vox--2020-05-21--“It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong:” China moves to pass national security law

As Hong Kong approaches the anniversary of its massive pro-democracy protests , China is moving to impose a sweeping national security law that could directly undermine Hong Kong ’ s freedoms and special status , and inflame tensions after a year of political turmoil .
The National People ’ s Congress — a rubber stamp for the Chinese government — is set to pass legislation that is intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state .
That could directly target the antigovernment activists who have challenged Beijing ’ s authority .
The Chinese government has tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fomenting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong .
Hong Kong is supposed to be governed according to the “ one country , two systems ” rule .
The “ one country ” part means it is officially part of China , while the “ two systems ” part gives it a degree of autonomy , including rights like freedom of the press that are absent in mainland China .
China is supposed to abide by this arrangement until 2047 , but it has been eroding those freedoms and trying to bring Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Last spring , Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers .
That ignited massive protests , leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent .
The bill was withdrawn , but the demonstrations continued , as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong ’ s democratic institutions .
The coronavirus pandemic and the social distancing measures required to slow its spread put a lot of that public activism on hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and has used the pandemic to further crackdown on the pro-democracy movement , including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April .
Now , China has introduced this national security law , which is a much more direct step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years : one country , one system .
“ It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong , it ’ s nothing less than that , ” Alvin Y. H. Cheung , an affiliated scholar at NYU ’ s US-Asia Law Institute , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s moves are still unclear , including how it will be implemented and what the political and economic fallout for Hong Kong will be .
Pro-democracy advocates have denounced the legislation .
Beijing ’ s attempts to interfere in Hong Kong ’ s affairs in the past— the extradition rules being one , but far from the only , example — have fueled widespread resistance .
Samuel Chu , the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council , a US-based pro-democracy group , said China ’ s decision to step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully reign in Hong Kong .
“ I think that this — not only in a short-term way — will antagonize the pro-democracy movement even more , and would generate a kind of response that China is not prepared [ for ] .
” This has always been China ’ s plan — if not necessarily its playbook China has , at least rhetorically , honored the “ one country , two systems ” rule .
In practice , it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong .
But Beijing has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of its boldest moves have been met with resistance .
That includes a 2003 attempt to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution ) .
This would have also established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference , but the law got shelved after mass protests .
And in 2014 , when Beijing reneged on its promise to give Hong Kong universal suffrage , the Umbrella Revolution erupted .
And then , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass that controversial extradition bill , and months and months of demonstrations ensued .
For a long time , China and pro-Beijing lawmakers in Hong Kong continued to dream of passing a national security law under Hong Kong ’ s Article 23 , and Beijing had been prodding Hong Kong in recent weeks to take it up again .
But now , China is dispensing with all that , and doing it all itself .
Ho-Fung Hung , a professor of political economy at Johns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests , which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China .
“ It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests , ” Hung said .
“ Beijing didn ’ t want to reach that event .
Beijing even didn ’ t trust the local legislature , so it adopted this kind of extreme route to directly legislate.
” “ And it is a big risky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘ one country , two systems.
’ ” China ’ s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media , which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the coronavirus pandemic , and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions .
The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some cover to quell protests ( while also helping to successfully control the outbreak there ) .
But China had long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the protesters , or even more peaceful challenges to its authority , such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections .
And now , China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control .
“ It is such a big development because it ’ s basically Beijing asserting more fervently that ‘ no , we actually have this type of authority that we can impose on Hong Kong , ’ ” Jacob Stokes , a senior policy analyst for China at the US Institute of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the nominal idea of “ one country , two systems ” somewhat farcical , he added .
“ China ’ s sort of turning Hong Kong from what it was before and to , in a way , just another city in China , ” Stokes said .
“ And that ’ s what the protest movement is trying to avoid.
” What comes next ?
No one knows .
Though China ’ s planned action makes it clear that it has basically decided stop pretending that it cares about “ one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials are still trying to frame this rhetorically as strengthening and protecting Hong Kong ’ s government .
“ We will ensure the long-term stability of ‘ one country , two systems , ’ ” Wang Yang , head of the Chinese People ’ s Political Consultative Conference , said , according to the Washington Post .
What this means for Hong Kongers is still uncertain .
The law has not yet been approved , and the details are still fuzzy .
According to the New York Times , Chinese officials have indicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s led to unrest in Hong Kong .
But that is largely disinformation ; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance .
The law could have the chilling effect on dissent that China desires , snuffing out all but the most extreme protests .
The opposite also seems possible : that China ’ s actions — proof positive of why many Hongkongers felt they had to continue to protest — might escalate tensions even more .
Hong Kong had already been divided between two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who support the police ) and “ yellow ” ( those who support the protesters ) .
But many of those “ yellow ” backers disagreed with some of the Hong Kong protesters ’ more radical tactics , like storming the Legislative Council or occupying a university campus .
But China ’ s incursions may make it harder for pro-democracy Hongkongers to advocate for a more moderate stance .
“ They will eventually be pushed to become either totally pro-Beijing agenda , or pro-confrontational protesters , ” Hung , the Johns Hopkins professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disappearance of the middle ground and really will become more polarized.
” Many of Hong Kong ’ s protesters were young , fighting to preserve what freedom they had left .
“ All the things that were ostensibly promised are , as it turns out , just no longer there , ” Cheung said .
“ At this point , what do they have left to lose ?
It really is a powder keg now , and I dread to think how this will play out.
” The first real test for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Traditionally , Hong Kong hosts a vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre , Beijing ’ s June 4 , 1989 , bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters .
In China , the event has been scrubbed from history .
But in Hong Kong , thousands memorialize it .
Hong Kong ’ s social distancing measures banning mass gatherings are in effect until June 4 , though organizers have called on Hongkongers to “ be water , ” a reference to strategy the leaderless protesters used in Hong Kong throughout 2019 , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recognize the day .
Chu , the managing director of the US-based Hong Kong Democracy Council , said activists have recognized this could be the first year China prevents this gathering from happening .
“ Not allowing it to happen — again , I think it ’ s a lesson not learned well by the Hong Kong and Chinese government , that every time they prevent something this is exactly what galvanizes the grassroots.
” “ It ’ s going to be a little bit of test to see the reaction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think you will see the ongoing creativity and resilience continue.
” How will the rest of the world respond ?
China ’ s actions will test the international community .
The United Kingdom and the European Union both condemned the move .
US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement to Reuters that “ any effort to impose national security legislation that does not reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong would be highly destabilizing , and would be met with strong condemnation from the United States and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced this national security law , Pompeo had warned China against encroaching in Hong Kong , saying it could threaten the State Department ’ s review of Hong Kong ’ s special trade status , which grants exceptions on trade and commerce for Hong Kong that are not available to mainland China .
Last year , President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act , which requires the secretary of state to assess whether Hong Kong should still be granted special trade status under US law , based on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly autonomous and honoring the rule of law .
The law also calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong .
“ Our decision on whether or not to certify Hong Kong as having ‘ a high degree of autonomy ’ from China is still pending , ” Pompeo said at a press conference Wednesday .
“ We ’ re closely watching what ’ s going on there.
” Revoking Hong Kong ’ s status would be a dramatic step , with uncertain consequences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal to China , but it could have repercussions for both the US and Hong Kong .
The US could lose tens of billions in trade , and it could jeopardize Hong Kong ’ s standing as a global financial hub , dealing another blow to the city .
The Trump administration has recently been pushing back hard against China as it is considering ways of punishing Beijing for its early mishandling of the coronavirus .
That may motivate the US to take a tougher stance on Hong Kong .
At the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move , and Beijing may be betting that the US has too much at stake to take such a drastic step .
When asked about the proposed national security law on Thursday , Trump said he didn ’ t know what the US would do .
“ I don ’ t know what it is , because nobody knows yet .
If it happens , we ’ ll address that issue very strongly.
” The US may not want to exhaust this leverage .
It might also not also be ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong ’ s autonomy is completely lost .

As Hong Kong approaches the anniversary of its massive pro-democracy protests, China is moving to impose a sweeping national security law that could directly undermine Hong Kong’s freedoms and special status, and inflame tensions after a year of political turmoil.
