vox--2020-09-03--Apple, under pressure from advertisers and developers, will wait 6 months to enforce new privacy rul

Apple, under pressure from advertisers and developers, will wait 6 months to enforce new privacy rules

Sometime in the coming months , iPhone users will start seeing a new question when they use many of the apps on their devices : Do they want the app to follow them around the internet , tracking their behavior ?
It ’ s a simple query , with potentially significant consequences .
Apple is trying to single-handedly change the way internet advertising works .
That will affect everyone , from Apple ’ s giant tech rivals — most notably , Facebook , which announced today that it ’ s fighting back against Apple ’ s move — to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to monitor what their app users are doing on the internet .
Update , September 3 , 2020 , 1 pm ET : Apple has announced it will delay enforcement of its new rules until “ early next year ” to give developers and advertisers time to adapt ; it remains unclear how this will affect Facebook ’ s response to Apple ’ s rules .
And it affects you , the person reading this story .
At stake is your online privacy — and the advertising system that underwrites an endless supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fascinating battle because there aren ’ t clear-cut winners and losers .
And multiple players have more than one motivation .
• Apple is in a position to attack intrusive advertising tech because it has consistently argued that it values privacy — and because the company doesn ’ t have much of an ad business of its own .
• Facebook and other big ad players make billions of dollars tracing the detailed digital footprints their users leave — but they can also argue that ad money they generate allows people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the internet for free .
• Meanwhile , ordinary internet users may say they value privacy — but it ’ s unlikely they have any idea how much personal data they give up when they skim a story or click on a link .
The battle may also generate collateral damage , according to one news publisher , who says Apple ’ s move will cut into its business at a time when it ’ s already struggling to hang onto any ad revenue it can find .
“ It makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Apple app users , who are an incredibly loyal readership .
And quite frankly , it puts at risk our ability to provide an Apple app , ” says Martin Clarke , publisher of DMG Media , which owns the UK ’ s Daily Mail and other publications ; the company says its MailOnline iOS app attracts 1.2 million users per day .
“ There ’ s no point in providing an app for a platform that monetizes less well than other platforms.
” Apple announced its plan in June at its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hasn ’ t generated much attention outside of ad tech circles yet .
That will likely change in mid-September when the company is expected to roll out its new operating system , iOS 14 .
Without getting too far into the weeds , here ’ s what will happen .
Without getting too far into the weeds , here ’ s what will happen : • For years , Apple has given each of its devices a unique identification code that makes it easier to track what you do on your phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any developer who wants to use that code — and also wants to use data collected by someone else , or who wants to send to outsiders data its users create — will have to ask you for permission .
That will come via an opt-in , pop-up screen that looks like this : • If a user says yes , then it ’ s business as usual : App companies and advertisers can combine information they know about a user ’ s behavior inside of an app , and their behavior on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver highly targeted ads .
And users will continue to see the results of their in-app behavior when they use other apps or travel around the web .
Like when Zappos follows you around the internet , trying to get you to buy the shoes you looked at briefly .
• But most publishers expect the vast majority of users not to sign off on having their behavior tracked .
So advertisers will know much less about the people they ’ re trying to reach and what those people do when they encounter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain , in the near term , to reduce the prices of the ads they sell because advertisers will find them less effective .
We don ’ t know exactly how that will play out for publishers who rely on that kind of targeted advertising for revenue .
But we can take a guess : In 2017 , Apple rolled out a similar restriction on behavior tracking for its Safari web browser , and publishers saw ad rates plummet for Safari users .
Conventional industry wisdom is that Facebook , in particular , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rethink the way they sell their ads and are likely to see revenue get hit along the way .
Facebook has already put out research suggesting that its ad network , which runs ads on other publishers ’ sites and apps , could see revenue drop by half if targeted advertising , which relies on tracking users ’ behavior around the internet , goes away .
And during Facebook ’ s most recent earnings call , chief financial officer Dave Wehner said Apple ’ s changes would create a “ challenging headwind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that people need to take very seriously .
...
It ’ s an area of concern.
” It ’ s possible that most of the changes will be limited to the very biggest players in internet advertising because you need apps with very large user bases — likely 10 million monthly users or more — to make money selling those kinds of automated , targeted ads .
Which is one of the main reasons Facebook and Google are already swallowing up the majority of digital ad dollars .
But DMG ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company , even if it ’ s small compared to the giants .
“ Untargeted ads are basically worthless , ” he says .
Clarke says he thinks the revenue his company ’ s iOS app users generate could drop by 75 percent , which could prompt him to abandon the app altogether and ask his readers to read the Daily Mail on the web instead .
But other publishers are less worried about the effect on their app ad revenue and more concerned that Apple is attempting to change digital advertising on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s in the right place , ” says Julia Beizer , who heads up digital for Bloomberg Media .
“ We all want to make a better , privacy-safe web .
But rolling it out without consulting the industry means you ’ re asking publishers to bear the brunt of the sins of ad tech .
Which isn ’ t fair.
” Other publishers say the move away from targeted ads could conceivably be a good thing for them because it would lessen the advantage Google and Facebook get from combining their massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their own app with the information they collect about what they do outside their apps .
“ If the playing field is level , and no one can track users and data , that ’ s bad for ad tech , ” says Jason Kint , who heads up Digital Content Next , a publishers trade group .
“ But the world ’ s going this way.
” For example , the New York Times , which had already announced that it would be phasing out the use of data collected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers , says it simply won ’ t use third-party tracking data for its Apple app this fall once the changes kick in .
Rebecca Grossman-Cohen , who heads up strategic partnerships for the Times , says the move creates “ some loss ” of advertising revenue , but it will be “ minimal.
” She says that Apple essentially sped up a decision the Times would have reached anyway : “ We could fairly say we would have gotten to a similar place in any event.
” Which is more or less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company didn ’ t want to talk on the record , but executives there say they made the move to reduce tracking on its apps as an extension of other moves they have made to increase users ’ privacy , like limiting targeting on Safari and requiring apps to get permission to track users ’ location .
It is possible that Apple ’ s move to upend internet advertising will bring more scrutiny to the company , which is already fending off high-profile antitrust charges from Spotify and Epic Games .
Last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times , sent Apple a letter demanding better terms for the subscriptions it sells through its App Store .
And the Daily Mail intends to complain to the US Department of Justice about Apple ’ s ad changes , according to a person familiar with the company ’ s plans .
But the move also illustrates the fact that big tech companies aren ’ t just under pressure from lawmakers and government regulators — they ’ re also fighting each other .
Facebook , for instance , has already complained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies twice this month .
And it criticized Apple again in late August , while announcing that it simply won ’ t use Apple ’ s device identifier on its own apps .
That means Facebook won ’ t have to show users that pop-up screen asking for permission to track them across the web .
But it ’ s unclear how much third-party data Facebook will use for its ad targeting , or what Apple ’ s reaction to Facebook ’ s move will be .
Facebook has already told Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules to affect its business .
But today it is leaning into the idea that the change will mostly hurt publishers that use Facebook ’ s ad network to place ads on their own sites — and that it may ultimately have to shutter the network on Apple devices altogether .
And just in case you didn ’ t get the political message Facebook is trying to deliver here , they spelled it out for you : Apple , not Facebook , is hurting small developers and publishers .
“ We understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developers and publishers at an already difficult time for businesses , ” the company wrote on a blog post announcing its decision .
“ We work with more than 19,000 developers and publishers from around the globe and in 2019 we paid out billions of dollars .
Many of these are small businesses that depend on ads to support their livelihood.
” Facebook is worth $ 800 billion .
Apple is worth a staggering $ 2 trillion .
Both companies are going to be fine no matter how this shakes out .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even people who work in advertising technology for a living are bored by advertising technology .
But watch this space : The way this brawl affects internet ads and the stuff that runs alongside them — the stuff you want to see — is worth watching .
In the spring , we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone , and last week , we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors .
Well , you helped us blow past that .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25,000 .
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Sometime in the coming months, iPhone users will start seeing a new question when they use many of the apps on their devices: Do they want the app to follow them around the internet, tracking their behavior?
It’s a simple query, with potentially significant consequences. Apple is trying to single-handedly change the way internet advertising works.
That will affect everyone, from Apple’s giant tech rivals — most notably, Facebook, which announced today that it’s fighting back against Apple’s move — to any developer or publisher that uses ad technology to monitor what their app users are doing on the internet.
Update, September 3, 2020, 1 pm ET: Apple has announced it will delay enforcement of its new rules until “early next year” to give developers and advertisers time to adapt; it remains unclear how this will affect Facebook’s response to Apple’s rules.
