When Journalists Go Along with Hamas

Israel is patient zero.

By
63

Author and journalist Matti Friedman was working for the Associated Press when he noticed a persistent bias in coverage: For the Western media, the story of the region was a simple narrative of good and evil, and Israel was cast as villain. Matti joins Jamie to discuss how this narrative formed and whether there’s hope for serious journalism in such a conflict.

Show Notes:

-An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth

-What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel

-You’re All Israel Now

By
Comments (63)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Payette

    This interview was both highly informative and very painful to hear.

    Thank you.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    CVS

    I've followed this issue for years and even *I* was shocked at a few things he said. It's truly atrocious just how bad things have gotten.

    Collapse
  3. Betsybowditch

    I read this the other day: How can we tell young people the hard truths about history without perpetuating conflict? How do we resolve the different versions of the past that groups in conflict promote? How can we give kids a sense of pride in their identity without making them think other groups are inferior?

    Here on Dispatch I saw Palestinians dismissed in a comment section as "laborer types." The most successful entrepreneur I know in Silicon Valley is a Palestinian and citizen of Jordan and the US. He is a secular Muslim and wouldn't have achieved the success he has had he been under obligation to pray seven times a day, etc.

    To address the topic here, what one person considers objective someone else may consider biased given conflicting narratives that are promoted by those in power. Israel's current government has its share of rightists and right-wing leaders are invariably skewered in the American press. Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán has used antisemitic tropes to further his domestic political goals. Immigrants are also a handy scapegoat for rightists.

    I have seen venting that Israel is being forced to release prisoners to get its kidnapped citizens back. In fact those bieng released have not been convicted of any offense but are being held under indefinite detention, which the British also used in North Ireland. This morning I read Palestinians in the West Bank think Hamas is far superior to the Palestinian Authority because it has gotten people released and families reunited.

    This is not going in a good direction.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      The narrative over the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict, and more specifically the Israel/Palestinian conflict, is complicated.

      Hamas is not complicated. It is a genocidal terrorist organization that intentionally targets civilians with the worst kind of brutal violence, and, as former Dispatch guy David French has said, it should be treated like ISIS. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/opinion/israel-hamas-isis-gaza.html

      No, bad things the IDF has done in the past are in no way the same thing, even if conceding they have made mistakes, have institutional incentives that are not always healthy, etc.

      Collapse
      1. Betsybowditch

        My question is given the Ministry of Health is run by Hamas would everyone on the hospital staff be considered Hamas? A surgeon for example. Or a nurse.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CVS

          No. Nor has anybody suggested such a thing.

          It does mean that risks must be taken that may endanger those people, sadly. Because Hamas militants, leadership, infrastructure, etc. is embedded in the hospital. That's a sad reality that is the fault of Hamas.

          Everyone knew about this problem for years. It was widely reported, even in, shall we say, Israel skeptic papers like The Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. It only became "controversial" after October 7th.

          Collapse
          1. Betsybowditch

            This came up with Iraq where it was acknowledged, prior to our invasion, that Iraqis joined the Baathist Party out of professional necessity but were not necessarily supporters of Saddam's rule.

            Collapse
  4. Chris Taylor

    Interesting perspective. Strong views. Good insight on the AP and what we all know is happening in the “mainstream media”. I do take issue with one comment the guest made: the blanket label of all of Christianity as “mythology” is both absurd and disrespectful. There is no evaluation of facts or well-founded logic, but a simple dismissal of a belief held by billions of people with the word “mythology”. Would appreciate a more respectful approach.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      You're missing the point.

      Obviously, the speaker is not a Christian, and if he were, he might use different language. But Christians refer to other religious beliefs as myths all the time. I know because I am one, I do it, and so do many others I've known and heard through the years. People shouldn't be offended when others do the same. I'm certainly not.

      But that aside: CS Lewis discussed Christianity in terms of myth *all the time*. He just qualified it saying, "Its a myth much like others, except for the fact its true." That may not be an exact quote, but it's close. Read "Surprised by Joy."

      in that sense, it's not even objectionable from a Christian point of view IMHO.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      What exactly do you want to call it?

