SPEAKER_07 0:00

What are you thinking, Ed? Yeah. Like, what did you think was going to happen? Anyone can find out that MacLamore does not hide his beliefs about where he stands.

SPEAKER_08 0:11

There's like no way that Ed Sheeran could not have known that this might happen.

SPEAKER_07 0:17

I'm Michelle. I've spent over 25 years in media and education. I'm Gina. I've spent over 15 years in Tekken Policy. We met because we were both working to make social media a better place to be from different angles.

SPEAKER_08 0:29

I had just started Meta's Global Information Ecosystem Program.

SPEAKER_07 0:33

And I was the executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education.

SPEAKER_08 0:38

We became friends because we're both obsessed with media. News, books, films, TV, and yes, digital content.

SPEAKER_07 0:45

We talked for hours about it, not always agreeing, but always learning from each other.

SPEAKER_08 0:50

There is so much media these days. And we wanted to create a space to process it and work through what it all means for our culture, our politics, and how we understand the world. And we're hoping you do too.

SPEAKER_07 1:01

This is Did You See with Gina and Michelle. Hi Gina. Hi, Michelle. How are you? I am good. It's good to see you. It's good to see you. I have a story that I've been waiting to tell you. Tell me, tell me. And it's been so hard not to text you. I'm having a really great semester at Brooklyn College. My students are super engaged, really just a great group. And this week in class, we were talking about a recent advertising controversy that I'm not sure if you saw. It was about a Converse ad that had been cropped and the cropped image had racist undertones. I did see that. And so we were looking at a bunch of TikToks where people were trying to make sense of what happened. And it was a very confusing thing to make sense of. And that was kind of the point of showing all of these different perspectives. But then after we watched some things, I asked them what they would do to find out more information on their own. And a lot of them were talking about Googling things and we talked about search terms. And at some point I asked the group if any of them would use Chat GPT or Claude to find out more. And the response was so unanimous, so passionate and intense, the entire room was absolutely not. Right. Interesting. No way are you kidding me? It was an offensive question to them. And then I was like, okay, everyone relaxed. And I asked them, like, why not? So they essentially said, why should we use a tool that we know is imperfect and can be wrong when we can use our own brains?

SPEAKER_08 2:48

Yes. How about that?

SPEAKER_07 2:51

Go use Gen Z. We love it. It was such a good moment. So I had to share it with you. I love it. Okay, Gina, did you see that the Paramount Warner Brothers deal is signed, sealed, delivered?

SPEAKER_08 3:07

I did see something about this. As we've talked about before, this issue is so complicated. To be honest with you, I don't know the details of this deal. So what happened?

SPEAKER_07 3:17

So on October 6th, Paramount closed an $81 billion takeover of Warner Brothers. And according to the AP, this creates a new Hollywood behemoth, which I love that wording. And the new name is Sky Dance, which isn't a new name at all. Right. Uh, since Sky Dance was David Ellison's media company before he bought Paramount in 2025. And it's been like a year-long road to buying Warner Bros. And there was a lot of concern about this purchase because of what the level and size of a media monopoly it would create. The amount of media ownership under one umbrella. It's really astounding. We're talking about Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers, HBO, CBS, CNN. So the final hurdle was a lawsuit from a group of state attorneys general that essentially sued to block the proposed merger under antitrust laws. Right. But on September 21st, a settlement was reached. In order for Paramount to buy Warner Brothers, they had to agree to some terms, but an example of the terms, they had to increase domestic movie production, including increasing its production spending in the US by at least 300 million annually. The company must also keep Paramount and War Brothers production lots in Los Angeles. The studio agrees to release 30 films theatrically in the first two years and 32 in the following three years. And four of those films must be independent productions. And Paramount must establish a new board for CBS News and CNN to ensure editorial independence. Okay. Obviously, a lot of these terms are related to concerns that the industry had.

SPEAKER_08 5:13

I mean, the devil's in the details. Who's going to decide who is serving on this board? And to the point about domestic production, like you said, a lot of that is about labor and jobs in the industry. Are there any parameters being put on the use of AI, for example, in these productions?

SPEAKER_07 5:30

That's a great question. The other thing that's been happening during this period of time is President Trump has really been ramping up his criticism of some press outlets, including CNN. Right. And the Ellison family and the Trump family are close allies. And so we need to keep an eye on all of this.

SPEAKER_08 5:50

We've been talking about this deal for a while, and it seems like it's done now, but the ramifications are going to keep coming. So we'll keep an eye on this one for sure. Definitely. Well, Michelle, did you see that it's tech oligarch season at the movies? Yes! Wait, why is that? That's a phrase from a piece in The Guardian, I love that saying though. Yeah, there are a lot of movies coming out about tech CEOs. We've got The Social Reckoning, which has just come out in theaters. That's Aaron Sorkin's follow-up to The Social Network. This new film covers the whistleblower period with Francis Haugen, who was a product manager at the company. We have Musk, which has also just had its theatrical release. It is a four-hour-long documentary about Elon Musk. Why anyone would want to spend four hours with Elon is beyond what? Four hours? Apparently so, yeah. It's a documentary by Alex Gibney. Oh my gosh. We have the film Artificial coming out later this year, which stars Andrew Garfield as Sam Altman about the beginnings of open AI. And of course, there's You Can See Everything, which is Nathan Filder's new film about Elizabeth Holmes, which we've spoken about before. So we're obsessed. We're obsessed. And I gotta be honest, I don't love it.