And it affects you, the person reading this story. At stake is your online privacy — and the advertising system that underwrites an endless supply of free content.
It’s a fascinating battle because there aren’t clear-cut winners and losers. And multiple players have more than one motivation.
Apple is in a position to attack intrusive advertising tech because it has consistently argued that it values privacy — and because the company doesn’t have much of an ad business of its own.
Facebook and other big ad players make billions of dollars tracing the detailed digital footprints their users leave — but they can also argue that ad money they generate allows people to consume news, entertainment, and the rest of the internet for free.
Meanwhile, ordinary internet users may say they value privacy — but it’s unlikely they have any idea how much personal data they give up when they skim a story or click on a link.
The battle may also generate collateral damage, according to one news publisher, who says Apple’s move will cut into its business at a time when it’s already struggling to hang onto any ad revenue it can find.
“It makes it much harder for us to monetize our Apple app users, who are an incredibly loyal readership. And quite frankly, it puts at risk our ability to provide an Apple app,” says Martin Clarke, publisher of DMG Media, which owns the UK’s Daily Mail and other publications; the company says its MailOnline iOS app attracts 1.2 million users per day. “There’s no point in providing an app for a platform that monetizes less well than other platforms.”
Apple announced its plan in June at its annual developer’s conference. But it hasn’t generated much attention outside of ad tech circles yet.
That will likely change in mid-September when the company is expected to roll out its new operating system, iOS 14. Without getting too far into the weeds, here’s what will happen:
For years, Apple has given each of its devices a unique identification code that makes it easier to track what you do on your phone. But under its new plan, any developer who wants to use that code — and also wants to use data collected by someone else, or who wants to send to outsiders data its users create — will have to ask you for permission. That will come via an opt-in, pop-up screen that looks like this:
If a user says yes, then it’s business as usual: App companies and advertisers can combine information they know about a user’s behavior inside of an app, and their behavior on the rest of the web, and deliver highly targeted ads. And users will continue to see the results of their in-app behavior when they use other apps or travel around the web. Like when Zappos follows you around the internet, trying to get you to buy the shoes you looked at briefly.
But most publishers expect the vast majority of users not to sign off on having their behavior tracked. So advertisers will know much less about the people they’re trying to reach and what those people do when they encounter their ads. That’s almost certain, in the near term, to reduce the prices of the ads they sell because advertisers will find them less effective.
We don’t know exactly how that will play out for publishers who rely on that kind of targeted advertising for revenue. But we can take a guess: In 2017, Apple rolled out a similar restriction on behavior tracking for its Safari web browser, and publishers saw ad rates plummet for Safari users.
Conventional industry wisdom is that Facebook, in particular, as well as Google, will have to rethink the way they sell their ads and are likely to see revenue get hit along the way.
Facebook has already put out research suggesting that its ad network, which runs ads on other publishers’ sites and apps, could see revenue drop by half if targeted advertising, which relies on tracking users’ behavior around the internet, goes away. And during Facebook’s most recent earnings call, chief financial officer Dave Wehner said Apple’s changes would create a “challenging headwind,” and that “it is something that people need to take very seriously. ... It’s an area of concern.”
It’s possible that most of the changes will be limited to the very biggest players in internet advertising because you need apps with very large user bases — likely 10 million monthly users or more — to make money selling those kinds of automated, targeted ads. Which is one of the main reasons Facebook and Google are already swallowing up the majority of digital ad dollars.
But DMG’s Clarke says the move will hit his company, even if it’s small compared to the giants. “Untargeted ads are basically worthless,” he says. Clarke says he thinks the revenue his company’s iOS app users generate could drop by 75 percent, which could prompt him to abandon the app altogether and ask his readers to read the Daily Mail on the web instead.
But other publishers are less worried about the effect on their app ad revenue and more concerned that Apple is attempting to change digital advertising on its own.
“The instinct’s in the right place,” says Julia Beizer, who heads up digital for Bloomberg Media. “We all want to make a better, privacy-safe web. But rolling it out without consulting the industry means you’re asking publishers to bear the brunt of the sins of ad tech. Which isn’t fair.”
Other publishers say the move away from targeted ads could conceivably be a good thing for them because it would lessen the advantage Google and Facebook get from combining their massive pools of data about users’ behavior on their own app with the information they collect about what they do outside their apps.
“If the playing field is level, and no one can track users and data, that’s bad for ad tech,” says Jason Kint, who heads up Digital Content Next, a publishers trade group. “But the world’s going this way.”
For example, the New York Times, which had already announced that it would be phasing out the use of data collected by other companies to target ads for its readers, says it simply won’t use third-party tracking data for its Apple app this fall once the changes kick in.
Rebecca Grossman-Cohen, who heads up strategic partnerships for the Times, says the move creates “some loss” of advertising revenue, but it will be “minimal.” She says that Apple essentially sped up a decision the Times would have reached anyway: “We could fairly say we would have gotten to a similar place in any event.”
Which is more or less what Apple wants to convey. The company didn’t want to talk on the record, but executives there say they made the move to reduce tracking on its apps as an extension of other moves they have made to increase users’ privacy, like limiting targeting on Safari and requiring apps to get permission to track users’ location.
It is possible that Apple’s move to upend internet advertising will bring more scrutiny to the company, which is already fending off high-profile antitrust charges from Spotify and Epic Games. Last week, a group of publishers, including the New York Times, sent Apple a letter demanding better terms for the subscriptions it sells through its App Store. And the Daily Mail intends to complain to the US Department of Justice about Apple’s ad changes, according to a person familiar with the company’s plans.
But the move also illustrates the fact that big tech companies aren’t just under pressure from lawmakers and government regulators — they’re also fighting each other.
Facebook, for instance, has already complained publicly about Apple’s App Store policies twice this month. And it criticized Apple again in late August, while announcing that it simply won’t use Apple’s device identifier on its own apps.
That means Facebook won’t have to show users that pop-up screen asking for permission to track them across the web. But it’s unclear how much third-party data Facebook will use for its ad targeting, or what Apple’s reaction to Facebook’s move will be.
Facebook has already told Wall Street that it expects Apple’s new rules to affect its business. But today it is leaning into the idea that the change will mostly hurt publishers that use Facebook’s ad network to place ads on their own sites — and that it may ultimately have to shutter the network on Apple devices altogether.
And just in case you didn’t get the political message Facebook is trying to deliver here, they spelled it out for you: Apple, not Facebook, is hurting small developers and publishers. “We understand that iOS 14 will hurt many of our developers and publishers at an already difficult time for businesses,” the company wrote on a blog post announcing its decision. “We work with more than 19,000 developers and publishers from around the globe and in 2019 we paid out billions of dollars. Many of these are small businesses that depend on ads to support their livelihood.”
Facebook is worth $800 billion. Apple is worth a staggering $2 trillion. Both companies are going to be fine no matter how this shakes out. And this is a fight about advertising technology, and even people who work in advertising technology for a living are bored by advertising technology. But watch this space: The way this brawl affects internet ads and the stuff that runs alongside them — the stuff you want to see — is worth watching.
New goal: 25,000
In the spring, we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone, and last week, we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors. Well, you helped us blow past that. Today, we are extending that goal to 25,000. Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-09-03--Bill Barr’s interview on CNN was a train wreck

Attorney General Bill Barr went on CNN on Wednesday — and quickly demonstrated why he rarely strays outside the friendly confines of Fox News for TV interviews .
Barr ’ s interview with Wolf Blitzer began with the attorney general making unsubstantiated claims about circumstances surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake by police in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
It wound down with him going to desperate lengths to substantiate Trump ’ s baseless , politically motivated claims about how mail-in voting will result in a rigged election .
On more than one occasion , Blitzer seemed surprised at how unpersuasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole spectacle demonstrated how , under Trump , the office of the nation ’ s top law enforcement official has been diminished to something akin to a campaign surrogate for the president .
Barr ’ s comments about Jacob Blake and Black Lives Matter revealed how unserious he is about racial unrest The half-hour interview got off to a bad start when Barr presented a flawed argument to try and justify the August 23 shooting of Blake — which sparked protests , looting , and right-wing vigilante violence in Kenosha — then stuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Barr claimed that Blake was “ armed ” — the implication being that officers had good reason to shoot him seven times in the back .
In fact , while there was a knife in Blake ’ s car , no evidence has emerged that he brandished it at police officers .
“ His family says he wasn ’ t armed , ” Blitzer pointed out to Barr .
“ There may have been a knife in the car , but he wasn ’ t armed when he was shot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lawyer said.