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    Nobody stood up at AP and told them to stop being objective. Actually, Ron Fournier did precisely that:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2008/07/is-fournier-saving-or-destroying-the-ap-011716

    Of course this is part of a much larger story but I still recall vividly this inflection point because it infuriated me as a former journalism student. I left the profession (perhaps unwisely) because I loathed the groupthink even in the mid 90’s but the permission and encouragement of it in once objective newsrooms was a real thing that happened on purpose.

    Mr. Fournier wasn’t alone, of course. Other fools in editorial positions and high places did much the same as this discussion clearly shows. There are very few journalists who aren’t activists anymore and those who aren’t operate from a disadvantage because complexity and detail do not align well with an electorate looking to prove what they already believe. Serious news is boring when you can watch idiots like Maddow or Hannity or Colbert or Oliver rant and rave like the clowns they are.

    Add the splintering of traditional legacy sources thanks to social media and the radicalization of students especially in higher education to this treason of the editors and you get what we have today. Babies sitting in reporter’s chairs feeling zero inclination to moderate their juvenile impulses and urges having been encouraged by every mentor they ever likely came into contact with.

    Perhaps I’m too cynical but this conversation revolted me because Mr. Friedman is like a blade of good grass in a field of salted earth. Not enough people will take the time to hear him - and that’s not counting the ones who are so ignorant as to be impervious to reality.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      "I left the profession (perhaps unwisely) because I loathed the groupthink even in the mid 90’s"

      Funny, I have a similar story. I was a journalism major. And in my final year of college I got so disgusted with what I was hearing from a lot of journalists that I took a specific run of classes that made my degree read "Communications, Media and Law," in my final semester because I didn't want "Journalism" on my degree. This was 2001-2002. And I didn't pursue a career in journalism.

      It's sort of ironic, as I work for a think-tank now, and write op-eds, and also write op-eds on the side on other issues (including a handful for The Dispatch). So I've sorta come back to it. But I shared your disgust, and it changed the course of my life in some ways.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I have an awesome job and career but I do sometimes wish I’d stuck with journalism and writing because I would be far better at it than what I am doing. What I failed to understand when I was younger is that you’re gonna put an inordinate amount of work into something over the course of a lifetime and you will have to learn from scratch whatever you choose.

        I also once confused Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt in an article and that’s what spurred me to go back and get a degree in history. It dawned on me how important history was and how little I really knew about it.

        The Dispatch is, by far, the best source for truth in journalism that I know of. If you’re working here, you’re doing something right.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CVS

          Oh I don't work here. Just an occasional contributor when I get an idea and they accept. You can see my articles below:

          https://thedispatch.com/author/cliff-smith/
          https://thedispatch.com/author/cliff-smith-2/

          My full time job is at a think-tank, although only a small part of what I do is writing, you can see here:

          https://www.meforum.org/author/Clifford+Smith

          I've also been writing for Deseret.

          https://www.deseret.com/authors/cliff-smith

          So, yeah. Sort of journalist-y but not a real journalist. Either way, I've used my skills.

          Nice to meet you! Hope you get back into it on the side somehow.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            The Bell Tower

            Thanks! Same to you.

            I do have my own blog that I’ve maintained for many years over at:

            https://thebelltower.org/

            Hard to find the time but I’m sure I’ll get back into it soon enough. I look forward to reading more of your work.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    These Monday podcasts conducted by Jamie are an excellent addition to the Dispatch.

    For many years now, I have been irked - to say the least - by the demonization of Israel in the media, in the colleges, and so forth, so I am curious to read Matti Friedman's article in the Atlantic.

    I was familiar with Friedman from his appearance on EconTalk almost two years ago, where he spoke with Russ Roberts about his latest book, Who By Fire. I highly recommend that episode for anyone interested in Leonard Cohen or the history of Israel (particularly the Yom Kippur War).

    Here's a link to the the EconTalk episode - and another to the Leonard Cohen song that gives Friedman's book its name... which itself comes from a Yom Kippur prayer.

    https://www.econtalk.org/matti-friedman-on-leonard-cohen-and-the-yom-kippur-war/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGahIwQEQ0

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    East Tn mom

    Excellent informative podcast. frustrating but not surprising to hear AP adjustments to his articles.

