← The Monocle Daily
The Monocle Daily
Crisis warnings in the US after Charlie Kirk’s killing – is this a turning point?
00:39:56
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first.
- [00:02]
B
Broadcast on 11 September 2025 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:06]
C
US authorities continue the hunt for the killer of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. Israel threatens Qatar with further military action. And could AI really do a worse job of running a government department than some human ministers? I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Lyn o' Donnell and Nomi Bar Yakov will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll speak to New Yorker staff writer Kalefa Sana about why and when the music press retracted its claws. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andre. I am joined today by Lyn o', Donnell, columnist for Foreign Policy magazine and former Kabul bureau chief for afp. And by Nomi Bar Yaakov, international peace negotiator, expert in diplomacy, geopolitics and the Middle east, fellow at the Geneva center for Security Policy and former fellow at Chatham House. Hello to you both.
- [01:20]
B
Hello.
- [01:21]
A
Hello.
- [01:22]
C
There does seem to be. Lin, I will start with you. A bit of a theme among recent guests of everybody but me. Having spent the summer in Paris, what were you doing there?
- [01:31]
B
I stayed at the home of friends while they did the French thing and went to the beach and I looked after their cats and I walked along the river and I wrote two chapters of my book.
- [01:41]
C
Are you allowed to say anything about the book? What it's about? When we can read it?
- [01:45]
B
Hopefully next year you can read it. It's. It's a spy thriller, but it's non fiction.
- [01:53]
C
Okay. And when you say you wrote two chapters because remember, Lynn, I've written books. Do you mean you've actually written two chapters or you've written 73 printable words? Friends have a very clean apartment.
- [02:06]
B
That's very good. I like that because cleaning is also my procrastinatory go to. So I did leave their home clean, spotless in fact. But I did actually write two chapters and I added them to the others that I have already written.
- [02:21]
C
Well, I am impressed by that.
- [02:22]
B
Thank you.
- [02:22]
C
Because seriously, I've had days where I've even cleaned the top of the kitchen cabinets. Nomi, you have also been in Paris. What were you up to?
- [02:31]
A
Well, I took my daughter to see Paris, Paris for the first time just before her school year commenced. And I timed it so that I could do the France 24, the debate, which is probably my favorite television show. The new inaugural season. So we did the first, the first session, which I enjoyed thoroughly on more or less how to get to pizza, how to break the cycle of war and violence, and that was terrific. Then of course, we went to lots and lots of art galleries and walked along the Seine, did boat tours and I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed the orangery and Claude Monet's water lilies, his, you know, work of a lifetime. End of the First World War and silence is imposed. There's signs everywhere that this is no talking is allowed and this is a reflection time and we spend many hours there.
- [03:28]
C
See, I would be in favor of those signs being put up more or less everywhere. We will start the show proper. In the United States, police investigating yesterday today's murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk have found the rifle they believe was used in the shooting. The suspect remains at large, though authorities say they now have footwear impressions, palm and forearm prints, and footage which has been released within the last hour or so of a youngish looking white man. Despite lacking any further concrete information about the killer or their motives, US President Donald Trump and his political and media allies have been swift to blame their ideological opponents. Lynnet has been a, a deeply peculiar performance, I think it's fair to say, by President Trump. He could have gone all in on the sort of more that unites us than divides us thing, unity, come together as Americans, et cetera, et cetera. He has very conspicuously taken the opposite tack.
- [04:25]
B
Why change now? It's not as if there haven't been political assassinations already this year of people who represent the left as well as the assassination attempt on. I don't think unity is written into the political stone that cast Donald Trump or his people. It's an opportunity, Everything is sadly an opportunity to yet again rail against perceived enemies.
- [05:01]
C
I mean, Naomi, the event in and of itself is awful. The shooting of a young man while he was attempting, I guess at least his form of political engagement. But how concerned should everybody be that this is going to be the beginning of something worse rather than the end of something that was already pretty grim?
