Human Rights Advocate (3:40)

If a person speaks Bengali, if he is of Muslim faith, he's picked up and he's asked to prove his or her citizenship. So this poor working class person has to prove to a policeman that, that he is Indian. And the policemen, very often they carry prejudices of their own. And so we've seen a number of bona fide Indians being dumped into Bangladesh, people producing, you know, absolutely horrific videos. And the result is migrant workers in cities like Delhi, like Bombay, in states like Gujarat, Orissa, have fled back.

Media Analyst (4:14)

It was very often ordinary citizens were calling the cops and saying, you know, I saw a fruit vendor down the street speaking Bengali and I think he's a Bangladeshi immigrant. And the cops come and they take him away. And the assumption was that all immigrants are illegal immigrants. Right now, the axe invariably falls on Bengali Muslims because immigrants from Bangladesh are considered to have come to India in very large numbers. And that is often used as a tool to create discontent among Indians. Right?

Indian Politics Expert (4:48)

For years now, the most Saudi government has been nurturing that discontent. At an election rally in 2018, its home minister Amit Shah called Bengali Muslims termites, which is as pernicious as it gets. As pejoratives go, however, infiltrators. The idea of unchecked illegal immigrants out to transform India internally gets far more play.

Human Rights Advocate (5:18)

Identifying millions of Bangladeshi infiltrators who have come into our country and purifying our.

Alex Shepard (5:23)

Land of the termites of infiltrators.

Indian Politics Expert (5:31)

Indian news anchors habitually justify the so called verification process used to force Bengalis to prove their citizenship. While countless news channels delve into Hindu conspiracy theories about demographic replacement and Muslim birthing rates.

Media Critic (5:58)

A lot of outlets are presenting this story as, oh, there is a verification drive taking place to check who are the Bangladeshis. And so these people are being put in detention centers. Part of that verification drive. There isn't much questioning, okay, what is this based on? Why is this happening so abruptly? Because you so blindly regurgitate whatever is being said, what ends up happening is manufacturing of consent, right?

Media Analyst (6:22)

A sort of a mass onslaught on Indians by mass media and a 247 pushing of certain narratives has desensitized Indians and they have been beguiled into believing that there is indeed an enemy out there.

Alex Shepard (6:40)

Those people who have infiltrated into our country are not coming here because of poverty, but rather with the intent of kind of conquering our country.

Media Analyst (6:50)

An us versus them narrative and existential struggle. When you use words like termites, you dehumanize other human beings to such an extent that it no longer excites any compassion in you when that human is traumatized or attacked.

Demographic Expert (7:12)

Hindus comprise around 80% of India's population. Muslims comprise about 14%. That means they're somewhere in the region of 200 million Muslims. The project to make them second class citizens has been going on for over a decade. And a very, very substantial section of the so called mainstream media has been amplifying this discourse. And Remember that if 36% have voted for the BJP, one out of three Indians has been brainwashed into believing that their enemy is the Muslim.

Indian Politics Expert (7:55)

Political narratives designed to divide electorates are more effective when they go beyond casting the other as the enemy, when they also convince voters, in this case Hindus, that they are being victimized. In a country where four out of five people are Hindus, that takes some doing. Which is where India's unique media landscape factors in. It has more than 424 hour television news channels, far more than any other country. And most of them are dependent on government advertising revenues to keep them in business. The end result is a highly competitive news sector. Channels desperate to outdo each other in backing Narendra Modi's bjp. Which means they spread the Hindu victimhood narrative. But time and again, Hindus find that.

Alex Shepard (8:47)

They'Re taken for granted.

Indian Politics Expert (8:49)

They find themselves at the receiving end.

Human Rights Advocate (8:51)

Of derision or plain contempt.

Indian Politics Expert (8:54)

But when examined, that notion of Hindu victimization falls apart.

Media Analyst (9:00)

Demographically, Hindus are definitely in the majority. But more important than just numbers, culturally, socially, politically, educationally, in all of these spheres, Hindus are dominant. So this idea of the Hindu being under threat is a fake idea. It's a creation of victimhood that has been encouraged by television channels, influencers and social media. All of them saying the same thing, that the Hindu is under threat. That is where the maximum mischief has been done. The sense of continuous victimhood and the idea of the Muslim as the enemy.