” But Barr ’ s narrative seemed impervious to facts .
“ Well , I stated what I believe to be [ the case ] , ” he replied .
From there , Barr made an unpersuasive case that systemic racism is not a factor in police violence against Black men like Blake , insisting that “ the narrative that the police are on some , you know , epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men is simply a false narrative and also the narrative that that ’ s based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of studies have found that Black Americans are far more likely to be police shooting victims than whites .
For instance , a Washington Post analysis of data about police shootings found that while Black Americans represent 13 percent of the US population , 36 percent of unarmed officer shooting victims are Black .
Barr wouldn ’ t even acknowledge that voting twice is a crime If Barr ’ s ignorance about the reality of racial disparities in the country was galling , his comments about voting by mail were arguably even worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came hours after Trump encouraged his supporters in North Carolina to vote twice to test the state ’ s mail-in voting system — comments widely interpreted as encouraging felony voter fraud .
“ It sounds like he ’ s encouraging people to break the law and try to vote twice , ” Blitzer told Barr .
But Barr wasn ’ t willing to acknowledge the sky is blue .
“ I don ’ t know what the law in the particular state says , ” he replied , prompting Blitzer to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t vote twice.
” “ I don ’ t know what the law in the particular state says , ” Barr retorted .
“ If you know what he ’ s saying , why are you asking me if you ’ re saying.
” “ You ’ re the attorney general of the United States , ” Blitzer said .
Trump ’ s remarks were meant to create the impression that mail voting is ripe for fraud .
In fact , the experience of a number of states that already conduct elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s it ’ s relatively safe not only in terms of preventing fraud , but also in terms of allowing people to safely exercise their right to vote amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic .
Alluding to this disconnect between reality and Trump ’ s rhetoric , the Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent interpreted Barr ’ s defense of Trump as “ telegraphing his willingness to legitimize Trump ’ s eventual effort to try to invalidate untold numbers of mail ballots , which Trump has already told us is coming.
” When Blitzer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting is as ripe for fraud as Trump says it is , Barr couldn ’ t .
Asked whether he had seen any evidence substantiating his own claims that a foreign government would counterfeit ballots to sway the election , Barr instead resorted to saying these concerns are “ a matter of logic.
” Blitzer seemed taken aback at the weakness of Barr ’ s case .
Barr was later unable to answer straightforward questions from Blitzer about how many people Barr ’ s DOJ has indicted for voter fraud .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpersuasive case that China is a bigger threat to American elections than Russia — comments at odds with the findings of the intelligence community but consistent with Trump ’ s desire to downplay Russian interference .
“ I ’ m not gon na discuss that , ” Barr said , pressed by Blitzer to substantiate his claim .
“ I ’ m not gon na get into that.
” The attorney general has been reduced to something akin to a fixer for the president It ’ s not a surprise that Barr is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bidding — he ’ s been doing that since the earliest weeks of his tenure early last year when he got ahead of the Mueller report by releasing a misleading summary of its key findings aimed at exonerating the president .
As my colleague Andrew Prokop explained , the DOJ may not have become “ a well-oiled machine that does President Trump ’ s bidding immediately at all times , ” but Barr has proven he ’ s “ unafraid of criticism that he ’ s acting politically to help the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case in point .
Rudimentary questioning from Blitzer revealed that he ’ s unfamiliar with basic facts surrounding key cases , the reality of racial disparities in America , and apparently even the fact that it ’ s illegal to vote twice in America .
And he seems more intent on repeating his boss ’ s talking points than he does in getting up to speed .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little @ @ @ @

Attorney General Bill Barr went on CNN on Wednesday — and quickly demonstrated why he rarely strays outside the friendly confines of Fox News for TV interviews.
Barr’s interview with Wolf Blitzer began with the attorney general making unsubstantiated claims about circumstances surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It wound down with him going to desperate lengths to substantiate Trump’s baseless, politically motivated claims about how mail-in voting will result in a rigged election. On more than one occasion, Blitzer seemed surprised at how unpersuasive Barr’s arguments were.
The whole spectacle demonstrated how, under Trump, the office of the nation’s top law enforcement official has been diminished to something akin to a campaign surrogate for the president.
Barr’s comments about Jacob Blake and Black Lives Matter revealed how unserious he is about racial unrest
The half-hour interview got off to a bad start when Barr presented a flawed argument to try and justify the August 23 shooting of Blake — which sparked protests, looting, and right-wing vigilante violence in Kenosha — then stuck with his case even after Blitzer corrected him.
Barr claimed that Blake was “armed” — the implication being that officers had good reason to shoot him seven times in the back. In fact, while there was a knife in Blake’s car, no evidence has emerged that he brandished it at police officers.
“His family says he wasn’t armed,” Blitzer pointed out to Barr. “There may have been a knife in the car, but he wasn’t armed when he was shot. That’s what his family and his lawyer said.”
But Barr’s narrative seemed impervious to facts.
“Well, I stated what I believe to be [the case],” he replied.
AG Bill Barr tells Wolf Blitzer that he thinks the Jacob Blake shooting might’ve been justified because Blake was “armed” — then sticks with his analysis even after Blitzer points out that he was not in fact armed pic.twitter.com/FpBy3qMrYO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 2, 2020
From there, Barr made an unpersuasive case that systemic racism is not a factor in police violence against Black men like Blake, insisting that “the narrative that the police are on some, you know, epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men is simply a false narrative and also the narrative that that’s based on race.”
In reality, a number of studies have found that Black Americans are far more likely to be police shooting victims than whites. For instance, a Washington Post analysis of data about police shootings found that while Black Americans represent 13 percent of the US population, 36 percent of unarmed officer shooting victims are Black.
Barr wouldn’t even acknowledge that voting twice is a crime
If Barr’s ignorance about the reality of racial disparities in the country was galling, his comments about voting by mail were arguably even worse.
Barr’s interview with Blitzer came hours after Trump encouraged his supporters in North Carolina to vote twice to test the state’s mail-in voting system — comments widely interpreted as encouraging felony voter fraud.
“It sounds like he’s encouraging people to break the law and try to vote twice,” Blitzer told Barr. But Barr wasn’t willing to acknowledge the sky is blue.
“I don’t know what the law in the particular state says,” he replied, prompting Blitzer to point out the obvious fact that “you can’t vote twice.”
“I don’t know what the law in the particular state says,” Barr retorted. “If you know what he’s saying, why are you asking me if you’re saying.”
“You’re the attorney general of the United States,” Blitzer said.
"I don't know what the law in the particular state says" -- Wolf Blitzer has to explain to the Attorney General of the United States that it's actually illegal to vote twice pic.twitter.com/ytDfzZoZV6 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 2, 2020
Trump’s remarks were meant to create the impression that mail voting is ripe for fraud. In fact, the experience of a number of states that already conduct elections almost entirely by mail demonstrates that’s it’s relatively safe not only in terms of preventing fraud, but also in terms of allowing people to safely exercise their right to vote amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Alluding to this disconnect between reality and Trump’s rhetoric, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent interpreted Barr’s defense of Trump as “telegraphing his willingness to legitimize Trump’s eventual effort to try to invalidate untold numbers of mail ballots, which Trump has already told us is coming.”
When Blitzer pressed Barr to cite evidence that mail voting is as ripe for fraud as Trump says it is, Barr couldn’t. Asked whether he had seen any evidence substantiating his own claims that a foreign government would counterfeit ballots to sway the election, Barr instead resorted to saying these concerns are “a matter of logic.” Blitzer seemed taken aback at the weakness of Barr’s case.
This is farcical stuff from AG Bill Barr. Wolf Blitzer is taken aback by how weak his arguments are. pic.twitter.com/osb9FohZq1 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 2, 2020
Barr was later unable to answer straightforward questions from Blitzer about how many people Barr’s DOJ has indicted for voter fraud. And the interview concluded with Barr making an extremely unpersuasive case that China is a bigger threat to American elections than Russia — comments at odds with the findings of the intelligence community but consistent with Trump’s desire to downplay Russian interference.
“I’m not gonna discuss that,” Barr said, pressed by Blitzer to substantiate his claim. “I’m not gonna get into that.”
The attorney general has been reduced to something akin to a fixer for the president
It’s not a surprise that Barr is using his office to do Trump’s bidding — he’s been doing that since the earliest weeks of his tenure early last year when he got ahead of the Mueller report by releasing a misleading summary of its key findings aimed at exonerating the president.
