Seth Stern on Criminalizing Dissent

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260626.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   Freedom of the Press Foundation (6/23/26) This week on CounterSpin: Do you disagree with anything that the Trump administration is doing? Are there other people that share that view? Do you think you should get together and use your voices to say something? Well, you might be a terrorist! Do you think we’re joking? Do you want to test that? We talk about the criminalizing of dissent with Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, this week on CounterSpin. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260626Stern.mp3  

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260619.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   CEPR (6/15/26) This week on CounterSpin: The way we hear about the stock market is quite different from the vision many people still hold: that businesses strive to serve people’s real needs or desires, and investors are rewarded by that metric—not by convincing people that they might make a lot of money in the future, or by conspiring with powerful entities to ensure that shareholders profit, by whatever means. This longstanding confusion and conflict are being showcased right now in the unasked-for push of artificial intelligence into so many aspects of our lives, and the aggressive build-out of energy-gobbling data centers to serve it—whether communities want them or not. Now, questions are arising around whether the promises of endless growth of the AI industry actually make any sense. Is there an AI bubble? How would we know? And what happens, and to whom, when it bursts? A new project engages questions, not just about price-to-earnings ratios, and historical comparisons, but about the predictable impacts—on, for example, workers’ retirement accounts—when the AI exuberance falls to earth. Dean Baker is co-founder and senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and the force behind their new project, called the AI Bubble Monitor. He joins us this week on CounterSpin. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260619Baker.mp3   Plus Janine Jackson takes a very quick look at some recent press coverage of the 2026 congressional primaries. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260619Banter.mp3  

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260612.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   AP/PBS (6/6/26) This week on CounterSpin: PBS News told its audience “What to Know About the Protests and Arrests Outside a New Jersey Detention Center.” What to know, evidently, is that protesters “say they are showing up in solidarity with detainees inside over accusations of poor living conditions.” Maybe they aren’t showing up in solidarity; that’s just what they say. And poor “living” conditions?—because it’s their home now?—that’s also just an “accusation.” Why can’t we see what’s true? Oh, because reporters who try to see what’s happening are being kept from doing so with rubber bullets and tear gas. But for PBS News, that means: We just can’t know! “Delaney Hall detainees say they are being given moldy and expired food,” the article (from AP) reads. But you know what? “President Donald Trump and his deputies have defended the center’s operations and denied there is any hunger strike, abuse or poor conditions inside.” We hear from Homeland Security secretary Markwayne Mullin: “The fact is, we’re giving them the calories they want.” And we get a quote from Tom Homan, described as “Trump’s border czar,” saying he got to visit, and “the spaghetti was good.” PBS News tells readers that Attorney General Todd Blanche “shared images of bloody wounds and bruises” sustained by ICE officers. There is not a single quote from a protester, an immigrant rights advocate, or even a journalist who says that people should be able to see what is being carried out in their name. But PBS News assures: That’s “What to Know”! We’ll have a different conversation about what’s happening at Delaney Hall, and the bigger systems and structures in back of it, with Silky Shah, executive director at Detention Watch Network. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260612Shah.mp3   Jersey Vindicator (6/5/26) And: Yes, times like these make you wish for brave reporters who go to where the darkness is and shine a light. And we have them. They just aren’t at the traditional media you may have learned to look to. We’ll talk about the crucial role of frontline reporting with Vanessa Maria Graber, senior director of journalism and media education at the group Free Press. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260612Graber.mp3  