SPEAKER_07 7:08

It comes to the question of why are we giving so much airtime to this?

SPEAKER_08 7:15

I come from the tech world, which already has very much a founder-centric culture, and I've gotten a lot of this in my life, and I don't necessarily think that putting founders on this pedestal is good for anybody. If we really want to have an honest look at the tech industry and problems in tech industry, we have to look beyond founders because founders play a huge role, obviously. But in many cases, investors and the whole system in the tech field, they're the decision makers here. And investors are the ones who decide which founders to elevate and to support. And we see that now, like a lot of the race for AI, for example, it's driven by investor pressure for these companies to exit. Or like, why did meta shareholders agree to a structure that makes it impossible to fire Mark Zuckerberg? I wish that we could have a fuller look at these systemic issues, but it feels like from a narrative perspective, it's just easier to focus on a face.

SPEAKER_07 8:18

I think that's all incredibly well explained. And I agree with you. You mentioned two documentaries and two fictionalized, and those are really different things. And it'll be interesting to see what does well and what people are interested in. Will people go to these movies? That's a good question. I don't know. I'm intrigued to see them, even though I'm annoyed about them. Agree. Okay, we have some big stuff to talk about, so let's get started. Let's get started. Gina, did you see that everyone stopped talking about MacLamore and Ed Sheeran? Okay, yes. Can we talk about this?

SPEAKER_08 9:02

I have never thought about Macklemore and Ed Sheeran. And then all of a sudden it seemed like they were everywhere.

SPEAKER_07 9:08

I love that you've never thought about these two gentlemen. I didn't know much about McLaur, but I am an enormous fan of Ed Sheeran. So I watched this whole thing go down pretty closely. Ed Sheeran is absolutely one of my top favorites. Some of his music are my all-time favorite songs. So I know a lot about him, seen him, whatever. So today we are gonna dive into this story. And this story is about Mac Lemour getting kicked off the Ed Sheeran tour because of comments he made about Palestine. This was a huge moment that was everywhere, and then it seems to just have disappeared. Yes. So for people like Gina that don't know much about them, let's just give you some background. So Ed Sheeran is an English singer-songwriter, and he is enormously successful. He has sold over 200 million records worldwide. Last month he was fourth on the most followed artists on Spotify. And it has been reported that he is worth about $400 million. So this guy has a very successful career. Mac Lamore is an American rapper who really found his success during the years 2009 to 2016. This is when he had his big hits, when he got some Grammys, and he's said to be worth around 25 million, which is hardly something to ignore. There are three things that are relevant to this story about McLamore's history. So, first, in 2014, McLamore was accused of anti-Semitism because of a costume he wore at a private concert. And guests were offended. Saying that they would, quote, take him at his word that he did not have any ill intent, unquote. In 2024, 10 years later, McLamore released a protest song called Hinn's Hall. And this song was to support the pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses that were going on at that time. And then McLaur was dropped from the Las Vegas Neon City Festival lineup after leading an quote F America unquote chant at Seattle's Palestine Will Live Forever festival. Okay. Ed Sheeran and McLamore have been friends for quite some time. McLamore asked if he could open for him on his North American tour, and Ed said yes. And so in August, he was confirmed as an opener for Sheeran's loop tour. So we're now going to take you through what happened over the course of a couple of weeks beginning on September 4th. I think the technical term for what happened is a shit show. We're going to go through this in detail because when things like this come up in our culture, we tend to see snippets and commentary more than the actual source material. So we're going to play and read everyone's statements in full. So you're going to hear the full two to three minute clips. We want to model what it's like to really dive into source material to get a more complete sense of a picture of what was said and how people responded. So, okay, Gina, let's start with September 4th.

SPEAKER_08 12:41

Okay, so on September 4th, the tour was performing at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. McLemore made a statement on stage before performing the song Hens Hall, and we're gonna play that now.

SPEAKER_05 12:53

A big part of the reason why I wanted to do this tour in the first place is so I could stand up in stadiums like this and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart. Free people to sleep. I want to see her go to school to fall in love with me. I want it to be the most beautiful place. I think that every single human being that wants this church deserves to be safe, freedom.

SPEAKER_04 15:02

So I say free speech. I say free humanity free humanity to be coming to disappear to equal people. The people live in fear and people live in fear because of this terrorist organization.

SPEAKER_05 15:31

No one will be free until we are all free. This song is called Hate Hall.

SPEAKER_08 15:38

So this is a stadium tour. And after this concert, the representatives from multiple stadium owners where the tour had planned stops, they contacted Sharon's promoter called the Messina Touring Group with concerns about hate speech, specifically the phrase free Palestine. And according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, they were told that Macklemore would not mention it again. The next day, on September 5th, they played again at MetLife, and Macklemore made a second statement on stage, which was similar to the first one, but this time he mentioned the Jewish community directly. And we'll play that full clip here.

SPEAKER_05 16:19

I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day. One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart. Free Palestine. So thank you to those students that risked their diplomas, that risked their tuition, that risked their scholarships, that stood up and said no. CUAP students, students for justice in Palestine, and Jewish voices for peace. Thank you, God. To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters. Criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid being against genocide, in no way is a criticism of you. My message is for peace, love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality. So I say free Palestine. I say free Lebanon. I say free Cuba, I say free Congo, free Sudan, free all people in America living in fear over this terrorist organization ICE. None of us will be free until we are all free. This song is called Hens Hall.