- [05:21]
A
Well, I mean, it's sort of one more serious incident in a series of incidents, as Lyn has mentioned. You know, it is not the first one and unfortunately it's not going to be the last one. And the big question is how are we going to deal with it? And whereas we're going likely to be seeing, you know, more force used, it's actually very important to remember what Charlie Kirk used to sort of stand for and say. And he always used to say he was pro freedom of speech. Yes, he was very provocative. But he used to say, you know, prove me wrong. And he advocated the debate. And I think that if we highlight that and if we try to highlight that, that should be the legacy of let's have it and then put some rules to the debate. If make a more sophisticated.
- [06:09]
C
I think there's a reasonable argument. He wasn't always debating in good faith.
- [06:13]
A
No, he may. No, no, I'm not suggesting that he was debating in good faith at all. I'm just trying to work out, you know, as is my career, you know, trying to see how to calm the storm and how to, and, and to find a way out of it. That's my sort of role in life and in being here. So rather than, yes, of course it's looking grim. I agree it is looking pretty grim. And I actually think the opposite to what I am suggesting is going to happen. But I would like people to listen and I there to be some creativity, especially the young generation. He was speaking, he was 31 years old. He was speaking to the next generation of, you know, what we call next gen leaders. And if those people, you know, would just take a moment to think, you know, to hear and to listen is not done very often and reflect, how can you honor his legacy? Have a debate, but have a debate that is not going to end up in violence. Have a debate where you are actually really listening to the other side and trying to understand their narrative, even if you disagree with it, at least tune into that narrative and recognize that there is another narrative whether you agree with it or not, and that you need to be able to respect it. Because we are the divides in the US I was invited to mediate between the Republicans and the Democrats. It's not, you know, it's shouldn't be where it is at. And it is a question of training and training the mind to have an open mindset rather than a fixated idea. And then it's a question of, you know, power isn't about force. Power is about who has the most open mindset so as to be able to lead with courage, with foresight, with insight that doesn't come in and of its own, it requires training.
- [08:12]
C
Lyn, we haven't seen an awful lot of that so far in the responses, certainly not from Kirk's own side of the aisle, if we can phrase it like that. We've had a lot of certainly pro Trump media amplified and encouraged helpfully as always by Elon Musk, proprietor of X, who've basically decided that this is, well, this, to actually borrow the phrase used by many of them, this is war.
- [08:42]
B
You know, where do you go with that? They're making it intractable for themselves. But their political opportunism is really to be condemned in and of itself because it's so. It's the opposite of constructive, it is destructive. And in a country that is as divided politically as America is, it's the last thing that it needs. But it also amplifies elsewhere. You know, I heard people on the radio. I, you know, I must admit I didn't know very much about Charlie Kirk. I'm not of that demographic, but I heard somebody on the radio this morning say his teenagers knew about it as soon as they woke up because they are aware of it. As you say, it's these are the next gen leaders, at least thinkers, if not leaders. But I don't think being given the oxygen for thought, and I also don't think that they will be given the oxygen for thought. And the earliest indications are that the people who are currently holding power do not want to provide oxygen for thought. Quite the opposite.
- [09:55]
C
On that thought, though, Noemi, it clearly is the story of the day. But is it likely that this actually does become a thing that has a lasting resonance? Because the news, the news cycle, especially the American news cycle, is now so crazed that within, you know, within the last year or so, we've seen an actual assassination attempt upon somebody running for president be more or less forgotten about within 72 hours. Only a few years ago, one person shot 600 people from a hotel room in Las Vegas. Everybody had lost interest in that within 72 hours. Is this going to be another one of those?