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260605.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   CounterPunch (5/25/26) This week on CounterSpin: Luddites didn’t hate machines: Historian (and online educator) Casey Fiesler reminds us that the Luddites, who were 19th century English textile workers, were not anti-technology, they were anti the unaccountable deployment of technology by those who stood to profit from it at the expense of those with less power…. They were anti the use of technology to deskill labor, to take work that took years of craft knowledge and render it performable by anyone, who was then dispensable. They were anti the imposition of technology on communities who had no say in how it was deployed, or who would bear its costs. Words to keep in mind as commencement speakers and politicians and pundits tell you that artificial intelligence is a train leaving the station, and your only choice is to pick your seat. But also yeah, democratic decision-making is still a thing, why do you ask? Also, if you ask, your name goes on a list. We talk about the proliferation of data centers that are very much brick and mortar—against the backdrop of press coverage that suggests that artificial intelligence all happens in the ether somewhere—with Melissa Garriga, communications and media relations manager at the feminist grassroots organization CODEPINK. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260605Garriga.mp3   Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent press coverage of food stamp work requirements. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260605Banter.mp3   Featured image: Christopher Bowns – CC BY-SA 2.0

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260529.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   New Republic (3/10/26) This week on CounterSpin: It’s a safe bet that a majority of US citizens know that “we” are currently at “war” with Iran. I am equally confident that very few people could explain why. Or what “war” means. Or what it has to do with their day-to-day life, much less how it could possibly make it better. That’s a problem of this boldly anti-intellectual administration, and the, let’s say, incurious posture of so much of US corporate news media—the ones tasked with telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. We have alternative sources of information, that we need to seek out and support, perhaps no time more importantly than when “we” are “at war”—when not only US lives, if that’s all you care about, are at risk, but also many other human lives, as well as the standing of the United States on the world stage (which evidently is super important to many supporters of this war.) Why is the US at war with Iran? What is the hoped-for outcome? Who is hoping for it? And will we hear from any of the millions who got something they didn’t hope for? Annelle Sheline is research fellow for the Middle East at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. We hear from her this week on CounterSpin. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260529Sheline.mp3

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260522.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   Texas Tribune (5/20/26) This week on CounterSpin: You may have seen videos of college commencement speakers telling students who’ve spent time and money learning how to read, write and think critically that that was dumb, cuz AI is going to be doing that from now on, so just get on the train or else—wait, why are you booing? That’s far from the only disconnect between students and teachers who think higher education means engagement with a range of perspectives, and right-wing politicians and their administrative acolytes saying “not so fast.” We’ll hear from Karma Chávez, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, at the center of this assault on academic freedoms. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260522Chavez.mp3   CEPR (3/10/26) Also on the show: There is a US State Department memo that calls for “a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” Thing is: That memo is from 1960. So while Trump is making everything old, new—and ugly and violent—again, he isn’t inventing it all. We try not to do media criticism by counterfactual, but consider: What if another country were cutting off resources to the US, in an explicit effort to cause us misery, in hopes that would make us overthrow our government? We’ll talk about what sounds reasonable as long as it’s about Cuba with Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260522Main.mp3

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260515.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”). FIFA, the governing body of association football, concocted a “FIFA Peace Prize”—described as recognizing “individuals for exceptional contributions to peace and unity”—in order to award it to Donald Trump. Alongside revelations of deep-seated corruption—collusion, bribery—involving official bodies and executives, and now ticket prices for this year’s World Cup being called not just excessive but “extortionate,” you might say more folks are “following” football (or soccer) these days, but not necessarily as fans. OR Books (2026) Sports has always been a big part of news media, but typically segregated into its own section on stats and personalities, ignoring the economic, social and environmental impacts sports have always had. Think about cities enticed into building new arenas with promises of jobs and commerce that never arrive. Or whole communities uprooted for temporary “Olympic Villages.” Jules Boykoff has been following the relationships of sport and society for years now; he’s a former professional soccer player himself, as well as a critic and writer, now teaching political science at Pacific University. He’s author of a number of books, including What Are the Olympics For? (Bristol University Press, 2024). He joins us to discuss his latest: Red Card: The 2026 World Cup, Sportswashing and the FIFA Greed Machine, out now from OR Books. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260515Boykoff.mp3   Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at recent press. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260515Banter.mp3   Featured Image: Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260508.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   Media Matters (11/16/23) This week on CounterSpin: In 2023, the group Media Matters reported that social media platform X was placing ads for major brands like Apple and IBM alongside content touting Hitler and the Nazi Party—despite the claim of X’s CEO that brands are “protected from the risk of being next to” toxic posts on the platform. Musk threatened a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters for reporting the truth, and many in state and federal government were happy to take that work on. Three years and several court cases later, Media Matters announced victory in what wound up being Media Matters v. Federal Trade Commission. The case and the victory are not just hopeful but instructive, offering what the group calls a “roadmap” for other newsgathering and nonprofit organizations facing, or at risk of, government retaliation. We hear about the case and the outcome from Media Matters president Angelo Carusone. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260508Carusone.mp3   Washington Post (4/19/23) Also on the show: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the dominant method of abortion in the US has become mifepristone, particularly as it can be administered by telehealth, without the need for an in-office visit. But now Louisiana, which has a near-total abortion ban, sued the FDA over telehealth, and though it got support from a federal appeals court to block remote prescription, a visit by the drug’s makers to the Supreme Court led to a temporary stay on that. As the debate continues, we revisit a conversation we had a few years ago with Rachel K. Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, who knows more than most about mifepristone. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260508Jones.mp3