SPEAKER_08 18:26

So conveniently, the tour already had a pre-planned break after these performances at MetLife. So when all of this then blew up, Ed Sheeran and everyone were already on break and already planned to not be performing. The day after this second statement on stage, on September 6th, the Israeli American Council published a petition calling for McLamore to be removed from Ed Sheeran's tour. We'll link to the full petition in our show notes, but here's what they said about it on their Instagram that day. IAC called to action. Ed Sheeran, do not allow your stage to be used to divide people or spread one-sided political propaganda. At Ed Sheeran's September 4th MetLife show, Macklemore used his opening set to push a one-sided political message through Hens Hall, imagery from Gaza, and inflammatory and disputed political claims. Freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to turn someone else's stage into a platform for political propaganda. We call on everyone who believes in the power of music to bring people together to action. One, sign the petition. Call on Ed Sheeran and Loop Tour Management to remove McLamore from the remaining tour dates. Two, contact Live Nation. Send your message directly to one of the world's leading concert promoters and ticketing companies. Links on our bio. Keep music about connection, not division.

SPEAKER_07 19:50

Then on September 14th, it was announced that McLamore would be dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour. And the tour promoter, Messina Touring Group, provided this statement to Rolling Stone. As the concert promoter for Ed Sheeran's U.S. loop tour, we have been notified by venues on the upcoming U.S. tour dates that they will not allow a concert to take place with McLamore on the lineup, which would result in the cancellation of the tour and impact hundreds of thousands of fans. After discussion with stakeholders, McLamore will not be performing on the remaining support dates.

SPEAKER_08 20:27

That same day, Macklemore put out a statement on Instagram, which specifically called out Robert Kraft. And for those of you who may not know who that is, Robert Kraft is a billionaire. He's the owner of the New England Patriots football team and the owner of Gillette Stadium in Massachusetts, which was one of the planned venues for the tour. He also mentioned Pink, who had weighed in on Instagram and criticized McLamore. She's mentioned several times in his statement. And I'm gonna read that now in full. I'm not sure how to start this, so I'm going to speak from the heart and share the truth. Ed Sheeran and his team have made the decision to remove me from the loop tour. But before I get into it, I want to say something that should be obvious. In this moment, I think it matters. I am not a victim, Ed Sheeran is not a victim, Pink is not a victim. We have careers, money, opportunities, safety, and audiences around the world. Whatever consequences any of us face for what we say, we get to go home to our families. The victims are the Palestinian people, the men, women, and children who have been killed, starved, displaced, and forced to live through unimaginable violence. More than 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza alone. People are being killed today, and people will be killed tomorrow. I want to make sure that as I tell this story, we don't lose sight of that. Ed is my friend. I've known him for 13 years. We've shared late nights, studio sessions, and stages. He has this infectious magic about him that I've grown to love. I consider him a brother. And because of that, we've had some difficult conversations this past week. The type of talks rooted in love and respect for one another that still end in a place of fundamental disagreement. Nothing I'm writing here is out of spite or because I want to tear down his character. But as I told Ed multiple times on the phone, our friendship can't change my responsibility to tell the truth about what happened. Last Monday, in the middle of all the media tensions surrounding Pink and what I said at MedLife, Ed told me that Robert Kraft called him. We were scheduled to play Gillette Stadium later this month, which is owned by the Kraft Group. Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in his stadium. Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum. If McLamore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues. Ed was in a fucked up position. He knew it. His typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before. He told me that the words free Palestine and the image of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of people he spoke with. I told him that if those words were more offensive than tens of thousands of Palestinian children being killed by Israel, then there was a fundamental disconnect between where those people stood and where I stood. But he couldn't get past his public-facing, quote, I don't take sides. And I get why people don't. Taking a side can cost you money, brand deals, sponsorships, festivals, private shows, relationships, and access. I've lost all of those things. But there is no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed. When one side has the bombs and bottomless financial and military support from America, refusing to take a side doesn't leave you in the middle. What I said at MetLife, I have been saying on stages around the world for almost three years. So why is it an issue now? Because now I'm sharing a stage with one of the biggest artists in the world in some of the biggest stadiums in America. At a certain level of exposure, free Palestine becomes too much of a risk. If I keep doing the shows, saying free Palestine, with Ed implicitly supporting it, the crowd getting louder and showing undeniable support for Palestinian liberation, what artists might speak out next? The stage becomes resistance. Maybe that's why this time it became so important to silence me. And one of the most effective ways to enforce that silence has been to weaponize the accusation of antisemitism. Antisemitism is real, and that is exactly why the word matters too much to be used as a shield against criticism of the Israeli state. When criticizing Israel, opposing Zionism, or saying free Palestine gets conflated with hatred of Jewish people, it doesn't protect Jewish people. It protects Israel from accountability. I hope this isn't the end of my relationship with Ed. Thirteen years of friendship doesn't disappear because of one painful disagreement. I hope we both continue listening, studying what is happening in Palestine, and wrestling with what neutrality means in a moment like this. My door will always be open to continuing that conversation. When my brother Omar was doing the subtitles for the video I posted from MetLife, I thanked him. He told me there's a phrase in Arabic, La Shukra Allah Wajab. There is no thanks for a duty. That stayed with me, because that's what this has become for me and millions of others around the world. A duty, not something deserving of praise or gratitude. Not brave, human. Who is winning the internet, who is getting canceled, who gets to play the stadium and who doesn't, all of it becomes so small when held against what we are actually witnessing in Gaza and the West Bank. An entire people being displaced, starved, and killed while the world debates which words we are allowed to use to describe it, how those words make us feel, and whether our discomfort matters more than the people living through a genocide. I didn't need 10 shows from Ed, I needed two. Two chances to stand in front of 90,000 people and say the words that somehow became too dangerous to say. Free Palestine. But if those words cost me the stage while turning the conversation back to Palestine, then it was the most successful tour I've ever been on.

