On the Media – "No, Trump Isn't Cracking Down on Crime. Plus, How Ukrainians Tell Their Story of the War."

Date: September 5, 2025
Hosts: Brooke Gladstone, Michael Loewinger
Podcast: WNYC Studios – On the Media

Episode Overview

This episode tackles two urgent narratives shaping current events:

1. The truth behind President Trump’s so-called “crackdown on crime,” analyzing how media coverage is framing—and often legitimizing—federal military deployments in Democratic-led cities.
2. How Ukrainians are fighting for control over their own war narrative, with in-depth reporting from Ukraine on the ways survivors, storytellers, and artists document trauma, drive international opinion, and seek justice.

Through interviews with political analysts, media researchers, war correspondents, Ukrainian officials, and filmmakers, the episode dissects how both power and memory are shaped through the stories we tell and who is permitted to tell them.

Segment 1: “No, Trump Isn’t Cracking Down on Crime”

Main Points

• Federal Troop Deployments and Framing (01:31–06:29):
  The podcast critiques President Trump’s justification for deploying federal troops in cities like Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and threats toward Chicago and others under the banner of fighting crime, examining how the media often repeats or amplifies the administration’s narratives.

  • Discussion of legal challenges: D.C. and L.A. lawsuits claim the occupation is unconstitutional, violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act ([02:41]).

  • The actual crime rates in cities like Chicago are dropping—a nuance often buried deep in news reports or missing altogether.

• Media’s Role in “Manufacturing Consent” (04:26–06:29):

  • Jameson Fozer (political consultant/media critic) argues the media are not just passively reporting, but “increasing support” for Trump’s actions by framing them as responses to crime—not power grabs.

    • “The public does not currently agree with Donald Trump or what he's doing. But the media in the way they're covering this story is increasing support for it by suggesting he's trying to fight crime.” – Jameson Fozer ([04:33])

  • Even fact-checking can reinforce Trump's framing, as it keeps the focus on crime rather than on an abuse of power.

• Polling, Political Narratives, and Democratic Response (09:07–13:57):

  • Polls show more Americans disapprove (56%) than approve of sending the National Guard to D.C., even when questions are slanted toward Trump's framing ([09:52]).

  • “This narrative that this is a sure political winner for Trump, it's kind of another example of the media trying to manufacture consent for what Trump is doing.” – Jameson Fozer ([10:41])

  • Some Democrats, like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, push back and call for honest coverage: “Do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here. If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me... from making sure that you face justice under our constitutional rule of law.” – J.B. Pritzker ([12:12])

  • Others, guided by strategists like David Shor, avoid addressing the federal occupation directly, focusing instead on the economy.

  • The importance of media framing: poorly contextualized coverage can lead, unwittingly, to public support for authoritarian measures masquerading as crime-fighting.

• Urgency of Accurate Framing (13:48–14:15):

  • Fozer warns: “If we don't [get the framing right], you really risk having a country involuntarily agreeing to slide into fascism. And by involuntarily, I mean based on false pretenses, not really knowing what they're agreeing to.” ([13:54])

Notable Quotes

• “By manufacturing consent, I mean, the public does not currently agree with Donald Trump or what he's doing. But the media... is increasing support for it by suggesting he's trying to fight crime.”
  — Jameson Fozer ([04:33])

• “Even when the media is debunking some of his assertions around crime, they're still privileging the lie that this is about crime.”
  — Jameson Fozer ([05:44])

• “If we don't [get the language and framing right], you really risk having a country involuntarily agreeing to slide into fascism.”
  — Jameson Fozer ([13:54])

Segment 2: “How the Intellectual Right Imagines a Post-Liberal America”

Main Points

• Rise of the Far-Right Ideologues (16:20–29:19):

  • Vox’s Zach Beecham reviews a recent panel of right-wing thought leaders—Christopher Rufo, Christopher Caldwell, Patrick Deneen, and Curtis Yarvin—debating their visions for a more authoritarian America.

  • Curtis Yarvin is described as the most extreme:

    • He proposes that certain citizens (e.g., “gangbangers in Baltimore”) should have their lives controlled by churches acting as government proxies, complete with drug tests, assigned work, and location tracking ([19:00]).

    • “Your minister can drug test you, he can assign you work and he can put an airtag on you.” – Yarvin ([19:17])

    • The rest of the panel offers no objection on moral or constitutional grounds, only practical ones.

  • The conversation normalizes authoritarian and openly racist ideas, with terms like “authoritarian” or “racist” losing their stigmatizing power within these circles ([20:24]).

• Constitutional Subterfuge and Historical Revisionism (20:32–22:46):

  • The panel discusses repealing the 14th Amendment and resurrecting state power to enforce religious rules—a fundamental distortion of American constitutional tradition.

• Shifting Moderate vs. Extreme (25:10–30:33):

  • The debate is less about whether to be authoritarian, and more about how naked, aggressive, or “weird” that authoritarianism should become.