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260501.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).   Yahoo Finance (4/25/26) This week on CounterSpin: A CNN headline a few months back told us that Instacart—which used to call itself a company that delivers groceries, but now, as its CEO told investors, is the “leading technology and enablement partner for the grocery industry”—was now using AI to “Gauge Customer Price Sensitivity.” “Price sensitivity” apparently means whether or not you care that you pay more for the same can of beans as another person—or, to be more clear, whether or not you notice. While some states look into banning it, so-called algorithmic or “dynamic” pricing is being presented by the corporate press as a fait accompli, the only question remaining being how to make sure consumers understand that they have no choice. We’ll hear more from investigative reporter Derek Kravitz, from Consumer Reports. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260501Kravitz.mp3   Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at press coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner attack. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260501Banter.mp3

  https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260424.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”). NHLC (3/24/26) This week on CounterSpin: From the federal level on down, many laws and policies that claim to be about “ending homelessness” seem to be clearly more about hurting homeless people than changing their circumstance. Even if you, or anyone you know, has never been unhoused: How hard is it to understand the difference between charging poor people monetary fines they obviously can’t pay, and then throwing them in jail when they don’t—and addressing homelessness with, oh I don’t know, housing? That would be a commonsense conversation, about what resources we have and how we deploy them; but instead we see power actors, with the support of the White House and the Supreme Court, telling us that “ending homelessness” means tearing up people’s tents, throwing away their belongings; a new law in Kentucky says officials can use “stand your ground” laws to shoot homeless people that don’t “cooperate” with their eviction from private or public land. So: Is this really about addressing homelessness? Because we know how to do that. And if it’s not: What is it about? And can we have an honest conversation about that? Jesse Rabinowitz is the campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center. We hear from him this week. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260424Rabinowitz.mp3   Marijuana Moment (12/18/25) Also on the show: You may think weed is “legal” because you see so many people smoking it on the street. Including your grandma and your next-door neighbor who just a few years back would’ve called the cops. But just as the criminalization of marijuana affected different communities very differently, the current supposed de-criminalization continues to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. Though that is not at all the understanding you would get from a casual view, or for that matter from media coverage that makes it seem like the debate over weed is all over, and now we’re all just talking about which strain is the best. Maritza Perez Medina is director of federal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance. She joins us to talk about what the “rescheduling” of marijuana does and doesn’t do. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260424Medina.mp3   With both homelessness and drug policy, it’s useful to see how many current legislative measures, with a cultural backwind from corporate media, are fooling people that things have changed, while actually things are still harming the people who have always been harmed. So these moves are not something to “tweak”; we need conversation and action based on a different understanding of why things are as they are, and of how things can be.