As my colleague Andrew Prokop explained, the DOJ may not have become “a well-oiled machine that does President Trump’s bidding immediately at all times,” but Barr has proven he’s “unafraid of criticism that he’s acting politically to help the president or his friends”:
Wednesday was the case in point. Rudimentary questioning from Blitzer revealed that he’s unfamiliar with basic facts surrounding key cases, the reality of racial disparities in America, and apparently even the fact that it’s illegal to vote twice in America. And he seems more intent on repeating his boss’s talking points than he does in getting up to speed.


vox--2020-09-03--Trump’s authoritarian “anarchist jurisdictions” memo, explained

Typically , when the White House releases a document laying out a new policy , that document includes at least a few paragraphs explaining why the president has legal authority to set that policy .
President Trump ’ s latest policy memo , which seeks to strip federal funding from “ anarchist jurisdictions , ” does not even make this basic concession to the fact that the president is bound by laws .
The nearly 1,500-word memo does not contain a single legal citation .
No statutes or judicial decisions are mentioned .
It ’ s as though it were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is an entire profession — lawyers — whose job is to give advice on whether particular actions are lawful or unlawful , and to provide legal arguments supporting their clients ’ actions .
The broad policy laid out in the memo — stripping federal funding from various cities because the president disagrees with those cities ’ policing policy — is unconstitutional .
The federal government may attach conditions to federal grants , and it may strip funding from states or localities that do not comply with those conditions .
But its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the Supreme Court explained in South Dakota v. Dole ( 1987 ) , “ if Congress desires to condition the States ’ receipt of federal funds , it ‘ must do so unambiguously ... enabl [ ing ] the States to exercise their choice knowingly , cognizant of the consequences of their participation.
’ ” A key word in this passage is “ Congress.
” The legislative branch may impose new conditions on federal grants , but Trump is not Congress .
He may not .
What does Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the “ anarchist jurisdictions ” memo is not fully implemented .
Trump did not explicitly order the government to cut off funding to anyone — yet .
Rather , he instructed the Justice Department to come up with a list of cities that should lose funding , and he instructs the White House Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) to limit funding to these cities “ to the maximum extent permitted by law.
” It ’ s likely that the executive branch has no lawful authority to cut off funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department and OMB will only reach that conclusion if the task of implementing the memo is assigned to competent lawyers who interpret existing law in good faith , and the mere existence of this memo inspires little confidence that they will do so .
Within two weeks , the memo instructs Attorney General Bill Barr to publish a list of “ anarchist jurisdictions ” on the DOJ ’ s website .
The memo also lays out a few criteria that Barr may use in determining which jurisdictions deserve such public shaming , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A city might wind up on the list because the Trump administration thinks that it “ disempowers or defunds police departments , ” or because the administration believes that the city “ unreasonably refuses to accept offers of law enforcement assistance from the Federal Government.
” While the memo does not explicitly order Barr to add certain cities to the list , it communicates that specific cities should be included .
The memo requires federal agencies to detail “ all Federal funds provided to Seattle , Portland , New York City , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memo criticizes policing policy in these four cities .
While the Justice Department is coming up with its list of disfavored cities , OMB Director Russ Vought must “ issue guidance to the heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring , to the maximum extent permitted by law , anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants.
” Though the memo does not explicitly state which federal grants should be cut off , it hints that the amount of money at stake could be enormous .
“ The Federal Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of dollars every year , ” Trump ’ s memo states , and this money funds “ a wide array of programs , such as housing , public transportation , job training , and social services.
” The executive branch does not have the power to cut off funding to cities The 10th Amendment provides that “ the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the states , are reserved to the states respectively , or to the people.
” Implicit in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a doctrine known as “ Anti-Commandeering , ” which typically prevents the federal government from giving orders directly to state officials such as state and local police .
As the Court explained in Murphy v. NCAA ( 2018 ) , “ conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.
” But , while the federal government may not directly order local police to take certain actions — it can not , for example , order those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president disapproves of — the federal government can place conditions on federal grants that states must comply with if they wish to keep that money .
The Dole decision , however , lays out several limits on the federal government ’ s power to attach conditions to grants — a few of which are relevant to Trump ’ s memo .
First , as mentioned above , the power to impose conditions is vested in Congress , not the president , so unless Trump can convince Congress to pass a law targeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not impose new limits on existing federal grants .
Second , when Congress does impose a condition on a federal grant to a state or local government , it “ must do so unambiguously ” so that states are not surprised by unexpected obligations .
In the Supreme Court ’ s words , grant recipients must be able to “ exercise their choice knowingly , cognizant of the consequences of their participation.
” If they don ’ t want the conditions , they don ’ t have to accept the money in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration wants to argue that an existing federal law permits it to strip federal funding from “ anarchist jurisdictions , ” it faces a heavy burden .
It must find an existing law that clearly imposes specific policing obligations on states and localities .
It is , to say the least , unlikely that Congress has already enacted a law that unambiguously permits Trump to strip federal funds due to a personal disagreement over local policing strategy .
Finally , Dole also states that conditions imposed on federal grants must be germane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court put it , “ conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated ‘ to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.
’ ” This germaneness requirement is not particularly strict .
Dole , for example , permitted Congress to strip some federal highway funding from states that did not raise their drinking age to 21 .
The Court concluded that a higher drinking age is sufficiently related to highway funding because less drinking means less drunk driving and thus safer highways .
Nevertheless , the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are completely unrelated to the purpose of that grant .
If Trump attempted to strip all Medicaid funds from cities over a disagreement about policing policy , for example , courts could very well balk .
Trump ’ s “ anarchist jurisdictions ” memo is not the first time the Trump administration attempted to cut federal funding from states or localities over police-related disagreements .
And most of the judges who considered the administration ’ s previous attempts agree that the administration acted unlawfully .
The Trump administration , for example , attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice grant to jurisdictions that did not help the administration crack down on immigrants .
At least three federal appeals courts concluded that the administration acted unlawfully — though one outlier court did not .
The outlier court , however , rested much of its decision on a novel claim that the Anti-Commandeering doctrine has less force in immigration-related cases .
Whatever the merits of that highly unusual argument , Trump ’ s “ anarchist jurisdictions ” memo primarily concerns local policing of American citizens and does not even mention immigration .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there is always some risk that they won ’ t , given the growing number of deeply ideological Trump-appointed judges on the federal bench — Trump ’ s memo should fall .
The president does not have the constitutional authority to strip funding from states or localities without congressional authorization to do so .
Yet , the fact that the law governing this memo is so tilted against Trump means that the stakes in any lawsuit challenging the memo will be very high .
Trump wants a police crackdown on political dissidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order such a crackdown .
And so , without citing any legal justification whatsoever , he simply announced a plan to punish cities that don ’ t implement that crackdown .
This is not how presidents behave in a constitutional democracy .
It is how authoritarian dictators behave .
And if the courts allow Trump to punish cities in this way , it ’ s far from clear that they will impose meaningful limits on an increasingly imperious president .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Typically, when the White House releases a document laying out a new policy, that document includes at least a few paragraphs explaining why the president has legal authority to set that policy. President Trump’s latest policy memo, which seeks to strip federal funding from “anarchist jurisdictions,” does not even make this basic concession to the fact that the president is bound by laws.
The nearly 1,500-word memo does not contain a single legal citation. No statutes or judicial decisions are mentioned. It’s as though it were written by someone who is blissfully unaware that there is an entire profession — lawyers — whose job is to give advice on whether particular actions are lawful or unlawful, and to provide legal arguments supporting their clients’ actions.
The broad policy laid out in the memo — stripping federal funding from various cities because the president disagrees with those cities’ policing policy — is unconstitutional.
The federal government may attach conditions to federal grants, and it may strip funding from states or localities that do not comply with those conditions. But its power to do so is not unlimited. As the Supreme Court explained in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), “if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it ‘must do so unambiguously ... enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.’”
A key word in this passage is “Congress.” The legislative branch may impose new conditions on federal grants, but Trump is not Congress. He may not.
What does Trump’s memo actually do?
The policy announced in the “anarchist jurisdictions” memo is not fully implemented. Trump did not explicitly order the government to cut off funding to anyone — yet. Rather, he instructed the Justice Department to come up with a list of cities that should lose funding, and he instructs the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to limit funding to these cities “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
It’s likely that the executive branch has no lawful authority to cut off funding to these cities. But the Justice Department and OMB will only reach that conclusion if the task of implementing the memo is assigned to competent lawyers who interpret existing law in good faith, and the mere existence of this memo inspires little confidence that they will do so.