SPEAKER_07 26:01

After this, Robert Kraft issued a statement to the press, and I'll read that in full now. Gillette Stadium has a long-standing commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech. Based on McLamore's recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran's shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community. We determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line. This decision is not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians or denying anyone the right to advocate on their behalf. Their pain and loss are real. But that advocacy should not come at the expense of the Jewish community or obscure the responsibility of Hamas, a United States and globally, including Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan, designated terrorist organization, whose horrific actions have caused immeasurable suffering for Palestinians and Israelis alike. I agree with McLamore. Too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering. But only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate. Over many decades, I have directed resources to Palestine and created athletic and entrepreneurial opportunities for Palestinians who I admire and respect. Standing with Palestinian people and standing against Hamas, antisemitism and hate should not be mutually exclusive. Much of my time and attention for the last decade has been focused on the fight against anti-Semitism and hate of all kinds. And I feel a responsibility to stand up when I believe that line has been crossed. I have tremendous respect for Ed and his music, particularly his unique ability to bring people together and spread joy. And I have always been proud to welcome him and his fans to Gillette Stadium. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Macklamore and discuss the facts because ultimately our goal is the same: peace for all people, an end to suffering, and an end to all hate. Robert Kraft. Then on September 15th, Ed Sheeran responded to the controversy on his Instagram account, and this is his statement in full. One of those people was Robert Kraft. I was also involved in direct talks with promoters along with activists on both sides to try and find a mutual resolution for all, but the venues and promoters' decision was final. McLamore coming off tour was the promoter's decision. It was not mine. McLamore's contract for the tour was with the promoter, not me. I would never let down the fans who had made plans, nor would I abandon the touring crew and the other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living. I have always used my platform and music to bring people from all backgrounds and cultures together, and this won't ever change. Those who have been to one of my shows will know that they are about unity, joy, escapism, love, and a place for everyone to feel welcome. I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn't mean I don't have them, and it doesn't mean I don't care. Nor does it mean I don't support causes in my own personal way. There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics. My audience includes young people, often children of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Mack Glenmore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end, peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary, to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed. If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change. There are different approaches to being an advocate for change. I have spent this week trying to build bridges to find a solution, and unfortunately was unable to do so. I know who I am, both as a person and as an artist, and those who know my heart know my values too. Ed. After Ed's statement was published, all of the opening acts and his guest band announced they would leave the tour.

SPEAKER_08 31:28

So the next day, on September 16th, McLamore announced that he would be donating $1 million to organizations supporting the Palestinian people and invited Robert Kraft to match the donation. And this is his statement. With everything that has happened over the last 48 hours, I want to bring the conversation back to where it belongs, to the Palestinian people who are still being killed, still living under military occupation and still fighting for their freedom. I will be donating the entire $1 million of my net earnings from Ed Sheeran's loop tour to six organizations working directly to support the Palestinian people. And I invite Robert Kraft to match my donation. Whatever we disagree about, perhaps we can agree on this. Palestinian lives are worth protecting. A Palestinian life is no less valuable than any other life on this earth. That is what this has always been about, not me, not a tour, not the headlines or the controversy. It is about Palestinians' right to freedom, dignity, and safety in their own homeland. I want to center the parents carrying their children into hospitals without the basic resources to treat them, and the physicians, paramedics, journalists, and aid workers who keep going back in. I want to center the organizers and activists who have paid real costs for standing with Palestine. Their risk is of a far different order than mine. Just yesterday, 15-year-old Mohammed al-Zanati was killed in an Israeli strike while rushing to help aid worker Sharif Lubad, who had already been injured. He was a child. Both were murdered. Both should be alive. And the one still under the rubble, whose names exist only in the memories of people who may not have survived to speak them. Writing a check is one of the least costly forms of solidarity available to me. I am doing it because I can and because these organizations are doing the work while much of the world debates it. But aid alone cannot address the conditions that make it necessary. This is a man-made injustice, and I believe it requires immediate political change. Palestinians have lived for decades without basic rights and should not have to wait another day to be free. That is where my focus will remain. I will continue to stand with the Palestinian people and their fight for liberation. When the new cycle moves on, which it will, don't move with it, free Palestine.

SPEAKER_07 33:46

After MacLeMore's statement on September 16th, Robert Kraft then responded with a statement on Gillette Stadium's Instagram. Statement from Robert Kraft. Earlier today, before MacLamore challenged me to match his donation, Ed called me and asked me to commit $2 million to match his donation to aid in the region to fight this humanitarian crisis. Ed now plans to reach out to other venue owners, and our goal is to continue to work together to build bridges. In addition, I'd like the people who are speaking in support of the Palestinian people to know that for decades I have supported efforts that create opportunity for Palestinians and have brought young Palestinians and Israelis together to build businesses, create jobs, and forge relationships.