The National People’s Congress — a rubber stamp for the Chinese government — is set to pass legislation that is intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state. That could directly target the anti-government activists who have challenged Beijing’s authority. The Chinese government has tried to blame outsiders, including the US, for fomenting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is supposed to be governed according to the “one country, two systems” rule. The “one country” part means it is officially part of China, while the “two systems” part gives it a degree of autonomy, including rights like freedom of the press that are absent in mainland China. China is supposed to abide by this arrangement until 2047, but it has been eroding those freedoms and trying to bring Hong Kong more tightly under its control for years.
Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn, but the demonstrations continued, as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.
The coronavirus pandemic and the social distancing measures required to slow its spread put a lot of that public activism on hold. But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement, including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April.
Now, China has introduced this national security law, which is a much more direct step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years: one country, one system.
“It is an official death sentence for Hong Kong; it’s nothing less than that,” Alvin Y. H. Cheung, an affiliated scholar at NYU’s US-Asia Law Institute, told me.
The full implications of Beijing’s moves are still unclear, including how it will be implemented and what the political and economic fallout for Hong Kong will be.
Pro-democracy advocates have denounced the legislation. Beijing’s attempts to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs in the past — the extradition rules being one, but far from the only, example — have fueled widespread resistance.
Samuel Chu, the managing director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a US-based pro-democracy group, said China’s decision to step in directly shows it has been unable to fully rein in Hong Kong. “I think that this — not only in a short-term way — will antagonize the pro-democracy movement even more, and would generate a kind of response that China is not prepared [for].”
This has always been China’s plan — if not necessarily its playbook
China has, at least rhetorically, honored the “one country, two systems” rule. In practice, it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong.
But Beijing has also had to tread carefully, as some of its boldest moves have been met with resistance. That includes a 2003 attempt to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution). This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference, but the law got shelved after mass protests.
And in 2014, when Beijing reneged on its promise to give Hong Kong universal suffrage, the Umbrella Revolution erupted. And then there was last summer, when Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass a controversial extradition bill, and months and months of demonstrations ensued.
For a long time, China and pro-Beijing lawmakers in Hong Kong continued to dream of passing a national security law under Hong Kong’s Article 23, and Beijing had been prodding Hong Kong in recent weeks to take it up again.
But now China is dispensing with all that, and doing it itself.
Ho-Fung Hung, a professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins University, said Beijing may have stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China.
“It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests,” Hung said. “Beijing didn’t want to reach that event. Beijing even didn’t trust the local legislature, so it adopted this kind of extreme route to directly legislate.”
“And it is a big, risky move,” he added, “because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘one country, two systems.’”
China’s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media, which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the coronavirus pandemic, and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions. The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some cover to quell protests (while also helping to successfully control the outbreak there).
But China had long made it clear it had no tolerance for the protesters, or even more peaceful challenges to its authority, such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections. And now China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control.
“It is such a big development because it’s basically Beijing asserting more fervently that, ‘No, we actually have this type of authority that we can impose on Hong Kong,’” Jacob Stokes, a senior policy analyst for China at the US Institute of Peace, told me.
It makes even the nominal idea of “one country, two systems” somewhat farcical, he added. “China’s sort of turning Hong Kong from what it was before into, in a way, just another city in China,” Stokes said. “And that’s what the protest movement is trying to avoid.”
What comes next? No one knows.
Though China’s planned action makes it clear that it has basically decided to stop pretending it cares about “one country, two systems,” its officials are still trying to frame this rhetorically as strengthening and protecting Hong Kong’s government.
“We will ensure the long-term stability of ‘one country, two systems,’” Wang Yang, head of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said, according to the Washington Post.
What this means for Hongkongers is still uncertain. The law has not yet been approved, and the details remain fuzzy. According to the New York Times, Chinese officials have indicated the law is targeting foreign influence that’s led to unrest in Hong Kong. But that is largely disinformation; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance.
The law could have the chilling effect on dissent that China desires, snuffing out all but the most extreme protests. The opposite also seems possible: that China’s actions — proof positive of why many Hongkongers felt they had to continue to protest — might escalate tensions even more.
Hong Kong had already been divided between two camps: “blue” (those who support the police) and “yellow” (those who support the protesters). But many of those “yellow” backers disagreed with some of the Hong Kong protesters’ more radical tactics, like storming the Legislative Council or occupying a university campus.
But China’s incursions may make it harder for pro-democracy Hongkongers to advocate for a more moderate stance. “They will eventually be pushed to become either totally pro-Beijing agenda or pro-confrontational protesters,” Hung, the Johns Hopkins professor, noted. “It’s the disappearance of the middle ground and really will become more polarized.”
Many of Hong Kong’s protesters were young, fighting to preserve what freedom they had left. “All the things that were ostensibly promised are, as it turns out, just no longer there,” Cheung said. “At this point, what do they have left to lose? It really is a powder keg now, and I dread to think how this will play out.”
The first real test for dissent in Hong Kong may come soon. Traditionally, Hong Kong hosts a vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre, Beijing’s June 4, 1989, bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.
In China, the event has been scrubbed from history. But in Hong Kong, thousands memorialize it. Hong Kong’s social distancing measures banning mass gatherings are in effect until June 4, though organizers have called on Hongkongers to “be water,” a reference to a strategy the leaderless protesters used in Hong Kong throughout 2019, and are calling for Hongkongers to find other ways to recognize the day.
Chu, the managing director of the US-based Hong Kong Democracy Council, said activists have recognized this could be the first year China prevents this gathering from happening.
“Not allowing it to happen — again, I think it’s a lesson not learned well by the Hong Kong and Chinese government, that every time they prevent something this is exactly what galvanizes the grassroots.”
“It’s going to be a little bit of test to see the reaction,” he added, “but I think you will see the ongoing creativity and resilience continue.”
How will the rest of the world respond?
China’s actions will test the international community. The United Kingdom and the European Union both condemned the move.
US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement to Reuters that “any effort to impose national security legislation that does not reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong would be highly destabilizing, and would be met with strong condemnation from the United States and the international community.”
A day before China announced this national security law, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned China against encroaching in Hong Kong, saying it could threaten the State Department’s review of Hong Kong’s special trade status, which grants exceptions on trade and commerce for Hong Kong that are not available to mainland China.
Last year, President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act, which requires the secretary of state to assess whether Hong Kong should still be granted special trade status under US law, based on whether Hong Kong’s government is still mostly autonomous and honoring the rule of law. The law also calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong.
“Our decision on whether or not to certify Hong Kong as having ‘a high degree of autonomy’ from China is still pending,” Pompeo said at a press conference Wednesday. “We’re closely watching what’s going on there.”
Revoking Hong Kong’s status would be a dramatic step, with uncertain consequences. It would undoubtedly send a strong signal to China, but it could have repercussions for both the US and Hong Kong. The US could lose tens of billions in trade, and it could jeopardize Hong Kong’s standing as a global financial hub, dealing another blow to the city.
The Trump administration has recently been pushing back hard against China as it is considering ways of punishing Beijing for its early mishandling of the coronavirus. That may motivate the US to take a tougher stance on Hong Kong. At the same time, China could retaliate for such a move, and Beijing may be betting that the US has too much at stake to take such a drastic step.
When asked about the proposed national security law on Thursday, Trump said he didn’t know what the US would do. “I don’t know what it is, because nobody knows yet. If it happens, we’ll address that issue very strongly.”
The US may not want to exhaust this leverage. It might also not be ready to say that, at this point, Hong Kong’s autonomy is completely lost.


vox--2020-05-21--The pandemic will put billionaires’ commitment to journalism to the test

Outrage may be flowing toward Laurene Powell Jobs , the majority owner of the Atlantic , after news came on Thursday that the magazine laid off almost 20 percent of its staff .
But she will not be the last billionaire owner of a major news outlet who will have to make hard decisions in the next few weeks .
Over the last decade , billionaires like Powell Jobs have picked up prestige media outlets and won respect from those who saw these deals as a form of civic leadership and public service .