Human Rights Advocate (9:43)

I've had friends who would tell me that, you know, my parents are getting brainwashed. For the vast majority of people, if you sit them in front of a screen and you broadcast one thing, at least some percentage of them will get turned. We're seeing this happen again and again. And it's only independent media, some conscientious YouTubers, my outlets scroll, questioning power, questioning the government. Unfortunately, mainstream media has actually made matters worse. And it's just Constant, like it's 24 7, without any hesitation, without any shame.

Indian Politics Expert (10:17)

To the point that the BJP and its supporters are now meeting out what they call bulldozer justice, bulldozers and excavators are being used to demolish mosques and the homes of so called Muslim infiltrators, or Muslims suspected of committing a crime. And not just in Assam, but in cities like New Delhi and Mumbai. News anchors have jumped on board, providing play by play accounts of demolitions taking place, offering often with no due process, no proof of wrongdoing. That is what happens when politicians and the news outlets that do their bidding convince Hindus that somehow they are the victims in this story. They are liable to see the bulldozing of a Muslim's home as a form of justice rather than what it really is.

Human Rights Advocate (11:21)

This is a form of collective punishment that does not follow basic legal principles. It's a form of othering of Muslims, of which bulldozer action is one subset, citizenship questions is another subset, and so on. Anti Muslim prejudice has always been a part of the body politic in India, but we've seen a sort of shamelessness creep in. We've seen an explicit owning of that rhetoric. And the bulldozer is really a very, very ugly symbol that exemplifies this rhetoric.

Media Critic (11:53)

It's unfortunate that this bulldozer justice has been so quickly adopted by much of the mainstream media. Right. Why is there no questioning of this term? How can it be bulldozer justice? Why is it not bulldozer oppression? The framing of the story is so skewed and so problematic, and it is a result of years and years of dehumanization, which much of the Indian media has been complicit in.

Demographic Expert (12:17)

In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, the chief minister has actually posed with a bulldozer. Now the bulldozer has become a symbol of Hindu nationalism. So the rhetoric, the narrative to demonize to other, the minority, the biggest minority community, the Muslims, and to spread Islamophobia continues.

Host (Sam) (12:49)

The images streaming out of Gaza of starving children, women and men have provoked a global narrative shift that even the Netanyahu government cannot brush off. So it has launched a campaign to push back. Ryan Coleslaw has been tracking this story.

Ryan Coleslaw (13:05)

In the past few weeks, mouthpieces for the Israeli government have gone on a propaganda offensive to try and dispel the shifting public opinion on Israel's siege of Gaza. Their first line of attack was to deny the evidence of forced starvation in the Gaza Strip as indisputable evidence of starvation. And hunger piled up. The Israelis changed tack. Now they admit there is starvation, but insist that Israel has nothing to do with it.

Narrator (13:47)

There isn't, however, an intentional campaign to.

Ryan Coleslaw (13:50)

Starve the people of Gaza despite repeated warnings from NGOs over the past two years, starvation has now reached a lethal point in Gaza. Dozens of people die day after day from Israel's blockade. And the World Food Program has declared that half a million people in Gaza are enduring famine like conditions. But instead of standing down or slowing down, Israel and its Hasbara campaign are doubling down on a narrative designed to justify what are unquestionably crimes against humanity.

