalize their candidate of choice .
These last-minute debates could well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for voters who might be torn between a subset of the remaining candidates .
Three of the top five contenders are going to be rather busy for the next couple weeks : Impeachment continues to remain a wild card as the 2020 race continues , largely because a trial will keep three of the top five candidates off the campaign trail for part of the time .
Sens .
Sanders , Warren , and Klobuchar will need to stay in Washington while the trial is taking place in the coming weeks , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the downtime they might have .
As the trial rules dictate , however , the proceedings could take place six days a week , eating up valuable campaign opportunities .
The field keeps getting whiter : Sen. Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 race , and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro recently did as well , the latest candidates of color to leave a field once hailed as the most diverse ever .
Experts tell Vox that the dominance of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 90 percent white — set the tone for evaluations of candidates ’ electability , and in doing so could wind up hurting candidates of color .

The next Democratic debate will take place after the first voters have already weighed in on the 2020 race. Slated for February 7 in Manchester, New Hampshire, the debate is the first of a trio happening that month as individuals in all four early states head to the polls (or caucuses). The debate’s start time will be 8 pm ET; it’s expected to run for about three hours.
Scheduled just days after Iowa’s caucuses and less than a week before New Hampshire’s February 11 primary, the debate, hosted by ABC, WMUR-TV, and Apple News, is poised to inform last-minute voter decisions both in the state and across the country. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen reports, roughly two-thirds of voters in New Hampshire still haven’t made a final decision about their top candidate. It’s possible candidates’ last-ditch debate appearances — and arguments — could make the difference.
In the first debate after votes are cast in Iowa, candidates will for the first time in the 2020 primary race have two distinct pathways to making the stage. The first option is to meet a delegate threshold: Any candidate who leaves Iowa with at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention will automatically have a spot on the stage.
The second pathway is identical to the standards put in place by the Democratic National Committee for the seventh debate in January: Candidates must achieve 225,000 unique donors and poll either at 5 percent or better in four qualifying national or early-state polls, or at 7 percent in two qualifying early-state polls.
The deadline to qualify for the eighth Democratic debate is midnight on February 6, the day before the debate is scheduled to take place.
The other debates set to take place next month are slated for February 19 and 25 in Las Vegas and Charleston, South Carolina, respectively.
Currently, the set of candidates who have qualified to be on stage in the first of three February debates is one larger than this month’s debate:
Similarly, a slew of remaining candidates could get left out once again:
The state of the race, briefly explained
There’s a four-way race for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire: A recent poll from the Des Moines Register found that Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden are all within striking distance of one another in Iowa. Similarly, in New Hampshire, those same frontrunners are polling very closely with one another, with Sanders leading the RealClearPolitics average in both states.
... But voters are still making up their minds: Even though we’re just weeks away from voters heading to the polls, the race is still very fluid as a majority of people continue to finalize their candidate of choice. These last-minute debates could well play a significant role in these decisions for voters who might be torn between a subset of the remaining candidates.
Three of the top five contenders are going to be rather busy for the next couple weeks: Impeachment continues to remain a wild card as the 2020 race continues, largely because a trial will keep three of the top five candidates off the campaign trail for part of the time. Sens. Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar will need to stay in Washington while the trial is taking place in the coming weeks, though they’ll be able to campaign during the downtime they might have. As the trial rules dictate, however, the proceedings could take place six days a week, eating up valuable campaign opportunities.
The field keeps getting whiter: Sen. Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 race, and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro recently did as well, the latest candidates of color to leave a field once hailed as the most diverse ever. Experts tell Vox that the dominance of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — both states that are more than 90 percent white — set the tone for evaluations of candidates’ electability, and in doing so could wind up hurting candidates of color.


vox--2020-01-26--The difference between the Grammys’ Song, Album, and Record of the Year categories, explained

There are just four categories at the Grammy Awards where artists from all musical genres compete against each other — Album of the Year , Record of the Year , Song of the Year , and Best New Artist .
In these four races , country artists bump up against R & B musicians , and they both take on pop stars .