    Collapse
  8. Petyrc

    I've been following the Isreali/Palestinian conflict for 30 years and have visited the region multiple times. I've read multiple books on the history and politics of the region as well as articles from a vast array of media sources (left, right, center) on the subject and I'm just not buying what Matti Friedman selling. I won't argue to his own personal experiences, but some of his comments regarding how the world sees Isreal sound like the same conspiracy theories I've heard the last 30 years.

    I also disagree with Mr. Friedman's comment that ONLY Isreal is seen through the prism of a colonizer, he obviously has not been paying attention to all the hoopla surrounding CRT in US education. The 'right' says the 'left' is trying to re-write history of how the US was founded and settled, the 'left' is saying it's just stating the facts and that the 'right' wants to hide our true history, blah, blah blah. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    It would be great to hear some voices on the Palestinian side of the fence on the Dispatch, whether they be reporters, historians, political analysis, etc.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      To be fair, Jamie has repeatedly invited Mehdi Hasan to be a guest on the podcast, and my understanding is that he has declined the offer. Hopefully he will eventually find a pro-Palestinian guest to interview.

      Although I consider myself pro-Israel, I have noticed some divergence in pro-Israel social media accounts, regarding whether Palestinians as a whole, really are separate from Hamas.

      Some portray the Gazan civilians as actual victims of Hamas, who will ultimately benefit from the downfall of the group. But others are focusing on poll results and other indications of a strong level of support for Hamas among civilians, and implying, or even outright stating, that anyone who supports Hamas should be treated as terrorists themselves, I even recall some random X blue checks stating "there ARE no innocent civilians in Gaza, not even the babies".

      This disturbs me, because it seems to not be much different than "there are no innocent civilians in Israel, they are all settlers, and settlers aren't civilians" rhetoric from Hamas apologists.

      To be fair, most pro-Israel people spouting such views, don't come across as having an active bloodlust for Palestinian civilians. But they do come across as not caring at all, about whether they live or die. One TD subscriber even stated outright here, that he's happily kill a thousand Mohammeds to save one Jacob. Reading that just chilled me to the bone.

      Collapse
      1. Petyrc

        surely, there are other folks in academia, politics, history, culture, etc. that can represent an arab and/or Palestine point of view of the current conflict and its history? why throw all the weight of a particular people's experience on the shoulders of one man (Mehdi Hasan)? He's one man with one perspective.

        Collapse
      2. Frederickwf

        I agree, Aylene. I am also pro-Israel and support their right to defend themselves and go to war with Hamas, but I have seen similar troubling sentiments about civilians creep up among people I know. I think part of it is that war fever is real (even though the US isnt technically at war) and people want to totalize entire people groups into good guys and bad guys—it happens over and over again (against German Americans and Japanese Americans for two recent examples in US war history). It’s really the same mentality that views even Israeli citizens as complicit oppressors, but in reverse. The temptation for the human mind is always to totalize and to not hold ideas that can be in tension. The idea that killing civilians is absolutely awful but is also inevitable in prosecuting a war against Hamas isn’t an easy thing to accept. It’s probably easier on people’s moral sense to look for reasons why “the civilians deserve to die too” rather than accept that they don’t deserve to die but will anyway. But just because flattening the moral landscape is less troubling to our moral feelings doesn’t mean it’s actually true or moral. I think the tendency you are describing is always going to be a temptation and we will always have to be on guard against it.

        Edit: I don’t think it’s off-limits to inquire what sort of culture exists among Palestinians re: Hamas, but it does get especially fraught because it can tip over from a description of something to a justification for doing certain things very very easily.

        Collapse
        1. Russell J

          Reporting on this conflict is challenging for various reasons. Although imperfect, I have heard some voices from inside Gaza including western people visiting family. The thing that I haven't heard from within Gaza is the sort of contrition that I naturally expect and it is possible I subconsciously discount their credibility. Understandably there are reasons why someone might not be able to say this in the street or on camera, but the reporters haven't proven to be very resourceful in capturing the actual sentiment of the Gaza population leaving us to draw our own conclusion. This isn't an argument against anything above but I was being introspective about my thoughts when I see the reports of suffering and how there is a natural tendency to view various people as being supportive or apathetic about the initial atrocities.