SPEAKER_08 34:43

Three days after that, on September 19th, Ed Shearan went back on tour by himself without any opening acts. This performance was in Philadelphia and he made a statement on stage.

SPEAKER_01 35:30

And I'm so, so sorry. I don't want to disappoint fans, and I've never wanted to be an activist musician, but this has put me in the middle of an important and passionate argument about freedom of speech and the most complex political issue on the planet. Honoring my commitment to my fans is also completely central to who I am. And that is why I'm here tonight on my own and continuing my current tour. But I am I am deeply worried about the idea that venues should pre-approve content of performers. This happens in so many places that I perform around the world, but it should never happen in the free world. Now, I want to address the question of where I stand in the situation in Israel and Palestine and whether my doing this concert here tonight implies where I stand. I have tried in my career not to be a political commentator of any kind because I want my music and shows to be about unity, not division, about humanity, not politics. But this is a humanitarian issue, and I cannot hide how I feel about it anymore. What happened in Israel and at the Nova Music Festival on October 7th was horrific and compounded centuries of Jewish pain. What is happening in Gaza is catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate. My heart has been broken by the scale of devastation and loss of civilians' lives, of children's lives. And the systemic injustice we're seeing unfold in the West Bank cannot be overlooked. I honestly am so grateful that you're here tonight with me. But they can all agree and singing these songs. And these songs are about love, hope, and unity.

SPEAKER_07 38:13

Throughout all of this, a lot of people are getting involved, right, in the online conversations. They're making their own statements, they're giving their own opinions. We hear from Pink several times. We hear from Miss Rachel, a YouTube personality for kids' content. The Anti-Defamation League weighs in. And then, of course, the public took to social media to voice their opinions.

SPEAKER_00 38:39

All right, guys, once again, Robert Kraft is doing God's work. Thank you so much, Robert Kraft, for having moral clarity always.

SPEAKER_02 38:47

Robert Kraft is a billionaire. Billionaires cannot exist with any sense of morality, or else they wouldn't be billionaires anymore. This is the way that capitalism works.

SPEAKER_08 38:55

Macklemore, like most of his so-called activist peers, are clearly just jumping on the Free Palestine wagon for clout.

SPEAKER_03 39:02

Pink, who has been very vocal when it comes to some liberal movements such as LGBTQ, BLM, but you draw the line when it comes to Palestinian children, huh? Because now she's calling out McLemore and she's saying fans should ask for a refund because Mcklamore said free Palestine at a concert and sing a song.

SPEAKER_08 39:20

Michelle, I think I need a nap.

unknown 39:22

Yes.

SPEAKER_08 39:23

So all of that went down over the matter of two weeks, give or take. Where do we stand now?

SPEAKER_07 39:31

Macklemore announced a free Palestine tour, and there are three stops planned for the end of October in Dublin, Paris, and London. That tour sold out incredibly quickly. Ed Sheeran is still on tour and still playing to full stadiums. Right. Important to note that the Gillette Stadium show got canceled because of weather. So after all of that, the show never even happened. This is really just a lot to unpack, obviously. We're gonna explore some of what we've been thinking about now that the temperature has turned down. As we said, this was everywhere. And then, like always, another story pushed it out of the headlines. And we don't have long attention spans anymore. And what seems like a really important issue at a certain moment disappears pretty quickly. And there are a lot of important aspects of this story that we feel need to be explored.

SPEAKER_08 40:37

Yeah, because even though this was a very specific situation, it also brings up a lot of really big questions that we're grappling with in these times. And that's what we want to focus on here. Questions like how does our current media landscape impact which stories rise to the top? And is it possible for celebrities to stay neutral on political and major issues of the day? And what does free speech even look like these days? And who gets to control what people say and what people hear?

SPEAKER_07 41:11

Immediately when I saw this unfolding, the first thing that came to my mind was confirmation bias. We are all from the very start looking at this situation from our own lens. People decided incredibly quickly which side they were on and who was right and who was wrong. And it made me think about cancel culture. It made me think about public shaming. It made me think about making decisions without context, how difficult it can be to find nuance online.

SPEAKER_08 41:48

I think there is something really interesting about the role that social media played in all of this. I'm not so bothered that people are necessarily learning about things on digital platforms. All of these statements that we were reading from McLamore to Ed Sheeran to Robert Kraft, they were all happening on Instagram accounts, not through media outlets, right? So you have to be on the platforms to even get the source material. And I also think that social media is one of the main reasons why people, especially young people, are even aware of news and current events. A lot of the horrifying footage that we saw from the Nova Music Festival came from people's phones who were able to film and post the attack directly for people to see. And likewise, the horrifying images from Palestine are also up and center in a lot of people's feeds because people are sharing their everyday lives with us. So we are seeing that Gen Z and younger people are a lot more aware and engaged with current events and global events. And I think that that is generally a positive thing for young people to be civically engaged. But it is, like you said, really hard to find nuance. You have to be super active and intentional about which sources you're going to trust and which content you want to engage with. We're also seeing a lot of conflation between news and opinion. And so much of the content that we see isn't actually reporting. It's more like people's interpretations of what happened and then people's interpretations of other people's interpretations.