- [10:33]
A
I hope not. But I also hope that the right lessons are going to be drawn. And first of all, there were two assassination attempts on, you know, U.S. president, not just one, on U.S. president Donald Trump. And yes, we did forget about it wasn't. So this is the problem with modern news is, you know, things go up and we discuss it today and then tomorrow there's a new item and there's so many news outlets and there's very little follow up. And then with what Lyn mentioned, you know, this oxygen for thought, you know, it's actually the current government in the US is cracking down on it. Good for Harvard that they stood up for themselves, but not all the universities did. And it's across the board. So the question really is how do you get that all oxygen, but how do you also ensure that there is peace? There's a debate, that the debate doesn't cross the line into violence. And at the moment, the divisions are so deep and there is hatred, and you need to turn that into a workable emotion. You know, there isn't enough mental work on, mental health work, and all this anger is fanned into assassinations. And that is a very, very serious problem. And that has to be dealt with both top down and bottoms up. It's not something that can just sort of, you know. You know, it's very important, Andrew, that you are raising this issue because everyone is talking about how this is going to get worse and worse and worse. But that's why I'm focused. I'm not in denial of the fact that the trajectory is very negative. I can see it. You know. You know, I'm eyes wide open. But. But I still think it's important to focus on how do we change the trajectory and turn every negative incident into a learning experience so that the next generation and the generation in power realize how detrimental this is becoming.
- [12:26]
C
Just a final thought on this subject, Lyn. One curiosity of this, it has struck me certainly today, has been the fact that in the last 24 hours is the response here in the United Kingdom. I'm pretty sure I'm aware that, you know, younger people were probably more aware of who Charlie Kirk was. But I would think that 72 hours ago, perhaps, maybe if you're lucky, one person in 10 in this country had even the vaguest idea who he was. And yet, since he was killed, we have seen both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition feel obliged to issue statements among other office holders. We've seen a row in the European Parliament over whether there should be a minute. Silence. Now, Charlie Kirk, for all that he was extremely popular among a certain cohort and very well known among a certain cohort, was not an elected official. He did not hold public office. Why do people think all of this is necessary? Is this, at one remove, more sort of groveling to President Trump?
- [13:31]
B
I'm stumped. I think that you're probably sadly right. Donald Trump's eulogy, if you like, was extremely emotional. And maybe that is what is resonating. I mean, you know, Donald Trump is coming to the UK next week, and maybe making the right noises before he comes is what people in this country have been trying to do. I am in contact with media organizations of the right persuasion in the United States, not because it reflects my own beliefs, but because I was just professionally, and they tell me that America has a very close eye, keeps a very close eye on developments in the United Kingdom, especially when it comes to issues of free speech. And perhaps because that is an issue that is, it's explosive and it's controversial, but it's also very close to the hearts of people who are proponents of right wing politics in the United States. And Charlie Kirk purported to be a proponent, a supporter of free speech. So maybe there's something in that strand. But otherwise I don't think, you know, with all due respect, I don't think it's otherwise understandable or justifiable, to be honest.
- [15:11]
C
Well, to Qatar now, which for obvious reasons may not presently be much minded to oblige the requests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This has not stopped Netanyahu from trying. Following Israel's apparent failure to wipe out Hamas's remaining senior leaders with an airstrike on Doha earlier this week, Netanyahu has now demanded that Qatar throw them out and strongly suggested that Israel will have another go if Qatar doesn't. Qatar, for its part, will next week convene in Doha an emergency summit of Arab leaders. Nomi, where is Netanyahu going with this? Is he telling Qatar it has to pick a side here?