Not every publication could get bought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but those that did were thought to have hit the jackpot .
This pandemic is going to put these billionaires ’ commitment to journalism to the test .
The Atlantic ’ s announcement that it was laying off 68 staffers sparked significant ire on Thursday toward Powell Jobs in particular and billionaires generally .
What ’ s the point of having a billionaire owner if they ’ re not going to spend their billions to keep their assets afloat ?
And that ’ s why it will be so revealing to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any differently than the hedge funds , public shareholders , or media conglomerates that own everything else .
Layoffs at the Atlantic — or those announced last month at Protocol , a just-launched tech publication owned by billionaire Roger Allbritton —show that a billionaire owner does not make a publication immune to a struggling economy .
As the coronavirus pandemic has shrunken the economy and advertising budgets , this has been hitting media outlets particularly hard , even those that have tried to grow their recurring-revenue models through subscriptions .
Marc Benioff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough decisions to make about Time magazine , the landmark publication he bought last year .
John Henry , the billionaire owner of the Red Sox , will have them at the Boston Globe that he bought in 2013 .
And Jeff Bezos , of course , will have them at the Washington Post that he bought that same year .
And what decisions these billionaires make will be telling about a larger trend : Have their purchases over the last few years been an expression of pure philanthropy — a charitable commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or at least are prepared to — as they and their admirers have made them out to be , or are they a financial investment and therefore subject to the same cold , hard math that applies to businesses like Amazon or Salesforce ?
Up until now , it hasn ’ t always been clear .
Billionaires have often cloaked these media bets with the language of philanthropy , even if recent decisions may test that rhetoric .
The dollars-and-cents priority has always lurked .
When the Atlantic deal was announced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one of the country ’ s most important and enduring journalistic institutions , ” and waxed eloquent about the publication ’ s 160-year history and ties to Ralph Waldo Emerson , after whom her philanthropy , Emerson Collective , is named .
When Benioff spent $ 190 million to buy Time , editors there said they felt confident that Benioff would be putting journalism above making money .
Benioff has promised to protect the magazine reporters ’ jobs through the end of June , but any long-term consequences are to be determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth matters .
Facts matter .
Values matter .
Whatever organization , business , or institution that we ’ re a part of , we need to realize that we are not separate from the larger social issues that surround us .
We have a responsibility not simply to make a profit , but to make the world a better place , ” Benioff wrote in Time last year , before calling for an investment in the free press .
“ That ’ s why my wife Lynne and I decided to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Always left unsaid in the press releases and interviews are the brand value and power that the rich have for generations reaped from owning publications .
Critics press that billionaire ownership of media outlets entrenches their power and presents conflicts of interest , but that prestige has , too , been an incentive .
But what gets forgotten amid the rhetoric of billionaires “ saving ” publications from despair is that these are businesses , and even billionaires are not endless wells of money .
When biopharma billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he envisioned it not as a philanthropic commitment but as an “ institutional public trust in a private setting , ” comparing it to Stanford or Harvard .
But he was clear that it had to become profitable .
His paper last month announced steep cuts , including a novel workshare program for its journalists .
One problem is that too many people saw these acquisitions as pure acts of billionaire benevolence — an idealistic notion that is already being given a reality check in the early days of the pandemic ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address a publication ’ s fundamental business problems might be doing a genuinely good deed for the world .
But these are businesspeople , and even that generosity will be strained and can prove temporary .
The most well-regarded , savviest billionaire owners , such as Bezos , have helped transform their publications for the digital age .
Their money facilitates long-term change .
There were indeed signs of a renaissance at the Atlantic , which has produced definitive stories about the pandemic and added 90,000 subscribers since March , for a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why so many people on Thursday were left scratching their heads .
One thing is for sure : The crisis created by the coronavirus for the economy and the media business is starting , not ending .
Over the next few months , the billionaires that have won our admiration for their civic virtue will tell us more with their actions than their words .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 consider making a contribution to Vox today @

Outrage may be flowing toward Laurene Powell Jobs, the majority owner of the Atlantic, after news came on Thursday that the magazine laid off almost 20 percent of its staff. But she will not be the last billionaire owner of a major news outlet who will have to make hard decisions in the next few weeks.
Over the last decade, billionaires like Powell Jobs have picked up prestige media outlets and won respect from those who saw these deals as a form of civic leadership and public service. Not every publication could get bought by a billionaire, to be sure, but those that did were thought to have hit the jackpot.
This pandemic is going to put these billionaires’ commitment to journalism to the test.
The Atlantic’s announcement that it was laying off 68 staffers sparked significant ire on Thursday toward Powell Jobs in particular and billionaires generally. What’s the point of having a billionaire owner if they’re not going to spend their billions to keep their assets afloat?
The Atlantic laying off tons of journalists and others .. why? Atlantics' philanthropist owner Laurene Powell Jobs has essentially unlimited money. For some perspective, Apple's stock price went up 1.2% this week, netting her an additional $144 million in just the last four days. — Lee Fang (@lhfang) May 21, 2020
And that’s why it will be so revealing to see whether the outlet-toting billionaires treat their employees any differently than the hedge funds, public shareholders, or media conglomerates that own everything else. Layoffs at the Atlantic — or those announced last month at Protocol, a just-launched tech publication owned by billionaire Roger Allbritton —show that a billionaire owner does not make a publication immune to a struggling economy.
As the coronavirus pandemic has shrunken the economy and advertising budgets, this has been hitting media outlets particularly hard, even those that have tried to grow their recurring-revenue models through subscriptions.
Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce, will have tough decisions to make about Time magazine, the landmark publication he bought last year. John Henry, the billionaire owner of the Red Sox, will have them at the Boston Globe that he bought in 2013. And Jeff Bezos, of course, will have them at the Washington Post that he bought that same year.
And what decisions these billionaires make will be telling about a larger trend: Have their purchases over the last few years been an expression of pure philanthropy — a charitable commitment that they expect to lose money on, or at least are prepared to — as they and their admirers have made them out to be, or are they a financial investment and therefore subject to the same cold, hard math that applies to businesses like Amazon or Salesforce?
Up until now, it hasn’t always been clear. Billionaires have often cloaked these media bets with the language of philanthropy, even if recent decisions may test that rhetoric. The dollars-and-cents priority has always lurked.
When the Atlantic deal was announced in 2017, Powell Jobs called the publication “one of the country’s most important and enduring journalistic institutions,” and waxed eloquent about the publication’s 160-year history and ties to Ralph Waldo Emerson, after whom her philanthropy, Emerson Collective, is named.
When Benioff spent $190 million to buy Time, editors there said they felt confident that Benioff would be putting journalism above making money. Benioff has promised to protect the magazine reporters’ jobs through the end of June, but any long-term consequences are to be determined.
“More than ever, the truth matters. Facts matter. Values matter. Whatever organization, business, or institution that we’re a part of, we need to realize that we are not separate from the larger social issues that surround us. We have a responsibility not simply to make a profit, but to make the world a better place,” Benioff wrote in Time last year, before calling for an investment in the free press. “That’s why my wife Lynne and I decided to become the owners of TIME one year ago.”
Always left unsaid in the press releases and interviews are the brand value and power that the rich have for generations reaped from owning publications. Critics press that billionaire ownership of media outlets entrenches their power and presents conflicts of interest, but that prestige has, too, been an incentive.
But what gets forgotten amid the rhetoric of billionaires “saving” publications from despair is that these are businesses, and even billionaires are not endless wells of money.
When biopharma billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the struggling Los Angeles Times, he said he envisioned it not as a philanthropic commitment but as an “institutional public trust in a private setting,” comparing it to Stanford or Harvard. But he was clear that it had to become profitable. His paper last month announced steep cuts, including a novel workshare program for its journalists.
One problem is that too many people saw these acquisitions as pure acts of billionaire benevolence — an idealistic notion that is already being given a reality check in the early days of the pandemic’s fallout. A billionaire who does not address a publication’s fundamental business problems might be doing a genuinely good deed for the world. But these are businesspeople, and even that generosity will be strained and can prove temporary. The most well-regarded, savviest billionaire owners, such as Bezos, have helped transform their publications for the digital age. Their money facilitates long-term change.