Host (Sam) (14:20)

Thanks, ryan. In the U.S. cBS News is under scrutiny after its parent company, Paramount Global settled a multi million dollar lawsuit with Donald Trump. With names from the annals like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and news programs like 60 Minutes, CBS has been a pillar of American broadcast journalism, and it's at the heart of this story. Trump's lawsuit alleged that last year, CBS producers deceptively edited an interview with presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her look good. The out of court settlement cost CBS $16 million while Paramount was chasing a multi billion dollar merger, a deal that the US Broadcast regulator, the fcc, had the power to block. So this settlement is seen as an act of political capitulation on Paramount's part. And CBS is not the only media outlet that Trump's been going after. He has also targeted the Wall Street Journal, a notoriously conservative outlet, for its reporting on Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. He is suing the paper and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, for $10 billion. When political power comes into conflict with corporate power, journalism tends to become collateral damage. Joining us now to unpack all of this is Alex Shepard, senior editor at the New Republic. Alex, let's start with this. CBS News is one of those institutions that's long branded itself as a news division that speaks truth to power. But what's really happening behind the scenes there right now? What kind of pressure do you think CBS is facing right now, both from the Trump administration and under its own corporate masters?

Alex Shepard (16:04)

The pressure that they're facing is, I think, an unprecedented assault on news organizations ability to do their job, to sort of placate an administration that is increasingly hostile to them and to ensure this $8.4 billion merger that will give Larry Ellison, a key ally of Donald Trump, enormous power over the institution. The institution is just being gutted wholesale, and you're seeing it across divisions. But I think especially at CBS News.

Host (Sam) (16:33)

Just how politicized has the fcc, the Federal Communications Commission, become in Trump's second term? Are we witnessing something completely different here? A new era of, of media regulation in the US where federal agencies will be used this way to potentially punish.

Alex Shepard (16:51)

Dissent if you look back at Trump's first term, there was a lot of talk about the pressure that news organizations were under. But I think the story of that term was one in which those organizations bent but didn't break under that pressure. It was really just him tweeting nonsense in the middle of the night trying to pressure these organizations. But now he's really using every bit of the federal government that he can to pressure these kinds of changes. So the FCC is a three person board. There are two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee. And what they're doing is essentially ensuring that the administration has what is, in effect, boots on the ground in cbs. They're forcing the news division to end all diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And I think most troublingly, they're also pushing for a, quote, unquote, ombudsman, which is, I think, a familiar role for many news organizations. But what they really want is a bias moderator, somebody who can sort of give the administration's opinion on various news stories to effectively ensure that there's none of the critical coverage that you've seen of this president and this administration on news programs like 60 Minutes.

Host (Sam) (17:55)

Let's talk about the Jeffrey Epstein story for a minute because this story is clearly getting to Donald Trump and also the Wall Street Journal angle, because that that paper has really run hard with this. What does the Journal's aggressive coverage say about fractures between Trump and Rupert Murdoch, who most of the time are on.

Indian Politics Expert (18:15)

The same side of things?

Alex Shepard (18:17)

They've had a rocky relationship, but it's solidified at various points because Murdoch knows that he needs to make Trump's voters happy to ensure that the sort of golden goose of his empire, Fox News, continues to print money as it has for many years now. But at the Wall Street Journal, I think there's a little more freedom for maneuver. And you know, that institution is one of the big kind of pro free market, pro free trade organizations in this country. And they've been very critical of the administration's economic moves, most notably his sort of tariff regime. But you're also seeing, I think it's unheralded in a lot of ways. News Division really outflank a lot of other entities like the New York Times and CNN on this story. They've pursued it doggedly. And I think it is a very, very damaging story for the president, not necessarily because we have any evidence of significant malfeasance at this point, but because the story that he's always sold both to his voters and to swing voters, is that He's a different sort of politician, that everyone else in the government is corrupt and they're compromised in some way and that you may not like his pugilistic and crass approach to politics, but it does sort of get results and the results are weeding out this kind of corruption and self dealing. Now, I mean, if you look at what Trump does, it's obviously a ridiculous argument, but it does have a lot of truck with these supporters. And what we're seeing now is I think for the first time a significant gap between Trump's own assessment of a story.

Demographic Expert (19:52)

I know it's a hoax, it's started by Democrats.

Alex Shepard (19:54)

You know, it's fake news. It's being invented by his enemies, whether they be James Comey or folks at the Wall Street Journal and his voters who are saying, hold on a second, this story seems pretty damning and we want more information. You know, 80% of Republicans want the Epstein files released and Trump is, is going against them right now. And you just haven't seen a situation in his 10 year political career where there's this much tension between the President and his base.