If an artist wins one of these awards , they 'll make headlines and get to give a nice long speech at the awards telecast .
But the Grammys ’ many , many categories are already steeped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four awards are no different .
With the exception of Best New Artist , it 's easy to confuse the other three .
Here 's everything you need to know to keep these categories straight .
The Album of the Year award is the most prestigious Grammy there is , the rough equivalent of the Best Picture Oscar .
The category honors an entire LP , from the first track to the last , and everything about the production of the album 's sound .
Originally , the Album of the Year award @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the creation of the album , and to the album 's producers .
But starting in 1999 , with Lauryn Hill 's win for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill , the sound engineers and mixers of the album have also been honored , as have any featured artists who appear on the album .
If you participated in the creation of the sound of the album , you get a golden gramophone .
However , the album 's songwriters are not included in this award .
How to remember it : The whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confuse Album of the Year with Record of the Year , since albums used to be on physical records and , thus , the two terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance .
But singles also used to be on physical records , and you would n't call a single song `` Album of the Year . ''
The 2020 nominees for Album of the Year are : • When We All Fall Asleep , Where Do We Go ?
— Billie Eilish • I Used to Know Her — H.E.R .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Song of the Year , since both awards go to individual songs .
But the distinction is actually pretty simple to remember .
The Record of the Year honors , first and foremost , the performing artist .
Song of the Year honors the songwriter .
Record of the Year is given to the performing artist , the producers , the sound engineers , the master engineer , and the sound mixers .
The award directly correlates with the way song copyrights are created .
For every song , there are at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the songwriter , and the second goes to the performer .
Those copyrights determine how a song ’ s contributors get paid , and how much they are paid .
The people who make the sound of the song ( not the words and melody ) , own the `` Sound Recording '' copyright .
Hence , Record of the Year .
How to remember it : Instead of thinking of `` record '' as a physical , spinning record , think of it as the product of a recording studio .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ studio working on the Record of the Year–winning song receives a golden gramophone for this award .
The 2020 nominees for Record of the Year are : The Song of the Year Grammy does n't actually honor the performer of the winning song .
Instead , it goes to the people who wrote the song .
It 's easy to get this award confused with Record of the Year because there is often overlap in who is accepting the award .
For example , if an artist has songwriting credit on their nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the artist might accept the award and give the speech .
But they are receiving the award for writing and constructing the song , not for their performance of it .
Legally , this side of the copyright is known as the mechanical copyright .
( Its name stems from the invention of mechanical pianos . )
That copyright only goes to the songwriter , as does this award .
How to remember it : Try to think of it as Songwriter of the Year , rather than just Song .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are : • “ Always Remember Us This Way ” — Natalie Hemby , Lady Gaga , Hillary Lindsey , and Lori McKenna , songwriters ( Lady Gaga ) • “ Hard Place ” — Ruby Amanfu , Sam Ashworth , D. Arcelious Harris .
H.E.R.
, and Rodney Jerkins , songwriters ( H.E.R . )

There are just four categories at the Grammy Awards where artists from all musical genres compete against one another — Album of the Year, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, and Best New Artist. In these four races, country artists bump up against R&B musicians, and they both take on pop stars. If an artist wins one of these awards, they'll make headlines and get to give a nice speech during the awards telecast.
But the Grammys’ many, many categories are already steeped in confusing industry-speak, and the top four awards are no different. With the exception of Best New Artist, it's easy to confuse the other three.
Here's everything you need to know to keep these categories straight.
Related 10 winners and 1 giant loser from the mostly enjoyable 2021 Grammys
Album of the Year
The Album of the Year award is the most prestigious Grammy there is, the rough equivalent of the Best Picture Oscar. The category honors an entire LP, from the first track to the last, and everything about the production of the album's sound.
Originally, the Album of the Year award went only to the album’s main artist. Today, the album’s producers, sound engineers, mixers, and songwriters are also honored, as are any featured artists who appear on the album. Generally, if you participated in creating a significant portion of the album (defined as at least 33 percent of its playing time), you get a golden gramophone.