There were indeed signs of a renaissance at the Atlantic, which has produced definitive stories about the pandemic and added 90,000 subscribers since March, for a total of 450,000. And that’s why so many people on Thursday were left scratching their heads.
One thing is for sure: The crisis created by the coronavirus for the economy and the media business is starting, not ending. Over the next few months, the billionaires that have won our admiration for their civic virtue will tell us more with their actions than their words.


vox--2020-05-21--A painter tracked down the thief who stole her work. She discovered a muse.

Much thievery is committed with the aim of enriching somebody ’ s personal coffers , usually the thief ’ s .
And that ’ s true of some art theft as well ; paintings or sculptures are stolen so they can be sold on the black market , or used as a bargaining chip .
But sometimes art disappears for reasons that are difficult to understand .
On April 20 , 2015 , thieves made off with two paintings by the young Czech painter Barbora Kysilkova , who was exhibiting at Galleri Nobel in Oslo , Norway .
Kysilkova is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in emotionally charged moments , but she wasn ’ t particularly well-known at the time .
And the way the paintings were stolen was odd : Rather than simply cutting the canvases from their frames , the two thieves removed each staple , in a way that seemed to indicate , as news broadcasts noted , that one or both of them were professionals .
Kysilkova , who had moved to Oslo to be with her partner , was disheartened by the theft , especially because one of the paintings was personally significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in why anyone would steal those two paintings , and she wanted to meet the thieves .
She tracked down one of them , Karl-Bertil Nordland , an intelligent and tattooed Norwegian who was so high at the time , he told her , that he couldn ’ t remember why he did it — or what he did with the paintings .
Kysilkova , both extraordinarily empathetic and headstrong , found her interest turning from the stolen paintings to the stealer , and asked Nordland if she could paint his portrait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploded into tears .
And their friendship and creative partnership began to grow .
It sounds like the setup for a finely realized fictional drama , but it ’ s the true story that unfolds in The Painter and the Thief , a documentary that feels like an elegant fairy tale .
Directed by Benjamin Ree , the film follows Kysilkova and Nordland for several years as they meet , begin to work together , and develop a relationship both as painter and muse and as friends .
Nordland is a petty criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he meets Kysilkova .
But his life wasn ’ t always that way , he tells us ; he was an elite BMX biker and a talented carpenter at one time in his life .
Kysilkova finds him fascinating as a muse , but is frustrated with his habit of disappearing for days and his refusal to get help for his addiction — a refusal that eventually drives away his girlfriend as well .
After a horrible car accident , he lands in the hospital and then in prison .
Meanwhile , Kysilkova @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent on her studio and quibbles with her partner , who questions how healthy her interest in Nordland can be .
Ree follows quietly , invisible enough to his subjects that they frequently let their guards down .
We hear what Kysilkova and Nordland are thinking not just about themselves but about one another ; the story wraps back on itself several times to give us a different perspective and to let us see what it is to be Barbora the painter or Bertil the thief .
And that is what makes The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gripping : Through two different sets of eyes , we are asked to learn how to see .
A painter like Kysilkova trains themselves to notice and see the world in a different way from most people .
Several times during the film , Nordland says that he marvels at how she sees him .
But he sees her too — more keenly than she might imagine — and starts to understand what motivates her , what hurts her , and why she paints the world .
The Painter and the Thief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storytelling , and no wonder : It actively challenges what we think we understand about its characters based on their appearance , class markers , or behavior .
It highlights the way artists of all kinds , from painters to filmmakers , transform reality into something that ’ s at least a little fictionalized in order to make their work — and how everyone conceals the truth a little .
It also trains the audience , just a bit , on how to become people who see .
Whether it ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a painting or the perspective from which he frames and shoots Kysilkova ’ s and Nordland ’ s relationship , The Painter and the Thief coaxes its viewers to stop and pay attention to the world in order to learn to love it .
By the time the breathtaking final moment arrives , we have learned , a little better , how to really look at the world , as a lover of both beauty and the strange bits of ourselves that make us really human .
The Painter and the Thief opens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital platforms , including iTunes , Fandango Now , and Google Play .
Some virtual screenings on opening weekend also involve Q & As with filmmakers and subjects ( one moderated by me ) .
See the film ’ s website for full details .
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 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 .

Much thievery is committed with the aim of enriching somebody’s personal coffers, usually the thief’s. And that’s true of some art theft as well; paintings or sculptures are stolen so they can be sold on the black market, or used as a bargaining chip.
But sometimes art disappears for reasons that are difficult to understand. On April 20, 2015, thieves made off with two paintings by the young Czech painter Barbora Kysilkova, who was exhibiting at Galleri Nobel in Oslo, Norway. Kysilkova is a talented painter, mostly of people in emotionally charged moments, but she wasn’t particularly well-known at the time. And the way the paintings were stolen was odd: Rather than simply cutting the canvases from their frames, the two thieves removed each staple, in a way that seemed to indicate, as news broadcasts noted, that one or both of them were professionals.
Kysilkova, who had moved to Oslo to be with her partner, was disheartened by the theft, especially because one of the paintings was personally significant to her. But she was also interested in why anyone would steal those two paintings, and she wanted to meet the thieves.
Rating: 4.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
She tracked down one of them, Karl-Bertil Nordland, an intelligent and tattooed Norwegian who was so high at the time, he told her, that he couldn’t remember why he did it — or what he did with the paintings. Kysilkova, both extraordinarily empathetic and headstrong, found her interest turning from the stolen paintings to the stealer, and asked Nordland if she could paint his portrait. When he saw it, he exploded into tears. And their friendship and creative partnership began to grow.
It sounds like the setup for a finely realized fictional drama, but it’s the true story that unfolds in The Painter and the Thief, a documentary that feels like an elegant fairy tale. Directed by Benjamin Ree, the film follows Kysilkova and Nordland for several years as they meet, begin to work together, and develop a relationship both as painter and muse and as friends.
Nordland is a petty criminal who’s addicted to drugs when he meets Kysilkova. But his life wasn’t always that way, he tells us; he was an elite BMX biker and a talented carpenter at one time in his life. Kysilkova finds him fascinating as a muse, but is frustrated with his habit of disappearing for days and his refusal to get help for his addiction — a refusal that eventually drives away his girlfriend as well. After a horrible car accident, he lands in the hospital and then in prison. Meanwhile, Kysilkova struggles to earn enough money to pay rent on her studio and quibbles with her partner, who questions how healthy her interest in Nordland can be.
Ree follows quietly, invisible enough to his subjects that they frequently let their guards down. We hear what Kysilkova and Nordland are thinking not just about themselves but about one another; the story wraps back on itself several times to give us a different perspective and to let us see what it is to be Barbora the painter or Bertil the thief.
And that is what makes The Painter and the Thief so enormously intimate and gripping: Through two different sets of eyes, we are asked to learn how to see. A painter like Kysilkova trains themselves to notice and see the world in a different way from most people. Several times during the film, Nordland says that he marvels at how she sees him. But he sees her too — more keenly than she might imagine — and starts to understand what motivates her, what hurts her, and why she paints the world.
The Painter and the Thief won a prize at Sundance for creative storytelling, and no wonder: It actively challenges what we think we understand about its characters based on their appearance, class markers, or behavior. It highlights the way artists of all kinds, from painters to filmmakers, transform reality into something that’s at least a little fictionalized in order to make their work — and how everyone conceals the truth a little.
It also trains the audience, just a bit, on how to become people who see. Whether it’s the way Ree’s camera moves across a painting or the perspective from which he frames and shoots Kysilkova’s and Nordland’s relationship, The Painter and the Thief coaxes its viewers to stop and pay attention to the world in order to learn to love it. By the time the breathtaking final moment arrives, we have learned, a little better, how to really look at the world, as a lover of both beauty and the strange bits of ourselves that make us really human.
The Painter and the Thief opens on May 22 in virtual cinemas and digital platforms, including iTunes, Fandango Now, and Google Play. Some virtual screenings on opening weekend also involve Q&As with filmmakers and subjects (one moderated by me). See the film’s website for full details.