          Collapse
        2. Petyrc

          a very thoughtful response.

          Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        David Burke

        Hi Aylene.

        It’s the “OG” conservative(which is more and more emerging at TD)default stance that the State of Israel is infallible.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Seth B

          I really don't think that's the case - at least as far as the Dispatch is concerned. For example, if you haven't heard it yet, I encourage you to check out a Dispatch Podcast from a few months ago in which Adaam interviewed the liberal Israeli journalist Haviv Rettig Gur. It was a very nuanced discussion, I thought, of many of the complicated internal dynamics of Israeli politics.

          And maybe I've missed it, but have you heard anyone at the Dispatch defend, say, the more egregious settlements in the West Bank, or Netanyahu's cozying up to extremist nuts like Ben Gvir? I've heard criticisms of both of these things on the Dispatch. Maybe the Dispatch crew aren't shouting those criticisms from the rooftops, but... Israel has more pressing problems at the moment.

          Collapse
          1. Adaam James

            We also spoke with liberal (in the European and Israeli sense) author Tomer Persico when the Ben Govir government formed, and I don't think it was in any way light on criticism.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            David Burke

            Hi Seth

            I direct you to Williamson’s piece from November 20th and almost every conservative poster’s response in The Comments.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Michael Berkowitz

        That's a terrible statement.

        It seems to me the truth on the point you started out with is, as Jonah Goldberg might say, "both and": The Gazans are oppressed and terrorized by Hamas. They also largely share Hamas' desire to see Israel destroyed and approved of the recent atrocities... except insofar as they expected to get hit by the blowback (which they were right about).

        Still, we don't punish people for thought-crimes. If you're not participating in the attacks on Israel, even though they're done in your name and you approve of them, you're a civilian. That's a clear dividing line.

        That said, the decision about what level of collateral damage can be risked to achieve a given military objective isn't deterministic, it's a judgment call, and I can certainly see that judgment being nudged one way or the other if the civilians in question are those cheering atrocities or those objecting to them.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Chen

          We don't punish people for thought crimes or 'hate in their heart' - but when we look at the end result of what the Palestinian project has culminated in thus far: a completed failed terrorist state, one has to wonder what kind of peace and reconciliation is possible even if Hamas is defeated.

          I have no idea frankly. Its like if the government of NK actually gets deposed one day. The entire NK people have been indoctrinated to hate SK from day 1. How do you undo that?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Berkowitz

            Dr. Einat Wilf speaks about "denazification", about a period during which their education and government are taken over by a receiver who will work to move the populace towards a better outlook. Or the West can keep pretending the problem away.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          Thanks for being transparent about what you believe, that you yourself do draw a line between actively participating in a terrorist attack and just passively supporting it.

          Unfortunately, I have seen some pro-Israel people using terms such as "so-called innocent civilians" to imply that they do not actually draw that line between actual Hamas terrorists and civilians. Yet they don't actually state that outright, which strikes me as quite cowardly.

          (Similar to Western Hamas apologists expressing vague support for "resistance by any means necessary" or "from the river to the sea" without actually stating "yes, I fully support everything Hamas did on 10/7, I support all the murders, rapes, tortures, and kidnappings committed that day".)

          I even recall some IDF spokesman stating that they were going to assume any Gazan who didn't evacuate North Gaza, was a terrorist, and actually having to walk back that comment later after he got a lot of outraged pushback.

          I will concede that line isn't always clear. Are Palestinians who didn't kill any Israelis on 10/7, but did reportedly take advantage of the situation to loot property from their homes, equivalent to the trained terrorists? Or the civilians who cheered the Hamas terrorists and jeered at the hostages as they were paraded through Gaza? Or the civilians who threw rocks at the hostages as they were being released? They certainly did more than just sit at home only committing "thought crimes". But were their actions equivalent to rape, murder, and torture?