Host (Sam) (20:23)

Now we've seen Trump before use lawsuits. There's the CBS case, we mentioned, the ABC News case from the election campaign. But he doesn't always follow through with the threat. Right. So how exposed do you think News Corp. Really is at this moment? And what does it say about Trump that he feels the need to take Murdoch on in this way at this time?

Alex Shepard (20:46)

Trump has wielded lawsuits throughout his career this long, predating his presidential career to try to bully and intimidate rivals and opponents into getting in line. And so this is no different. But I think there are a couple key differences here. So the CBS lawsuit that we talked about earlier, that was a very, very opportunistically timed because of this merger. So David Ellison and the folks at CBS realized that they wanted to get this merger through, they were going to have to settle this completely frivolous and ridiculous lawsuit, which is exactly what they did. The merger is going ahead. That's how it works. And with this story with the Wall Street Journal, Trump is suing in part because he thinks it is a declaration of innocence, which is ridiculous. I think the story itself is, it speaks for itself, is very, very well done journalistically. But the idea here is to try to bully the Journal off the case because of that a high number. This is a 10 billion dollar lawsuit. And so, you know, I think that the goal for Trump here is to get some sort of settlement or at least to get create a kind of chilling effect within the Journal newsroom. We have not seen any evidence of that. They seem to be continuing to pursue this story. Now the question here, which is the kind of the game theory at play is, well, what does Murdoch ultimately do here? Because what we have seen move him in the past are threats to his key business, which is Fox News. So the lawsuit itself may not be the threat. I think the one question for Trump, and it's a card that he hasn't played yet, is if he can go after Fox News, which has covered the Epstein story much less than other mainstream outlets. If you can go after them, then you might see some movement towards settlement here. But, you know, this is not a lawsuit that is friendly to Trump even though he's the person that filed it. Because, you know, when you go through lawsuits in this country, you have to do discovery. And you know, discovery here would focus pretty heavily on Donald Trump's, you know, 20 year, seemingly close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the most, you know, notorious alleged pedophile and sex trafficker of the 21st century in this country.

Host (Sam) (22:49)

Okay, let's close with the bigger, more ominous picture here. Are Americans currently watching the collapse of journalistic independence in their country as billionaire owned news outlets bend to political power? And is Trump in effect training the public in a way to normalize or to see as normalized this kind of abuse of state authority?

Alex Shepard (23:13)

This story of Trumpism is one in which it's comforting to think that essentially this country was in good shape before he came along and this sort of demagogue appears and all of a sudden the sort of, you know, institutions that have upheld American democracy for two and a half centuries start to crumble. But I think that that's not really true. I think what you have seen is instead, you know, a country with that, with institutions that had been rotting to the point of near collapse for many years. You look at the situation in Congress, for instance, particularly since the Republican Revolution in 1984. You look at the judicial system with court system that is essentially given a green light to open corruption over the last 20 years. And again, a media institution that is increasingly controlled by either individual billionaires or by massive corporations. And Trump sort of came along and noticed that this infrastructure was all rotting and I think started to apply pressure to it. And what you've seen is that start to, to crumble. And I think one of the really troubling things here is if you look at an organization like cbs, again, this is the home of Walter Cronkite, right? It's, you know, in terms of broadcast media, the gold standard of American television, and it is now essentially remaking itself in the president's image. And the other issue here is that, you know, there's not a robust independent media in this country. The media has been under, you know, both economic and political and cultural assault for the last two decades, and, you know, it's at a point of near collapse right now. The story of the first Trump administration was one that was pretty good for a lot of independent media and mainstream media, too, that they faced pressure from a demagogic president and succeeded, and they built audience from it, and people respected the media's ability to hold the president accountable. And what we're seeing, I think, is the opposite. It's a sort of. It feels almost like a death knell, but it's not with a bang, but a whimper for a lot of these institutions.

Host (Sam) (25:22)

We're going to leave it there. Alex Shepard of the New Republic, thank you so much for speaking with us here at the Listening Post today.

Alex Shepard (25:28)

Thank you, Sam.