vox--2020-05-21--Facebook is the latest major tech company to let people work from home forever

As thousands of businesses across the United States are trying to figure out their office reopening plans , Facebook announced a drastic shift : A wide swath of its workforce can work from home forever .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a livestream on his personal page on Thursday that he guesses as much as 50 percent of the company ’ s 45,000-person workforce could be working entirely remotely in the next five to 10 years .
While Zuckerberg cautioned that the number is not necessarily a target , it ’ s a tangible estimate by the leader of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world about the future of work , impacting not only his company but the norms for post-pandemic office workers as a whole .
The move comes shortly after Facebook ’ s rival Twitter announced it will allow its entire workforce to permanently work remotely , along with other tech companies like Shopify and Coinbase .
“ The reality is that I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be that we wake up one day on January first and nobody has any more concerns about this , ” said Zuckerberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 on office employees .
Zuckerberg went on to lay out immediate and gradual shifts the company will be making to how it manages and hires new workers .
In the short-term , as Facebook starts reopening its offices ( right now , he said 95 percent of employees are working from home and will do so until at least January 1 , 2021 ) , the company will operate at 25 percent capacity in its buildings .
Starting now , some Facebook employees can start requesting to permanently work from home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be able to do so is senior-level ones with a history of strong performance reviews .
According to an internal survey the company ran , between 40 and 60 percent of employees are interested in doing so .
And half the company reported being at least as productive as they were before , even when working from home .
The company is also going to “ aggressively ” start hiring remote employees since they won ’ t be as tied to physical office space — particularly for senior-level personnel who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career development .
Instead of focusing on hiring only in tech ’ s de facto capital of Silicon Valley , the company will put more effort into other metro regions like Atlanta , Dallas , and Denver .
And it ’ s rethinking how to provide new benefits to its remote employees since some of the old perks , like free gourmet cafeteria food onsite , don ’ t make as much sense .
Instead , remote employees may need better laptops and monitors , stronger internet connections , and equipment for audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to be the most forward-leaning company on remote work on our scale , ” said Zuckerberg .
The tech giant CEO laid out an optimistic vision of an increasingly remote work future , saying that the company will increase its workforce ’ s diversity by recruiting outside the usual tech hubs of San Francisco and other major cities .
“ Enabling remote work is going to be very positive on that front toward creating more broad-based economic prosperity , ” said Zuckerberg .
It ’ s unclear though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s workforce — including its third-party contractors such as content moderators , security guards , and cafeteria workers — will be impacted by this remote-work future , since many of their jobs are more physically tied to the office .
And for Facebook ’ s direct employees , there are some challenges as well .
Zuckerberg acknowledged that the company is aware of the concern that remote work could put a disproportionate share of domestic work on women .
He said that roughly the same percentage of women and men reported in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from home .
And he said that many employees still crave face-to-face time with their colleagues , with more than half of surveyed employees saying they want to return to working in an office full-time as soon as possible .
Facebook said many of its employees will follow a “ hybrid ” model of remote and in-person office work — coming in for onsite trainings , critical meetings , and culture-building onsite events .
And while many Facebook employees are motivated to move out of expensive areas like San Francisco if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a physical office nearby , they may end up taking a pay cut if they do so , since salaries are adjusted for local cost of living .
Zuckerberg said that cost savings aren ’ t what ’ s motivating the changes , however .
He said the company may end up hiring more people to manage remote work , which could offset any savings in the costs to have more people working in fancy buildings .
“ It ’ s really unknown what the economics of this are going to look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cost , ” Zuckerberg said .
“ It ’ s possible that if this is done efficiently , it may be possible to save some capital , but I don ’ t think that it ’ s the primary reason why this should be done.
” Ultimately , no one , including Mark Zuckerberg , knows exactly what the future of the office will look like post-pandemic .
But today ’ s announcement is another sign that our shift to working from home won ’ t be a temporary one for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The tech sector is taking a lead on these changes , and it will be interesting to see how already-influential Silicon Valley helps shape the standard for a post-pandemic office future .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As thousands of businesses across the United States are trying to figure out their office reopening plans, Facebook announced a drastic shift: A wide swath of its workforce can work from home forever.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a livestream on his personal page on Thursday that he guesses as much as 50 percent of the company’s 45,000-person workforce could be working entirely remotely in the next five to 10 years. While Zuckerberg cautioned that the number is not necessarily a target, it’s a tangible estimate by the leader of one of the most important companies in the world about the future of work, impacting not only his company but the norms for post-pandemic office workers as a whole. The move comes shortly after Facebook’s rival Twitter announced it will allow its entire workforce to permanently work remotely, along with other tech companies like Shopify and Coinbase.
“The reality is that I don’t think it’s going to be that we wake up one day on January first and nobody has any more concerns about this,” said Zuckerberg on the livestream about the lasting impact of Covid-19 on office employees. Zuckerberg went on to lay out immediate and gradual shifts the company will be making to how it manages and hires new workers.
In the short-term, as Facebook starts reopening its offices (right now, he said 95 percent of employees are working from home and will do so until at least January 1, 2021), the company will operate at 25 percent capacity in its buildings. Starting now, some Facebook employees can start requesting to permanently work from home. The first group of employees who will be able to do so is senior-level ones with a history of strong performance reviews. According to an internal survey the company ran, between 40 and 60 percent of employees are interested in doing so. And half the company reported being at least as productive as they were before, even when working from home.
The company is also going to “aggressively” start hiring remote employees since they won’t be as tied to physical office space — particularly for senior-level personnel who don’t need as much in-person training or career development. Instead of focusing on hiring only in tech’s de facto capital of Silicon Valley, the company will put more effort into other metro regions like Atlanta, Dallas, and Denver. And it’s rethinking how to provide new benefits to its remote employees since some of the old perks, like free gourmet cafeteria food onsite, don’t make as much sense. Instead, remote employees may need better laptops and monitors, stronger internet connections, and equipment for audio and visual livestreaming.
“I think we’re going to be the most forward-leaning company on remote work on our scale,” said Zuckerberg.
The tech giant CEO laid out an optimistic vision of an increasingly remote work future, saying that the company will increase its workforce’s diversity by recruiting outside the usual tech hubs of San Francisco and other major cities.
“Enabling remote work is going to be very positive on that front toward creating more broad-based economic prosperity,” said Zuckerberg.
It’s unclear though, how a significant portion of Facebook’s workforce — including its third-party contractors such as content moderators, security guards, and cafeteria workers — will be impacted by this remote-work future, since many of their jobs are more physically tied to the office.
And for Facebook’s direct employees, there are some challenges as well. Zuckerberg acknowledged that the company is aware of the concern that remote work could put a disproportionate share of domestic work on women. He said that roughly the same percentage of women and men reported in an internal survey that they prefer to work from home. And he said that many employees still crave face-to-face time with their colleagues, with more than half of surveyed employees saying they want to return to working in an office full-time as soon as possible.
Facebook said many of its employees will follow a “hybrid” model of remote and in-person office work — coming in for onsite trainings, critical meetings, and culture-building onsite events.
And while many Facebook employees are motivated to move out of expensive areas like San Francisco if they’re no longer forced to work in a physical office nearby, they may end up taking a pay cut if they do so, since salaries are adjusted for local cost of living.
Zuckerberg said that cost savings aren’t what’s motivating the changes, however. He said the company may end up hiring more people to manage remote work, which could offset any savings in the costs to have more people working in fancy buildings.
“It’s really unknown what the economics of this are going to look like, or how much this is going to cost,” Zuckerberg said. “It’s possible that if this is done efficiently, it may be possible to save some capital, but I don’t think that it’s the primary reason why this should be done.”
Ultimately, no one, including Mark Zuckerberg, knows exactly what the future of the office will look like post-pandemic. But today’s announcement is another sign that our shift to working from home won’t be a temporary one for a sizable chunk of the American workforce. The tech sector is taking a lead on these changes, and it will be interesting to see how already-influential Silicon Valley helps shape the standard for a post-pandemic office future.