SPEAKER_07 43:44

And we're using all of that to form an opinion. It's interesting that you brought up the fact that these statements, certainly by McLemore and Ed Sheeran, were directly from them on their Instagram. To their followers, as opposed to a media environment in which there would be a publicist that made a statement to the press and the press quoted it. And, you know, I'm sure there's people working behind the scenes in the same way, but we don't see it. And having a direct voice to your fans and being able to say so much is interesting. The amount of content they put on their Instagram accounts is so different than the soundbite culture, right? Like we take sound bites, we take things out of context. And what they're trying to do is explain themselves. They're trying to give more than just a soundbite. They're trying to give us more of their experience and their humanity. And I don't know if that works. I don't know if that's how people are receiving it. Is it too much? Is it harder to say things now because you have the ability to say whatever it is that you want?

SPEAKER_08 45:01

It's interesting because when I was reading news articles about what was going on, the newsrooms would post excerpts from the statements. Yes. Especially MacLamore's and Ed Sheeran's statements were very long. And so that makes sense from an editorial perspective. That's the point of journalism is to trust the editorial judgment of what content actually is critical or not.

SPEAKER_07 45:29

I listened to a couple of podcasts to prep for our podcast. And I listened to this one that I actually really ended up appreciating. But when they were explaining what happened, one of the hosts shared just the bit of McLamore's speech where he speaks to his Jewish friends. And I thought, well, that's not okay. You've got to give more context than that. And this is the problem because you could have easily chosen a very different part of his speech to say something, right? And which is one of the reasons that we really want people to hear everything he said so they really get a more complete picture of what he is saying. But now we have that regurgitation or that commentary, people picking what it is that they want to talk about. Yeah. And I know it's ironic to talk about that on a podcast where we're talking about what we want to talk about. But this is hard.

SPEAKER_08 46:31

The other thing I found really hard doing the research for this episode was that because of the nature of how the digital platforms work, making this timeline was really difficult. Yes. Because somebody might record something that happened on September 4th, but they don't post it until September 5th, for example. And so it looks like it happened on September 5th, but it didn't actually. Yes. And because of the nature of how the algorithms work based on engagement, you're not necessarily seeing content in chronological order either. So it's really hard to develop a fully formed understanding of what's happening.

SPEAKER_07 47:08

And there's also a pressure to have an opinion immediately. Oh my gosh, yes. There is that pressure of where do I stand? What do you think? And, you know, I was getting texts about that. I'm like, we're gonna talk about this over texts. Like, this is really complicated stuff. You really have to find ways in which to have these conversations. But it makes me think about two other things that we were talking about actually in class this week. One was the idea of cognitive autonomy, which is essentially our ability to think for ourselves. In the context of the social media systems, we're fed a lot because of our previous behavior, right? Through the algorithms. There's also a lot of prediction happening and a lot of assumptions happening. But we talked a lot in class about so, how much is our thought about things actually independent if we have outside forces telling us what to look at? And I think that is something that people don't think about enough when it comes to the social media platforms. Yes. Are we losing that autonomy? Are we losing the ability to evaluate situations such as this with simply our own thinking?

SPEAKER_08 48:32

It's a really good point. I think it is human nature to be influenced by your environment and the media that you see. I mean, that's what we talk about all the time. Curation is nothing new. When I subscribe to the New York Times, I am agreeing to the curation and the editorial judgment of New York Times editors. But what I think is different is that in the analog world, I could say, okay, I'm going to immerse myself in all of these different kinds of places and all of their different curation and editorial standards, and that's going to help inform me. Whereas so much of the online space, that curation is happening by one entity, the platform that you're on, and everything is collated there. So it's even more intense and even more fragmented and magnified than ever before. And that is a huge, huge challenge to critical thinking and to cognitive autonomy. And it's something that we all need to be very conscious of. And it sounds like your students really are.

SPEAKER_07 49:38

Well, they're getting there. It's so exciting. The other thing that I just wanted to add was the idea of intellectual humility, which is essentially the ability to say I might be wrong. And that is often lost from online conversation because I think a lot of it has to do with the speed that we're communicating online, the back and forth nature of online discourse. But this idea that even looking at all of this material, I could have really significant opinions about it based on my lived experience, based on my values, but I also might be a little bit wrong. Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 50:20

Like I might be wrong. We are so inclined that we need to have an opinion about things that we're kind of not going through the process of forming an actually good opinion, which involves being open to being wrong and pressure testing it against counterarguments.

SPEAKER_07 50:37

It's so funny that you say that because I read a quote from the New Yorker and it said, the middle is now the most dangerous place to be. Those are the people who get picked on.

SPEAKER_08 50:50

That's really poignant that you bring that up because that brings us to the next question. Is it possible for celebrities to stay neutral? And why is there this expectation now that celebrities who have nothing to do with politics need to tell us where they stand on things?

SPEAKER_07 51:06

When we were preparing for this episode, we were talking about the late great Dolly Parton, who As we always do when we prep for podcasts.

SPEAKER_08 51:15

She had a huge fandom across all political sides, right? And she gave this quote I don't do politics. I have too many fans on both sides of the fence. Of course, I have my opinion about everything, but I learned years ago to keep your mouth shut about things. And it's funny because I feel like what Ed Sheeran was trying to do with his statement was exactly that, but just less successfully than Dolly. And is it because Ed Sheeran and Dolly are from different eras?