How to remember it: The whole album gets an award! Some people confuse Album of the Year with Record of the Year, since albums used to be on physical records, and the two terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance. But singles also used to be on physical records, and you wouldn't call a single song "Album of the Year."
The 2021 nominees for Album of the Year are:
Folklore — Taylor Swift — WINNER
Future Nostalgia — Dua Lipa
Women in Music Part III — Haim
Everyday Life — Coldplay
Chilombo — Jhené Aiko
Black Pumas (Deluxe Edition) — Black Pumas
Hollywood’s Bleeding — Post Malone
Djesse Vol. 3 — Jacob Collier
Record of the Year
Record of the Year is often confused with Song of the Year, since both awards go to individual songs. But the distinction is actually somewhat simple. The Record of the Year honors, first and foremost, the performing artist. Song of the Year honors the songwriter.
Record of the Year is given to the performing artist, the producers, the sound engineers, the master engineer, and the sound mixers.
How to remember it: Instead of thinking of "record" as a physical, spinning record, think of it as the product of a recording studio. Everyone who would be in a recording studio working on the Record of the Year–winning song receives a golden gramophone for this award.
The 2021 nominees for Record of the Year are:
“Colors” — Black Pumas
“Black Parade” — Beyoncé
“Rockstar” — Da Baby feat. Roddy Rich
“Say So” — Doja Cat
“Everything I Wanted” — Billie Eilish — WINNER
“Don’t Start Now” — Dua Lipa
“Circles” — Post Malone
“Savage” — Megan Thee Stallion feat. Beyoncé
Song of the Year
The Song of the Year Grammy doesn't actually honor the performer of the winning song. Instead, it goes to the person or people who wrote the song.
It's easy to confuse this award with Record of the Year because there is often overlap in who is accepting the award. For example, if an artist has songwriting credit on their nominated song — a pretty common occurrence — then the artist might accept the award and give the speech. But they are receiving the award for writing and constructing the song’s lyrics and melodies, not for their performance of the song.
How to remember it: Try to think of it as Songwriter of the Year, rather than just Song.
The 2021 nominees for Song of the Year are:
“Black Parade” — Denisia Andrews, Beyoncé, Stephen Bray, Shawn Carter, Brittany Coney, Derek James Dixie, Akil King, Kim “Kaydence” Krysiuk, and Rickie “Caso” Tice (Beyoncé)
“The Box” — Samuel Gloade and Rodrick Moore (Roddy Ricch)
“Cardigan” — Aaron Dessner and Taylor Swift (Taylor Swift)
“Circles” — Louis Bell, Adam Feeney, Kaan Gunesberk, Austin Post, and Billy Walsh (Post Malone)
“Don’t Start Now” — Caroline Ailin, Ian Kirkpatrick, Dua Lipa, and Emily Warren (Dua Lipa)
“Everything I Wanted” — Billie Eilish O’Connell and Finneas O’Connell (Billie Eilish)
“I Can’t Breathe” — Dernst Emile II, H.E.R., and Tiara Thomas (H.E.R.) — WINNER
“If the World Was Ending” — Julia Michaels and JP Saxe (JP Saxe Featuring Julia Michaels)


vox--2020-01-26--The 2020 Grammys’ sexual harassment and corruption controversy, explained

The music industry is set to celebrate its brightest stars , showcase its breakthrough new artists , and honor musical legacies at the 62nd Grammy Awards on Sunday , but the star-studded ceremony is taking place amid controversy and explosive allegations that paint the Recording Academy ( which oversees the awards ) as a corrupt and sexist institution .
Earlier this month , the Recording Academy ’ s board of trustees abruptly placed CEO Deborah Dugan on leave after the Academy said an assistant had accused her of bullying .
She had only held the position for five months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extensive complaint to the Los Angeles Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , saying she was suspended in retaliation for uncovering misconduct and corruption within the Recording Academy .
The complaint alleges that the Academy ’ s general counsel sexually harassed her ; that her predecessor as Academy CEO , Neil Portnow , had been accused of rape by an artist ( a charge Portnow has denied ) ; and that the Grammy nomination process had been unfairly manipulated .