vox--2020-05-21--Hulu’s Mrs. America is a cautionary tale of the underdog

A few weeks ago , for no particular reason , I decided to watch the “ Best of the 1980s ” edition of Siskel & Ebert .
( It ’ s on YouTube . )
Each host agreed on just about all of the movies the other had picked , even if said movies weren ’ t on both of their lists .
But toward the episode ’ s end , Gene Siskel took Roger Ebert to ( very mild ) task for his placement of Alan Parker ’ s 1988 Best Picture nominee Mississippi Burning on a list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Siskel suggested that , compared to movies like Do the Right Thing and Raging Bull and E.T.
, Mississippi Burning was unlikely to stand the test of time .
And Siskel turned out to be ... right .
Mississippi Burning has mostly been forgotten , while most of the other movies on both men ’ s lists remain popular to this day .
Indeed , Mississippi Burning , which places the investigation of two white FBI agents at the center of a story about black Americans struggling to secure their civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kind of film we routinely criticize today .
Instead of focusing on the black Americans actually affected by racism , the film tunes in to the experiences of white people — a failing that has more mainstream recognition now than it did back then .
Ebert pushed back against Siskel ’ s criticisms by comparing the film to the nine-hour Holocaust documentary Shoah ( one of the foremost achievements in using film to preserve the historical record ) .
“ This is a movie that people need to see in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people had these feelings , ” Ebert said of Mississippi Burning .
“ It is a part of American history the young kids today really don ’ t know about , even though it was only 25 years old , and I think it ’ s important for that reason.
” I ’ ve thought about Siskel and Ebert ’ s debate a lot when watching Hulu ’ s new miniseries Mrs. America ( which was produced by and originally intended for FX ) , in which Cate Blanchett brilliantly plays conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coalition of housewives and kept the Equal Rights Amendment out of the US Constitution .
Mrs. America definitely lives up to Ebert ’ s belief in the the importance of stories that teach us more about American history than we maybe even wanted to know , but it ’ s also subtly pushing back against that idea .
The miniseries takes the cinematic history lesson and flips it inside out .
Where these sorts of stories are usually driven by bold voices pushing for change , Mrs. America is driven by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes all the tropes of the tale of well-meaning white liberals who create incremental progress and uses them against its presumably progressive audience .
You don ’ t leave Mrs. America rooting for Phyllis Schlafly , but the show forces you to see why she succeeded all the same .
Mrs. America turns Phyllis Schlafly into Norma Rae .
The effect is discombobulating .
When I started watching Mrs. America , I worried that the presence of Blanchett ( one of a handful of people whom one might reasonably claim to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too ready to forgive Schlafly , who worked tenaciously to halt the women ’ s liberation movement in its tracks by offering a lupine smile and a twinkle in her eye .
Even without Blanchett playing her , Schlafly ’ s blithe willingness to bear anything and come up with a quippy one-liner afterward makes for an inherently compelling character , as well as a herald of incoming President Ronald Reagan himself .
But when I finished watching all nine episodes of Mrs. America , I was furious about everything — about Schlafly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who assumed they had the Equal Rights Amendment in the bag , about the many women who argued they didn ’ t deserve equal rights because they had bought into man-dominated power structures .
( Schlafly , of course , was chief among these women . )
When the series premiered in April , there were a handful of articles suggesting that Mrs. America would function as Schlafly apologia .
I don ’ t really think the series is emphatically pro-Schlafly , something the last three episodes make blisteringly clear .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of episodes , you might conclude that it was all the same .
We are simply hard-coded to read characters like Phyllis Schlafly as active heroes , working to change the system , something that Mrs. America and its creative team ( headed by creator Dahvi Waller , who wrote on Mad Men and Halt and Catch Fire ) exploit ruthlessly .
An even better comparison point for Mrs. America than other historical dramas might be the 1979 film Norma Rae , for which Sally Field won her first Oscar playing a union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underestimated her .
Norma Rae is a feel-good story about an underdog , who triumphs against an unjust system using a combination of skill , pluck , and an ability to hide in plain sight .
The bosses never see Norma coming , because they can ’ t conceive of someone like Norma even existing until it ’ s too late .
Mrs. America basically uses this same David-versus-Goliath setup , but turns it upside down .
Schlafly is our Norma Rae , organizing her legion of 1970s housewives to sow disinformation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to ratify the amendment .
( The ERA fell three states short ; it has since been ratified by three more states , but well after the 1979 deadline passed . )
The unmovable forces that never see her coming are represented here by powerful figures like Betty Friedan ( Tracey Ullman ) , Shirley Chisholm ( Uzo Aduba ) , and Gloria Steinem ( Rose Byrne ) — all of whom are left-leaning women working for the feminist project who dismiss Schlafly as an insignificant gnat until it ’ s too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That framing isn ’ t quite accurate .
Whatever gains feminism had made by 1971 ( when the series begins ) were fragile and easily reversible .
The powerful forces that longed to push back that feminist project , which is to say the forces of the status quo , are the ones being represented by Schlafly here .
Even if she didn ’ t possess a ton of cultural capital , she was nevertheless arguing for an entrenched power system that held almost all of the political capital .
So what if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schlafly got people to listen to her by ... propping up the patriarchy .
Even more discombobulating is the way Waller and her team use those underdog-against-the-system tropes to cast an almost funhouse mirror-like effect on the surrounding world .
In the series ’ first episode , Schlafly is constantly spoken over when making a TV appearance to talk about foreign policy ( her actual area of expertise ) , then is asked to take notes by the men in an important political meeting she is attending as an expert , not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works : We are being set up to see Schlafly as someone who ’ s had enough of the system as it exists and fights to change it .
But Schlafly doesn ’ t fight to change the world ; she fights to preserve it exactly as it is .
She looks at the indignities she suffers and sees that the easiest way to attain the power she wants is to give the men who hold on to that power what they want .
It ’ s a brilliant trick , one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rationalizations , and I ’ m not surprised it left some nauseated .
In its second and third episodes — centered on Steinem and Chisholm , respectively — the series broadens its portrayal of the feminist movement , which is where the show stakes its claim for being more than just Schlafly propaganda .
Indeed , as the series draws to its close , it argues that her deal-brokering with the devils she knows ( including tacit approval for involving the Klan at one point ) was no better than becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series also argues , America is primed to prefer a movement that is doing something seemingly big and important , especially if it can reinforce preexisting prejudices .
Compared to fractious infighting , a powerful , solidarity-driven movement that argues forthrightly for strong , clearly articulated principles will almost always win .
And if Schlafly understands that , why don ’ t her feminist counterparts on the left ?
Mrs. America ’ s brilliance lies in how readily it gets you to understand the resentment that drove Schlafly and millions like her Mrs. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a consistent criticism in those reviews has been that it has much more fun hanging out with Steinem and her pals than it does when it drops in on Schlafly ’ s organization .
And there ’ s something to this complaint .
The camerawork in , say , the offices of Ms. Magazine is far more fluid than the staid , locked-down shots that typify Phyllis ’ s world .
( This is another way the show discombobulates — fluid camerawork is usually tied to the heroic , dynamic forces of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series indicates , early on , that its sympathies lie with the second-wave feminists , even if it might not seem so . )
It ’ s easy to leave this show feeling like you don ’ t know what made Schlafly tick .
But what if the answer here is that what made Schlafly tick isn ’ t , ultimately , all that interesting ?
Maybe she just wanted power .
Maybe she just wanted a seat at the table .
Maybe she just saw the easiest way to do that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and homemakers that they had been written off by the feminist movement , something too easily propped up by out-of-context sound bites from Steinem and her allies .
A frequent trope of left-leaning writing about conservative politics is a desire to better understand the motivations that drive right-leaning America .
And Mrs. America advances almost every single sociological explanation for the rise of Reagan conservatism at once .
If you want a relentless commitment to further enriching the rich , that ’ s in here .
If you want just a hint of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if you want to believe it ’ s all about upholding some traditional way of life , you ’ d better believe that ’ s in here too .
But the central idea of Mrs. America is that what drives right-wing culture warriors like Schlafly is often just a desire to be heard .
Schlafly ends up having a far more significant effect on American political society than Steinem , but Steinem still ended up on way more magazine covers , even to this day .