          I also understand that there's a difference between "I just don't particularly care if a so-called civilian who supports Hamas dies from an airstrike" and "actually, I do hold all Gazans collectively guilty, and I do want Israel to turn all of Gaza into rubble". But there's a danger of the first sentiment eventually devolving into the latter.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            David Chen

            I don't draw a line between the vogue terrorist on campuses and the 'real terrorists' in Hamas. One may be acting within the first amendment and within the legal boundaries of US law, but I'm going to treat them as that: a 'legal terrorist'. So if I see a bus about to hit them, I'm going to look the other way and not get in the way of God's plan. Others may excuse them for being a bunch of misled kids. The same can probably be said for almost all terrorists.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Michael Berkowitz

            Yes, there are people here who state that all the Arabs are terrorists. How much of that is rhetoric? Based on actions, I'd say almost 100%. I still object to the rhetoric, but when it comes down to it the army takes great pains, and effectively sacrifices soldiers, to avoid civilian casualties. However widespread the devastation is in Gaza now -- and I haven't seen a wide enough shot to know how widespread it is -- it's because Hamas has spent the past 15 years and a fortune of donated money weaving its military infrastructure into and beneath the civilian infrastructure.

            Collapse
    2. April

      I agree completely. There is a curious lack of any content on The Dispatch from the Palestinian, Arab or Muslim perspective. Why is that? There are two sides to this long history and many deaths. More of those deaths are of Muslims.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        David Chen

        Do the Palestinians have a credible path to peace that doesn't involve wiping the Jews off the map? Have they ever?

        Collapse
      2. Joe1776

        "There are two sides to this long history and many deaths. More of those deaths are of Muslims."

        More deaths are of Muslims does not mean they are justified in their actions and political stances. More German's died then English in WW2.

        "There is a curious lack of any content on The Dispatch from the Palestinian, Arab or Muslim perspective. Why is that?"
        Perhaps because the Palestinian perspective is extremely unhealthy. You can get the Palestinian perspective from Hamas or Fatah/PA they are the two major parties.

        If you don't speak Arabic Palwatch translates what the Fatah/PA officials say in Arabic into English if you want to get their views:

        https://palwatch.org/

        Arab Baramoter tries to explain that only 24% of Palestinians supported Hamas. Which is good in that it was not a majority. But 24% is still a huge number. And the other problem is 32% wanted Marwan Barghouti who is a member of Fatah and a convicted terrorist. So 56% percent are giving a clear vote for terrorism. The reasons they don't like Hamas have to do with corruption and efficiency. Not so much because they think terrorizing Israelis is morally wrong. I mean some don't like it because Israel retaliates. But you don't hear much in terms of concern for the well being of Israelis.

        As far as the views of other (non-palestinian) Arabs and Muslims I think their views are informative. I recommend you look them up yourself.

        Of course, anyone can argue or say what they like but they do not represent "Palestinian views" like the Palestinians themselves.

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Michael Berkowitz

        It's possible that there just isn't an argument against Israel's existence that's both reasonable and based on fact. I believe that to be true, though I'm willing to hear otherwise.

        Even if we dial back to arguments against Israel's retaliation against Hamas, or Israel's actions in the West Bank, not all stories necessarily have two sides, and Friedman's tale of how ginned up the reporting against Israel has been, lo these many years, lends some weight to the possibility that this is one of those stories.

        My bias here has always been obvious, but I try to stay w/in the bounds of fact and logic, and if someone can grapple with what I'm saying in that arena, I'll have to take my chances.

        Collapse
        1. Petyrc

          There are numerous people who could/would argue about Isreal existence or the tensions it has created as the result of Isreal's creation, Edward Said and Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro to name two. The idea or the goal of eliminating the state of Isreal is like spitting into the wind, it ain't gonna happen. Isreal is here to stay, just like America.