The result is that , on a night that ’ s supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and influential artists , the biggest story is about the people behind the glamorous awards show and whether or not they deserve that privilege .
Dugan ’ s conflict with the Recording Academy exploded just five months into her tenure as CEO .
Dugan had replaced prior CEO Neil Portnow , who had been with the Recording Academy for 17 years ; the announcement was in April , and Dugan took over the role on August 1 .
Dugan was the first woman to ever serve as Recording Academy CEO , and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modernizing the organization , which historically has had a poor track record regarding diversity and inclusivity .
On January 16 , less than two weeks before the Grammys , the Recording Academy ’ s board of trustees placed Dugan on administrative leave , which the board said came “ in light of concerns raised to the Recording Academy board of trustees , including a formal allegation of misconduct by a senior female member of the Recording Academy team.
” The board said it had hired two independent investigators to look into the matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Billboard , that the investigation will conclude in early spring .
In response , Dugan filed a 44-page complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that her suspension was actually retaliation for fighting wrongdoing “ made possible by the ‘ boys ’ club ’ mentality and approach to governance at the Academy.
” Dugan ’ s complaint says that the Recording Academy staffer who accused her of bullying had previously worked for Portnow .
Dugan also alleges that the staffer ’ s work was not up to her standards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new position .
She says that board members responded to these allegations by taking away Dugan ’ s administrative powers within the Academy .
The New York Times reports : Dugan ’ s EEOC complaint also says that on December 22 , 2019 , she sent an email to Shonda Grant , the Recording Academy ’ s head of human resources , saying she had been sexually harassed by a lawyer who represents the Academy , while also alleging corruption and favoritism within the Grammy nomination process .
Perhaps the prime example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ Song of the Year ” award .
Dugan said that an artist was allowed to sit on the nomination committee , and even though that artist was ranked 18 out of 20 in the category , they still ended up with a nomination .
The complaint reads : Dugan ’ s complaint also says that the chair of the board was trying to ensure a $ 750,000 parachute for Portnow ’ s departure , by contracting him as a consultant after his exit — an exit the complaint says happened because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On January 25 , Dugan gave an extensive interview to the Los Angeles Times , in which she explained that her EEOC complaint was not about the Grammy Awards but about the Academy .
“ The ceremony is about the musicians and the fans .
I don ’ t want to taint that , ” Dugan said .
“ This is about the Recording Academy .
The Recording Academy must change .
To bring the Grammys down because of a few bad eggs [ at the Academy ] wouldn ’ t be fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is not something I would bring on myself and try to grab the limelight right before the Grammys , but I feel like there was a series of events , that I had to defend myself.
” Taylor Swift has reportedly canceled a surprise performance at the Grammys in solidarity with Dugan As Dugan ’ s fight with the Academy has unfolded , many artists have remained silent .
But some have publicly expressed support for Dugan , as have some staffers within the Recording Academy .
The Recording Academy Task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to improve diversity and inclusion within the Academy and which actually oversaw Dugan ’ s appointment to CEO , released a statement on January 23 voicing its shock and dismay over Dugan ’ s allegations .
It called upon the Academy ’ s board to implement a series of system-wide changes , including equal representation , hiring an outside advisor to review workplace culture , and changing the election system for board members .
Per that statement : On December 12 , 2019 , we issued a 47-page report , setting out 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve diversity and inclusion at the Academy , and drive constructive change across the music industry .
These new charges reinforce just how important and urgent it is that the Academy implement all of the changes in the report that we delivered — without any delay .
The Academy ’ s Board of Trustees and leadership must immediately commit themselves to real reform , take concrete steps to implement all of the Task Force reforms , and transparently and regularly report on their progress — including transparently reporting on the pending investigations they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force will be reconvening in 90 days and expects to hear progress from the Academy by that time .
Celebrities including Gabrielle Union and recording artists like Sheryl Crow and Public Enemy ’ s Chuck D have also supported Dugan .