Part of the conservative revolution ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon ) was the almost complete decoupling of cultural power — sometimes called soft power — from actual power .
Put another way : It ’ s all but impossible to imagine a version of Mrs. America that is actual Schlafly apologia getting made , and Hollywood is only too happy to proclaim itself feminist and add women superheroes to its release slate .
And all of that is fine !
But doing so is not real power .
Real power creates a Supreme Court that seems likely to reverse Roe v. Wade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile to materially improving the lives of women that something as basic as a national standard for maternity leave has never been passed .
Real power demonizes women like me in the name of keeping children safe , simply because I make a convenient scapegoat .
I grew up in Schlafly country .
I used to read her columns and feel a thrill at the thought of a conservative woman having such a powerful voice .
( Child me had yet to convince herself to give up political conservatism or embrace her womanhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 80s . )
And I recognize in Blanchett ’ s performance a hunger for something more that united so many of the conservative women I knew .
But the targets of their disdain were always the people who possessed an ever-shrinking modicum of cultural power , because to take aim at anybody who held actual power might involve embracing some uncomfortable contradictions .
One thing Mrs. America makes abundantly clear is how many of those uncomfortable contradictions reside within Phyllis Schlafly herself .
Despite heading up an organization purportedly made up of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Schlafly turned political organizing into her full-time job .
She claims to not have power , even when she increasingly does .
She has achieved some small degree of success , so she works hard to make sure other women won ’ t .
The series reflects this even in the way it subtly codes women ’ s stories as the only important ones , on both sides of its political ledger .
The only major male character is John Slattery ’ s Fred Schlafly , who is mostly the barely there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical stories .
And when men enter the story , they ’ re almost always alien , barely understandable forces haunting the edges of the frame .
A mob of them descends on the floor of a political convention .
Chisholm , the first woman to run for president and the first woman to lose the presidency , is surrounded by older white men onstage at said convention .
A small group of men belittles Schlafly in a smoke-filled room .
A male talk show host tries to steer a so-called “ couples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though their wives are much better equipped to argue .
All the women in Mrs. America , meanwhile , are understandable and human and sometimes deeply , deeply horrible .
They have goals and hopes and desires , but they always have to cede the screen to the men when they show up .
Why ?
My favorite scene in the series is a small one .
Sarah Paulson ’ s Alice ( a fictional composite of many of the housewives who joined Schlafly ’ s cause ) is comforting another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bathroom stall at the 1977 National Women ’ s Conference in Houston .
The conservative women are struggling to get a word in edgewise at the conference , and Alice finds herself shrinking from the spotlight thrust upon her .
Her friend , meanwhile , is tearfully confessing that her husband doesn ’ t know she ’ s gone to Houston .
She ’ s scared .
No , she ’ s terrified .
It ’ s not hard to read a fear of abuse into this confession .
Alice embraces her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stall door .
“ Occupied !
” Alice calls out , but the woman who knocked at the door just wants to know if everything ’ s okay .
She heard crying .
There are tiny moments of solidarity like this throughout Mrs. America , in nearly every episode .
Characters reach out to each other and care for each other .
Women find ways to comfort each other , because we are so often the only ones who even see another woman ’ s pain acutely enough to begin to soothe her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to America , and I mean that quite literally .
Just as a mirror reverses every feature in our face , Mrs. America reverses the way historical dramas usually proceed .
But I think it ’ s necessary all the same .
This is a series that people need to see in order to know that this time existed , that people had these feelings , that women once believed they might see abortion rights protected instead of whittled away , that the Constitution almost had a hard-won guarantee of equality among genders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could run for president and open a door America is still waiting to walk through .
It ’ s a part of American history the young kids today don ’ t really know about , even though it ’ s only 50 years old , and I think it ’ s important for that reason .
Mrs. America airs new episodes every Wednesday on Hulu .
The series finale airs on Wednesday , May 27 .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution to Vox today .

A few weeks ago, for no particular reason, I decided to watch the “Best of the 1980s” edition of Siskel & Ebert. (It’s on YouTube.) Each host agreed on just about all of the movies the other had picked, even if said movies weren’t on both of their lists. But toward the episode’s end, Gene Siskel took Roger Ebert to (very mild) task for his placement of Alan Parker’s 1988 Best Picture nominee Mississippi Burning on a list of the best movies of the entire decade.
Siskel suggested that, compared to movies like Do the Right Thing and Raging Bull and E.T., Mississippi Burning was unlikely to stand the test of time. And Siskel turned out to be ... right. Mississippi Burning has mostly been forgotten, while most of the other movies on both men’s lists remain popular to this day.
Indeed, Mississippi Burning, which places the investigation of two white FBI agents at the center of a story about black Americans struggling to secure their civil rights, is almost a textbook example of the kind of film we routinely criticize today. Instead of focusing on the black Americans actually affected by racism, the film tunes in to the experiences of white people — a failing that has more mainstream recognition now than it did back then.
Ebert pushed back against Siskel’s criticisms by comparing the film to the nine-hour Holocaust documentary Shoah (one of the foremost achievements in using film to preserve the historical record). “This is a movie that people need to see in order to know that this time existed, and that people had these feelings,” Ebert said of Mississippi Burning. “It is a part of American history the young kids today really don’t know about, even though it was only 25 years old, and I think it’s important for that reason.”
I’ve thought about Siskel and Ebert’s debate a lot when watching Hulu’s new miniseries Mrs. America (which was produced by and originally intended for FX), in which Cate Blanchett brilliantly plays conservative culture warrior Phyllis Schlafly, who built a coalition of housewives and kept the Equal Rights Amendment out of the US Constitution. Mrs. America definitely lives up to Ebert’s belief in the the importance of stories that teach us more about American history than we maybe even wanted to know, but it’s also subtly pushing back against that idea.
The miniseries takes the cinematic history lesson and flips it inside out. Where these sorts of stories are usually driven by bold voices pushing for change, Mrs. America is driven by a loud voice pushing for stagnation. It takes all the tropes of the tale of well-meaning white liberals who create incremental progress and uses them against its presumably progressive audience. You don’t leave Mrs. America rooting for Phyllis Schlafly, but the show forces you to see why she succeeded all the same.
Mrs. America turns Phyllis Schlafly into Norma Rae. The effect is discombobulating.
When I started watching Mrs. America, I worried that the presence of Blanchett (one of a handful of people whom one might reasonably claim to be the best actor alive) might make me too ready to forgive Schlafly, who worked tenaciously to halt the women’s liberation movement in its tracks by offering a lupine smile and a twinkle in her eye. Even without Blanchett playing her, Schlafly’s blithe willingness to bear anything and come up with a quippy one-liner afterward makes for an inherently compelling character, as well as a herald of incoming President Ronald Reagan himself.
But when I finished watching all nine episodes of Mrs. America, I was furious about everything — about Schlafly, about the complacency of second-wave feminists who assumed they had the Equal Rights Amendment in the bag, about the many women who argued they didn’t deserve equal rights because they had bought into man-dominated power structures. (Schlafly, of course, was chief among these women.)
When the series premiered in April, there were a handful of articles suggesting that Mrs. America would function as Schlafly apologia. I don’t really think the series is emphatically pro-Schlafly, something the last three episodes make blisteringly clear. But if you had only seen the first handful of episodes, you might conclude that it was all the same. We are simply hard-coded to read characters like Phyllis Schlafly as active heroes, working to change the system, something that Mrs. America and its creative team (headed by creator Dahvi Waller, who wrote on Mad Men and Halt and Catch Fire) exploit ruthlessly.
An even better comparison point for Mrs. America than other historical dramas might be the 1979 film Norma Rae, for which Sally Field won her first Oscar playing a union organizer whose womanhood meant her opponents continually underestimated her. Norma Rae is a feel-good story about an underdog, who triumphs against an unjust system using a combination of skill, pluck, and an ability to hide in plain sight. The bosses never see Norma coming, because they can’t conceive of someone like Norma even existing until it’s too late.