SPEAKER_07 51:47

Dolly Parton came up at a time where you could not do politics. Given the way in which we are communicating so publicly and there is so much civil discourse about topics, I just don't know if you can always get away with it anymore.

SPEAKER_06 52:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 52:15

And I wonder if Dolly was head-on with Gen Z, whether she would have been called out a little bit more. They are really clear about where they stand on things. I wonder if it would have been different if we were just in an environment that you couldn't get away with being in the middle.

SPEAKER_08 52:40

We're in this moment where there is so much conversation about power imbalance. And there's this expectation that if you are in a position of power, which Ed Sheeran and other huge celebrities are, they have this platform that they have a responsibility to use that in a way that represents their fans. It's kind of like you, as this celebrity that I'm a fan of, you represent me personally. But we don't actually know anything about these people on a personal level.

SPEAKER_07 53:14

It's so true. So as I said before, big Ed Sheeran fan. When I shuffle on my Apple music, his music comes up a lot. His 2017 album, Divide, is one of my favorite albums of all time. And there is a song on it called What Do I Know? And I'm gonna read you the first two verses. Ain't got a soapbox I can stand upon, but God gave me a stage, a guitar, and a song. My daddy told me, son, don't you get involved in politics, religions, or other people's quarrels? I'll paint the picture, let me set the scene. I know when I have children, they will know what it means. And I pass on these things my family's given to me. Just love and understanding, positivity.

SPEAKER_08 54:03

Okay, so his position is pretty clear that he doesn't want to take a position.

SPEAKER_07 54:07

Yeah, I mean this was 2017. But isn't that but then why does he have Macklemore in the tour, Gina? Oh, yes. Can we talk about that? Yeah, we need to talk about that. What are you thinking, Ed? Yeah. Like what did you think was going to happen? Anyone can find out that McLamore does not hide his beliefs about where he stands.

SPEAKER_08 54:29

There's like no way that Ed Sheeran could not have known that this might happen. Of course, his team might say, okay, let's prepare if something happens. It seems crazy that they seemed caught off guard by it.

SPEAKER_07 54:42

The idea that anyone was surprised, that anyone was caught off guard, it's absurd. It makes me so mad. Yeah. Because none of this would have happened. Isn't it wild? The whole thing, though, makes me think about what happened in 2003 with the Dixie chicks, who are now the chicks. Because that really brings the question of this relationship between celebrity and politics. In 2003, Natalie Maines, who's the lead singer of the chicks, said in a concert in London that they were ashamed that George W. Bush was from their home state of Texas and that they did not support the invasion of Iraq. Now, at that time, they were one of the most popular American country music artists. The statement triggered major backlash from American country listeners, many of them who were in support of the president. They were taken off the air by many country radio stations. They received death threats. Corporate sponsors pulled out. The sale of their music and concert tickets declined. This was 2003, right? So this is before social media really took off. There was an intense backlash that immediately impacted them. What I think is particularly interesting about the story with Macklemore and Ed Sheeran is how did it really affect them? Except, did they both get affected positively by this?

SPEAKER_08 56:16

I think they did. Right. And I think a lot of it is because McLamore was able to communicate directly and organize people on his own. It's incredible that he asked Ed Sheeran to be an opener on this tour, and now he is headlining his own stadium tour. Yeah. How about that?

SPEAKER_07 56:35

Yeah. But let's talk about who gets to tell us what we can say. Let's talk about that little topic. From the moment this all happened, the place where I went was I don't want billionaires telling people what they can and cannot say.

SPEAKER_08 56:55

Understandable. This has been the crux of a lot of the debate about free speech. On one hand, you have people who are saying, well, you know, this is easy. Robert Kraft owns Gillette Stadium and he can say who he wants on his property or not. And a lot of people online are equating it with, well, if you have a dinner party at your house, then you control who comes to your house or not. But the bigger issue here is we're talking about who controls shared spaces where artists and where people gather and where ideas are meant to be exchanged. It's interesting because this makes me think a lot about the free speech debates that we have in tech and that we had at Meta when I was working there. A lot of my work was on content policies and making decisions about what's considered political speech or not. And then even beyond the platform policies, what kinds of political positions is the company willing to take on issues through their own corporate giving and advocacy? So so much of this has been taking me back to that. And when it comes to free speech, this has been one of the central issues for digital platforms. It's so interesting to see that it's starting to spill over into physical spaces too. I mean, it makes sense. These are all spaces, whether digital or in real life, where people are gathering. And the reality is that most platforms, certainly the mainstream ones, they have rules about what's allowed or not. And they get a ton of criticism about those rules because people claim that they are censoring free speech because the platforms moderate speech beyond the law. And the reality is that I think most people want that, right? Like misinformation is not illegal. Being a bully is not illegal. When I was doing my orientation at Meta, somebody on the content team told me something like if the moderation systems went down for like 30 seconds, Facebook would become the world's biggest porn site. There's that much stuff that's getting moderated out before anybody even sees it. And don't give anyone any ideas. Well, and that stuff's not illegal. Yeah. But the platforms moderate that out, and that's their right to do so because it's not conducive to the environment that they want to have. So I think that is the challenge with free speech. Free speech is absolutely a sacred right in the United States. But in practice, most people don't want to actually be in spaces that truly embody what that means. And in that case, it means that we have to deal with some power that be standards of what speech is appropriate, whether it's Mark Zuckerberg or it's Robert Kraft or somebody else. And this is an issue that in the digital world we've had to grapple with for years. And we're seeing these questions become more prevalent, certainly on university campuses, which are dealing with student protests and movements around viewpoint diversity, but also arts and culture spaces. Like we're seeing in this case, and it's really interesting to me to see how other kinds of organizations are having to think about making their own content policies.