Within two weeks, the memo instructs Attorney General Bill Barr to publish a list of “anarchist jurisdictions” on the DOJ’s website. The memo also lays out a few criteria that Barr may use in determining which jurisdictions deserve such public shaming, though many of these criteria are quite vague.
A city might wind up on the list because the Trump administration thinks that it “disempowers or defunds police departments,” or because the administration believes that the city “unreasonably refuses to accept offers of law enforcement assistance from the Federal Government.”
While the memo does not explicitly order Barr to add certain cities to the list, it communicates that specific cities should be included. The memo requires federal agencies to detail “all Federal funds provided to Seattle, Portland, New York City, Washington, D.C.” Much of the memo criticizes policing policy in these four cities.
While the Justice Department is coming up with its list of disfavored cities, OMB Director Russell Vought must “issue guidance to the heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of Federal grants.”
Though the memo does not explicitly state which federal grants should be cut off, it hints that the amount of money at stake could be enormous. “The Federal Government provides States and localities with hundreds of billions of dollars every year,” Trump’s memo states, and this money funds “a wide array of programs, such as housing, public transportation, job training, and social services.”
The executive branch does not have the power to cut off funding to cities
The 10th Amendment provides that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Implicit in this amendment, according to the Supreme Court, is a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering,” which typically prevents the federal government from giving orders directly to state officials such as state and local police.
As the Court explained in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), “conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.”
But, while the federal government may not directly order local police to take certain actions — it cannot, for example, order those police to crack down on protests that the president disapproves of — the federal government can place conditions on federal grants that states must comply with if they wish to keep that money.
The Dole decision, however, lays out several limits on the federal government’s power to attach conditions to grants — a few of which are relevant to Trump’s memo.
First, as mentioned above, the power to impose conditions is vested in Congress, not the president, so unless Trump can convince Congress to pass a law targeting “anarchist jurisdictions,” he may not impose new limits on existing federal grants.
Second, when Congress does impose a condition on a federal grant to a state or local government, it “must do so unambiguously” so that states are not surprised by unexpected obligations. In the Supreme Court’s words, grant recipients must be able to “exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.” If they don’t want the conditions, they don’t have to accept the money in the first place.
Thus, if the Trump administration wants to argue that an existing federal law permits it to strip federal funding from “anarchist jurisdictions,” it faces a heavy burden. It must find an existing law that clearly imposes specific policing obligations on states and localities. It is, to say the least, unlikely that Congress has already enacted a law that unambiguously permits Trump to strip federal funds due to a personal disagreement over local policing strategy.
Finally, Dole also states that conditions imposed on federal grants must be germane to the grant itself. As the Court put it, “conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated ‘to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.’”
This germaneness requirement is not particularly strict. Dole, for example, permitted Congress to strip some federal highway funding from states that did not raise their drinking age to 21. The Court concluded that a higher drinking age is sufficiently related to highway funding because less drinking means less drunk driving and thus safer highways.
Nevertheless, the federal government may not impose conditions on grants that are completely unrelated to the purpose of that grant. If Trump attempted to strip all Medicaid funds from cities over a disagreement about policing policy, for example, courts could very well balk.
Trump’s “anarchist jurisdictions” memo is not the first time the Trump administration attempted to cut federal funding from states or localities over police-related disagreements. And most of the judges who considered the administration’s previous attempts agree that the administration acted unlawfully.
The Trump administration, for example, attempted to cut off a small federal criminal justice grant to jurisdictions that did not help the administration crack down on immigrants. At least three federal appeals courts concluded the administration acted unlawfully — though one outlier court did not.
The outlier court, however, rested much of its decision on a novel claim that the anti-commandeering doctrine has less force in immigration-related cases. Whatever the merits of that highly unusual argument, Trump’s “anarchist jurisdictions” memo primarily concerns local policing of American citizens and does not even mention immigration.
So if the courts follow existing law — and there is always some risk they won’t, given the growing number of deeply ideological Trump-appointed judges on the federal bench — Trump’s memo should fall. The president does not have the constitutional authority to strip funding from states or localities without congressional authorization to do so.
Yet, the fact that the law governing this memo is so tilted against Trump means the stakes in any lawsuit challenging the memo will be very high. Trump wants a police crackdown on political dissidents. He lacks the legal authority to order such a crackdown. And so, without citing any legal justification whatsoever, he simply announced a plan to punish cities that don’t implement that crackdown.
This is not how presidents behave in a constitutional democracy. It is how authoritarian dictators behave. And if the courts allow Trump to punish cities in this way, it’s far from clear that they will impose meaningful limits on an increasingly imperious president.


vox--2020-09-03--Andrew Yang on UBI, the coronavirus, and his next job in politics

The last time Andrew Yang was on The Ezra Klein Show , he was just beginning his long-shot campaign for the presidency .
Now , he ’ s fresh off a speaking slot at the Democratic convention and , as he reveals in this episode , talking to Joe Biden about a very specific role in a Biden administration .
Which is all to say : A lot has changed for Andrew Yang in the past few years .
And even more has changed in the world .
So I asked Yang back on the show to talk through this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Among our topics : • Could a universal basic income be the way we rebuild a fairer economy post-coronavirus ?
• What ’ s changed in AI , and AI ’ s likely effect on the economy , over the past five years ?
• What ’ s the one mistake Yang wishes the Democratic Party would stop making ?
• What did he learn from the surprising success of his own campaign ?
• What job is he talking to Joe Biden about taking if Democrats win in November ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ party of government .
So why don ’ t they care more about making government work ?
• How can Democrats get away with endlessly claiming to support ideas they have no actual intention of passing ?
• Do progressives have an overly dystopian view of technology ?
• Is there a way to pull presidential campaigns out of value statements and into real plans for governing ?
And much more .
You can listen to our discussion here , or by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you get your podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger Vox project called The Great Rebuild , which is made possible thanks to support from Omidyar Network , a social impact venture that works to reimagine critical systems and the ideas that govern them , and to build more inclusive and equitable societies .
All Great Rebuild coverage is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The last time Andrew Yang was on The Ezra Klein Show, he was just beginning his long-shot campaign for the presidency. Now, he’s fresh off a speaking slot at the Democratic convention and, as he reveals in this episode, talking to Joe Biden about a very specific role in a Biden administration.
Which is all to say: A lot has changed for Andrew Yang in the past few years. And even more has changed in the world. So I asked Yang back on the show to talk through this new world and his possible role in it. Among our topics:
Could a universal basic income be the way we rebuild a fairer economy post-coronavirus?
What’s changed in AI, and AI’s likely effect on the economy, over the past five years?
What’s the one mistake Yang wishes the Democratic Party would stop making?
What did he learn from the surprising success of his own campaign?
What job is he talking to Joe Biden about taking if Democrats win in November?
Democrats think of themselves as the party of government. So why don’t they care more about making government work?
How can Democrats get away with endlessly claiming to support ideas they have no actual intention of passing?
Do progressives have an overly dystopian view of technology?
Is there a way to pull presidential campaigns out of value statements and into real plans for governing?
The unusual power Joe Biden holds in American politics
And much more.
You can listen to our discussion here, or by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you get your podcasts.
This podcast is part of a larger Vox project called The Great Rebuild, which is made possible thanks to support from Omidyar Network, a social impact venture that works to reimagine critical systems and the ideas that govern them, and to build more inclusive and equitable societies. All Great Rebuild coverage is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-09-03--What Mulan taught me about identity, honor, and drag saving China

One of the greatest Disney movies in history is Mulan ( 1998 ) , a story about how drag saves China .
Toward the end of the film , Mulan dresses up her friends ( one of whom is voiced by Broadway star Harvey Fierstein ) as female concubines to infiltrate a palace swarming with Huns .
Said Huns underestimate them and are completely surprised by the ambush .
But a young drag king protecting China ’ s fate from Hun occupation isn ’ t the only reason the movie is so beloved .
Disney ’ s Mulan , interpreted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells the story of a girl who wants to bring honor to her family and protect her ailing father by pretending to be a man and joining the Chinese army .
In a country that ’ s historically been portrayed as valuing the lives of its boys over its girls , Mulan ’ s defiance is extremely powerful .
Mulan is Disney ’ s love letter to young girls , particularly girls of Asian descent , telling them they could both be princesses ( while Mulan is not royalty , she is considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) and also save themselves .
The 1998 version of Mulan tells this story with plenty of humor and song .
Its soundtrack contains two of the greatest Disney songs ever made : “ Reflection ” and “ I ’ ll Make a Man Out of You.
” Either one could make for a dramatic figure skating routine or convince one to crush a mountain with their bare hands .