Mrs. America basically uses this same David-versus-Goliath setup, but turns it upside down. Schlafly is our Norma Rae, organizing her legion of 1970s housewives to sow disinformation about the ERA and terrify state legislatures into refusing to ratify the amendment. (The ERA fell three states short; it has since been ratified by three more states, but well after the 1979 deadline passed.) The unmovable forces that never see her coming are represented here by powerful figures like Betty Friedan (Tracey Ullman), Shirley Chisholm (Uzo Aduba), and Gloria Steinem (Rose Byrne) — all of whom are left-leaning women working for the feminist project who dismiss Schlafly as an insignificant gnat until it’s too late.
But wait a second: That framing isn’t quite accurate. Whatever gains feminism had made by 1971 (when the series begins) were fragile and easily reversible. The powerful forces that longed to push back that feminist project, which is to say the forces of the status quo, are the ones being represented by Schlafly here. Even if she didn’t possess a ton of cultural capital, she was nevertheless arguing for an entrenched power system that held almost all of the political capital. So what if Steinem was on more magazine covers? Schlafly got people to listen to her by ... propping up the patriarchy.
Even more discombobulating is the way Waller and her team use those underdog-against-the-system tropes to cast an almost funhouse mirror-like effect on the surrounding world. In the series’ first episode, Schlafly is constantly spoken over when making a TV appearance to talk about foreign policy (her actual area of expertise), then is asked to take notes by the men in an important political meeting she is attending as an expert, not as a secretary.
We know how storytelling works: We are being set up to see Schlafly as someone who’s had enough of the system as it exists and fights to change it. But Schlafly doesn’t fight to change the world; she fights to preserve it exactly as it is. She looks at the indignities she suffers and sees that the easiest way to attain the power she wants is to give the men who hold on to that power what they want. It’s a brilliant trick, one that essentially traps the viewer inside of Schlafly’s rationalizations, and I’m not surprised it left some nauseated.
In its second and third episodes — centered on Steinem and Chisholm, respectively — the series broadens its portrayal of the feminist movement, which is where the show stakes its claim for being more than just Schlafly propaganda. Indeed, as the series draws to its close, it argues that her deal-brokering with the devils she knows (including tacit approval for involving the Klan at one point) was no better than becoming the devil herself.
But, the series also argues, America is primed to prefer a movement that is doing something seemingly big and important, especially if it can reinforce preexisting prejudices. Compared to fractious infighting, a powerful, solidarity-driven movement that argues forthrightly for strong, clearly articulated principles will almost always win. And if Schlafly understands that, why don’t her feminist counterparts on the left?
Mrs. America’s brilliance lies in how readily it gets you to understand the resentment that drove Schlafly and millions like her
Mrs. America has received few negative reviews, but a consistent criticism in those reviews has been that it has much more fun hanging out with Steinem and her pals than it does when it drops in on Schlafly’s organization. And there’s something to this complaint. The camerawork in, say, the offices of Ms. Magazine is far more fluid than the staid, locked-down shots that typify Phyllis’s world. (This is another way the show discombobulates — fluid camerawork is usually tied to the heroic, dynamic forces of change, which is one way the series indicates, early on, that its sympathies lie with the second-wave feminists, even if it might not seem so.) It’s easy to leave this show feeling like you don’t know what made Schlafly tick.
But what if the answer here is that what made Schlafly tick isn’t, ultimately, all that interesting? Maybe she just wanted power. Maybe she just wanted a seat at the table. Maybe she just saw the easiest way to do that was to convince a nation full of housewives and homemakers that they had been written off by the feminist movement, something too easily propped up by out-of-context sound bites from Steinem and her allies.
A frequent trope of left-leaning writing about conservative politics is a desire to better understand the motivations that drive right-leaning America. And Mrs. America advances almost every single sociological explanation for the rise of Reagan conservatism at once. If you want a relentless commitment to further enriching the rich, that’s in here. If you want just a hint of racism, that’s here. And if you want to believe it’s all about upholding some traditional way of life, you’d better believe that’s in here too.
But the central idea of Mrs. America is that what drives right-wing culture warriors like Schlafly is often just a desire to be heard. Schlafly ends up having a far more significant effect on American political society than Steinem, but Steinem still ended up on way more magazine covers, even to this day. Part of the conservative revolution (going right on back to Goldwater and Nixon) was the almost complete decoupling of cultural power — sometimes called soft power — from actual power.
Put another way: It’s all but impossible to imagine a version of Mrs. America that is actual Schlafly apologia getting made, and Hollywood is only too happy to proclaim itself feminist and add women superheroes to its release slate. And all of that is fine! But doing so is not real power. Real power creates a Supreme Court that seems likely to reverse Roe v. Wade. Real power creates an environment so hostile to materially improving the lives of women that something as basic as a national standard for maternity leave has never been passed. Real power demonizes women like me in the name of keeping children safe, simply because I make a convenient scapegoat.
I grew up in Schlafly country. I used to read her columns and feel a thrill at the thought of a conservative woman having such a powerful voice. (Child me had yet to convince herself to give up political conservatism or embrace her womanhood. We were all confused in the ’80s.) And I recognize in Blanchett’s performance a hunger for something more that united so many of the conservative women I knew. But the targets of their disdain were always the people who possessed an ever-shrinking modicum of cultural power, because to take aim at anybody who held actual power might involve embracing some uncomfortable contradictions.
One thing Mrs. America makes abundantly clear is how many of those uncomfortable contradictions reside within Phyllis Schlafly herself. Despite heading up an organization purportedly made up of housewives and claiming to be a homemaker, Schlafly turned political organizing into her full-time job. She claims to not have power, even when she increasingly does. She has achieved some small degree of success, so she works hard to make sure other women won’t.
The series reflects this even in the way it subtly codes women’s stories as the only important ones, on both sides of its political ledger. The only major male character is John Slattery’s Fred Schlafly, who is mostly the barely there spouse a woman would play in most historical stories. And when men enter the story, they’re almost always alien, barely understandable forces haunting the edges of the frame. A mob of them descends on the floor of a political convention. Chisholm, the first woman to run for the Democratic nomination for president (though by no means the first woman to lose the presidency), is surrounded by older white men onstage at said convention. A small group of men belittles Schlafly in a smoke-filled room. A male talk show host tries to steer a so-called “couples debate” to the two husbands present, even though their wives are much better equipped to argue.
All the women in Mrs. America, meanwhile, are understandable and human and sometimes deeply, deeply horrible. They have goals and hopes and desires, but they always have to cede the screen to the men when they show up. Why?
My favorite scene in the series is a small one. Sarah Paulson’s Alice (a fictional composite of many of the housewives who joined Schlafly’s cause) is comforting another woman in Schlafly’s group in a bathroom stall at the 1977 National Women’s Conference in Houston. The conservative women are struggling to get a word in edgewise at the conference, and Alice finds herself shrinking from the spotlight thrust upon her. Her friend, meanwhile, is tearfully confessing that her husband doesn’t know she’s gone to Houston. She’s scared. No, she’s terrified. It’s not hard to read a fear of abuse into this confession.
Alice embraces her friend, and someone hammers at the stall door. “Occupied!” Alice calls out, but the woman who knocked at the door just wants to know if everything’s okay. She heard crying. There are tiny moments of solidarity like this throughout Mrs. America, in nearly every episode. Characters reach out to each other and care for each other. Women find ways to comfort each other, because we are so often the only ones who even see another woman’s pain acutely enough to begin to soothe her.
Mrs. America holds a mirror up to America, and I mean that quite literally. Just as a mirror reverses every feature in our face, Mrs. America reverses the way historical dramas usually proceed. But I think it’s necessary all the same. This is a series that people need to see in order to know that this time existed, that people had these feelings, that women once believed they might see abortion rights protected instead of whittled away, that the Constitution almost had a hard-won guarantee of equality among genders entrenched within it, that a woman could run for president and open a door America is still waiting to walk through. It’s a part of American history the young kids today don’t really know about, even though it’s only 50 years old, and I think it’s important for that reason.
Mrs. America airs new episodes every Wednesday on Hulu. The series finale airs on Wednesday, May 27.
Correction: The original version of this piece said Shirley Chisholm was the first woman to run for the presidency. She was merely the first woman to run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.