SPEAKER_07 1:00:12

What I feel frustrated about is the people that have the power to make those decisions are so few and far between. In theory, what you said about someone came into my home, I have a right to have them leave if I am unhappy with what they're saying. I hear that, but how many people own stadiums? How many people run social media platforms? And how are they making those decisions? Yes. And what is persuading them? What is influencing them? What pressures are they under?

SPEAKER_08 1:00:53

When I was at Meta, the internal content policy teams reported into the public policy organization. And I always felt like there was a massive problem with that because it made content policy answer to the priorities of government relations interests. That is really, really tricky.

SPEAKER_07 1:01:12

Absolutely. One of the things that I've been thinking about, though, is that, you know, Ed Sheeran is an incredibly powerful person in his own right. And you do a little research on him and you realize that he hasn't always stayed apolitical. He has come out for certain causes and in certain conflicts, including for the Ukrainian people. But we'll never know what would have happened if Ed Sheeran had pushed back. And I understand that what was said and the topic that we're talking about in this Macklemore, Ed Sheeran, with Palestine and Israel is an incredibly hot button topic. But say it wasn't that. What is this precedent that we're setting? And what if it was something that Ed Sheeran possibly felt more comfortable pushing back on?

SPEAKER_08 1:02:10

What would have happened? I think that that's exactly why people are so mad at Ed Sheeran. I think it's more about the fact that he didn't stand up for the artist on his tour than it is necessarily about his personal position on the issue.

SPEAKER_07 1:02:25

It's a good point. And I found that, you know, there were a lot of steps in this whole experience where I felt like Ed's team just went wrong. You know, and this idea that it wasn't his decision. He's the boss. Come on. You can make a lot of decisions. The thing about free speech, which is really hard to reckon with, and I think about this all the time, is that if we really believe that people have a right to say something, then we have to believe that even when the words that they say really hurt us. Yeah. If we really believe that we live in a society where free expression matters, that it can't just be the expression we agree with.

SPEAKER_08 1:03:14

Also, we all have the right to free speech, but we don't all exercise it.

SPEAKER_07 1:03:19

And also, we do have a right to free speech, but we don't have a right to not have consequences from that free speech, too, right? Like we do have to remember that. That isn't part of it.

SPEAKER_08 1:03:29

And we also don't all have a right to be amplified and to be given a big platform.

SPEAKER_07 1:03:34

Yes. So do we solve anything? I could talk about this for another hour and a half because there's so many elements of this that require deep thought. I also think about who owns the meaning of words, who owns speech. All of this is really important at a time where we're supposed to be living in an environment where there's some democratization of speech, right?

SPEAKER_08 1:04:02

You're so right, because we can be saying the same words, but actually having completely different meanings and interpretations of that.

SPEAKER_07 1:04:08

I also just go back to the fact that it's very difficult to have cultural discourse around issues that are so emotional, are so wrought with history and historical pain. And Ed could not find a more controversial topic to get thrown into. And again, the idea that he was surprised to be there is to me the most shocking thing of all. I agree. But you know, we could be wrong. We could absolutely be wrong.

SPEAKER_08 1:04:49

Okay, Gina, what are your recommendations? Do you have any? I do. So if you are interested in learning more about speech policies and how organizations can think about them, there's a really good piece in Tech Policy Press called What Universities Might Learn from Social Media Companies About Content Moderation. Disclaimer: social media companies have not completely cracked the code on how to moderate content perfectly. Spoiler alert. I know, shocker. But there are learnings from their experience that I think are relevant for universities or any organization that are thinking about the kinds of spaces that they want to create where people come together and how they want to govern that. So I would recommend that piece. We'll link to it in the show notes.

SPEAKER_07 1:05:35

How about you, Michelle? I have two recommendations. My first one is a 2006 documentary called Shut Up and Sing that is about the chicks in 2003, the controversy that we mentioned before. The other one is the podcast that I mentioned before, which I thought they disappointed me by not reading the full statements. But after I got over that disappointment, I feel like they had a really, really meaningful conversation. And the podcast is called the Subtext Podcast. If you are interested in hearing a little bit more about Backlamore and Ed Sheeran, they talk and have meaningful conversation about it. So it's subtext podcast. Great recommendations.

SPEAKER_08 1:06:19

Thank you. I think it's nap time. It is. See you next time. Bye. Michelle Chula Lipkin has been a media literacy educator and advocate for the last 25 years. She teaches at the City University of New York and writes, presents, and consults on topics related to media and tech. You can find her at MichelleChulalipkin.com.

SPEAKER_07 1:06:40

Gina Wu spent 15 years in tech, building Uber as the first person on the ground in European and U.S. markets, and founding Meta's Global Information Ecosystem Program. Today she is the author of Feed for Thought, a newsletter that explores how digital platforms are reshaping standards for authority, expertise, and trust. Did you see with Gina and Michelle is produced by Stevie Starr. Our theme song is by Lange Day.