Mulan was a successful entrant into the Disney animated canon , and it was also a landmark triumph of representation .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this world of fairytales and fantasies for Asian people .
It showed that we can be the architects and stars of our own stories .
And to a teenager hiding in the deepest corner of the closet , this movie about how drag saved China was so meaningful and important .
There is no Disney film I think about now , as a 37-year-old gay man , with more affection , gratitude , and respect than Mulan .
On Friday , Mulan will enjoy a second life as a live-action Disney remake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as any to remember what makes Mulan such a transformative story about who we are , who we see ourselves to be , and the struggle of finding out who that is .
How Mulan made me realize what representation feels like Growing up , my parents didn ’ t believe in putting a cap on the amount of time we spent in front of a television or screen .
My parents are immigrants , and I think some of their choice to let us watch TV as long as we wanted was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way for us to learn about American life , through Sesame Street , The Facts of Life , Star Wars , The Price is Right , and commercials for Gorton ’ s fish sticks .
Disney ’ s animated movies were part of that learning .
The first movie I ever saw in theaters was Snow White in 1987 ; I closed my eyes during the scary ending .
Around the same time , I had watched Sleeping Beauty so many times — the scene where Fauna uses magic to crack eggs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cake bake itself — that the Betamax tape wore out .
Years later , my dad gave my brother and me a lecture about how Ariel was a selfish idiot in 1989 ’ s The Little Mermaid , a lecture prompted when I asked him to explain what “ reprimand ” meant .
I also distinctly remember Beauty and the Beast disturbing me , because I thought the enchantress turning the prince ’ s servants into flatware and appliances was unfair .
I still believe that those three wishes were wasted on Aladdin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel bad that I didn ’ t listen to or respect my dad ’ s lecture about Ariel .
All those movies ask you to imagine yourself in the shoes of a failed inventor ’ s daughter or a lion or a street rat or a cake-making fairy godmother and see the world through their eyes .
Those characters all want something more , something better than the life they ’ ve been dealt — a life where they ’ re supposed to be anyone but themselves .
And their happy endings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world out there for the true you .
For any kid — or anyone — that ’ s ever felt out of step , that ’ s nourishment .
Disney continued that thematic tradition when it released Mulan in 1998 .
I was in high school at that point , but not quite old enough to drive .
Mulan , the studio ’ s first Asian protagonist , looked like she could ’ ve been related to me .
She was around my age .
And because she wasn ’ t the perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who would be an obedient bride to a dignified , accomplished man — her parents were disappointed in her .
Letting your parents down because you ’ re not what they envisioned you to be is something most teens , especially Asian American teens with Asian parents ’ expectations placed on us , can relate to .
When I saw Mulan in theaters with my friends , the one thing I distinctly remember is feeling like I didn ’ t have to suspend disbelief that much to put myself in her shoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conversation about what successful representation looks like , the best way I can describe it is not having to stretch and ply yourself to see yourself in a story .
And I remember Mulan as one of the first times in the hundreds of movies and television shows I ’ d seen where I felt at ease like that .
How Mulan represents a coming out story and the power of drag At the heart of most of Disney ’ s animated movies are a promise and a bargain .
The promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hero their real self , the person who they really are meant to be .
The bargain is that if you , the viewer , buy into their story , you might find glimmers of your own purpose and the courage to pursue it .
The bargain isn ’ t that different from what you ’ d find in superhero stories or religious parables or any kind of story with a role model .
Disney ’ s best characters reflect back to us our frustrations , our fears , our desires , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be .
It ’ s become clearer and clearer to me that Mulan ’ s story resonated with teenage me because of its queer allegory .
Mulan , by the end of her adventure , defeats the Huns , falls in love with a man who respects her ( Mulan and Shang ’ s relationship is sometimes read as bisexual ) , and lives happily ever after .
It ’ s not unlike the majority of Disney stories that end in marriage with a dollop of monarchy .
But so much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its seemingly neat end , is about not fitting into what ’ s asked of her .
The crux of Mulan is in its two major songs .
The first is the soaring “ Reflection.
” It ’ s a classic “ I Want ” song that takes place toward the beginning of the film , after Mulan has bumbled her meeting with the neighborhood matchmaker .
She ’ s still in makeup as she sings about not checking the boxes of being a perfect daughter .
The song , sung by Lea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christina Aguilera on the radio single ) , goes : For Mulan , the song is about her belief that there ’ s more to life than being a bride .
She sings it to herself , looking back at her own face in the mirror — though she doesn ’ t seem to know who that person is inside either .
The movie also doesn ’ t depict Mulan as having any friends her age ; she ’ s alone .
It ’ s not difficult to see the queerness in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ song resonates with so many LGBTQ+ people .
I look back now , and the queer reading may not have been plainly obvious to teenage , closeted me .
But it ’ s right there in front of me now , upon re-watch , that “ Reflection ” functions as a song about suppressing who you ’ re born as and the desires you ’ re born with .
That suppression leads to isolation , and it ’ s a lot like the experience of living in the closet .
In an attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ailing father , Mulan joins the Chinese army — an overcorrection of sorts .
She begrudgingly befriends fellow recruits Yao , Ling , and Chien-Po .
They ’ re all together in the movie ’ s other show-stopping number , “ I ’ ll Make a Man Out of You.
” Sung by hyper-masculine commander Shang , it ’ s about his disappointment in his brigade and how he has to whip them into shape : The song plays over a montage of Mulan and her fellow soldiers ’ failures .
They trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible at plucking fish out of rivers .
They ’ re bad at climbing .
And the pendulum has swung the other way with the same result : Mulan is awful at pretending to be someone she ’ s not .
Pretending to be someone you ’ re not isn ’ t the better way to live , the movie says quite plainly .
At the end of the montage , Mulan figures out a way to do Shang ’ s impossible task — climbing a pole and retrieving an arrow while carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ as swift as the coursing river , ” having the “ force of the great typhoon , ” or “ possessing the “ strength of the raging fire.
” She relies on her instincts and qualities she ’ s been suppressing to succeed , like her quick thinking and ingenuity .
Doing so also leads to successes like decimating the Hun army with an avalanche and saving the emperor .
Mulan ’ s own realization of how all types of heteronormative gender are largely performative allows her to come up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s character ) and her other friends in drag and sneak into the castle to free the emperor .
She subversively uses society ’ s expectations and hangups about masculinity and femininity to her advantage and to ultimately save China .
And the inclusion of a scene featuring drag as a power — especially with Fierstein in the cast — hinted that Disney maybe knew more about what it was doing for queer Mulan viewers than it seemed to on the surface .
Mulan promises that we are all made with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to fit every expectation made for us , and that it ’ s completely fine not to fit in perfectly .
The movie reinforces that suppressing your true self harms you in the end .
For LGBTQ+ people , who are often told to hide if we can ’ t be what society deems appropriate , that ’ s a tremendously powerful message .
For teenage me , Mulan didn ’ t quite take a battering ram to the closet door .
I was too scared to let that happen .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that there was something to that feeling out of place and feeling different , and that it wasn ’ t a bad thing .
Mulan didn ’ t smash the door down ; it knocked .
And I was thankful that it did .
At the end of the movie , Mulan isn ’ t the perfect bride or the perfect soldier .
She ’ s carved out her own place in the middle .
We don ’ t really know how Mulan actually sees herself at the end .
We just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and better fitting than how she saw herself in the beginning .
That , to me , is the beautiful parting shot — that who we are will never be as simple or as permanent as we think .
But it doesn ’ t make us and what we feel any less real .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

One of the greatest Disney movies in history is Mulan (1998), a story about how drag saves China.
Toward the end of the film, Mulan dresses up her friends (one of whom is voiced by Broadway star Harvey Fierstein) as female concubines to infiltrate a palace swarming with Huns. Said Huns underestimate them and are completely surprised by the ambush.
But a young drag king protecting China’s fate from Hun occupation isn’t the only reason the movie is so beloved.
Disney’s Mulan, interpreted from a sixth-century Chinese war ballad, tells the story of a girl who wants to bring honor to her family and protect her ailing father by pretending to be a man and joining the Chinese army.
In a country that’s historically been portrayed as valuing the lives of its boys over its girls, Mulan’s defiance is extremely powerful. Mulan is Disney’s love letter to young girls, particularly girls of Asian descent, telling them they could both be princesses (while Mulan is not royalty, she is considered, erroneously, a Disney “princess”) and also save themselves.
The 1998 version of Mulan tells this story with plenty of humor and song. Its soundtrack contains two of the greatest Disney songs ever made: “Reflection” and “I’ll Make a Man Out of You.” Either one could make for a dramatic figure skating routine or convince one to crush a mountain with their bare hands.