          Regarding not all stories have two sides, due to their shared history, the Palestinians and Israelis are tied to the hip. They can't escape each other, so there will always be two sides to 'their' story. We/they can't run away from it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Berkowitz

            If you have a nice watch and I want it, there's a tension, but I don't think you created it by having the nice watch. Yes, people have argued, and continue to argue, against the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel. That doesn't mean that any of the arguments is worth entertaining. It has become painfully obvious to all of us -- certainly all of us here at TD -- that we are surrounded constantly by a mass of stupid arguments.

            That doesn't mean Said's arguments are stupid (though I believe they are), just that their existence proves nothing.

            The existence of Jews and Arabs in the same general area does mean that there's an "us" and a "them", a situation that we are forced to deal with, but it doesn't mean that the "story" each side tells has equal validity.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          Interestingly, I have seen many progressive Jews simultaneously express full support of Israel's current actions in Gaza, and still condemn the Netanyahu Administration for being too aggressive in the West Bank. They don't seem to see those two positions as contradictory.

          I don't get the impression Eylon Levy, a current Official Spokesman for Israel, is actually a progressive, but I do know he was taking part in some anti-government protests pre 10/7, although I don't know exactly what they were about, I guess they could have been about domestic politics only. I don't recall him ever commenting on Israeli West Bank policy, so maybe he supports that too.

          By the way, I believe Levy was also once a comms guy for President Herzog, but I also really don't understand the President's role in Israel. Is it strictly ceremonial and similar to that of a constitutional monarch? Does he actually have any political power?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Berkowitz

            Frankly, I think the idea that Netanyahu is a far-right warmonger is pretty-much an article of faith for a certain socioeconomic group. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just see that their positions aren't well-sourced or thought out.

            The recent protests were nominally about judicial reform, and I think many people convinced themselves that that's what they were protesting, but really they were a combination of anti-Netanyahu sentiment, anti-settler sentiment and fear that the old Ashkenazi/secular aristocracy is being supplanted, demographically and electorally, by more religious, more Sephardic "newcomers". I don't recall any discussion of policy vis-a-vis the Arabs at all (which is very different from the fights a few decades back).

            The presidency here is a ceremonial position with almost no authority and no day-to-day involvement in government.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Patrick

        I don’t think it’s particularly curious. Any reasonable Palestinian perspective must begin with a full-throated criticism of Hamas. And if you or your relatives live in the Arab world, that criticism might get you killed. Hence, silence.

        Collapse
        1. Joe1776

          The west bank is not controlled by Hamas. Yet they do not offer a full throated criticism of Hamas. This should tell you something about the reasonableness of the "Palestinian perspective."

          Collapse
          1. Petyrc

            realpolitik here, how would a full-throated criticism of Hamas benefit the PA in the West Bank, from the PA perspective?

            I've recently been watching Corey Gil-Shuster's 'The Ask' project on YouTube where he asks Palestinians and/or Israelis tough questions about the region's state of affairs. If you watch the videos recorded many years ago, you can hear the same narratives about who is right or wrong and the justifications of their actions by each side. Granted these interviews are a 'man on the street' format and should be taken with a grain of salt, but give you some 'idea' of people's thinking and beliefs who live in Isreal and the occupied regions. Their beliefs and the narratives they tell themselves are deeply ingrained.

            Collapse
      5. Avatar photo
        East Tn mom

        we get to hear the Palestinian side from NYT, WP, CNN and most other news outlets. So few are giving us the Israel side --- or ---- just-the-facts POV. And! the hamas attacts are terrorism! that's not a *side* to defend! yet many are confusing the 2 (hamas/Palestinian)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          Yes, but Jamie Weinstein regularly interviewed progressive leftists as well as MAGA rightists on his prior solo podcast, although he himself is neither. So, I had hoped he'd continue to engage in civil dialogue with people who have vastly different views. In that context, it has been a bit disappointing that all of his guests discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, have all been staunchly pro-Israel.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Berkowitz

            Please see what I wrote above, Aylene.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Theirnscott

    Except for Mr. Friedman's audio, I enjoyed the interview but then it confirms my priors. I do like the idea below about having Mr. Friedman write an essay but maybe that would conflict with his agreement with The Atlantic.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    The sound was a little wonky.

    Collapse
    1. Brendan Bossard

      Probably a cellphone connection.

      Collapse
Load More