    • “The inter right argument that they're having is not over whether we should be authoritarian. It's over just how naked, how aggressive and how weird that authoritarianism should be.” – Zach Beecham ([29:19])

• Is the U.S. Already Authoritarian? (30:33–33:10):

  • Beecham argues the U.S. is in a “degraded form of democracy”—delegative democracy—which may serve as a waystation to full authoritarianism, pending the outcome of future elections and institutions’ resilience against executive abuse.

    • “We are a degraded form of democracy. And whether it goes further, whether we take the next step, I mean, ultimately, the first real big test will be the midterm elections.” ([33:10])

Segment 3: “How Ukrainians Tell Their Story of the War” (field reporting by Deborah Amos)

Main Points

• Setting the Narrative on the Ground (36:19–41:22):

  • Deborah Amos reports from Kyiv and the devastated suburb of Bucha, where atrocities occurred during Russian occupation.

  • Residents and officials see media openness not just as transparency, but as a tool of resistance.

    • “When we were burying heroes and when we were burying unknown killed civilians, we did it with the press to record what really happened.” – Mikhail No Skorekivska, Deputy Mayor of Bucha ([41:22])

  • Bucha’s story went global because officials deliberately invited international media—a contrast to other towns that closed their doors.

• Memorialization and Bearing Witness (41:32–44:13):

  • Bucha’s new memorials, ongoing reconstruction, and documentaries help cement the narrative of what happened and resist Russian denial and propaganda.

• Art, Trauma, and Film (46:17–49:10):

  • The movie Bucha dramatizes the experiences of survivors, sparking debate in Ukraine about the timing and role of such portrayals in an ongoing war.
  • Oleksandr Schur (screenwriter):
    • “A movie, it's not a monument. If you don't want want to watch it, you don't watch it but many.” ([50:09])

• International vs. Internal Audience (49:10–50:27):

  • Films and documentaries have dual goals: urging international support while serving as future testimony for Ukrainians themselves.

• Narrative as Geopolitical Weapon (51:11–52:55):

  • Yaroslav Lodigin’s (director) documentary A Faith Under Siege aims at U.S. conservatives, countering Russian propaganda about Christians in Ukraine, successfully changing opinions among evangelical viewers.
  • “Before the very conservative evangelical would be asked, you want to help Ukraine? ...they would say no. And then if they see this movie, they turn their minds completely and they would rather ask their senator congressman to support Ukraine.” – Yaroslav Lodigin ([52:03])

• Documentaries as Therapy and Testimony (53:06–54:48):

  • With justice for war crimes likely far away, storytelling provides both a form of therapy for survivors and a bridge between evidence, memory, and possible future accountability.

    • “The amount of crimes in this country is so big. In this way, documentary works a bit therapy.” – Elizavitha Smith ([54:41])

• Ongoing Protests, Memory, and the Battle for Narrative (55:05–57:41):

  • Weekly protests press for the release of Ukrainian prisoners. The fear: that atrocities might be forgotten or denied over time as in Cambodia or the U.S. South.
  • Final message: Ukrainians refuse to cede narrative control, determined to keep telling the truth until justice is more than just a story.

Notable Quotes

• "Without media, we will not be so successful now. And Bucha could be the model of Ukrainian success in future."
  — Mikhail No Skorekivska ([42:31])

• "We are outnumbered. We have less money, resources, weapons, but we have some ability to tell stories."
  — Yaroslav Lodigin ([52:44])

• "We are the products of narratives. It's hard to imagine what would be with the whole concept of justice without this work."
  — Yaroslav Lodigin ([52:58])

• "The amount of crimes in this country is so big. In this way, documentary works a bit therapy."
  — Elizavitha Smith ([54:41])

Key Timestamps

• 01:31–06:29: Federal troop deployments, media framing, legal and political pushback.
• 06:29–14:15: Media’s complicity, polling, Democrat responses, and dangers of framing.
• 16:20–33:10: Panel of right-wing intellectuals, normalization of authoritarian ideas, and U.S. democracy's state.
• 36:19–44:13: Ukraine: Field reporting, Bucha as global symbol, media as resistance.
• 46:17–54:48: Ukrainian art, survivor documentaries, global impact, therapy, and future justice.
• 55:05–57:41: Protests, the stakes of narrative, refusal to let atrocities be denied or erased.

Tone and Style

• The reporting is direct, at times urgent, and driven by skepticism toward powerful actors and media blind spots.
• Ukrainian voices center dignity, trauma, and agency; the tone is resilient and pragmatic amid sorrow.
• The show’s critical, investigative spirit persists: “examining how the media sausage is made.”

For Listeners

This episode provides:

• A rigorous deconstruction of media complicity in dangerous political narratives at home.
• A moving, granular look at Ukrainian society’s struggle to claim and safeguard the story of its survival and suffering.
• Practical lessons on the power (and peril) of framing—whether political or personal—in shaping the world we inhabit.

Whether you are concerned about democracy in America or justice abroad, this episode will deepen your understanding of the battles fought not only with arms, but with stories.