- [15:49]
A
No, he's not telling Qatar he has to pick a side. And I think he's quite frankly lost it because he's not going to be able to attack anybody in Qatar again. And that's very clear because the US President Donald Trump is furious. Apparently the US Got notice far too late for them to act upon it. And this is an attack on a sovereign country, a staunch ally of the US and the lead mediator for the past two years. It's a country that hosts the Israeli head of Mossad, Dedi Barnea, and the Israeli negotiating team, strong security ties with the Israeli security team. And so this is not a country, you know, Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh on 31 July last year, 2024 in Tehran. TEHRAN, Iran is an arch enemy of Israel. I was not pro the assassination. I was shocked at the time. But this is a massive step in escalation vis a vis the attacks on Yemen, the attacks on Syria, Lebanon, all of the likes of this is a different kind of attack. This is an attack on a mediator country, as I said, hosting a large US base and with very strong ties to the US and at the time that all of the senior leadership of Hamas was discussing the Trump proposal constructively and under pressure from the mediator to agree or to at least, you know, Work out a way to move this forward. So I think Netanyahu is not in any good place at all. And frankly, you know, it's. I don't even have any words to describe how I feel. No, yesterday I posted as the attack was happening as soon as it was reported and I said it was an unwarranted, illegal, dangerous, reckless attack and it will backfire. Also in Israel. I mean, it has ramifications beyond Qatar and the region. You know, Israel will lose US support eventually.
- [18:06]
C
The summit that they are going to convene next week, Lyn. And there have already been a few Arab leaders turning up in Doha to register their solidarity with Qatar and their displeasure with Israel. But is the summit going to be largely symbolic, do you think? Is anything likely to come out of it? Like, for example, a statement by Arab countries saying they are now rethinking the wisdom of such steps towards normalisation with Israel as they might have taken?
- [18:34]
B
I guess that's a possible outcome. I think that, you know, the attack on Qatar moved the likelihood of peace backwards and the likelihood of support, even amongst those regional nations that wanted to and have been voicing support for a ceasefire hostage return, they've been likely put off. But it doesn't seem to me that Benjamin Netanyahu cares about what other people think. He's got a very small constituency and a shrinking constituency that he has to appeal to. There is no doubt in my mind that Hamas is digging in its heels. It's still holding hostages. It has turned down overtures of peace throughout the last almost two years. It's not a genuine good faith player here and nobody can pretend that it is. Qatar is undoubtedly a supporter of terrorist organizations, very many of them, not just Hamas, the Taliban as well, Al Qaeda in the, in the, you know, regional Al Qaeda cohorts. And so maybe this will, while pushing peace backwards, also highlight the bad faith role that Qatar could arguably be said to be playing in this whole debacle.
- [20:18]
C
Just finally on this one, Naomi and I know this is a question that people have been asking each other and I'm sure you, many times over the last, heaven help us, nearly two years now. Do we yet have any idea how and when this actually ends?
- [20:34]
A
No, but we also, we all know that it could have ended a long, long, long time ago. And there have been, you know, ceasefire negotiations where both sides have put a spanner in the works. You know, it's, I mean, there were deals on the table that were nearly sort of there, you know, until all the I's are dotted and T's crossed. There is no deal. So you can be sort of 90, sort of there, but unless you are 100% there, there is no deal. And we have gotten to 98% in the past. So it's very, very complicated. But no one knows, and I agree with Lyn, no one knows how this will end, when it will end. And I think that what needs to happen is that US President Donald Trump needs to pick up the phone and speak to Sheikh Tamim of Qatar. And so they need to, between the two of them, hammer out a deal that is acceptable to them and then impose it on the parties and that will be it. Because otherwise it's not going to end. This is the only way that it can end. He called him more or less to apologize, to say he was, you know, to relay his dismay and concern and buy the attack and to ensure that the Amir is clear that there was no US Complicity here. But now it's a step to actually take that call and move a step forward into action. And that is they are the only two leaders that have the leverage respectively on Israel and Hamas to hammer out the deal, because the parties themselves, Israel and Hamas are not going to get to a ceasefire anytime soon. And Egypt, that have been doing an incredibly incredible role and they know every single inch of Gaza and they have been passing on, you know, messages, you know, handwritten, you know, messages into the tunnels with, through their security forces. They can't do this. They don't have the leverage that Qatar does. So this is my proposal and I. If, and if that is not done, I fear that Israel will flatten what is remains of Gaza, which isn't very much, and will make it inhabitable. And that is, and they're doing more or less the same in the west bank. So it's not looking good. As I said earlier, the trajectory is negative. So we need to take bold action and push for it again. And that's where I stand on the.