Chuck D wrote on Instagram , “ I salute Deborah Dugan for her truth and courage to try and effect change .
As always , a bunch of ignorant , testosterone-fueled , usually old white men stop progress and screw it up .
Same old bullshit.
” In terms of the Grammys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced as performing have canceled .
However , Taylor Swift was reportedly going to appear as a surprise performer , but has pulled out in solidarity with Dugan , according to Variety .
Per the New York Post , Swift was expected to perform her song “ The Man , ” a tune about gender inequality and the double standards women are held to in society .
The song ’ s lyrics include : Neither Swift nor her representatives have commented on her reported cancelation .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn Dugan ’ s claims right into the spotlight at the Grammys , especially given her highly vocal stances on equality , sexism , and , of late , politics .
But even if no one directly mentions Dugan ’ s allegations during the Grammys ceremony , despite Dugan saying her complaints aren ’ t intended to taint the awards themselves , it ’ s impossible not to think about what ’ s going on behind the scenes .

The music industry is set to celebrate its brightest stars, showcase its breakthrough new artists, and honor musical legacies at the 62nd Grammy Awards on Sunday, but the star-studded ceremony is taking place amid controversy and explosive allegations that paint the Recording Academy (which oversees the awards) as a corrupt and sexist institution.
Earlier this month, the Recording Academy’s board of trustees abruptly placed CEO Deborah Dugan on leave after the Academy said an assistant had accused her of bullying. She had only held the position for five months.
Dugan has denied the charge and filed an extensive complaint to the Los Angeles Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying she was suspended in retaliation for uncovering misconduct and corruption within the Recording Academy. The complaint says that the Academy’s general counsel sexually harassed her; that her predecessor as Academy CEO, Neil Portnow, had been accused of rape by an artist (a charge Portnow has denied); and that the Grammy nomination process had been unfairly manipulated.
The result is that, on a night that’s supposed to be about music’s most important achievements and influential artists, the biggest story is about the people behind the glamorous awards show and whether or not they deserve that privilege.
Related The biggest stories headed into the 2020 Grammys
Deborah Dugan vs. the Recording Academy, explained
Dugan’s conflict with the Recording Academy came to a head just five months into her tenure as CEO. Dugan had replaced prior CEO Neil Portnow, who had been with the Recording Academy for 17 years; the announcement was in April, and Dugan took over the role on August 1. Dugan was the first woman to ever serve as Recording Academy CEO, and her appointment was seen as a step toward modernizing the organization, which historically has had a poor track record regarding diversity and inclusivity.
On January 16, less than two weeks before the Grammys, the Recording Academy’s board of trustees placed Dugan on administrative leave, which the board said came “in light of concerns raised to the Recording Academy board of trustees, including a formal allegation of misconduct by a senior female member of the Recording Academy team.” The board said it had hired two independent investigators to look into the matter, and it’s expected, according to Billboard, that the investigation will conclude in early spring.
In response, Dugan filed a 44-page complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission saying that her suspension was actually retaliation for fighting wrongdoing “made possible by the ‘boys’ club’ mentality and approach to governance at the Academy.”
Dugan’s complaint says that the Recording Academy staffer who accused her of bullying had previously worked for Portnow. Dugan also alleges that the staffer’s work was not up to her standards, and that she had offered the staffer a new position. She says that board members responded to these allegations by taking away Dugan’s administrative powers within the Academy. The New York Times reports:
Harvey Mason Jr., a record producer who is the board chairman, sent Ms. Dugan a letter on Dec. 9, informing her that she was no longer permitted to terminate staff members without board approval, and could not assign any new initiatives or choose any outside counsel for the academy’s legal work.
Dugan’s EEOC complaint also says that on December 22, 2019, she sent an email to Shonda Grant, the Recording Academy’s head of human resources, saying she had been sexually harassed by a lawyer who represents the Academy, while also alleging corruption and favoritism within the Grammy nomination process.