Mulan was a successful entrant into the Disney animated canon, and it was also a landmark triumph of representation. It showed that there’s a space in this world of fairytales and fantasies for Asian people. It showed that we can be the architects and stars of our own stories.
And to a teenager hiding in the deepest corner of the closet, this movie about how drag saved China was so meaningful and important. There is no Disney film I think about now, as a 37-year-old gay man, with more affection, gratitude, and respect than Mulan.
On Friday, Mulan will enjoy a second life as a live-action Disney remake, making now as good a time as any to remember what makes Mulan such a transformative story about who we are, who we see ourselves to be, and the struggle of finding out who that is.
How Mulan made me realize what representation feels like
Growing up, my parents didn’t believe in putting a cap on the amount of time we spent in front of a television or screen. My parents are immigrants, and I think some of their choice to let us watch TV as long as we wanted was intentional. Television shows and movies were a way for us to learn about American life, through Sesame Street, The Facts of Life, Star Wars, The Price is Right, and commercials for Gorton’s fish sticks.
Disney’s animated movies were part of that learning.
The first movie I ever saw in theaters was Snow White in 1987; I closed my eyes during the scary ending. Around the same time, I had watched Sleeping Beauty so many times — the scene where Fauna uses magic to crack eggs, measure flour, and have a cake bake itself — that the Betamax tape wore out.
Years later, my dad gave my brother and me a lecture about how Ariel was a selfish idiot in 1989’s The Little Mermaid, a lecture prompted when I asked him to explain what “reprimand” meant. I also distinctly remember Beauty and the Beast disturbing me, because I thought the enchantress turning the prince’s servants into flatware and appliances was unfair. I still believe that those three wishes were wasted on Aladdin. And The Lion King made me feel bad that I didn’t listen to or respect my dad’s lecture about Ariel.
Disney awakened my imagination and empathy.
All those movies ask you to imagine yourself in the shoes of a failed inventor’s daughter or a lion or a street rat or a cake-making fairy godmother and see the world through their eyes. Those characters all want something more, something better than the life they’ve been dealt — a life where they’re supposed to be anyone but themselves. And their happy endings are the assurance that there’s a world out there for the true you. For any kid — or anyone — that’s ever felt out of step, that’s nourishment.
Disney continued that thematic tradition when it released Mulan in 1998. I was in high school at that point, but not quite old enough to drive.
Mulan, the studio’s first Asian protagonist, looked like she could’ve been related to me. She was around my age. And because she wasn’t the perfect daughter — in this case, a woman who would be an obedient bride to a dignified, accomplished man — her parents were disappointed in her. Letting your parents down because you’re not what they envisioned you to be is something most teens, especially Asian American teens with Asian parents’ expectations placed on us, can relate to.
When I saw Mulan in theaters with my friends, the one thing I distinctly remember is feeling like I didn’t have to suspend disbelief that much to put myself in her shoes. I could just relax. In the conversation about what successful representation looks like, the best way I can describe it is not having to stretch and ply yourself to see yourself in a story. And I remember Mulan as one of the first times in the hundreds of movies and television shows I’d seen where I felt at ease like that.
How Mulan represents a coming out story and the power of drag
At the heart of most of Disney’s animated movies are a promise and a bargain. The promise is that this story will show the hero their real self, the person who they really are meant to be. The bargain is that if you, the viewer, buy into their story, you might find glimmers of your own purpose and the courage to pursue it.
The bargain isn’t that different from what you’d find in superhero stories or religious parables or any kind of story with a role model. Disney’s best characters reflect back to us our frustrations, our fears, our desires, and the who and what we would like to be.
It’s become clearer and clearer to me that Mulan’s story resonated with teenage me because of its queer allegory.
Mulan, by the end of her adventure, defeats the Huns, falls in love with a man who respects her (Mulan and Shang’s relationship is sometimes read as bisexual), and lives happily ever after. It’s not unlike the majority of Disney stories that end in marriage with a dollop of monarchy. But so much of Mulan’s story, and even its seemingly neat end, is about not fitting into what’s asked of her.
The crux of Mulan is in its two major songs. The first is the soaring “Reflection.” It’s a classic “I Want” song that takes place toward the beginning of the film, after Mulan has bumbled her meeting with the neighborhood matchmaker. She’s still in makeup as she sings about not checking the boxes of being a perfect daughter. The song, sung by Lea Salonga in the movie (and by Christina Aguilera on the radio single), goes:
Why must we all conceal
What we think, how we feel?
Must there be a secret me
I’m forced to hide? I won’t pretend that
I’m someone else for all time
When will my reflection show
Who I am inside?
For Mulan, the song is about her belief that there’s more to life than being a bride. She sings it to herself, looking back at her own face in the mirror — though she doesn’t seem to know who that person is inside either. The movie also doesn’t depict Mulan as having any friends her age; she’s alone.
It’s not difficult to see the queerness in “Reflection” — a reason that the song resonates with so many LGBTQ+ people. I look back now, and the queer reading may not have been plainly obvious to teenage, closeted me. But it’s right there in front of me now, upon re-watch, that “Reflection” functions as a song about suppressing who you’re born as and the desires you’re born with. That suppression leads to isolation, and it’s a lot like the experience of living in the closet.
In an attempt to both find herself and protect her ailing father, Mulan joins the Chinese army — an overcorrection of sorts.
She begrudgingly befriends fellow recruits Yao, Ling, and Chien-Po. They’re all together in the movie’s other show-stopping number, “I’ll Make a Man Out of You.” Sung by hyper-masculine commander Shang, it’s about his disappointment in his brigade and how he has to whip them into shape:
Let’s get down to business, to defeat the Huns
Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?
You’re the saddest bunch I ever met
But you can bet before we’re through
Mister, I’ll make a man out of you
The song plays over a montage of Mulan and her fellow soldiers’ failures. They trip and fall, and they’re terrible at plucking fish out of rivers. They’re bad at climbing. And the pendulum has swung the other way with the same result: Mulan is awful at pretending to be someone she’s not.
Pretending to be someone you’re not isn’t the better way to live, the movie says quite plainly.
At the end of the montage, Mulan figures out a way to do Shang’s impossible task — climbing a pole and retrieving an arrow while carrying weights on her arms — without being “as swift as the coursing river,” having the “force of the great typhoon,” or “possessing the “strength of the raging fire.”
She relies on her instincts and qualities she’s been suppressing to succeed, like her quick thinking and ingenuity. Doing so also leads to successes like decimating the Hun army with an avalanche and saving the emperor.
Mulan’s own realization of how all types of heteronormative gender are largely performative allows her to come up with the plan to put Yao (Harvey Fierstein’s character) and her other friends in drag and sneak into the castle to free the emperor. She subversively uses society’s expectations and hangups about masculinity and femininity to her advantage and to ultimately save China. And the inclusion of a scene featuring drag as a power — especially with Fierstein in the cast — hinted that Disney maybe knew more about what it was doing for queer Mulan viewers than it seemed to on the surface.
Mulan promises that we are all made with a purpose, that we’re not meant to fit every expectation made for us, and that it’s completely fine not to fit in perfectly. The movie reinforces that suppressing your true self harms you in the end. For LGBTQ+ people, who are often told to hide if we can’t be what society deems appropriate, that’s a tremendously powerful message.
For teenage me, Mulan didn’t quite take a battering ram to the closet door. I was too scared to let that happen. But it did make me comfortable with the idea that there was something to that feeling out of place and feeling different, and that it wasn’t a bad thing. Mulan didn’t smash the door down; it knocked. And I was thankful that it did.
At the end of the movie, Mulan isn’t the perfect bride or the perfect soldier. She’s carved out her own place in the middle. We don’t really know how Mulan actually sees herself at the end. We just know that it’s something truer and better fitting than how she saw herself in the beginning. That, to me, is the beautiful parting shot — that who we are will never be as simple or as permanent as we think. But it doesn’t make us and what we feel any less real.


vox--2020-09-04--One Good Thing: Stephen Colbert is looser, funnier, and angrier in quarantine

One Good Thing is Vox ’ s recommendations feature .
In each edition , find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend .
One of my favorite micro-moments in 21st-century TV history was what happened to late-night shows during the 2007–08 writers strike .
The hosts of late-night talk shows — including The Colbert Report ’ s Stephen Colbert , among others — were forbidden from working with their writing staffs , since the Writers Guild of America had declared a work stoppage .
But the shows had to go on .