Perhaps the prime example of the alleged corruption was 2019’s “Song of the Year” award. Dugan said that an artist was allowed to sit on the nomination committee, and even though that artist was ranked 18 out of 20 in the category, they still ended up with a nomination. The complaint reads:
This artist was actually permitted to sit on the “Song of the Year” nomination committee. Incredibly, this artist is also represented by a member of the Board. As a result of the foregoing, it is not surprising that many high caliber artists who could have taken home the award in a specific category, have, at times, not been nominated at all.
Dugan’s complaint also says that the chair of the board was trying to ensure a $750,000 parachute for Portnow’s departure, by contracting him as a consultant after his exit — an exit the complaint says happened because of a rape allegation against Portnow:
In addition, the email complained that Ms. Dugan had been asked by the then-current Chair of the Board, John Poppo to hire former CEO Neil Portnow as a consultant for the hefty sum of $750,000. Mr. Portnow bowed away from the Academy in disgrace after making misogynistic remarks about woman recording artists. As Ms. Dugan came to learn after she agreed to take the CEO position (for which she was paid substantially less than her two male predecessors), Mr. Portnow also allegedly raped a female recording artist, which was, upon information and belief, the real reason his contract was not renewed.
On January 25, Dugan gave an extensive interview to the Los Angeles Times, in which she explained that her EEOC complaint was not about the Grammy Awards but about the Academy.
“The ceremony is about the musicians and the fans. I don’t want to taint that,” Dugan said. “This is about the Recording Academy. The Recording Academy must change. To bring the Grammys down because of a few bad eggs [at the Academy] wouldn’t be fair to the artists.”
She continued: “This is not something I would bring on myself and try to grab the limelight right before the Grammys, but I feel like there was a series of events, that I had to defend myself.”
Taylor Swift has reportedly canceled a surprise performance at the Grammys in solidarity with Dugan
As Dugan’s fight with the Academy has unfolded, many artists have remained silent. But some have publicly expressed support for Dugan, as have some staffers within the Recording Academy.
The Recording Academy Task Force on Diversity, formed in 2018 to improve diversity and inclusion within the Academy, released a statement on January 23 voicing its shock and dismay over Dugan’s allegations. It called upon the Academy’s board to implement a series of system-wide changes, including equal representation, hiring an outside adviser to review workplace culture, and changing the election system for board members:
On December 12, 2019, we issued a 47-page report, setting out 18 systemic changes we determined were needed to improve diversity and inclusion at the Academy, and drive constructive change across the music industry. These new charges reinforce just how important and urgent it is that the Academy implement all of the changes in the report that we delivered — without any delay. The Academy’s Board of Trustees and leadership must immediately commit themselves to real reform, take concrete steps to implement all of the Task Force reforms, and transparently and regularly report on their progress — including transparently reporting on the pending investigations they have announced are underway. The Task Force will be reconvening in 90 days and expects to hear progress from the Academy by that time.
Celebrities including Gabrielle Union and recording artists like Sheryl Crow and Public Enemy’s Chuck D have also supported Dugan. Chuck D wrote on Instagram, “I salute Deborah Dugan for her truth and courage to try and effect change. As always, a bunch of ignorant, testosterone-fueled, usually old white men stop progress and screw it up. Same old bullshit.”
In terms of the Grammys telecast, none of the artists previously announced as performing have canceled. However, Taylor Swift was reportedly going to appear as a surprise performer, but has pulled out in solidarity with Dugan, according to Variety. Per the New York Post, Swift was expected to perform her song “The Man,” a tune about gender inequality and the double standards women are held to in society. The song’s lyrics include:
If I was out flashin’ my dollars/ I’d be a bitch, not a baller/ They’d paint me out to be bad/ So it’s okay that I’m mad
Neither Swift nor her representatives have commented on her reported cancelation of a performance.
It’s not difficult to imagine how a performance from Swift might have drawn Dugan’s claims right into the spotlight at the Grammys, especially given her Swift’s public comments on equality, sexism, and, of late, politics.
But even if no one directly mentions Dugan’s allegations during the Grammys ceremony, despite Dugan saying her complaints aren’t intended to taint the awards themselves, it’s impossible not to think about what’s going on behind the scenes.