What was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ended up making were loopy and gloriously silly , long on comedic bits that often had no real structure to them , yet were buoyed by the hosts ’ willingness to just do whatever for a laugh .
By far my favorite series of programs from this period involved an ongoing “ feud ” between Colbert and Conan O ’ Brien over which of them had been more instrumental in the then-surprising rise of Mike Huckabee ( who briefly seemed to be the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ choreographed slapstick fight where Colbert , O ’ Brien , and Jon Stewart seemed to be locked in a battle for the ages .
That sort of loose and goofy energy is too rare in modern late-night , where everything is tightly scripted and every interview is a promotional opportunity .
( I miss , daily , Craig Ferguson , whose CBS show ended in 2014 , because he was the best conversationalist on television . )
But the Covid-19 pandemic has forced at least some of that spirit back into late-night programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see who ’ s been most revitalized by it .
I ’ ve been tickled by what both Seth Meyers and Trevor Noah have done with their quarantine-era programs , but the biggest surprise to me has been just how entertaining Stephen Colbert has been on CBS ’ s Late Show .
I bear no particular ill-will toward Colbert ’ s Late Show — I prefer it to Jimmy Fallon ’ s Tonight Show on NBC and Jimmy Kimmel ’ s Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC , both of which air opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s always felt a step down to me from the satirical stuff he was doing for all those years on The Colbert Report .
In quarantine , though , his show has become something to see most nights , even when it ’ s not particularly funny .
If a joke doesn ’ t land , it almost doesn ’ t matter because what ’ s most impressive about Colbert in quarantine is the spirit of the thing .
Like many hosts , in the early stages of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his home .
It was fine , as these things go , but more than any other host in late-night , Colbert thrives when he has a crowd to perform to .
So when he was working from home , the program could come off as a little stilted and uneven .
But in early August , Late Show — now dubbed A Late Show instead of The Late Show , to reflect the sheer weirdness of the whole scenario — returned to its home base above the Ed Sullivan Theater in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a facsimile of his real set , though not in his usual studio , and he ’ s performing for an audience that includes his most trusted producers and his family .
There are whole shows where nothing works .
But nobody on television is better at fumbling his way through an awkward situation than Stephen Colbert .
What I like about these episodes is the way they capture the stir-crazy energy of living in quarantine after all these months .
Colbert is trapped in the same building with the same small handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge is to keep making them laugh .
Without a studio audience to entertain , he ’ s got to entertain some of his closest friends and family — a.k.a .
the people who are most sick of him at this point — and when a joke bombs , they ’ re only too happy to sit in stony silence .
Colbert has risen to this challenge .
He ’ s a pro at rolling with the punches , meaning that when an interview with a celebrity conducted over Zoom is plagued by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic was supposed to be , he ’ s magnificent at just coasting along .
And during two full weeks of live shows during August ’ s political conventions , he turned what could have been a nightmare scenario — doing a live show from an office building with a skeleton crew — into some of the most fascinating television he ’ s made since joining CBS in 2015 .
In particular , I ’ m fascinated by how Colbert has become a lot more willing to alienate whatever Trump fans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly implicating the president in the deaths of nearly 200,000 people in the wake of Covid-19 ’ s spread throughout the US .
Yes , he ’ s doing the same “ unusual headline of the day ” jokes as everybody else , but he ’ s also much more willing to get suddenly , viscerally angry , and when he does , the show crackles .
The monologue from the evening of Wednesday , August 26 , embedded at the top of this article , was one of his best ever , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s America that made very clear just how little Trump cares for anyone who isn ’ t himself .
Many of the jokes were dad-level corny , but they were delivered with real sincerity and gusto , undergirding Colbert ’ s central point : Somebody ’ s got ta fucking do something already .
Colbert is far from a political revolutionary .
His sense of humor is full of center-left platitudes , and he ’ s more likely to make fun of Trump ’ s buffoonery than actually dig into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the country that elected him .
But his recent shows have come as close to arguing that America needs seismic change as television ever allows .
Stephen Colbert probably won ’ t change anyone ’ s mind , but if any host on TV is going to say with a smile that he ’ s mad as hell and he ’ s not going to take this anymore , it ’ s him .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 3 .

One Good Thing is Vox’s recommendations feature. In each edition, find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend.
One of my favorite micro-moments in 21st-century TV history was what happened to late-night shows during the 2007–08 writers strike. The hosts of late-night talk shows — including The Colbert Report’s Stephen Colbert, among others — were forbidden from working with their writing staffs, since the Writers Guild of America had declared a work stoppage. But the shows had to go on. What was a late-night host to do?
The episodes they ended up making were loopy and gloriously silly, long on comedic bits that often had no real structure to them, yet were buoyed by the hosts’ willingness to just do whatever for a laugh. By far my favorite series of programs from this period involved an ongoing “feud” between Colbert and Conan O’Brien over which of them had been more instrumental in the then-surprising rise of Mike Huckabee (who briefly seemed to be the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination). The squabble eventually devolved into a barely choreographed slapstick fight where Colbert, O’Brien, and Jon Stewart seemed to be locked in a battle for the ages.
That sort of loose and goofy energy is too rare in modern late-night, where everything is tightly scripted and every interview is a promotional opportunity. (I miss, daily, Craig Ferguson, whose CBS show ended in 2014, because he was the best conversationalist on television.) But the Covid-19 pandemic has forced at least some of that spirit back into late-night programs, and it’s been fascinating to see who’s been most revitalized by it.
I’ve been tickled by what both Seth Meyers and Trevor Noah have done with their quarantine-era programs, but the biggest surprise to me has been just how entertaining Stephen Colbert has been on CBS’s Late Show. I bear no particular ill-will toward Colbert’s Late Show — I prefer it to Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show on NBC and Jimmy Kimmel’s Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC, both of which air opposite Colbert in the same time slot — but it’s always felt a step down to me from the satirical stuff he was doing for all those years on The Colbert Report.
In quarantine, though, his show has become something to see most nights, even when it’s not particularly funny. If a joke doesn’t land, it almost doesn’t matter because what’s most impressive about Colbert in quarantine is the spirit of the thing.
Like many hosts, in the early stages of the pandemic, Colbert was doing his show from his home. It was fine, as these things go, but more than any other host in late-night, Colbert thrives when he has a crowd to perform to. So when he was working from home, the program could come off as a little stilted and uneven.
But in early August, Late Show — now dubbed A Late Show instead of The Late Show, to reflect the sheer weirdness of the whole scenario — returned to its home base above the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York. Colbert is back filming on a facsimile of his real set, though not in his usual studio, and he’s performing for an audience that includes his most trusted producers and his family. There are whole shows where nothing works. But nobody on television is better at fumbling his way through an awkward situation than Stephen Colbert.
What I like about these episodes is the way they capture the stir-crazy energy of living in quarantine after all these months. Colbert is trapped in the same building with the same small handful of people every day, and the challenge is to keep making them laugh. Without a studio audience to entertain, he’s got to entertain some of his closest friends and family — a.k.a. the people who are most sick of him at this point — and when a joke bombs, they’re only too happy to sit in stony silence.
Colbert has risen to this challenge. He’s a pro at rolling with the punches, meaning that when an interview with a celebrity conducted over Zoom is plagued by connection problems or drifts away from whatever the topic was supposed to be, he’s magnificent at just coasting along. And during two full weeks of live shows during August’s political conventions, he turned what could have been a nightmare scenario — doing a live show from an office building with a skeleton crew — into some of the most fascinating television he’s made since joining CBS in 2015.
In particular, I’m fascinated by how Colbert has become a lot more willing to alienate whatever Trump fans are part of his audience, often by directly implicating the president in the deaths of nearly 200,000 people in the wake of Covid-19’s spread throughout the US. Yes, he’s doing the same “unusual headline of the day” jokes as everybody else, but he’s also much more willing to get suddenly, viscerally angry, and when he does, the show crackles.
The monologue from the evening of Wednesday, August 26, embedded at the top of this article, was one of his best ever, weaving just enough jokes into a story of Trump’s America that made very clear just how little Trump cares for anyone who isn’t himself. Many of the jokes were dad-level corny, but they were delivered with real sincerity and gusto, undergirding Colbert’s central point: Somebody’s gotta fucking do something already.
Colbert is far from a political revolutionary. His sense of humor is full of center-left platitudes, and he’s more likely to make fun of Trump’s buffoonery than actually dig into what’s horrifying about the president or the country that elected him.
But his recent shows have come as close to arguing that America needs seismic change as television ever allows. Stephen Colbert probably won’t change anyone’s mind, but if any host on TV is going to say with a smile that he’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take this anymore, it’s him.