- [22:48]
C
Well to Albania now, which has taken humankind's next determined step towards dystopia. Albania's Prime Minister Edi Rama has announced the world's first non human cabinet minister. Our listeners around the world can do their own leaden jokes about whichever local politician they may feel had already earned that title. The AI addition to Albania's government is called Diala, Albanian for sunshine, and will be responsible for all public procurement, thereby draining, in theory, all corruption from such processes. Dialla already appears as an avatar on the Albanian government's digital services platform. Okay, Lyn, let's Test the proposition here. Is there arguably something to this idea? Public procurement, obviously one of the fields of human endeavour most prone to corruption due to the fantastic sums of money and Byzantine contracts involved. Is there something to the idea that you can't bribe code? So this is the honest way to do it?
- [23:49]
B
Who hasn't sat on the telephone listening to tinny jazz music while you're asked to press 1 for, you know, continued life?
- [24:02]
C
But you always, eventually, if you're incredibly lucky, end up talking to a human being.
- [24:06]
B
Oh, and unless the. If you're lucky. If you're incredibly lucky. I think so. Unless the tinny voice says, or, you know, the disembodied voice voice says, you are number 75 in the queue and will have to wait at least another two hours to actually reach a human being. This sort of way of moving the human experience further and further away from decision makers also removes more and more responsibility from the decision makers. So, I know, let's make the decision makers not decision makers, because it's just, you know, a program that has absolutely no accountability to anyone for anything, but will say it's not corrupt, is there?
- [24:54]
C
And this was just an idea. I was interested in your view on nomi. Anything to be said potentially for AI taking a role in peace negotiations such as those you have been involved in. If you have, in theory, this machine which can compress the entire sum of human wisdom in a matter of seconds. I mean, could we find ourselves in a position of firing up chat GPT and just say, like, fix the Middle East, 300 words?
- [25:21]
A
Well, if only. But, you know, we need to be a bit more subtle. I would rephrase the question, if I may. I would say, is there any use for AI in aiding peace negotiations? And then the answer would be positive.
- [25:37]
C
Okay, in. In what way?
- [25:39]
A
So, you know, it's like, it's not black and white. You know, I have this.
- [25:41]
C
Genuinely, how many might that work?
- [25:44]
A
Well, you can devise technologically, strategies that will allow the role play and the mimicking. You need to understand the history of all conflicts, what has worked in the past. You know, you need to have a massive database and invest in it. Of course you can do it and it can aid. But what. What the Albanians are doing is they are transferring 100% of the decision making or the power to a robot, basically. And that can. That should never be done because, of course, you need a human to. They don't have emotions, these machines. Yes, yes, yes, no, but it's contempt.
- [26:21]
B
I would argue they have contempt.
- [26:23]
A
They have contempt but they also make mistakes. I mean look at what happened with the National Trust, with the national sort of health in the UK and whatever system. You know, you had so many people tried and put behind bars for allegedly stealing money when no one stole an actual penny. And you know, and this is still ongoing and you know, this is AI, you know what else. So you need to be very careful and I think we need to remember that. But I think it's really important with AI to remember what they can and can't do, what they're good at in north grand, to always have humans there to discuss what comes out of the computers.
- [27:04]
C
I'm interested as well Lynn, in how you would vote it out.
- [27:07]
B
Well, indeed, but especially on the procurement side, it's not going to people and saying is this what you need? Is that what you needed? How has it worked out? All of that is like Naomi said, the humanity. Taking humanity out of the equation means that there will be no humanity in the system.
- [27:28]
C
Well, to Germany now and anyone in fact going to or indeed from Germany by plane plane while listening to this episode might want to press pause and go and give the cockpit door a kick. A survey of members by a German pilots union has yielded the non reassuring information that fully 93% of them admitted to dozing off during a flight in the last few months. Most of whom said they did so pretty regularly. The union was quick to note, in fairness correctly that a pilot catching 40 winks at cruising altitude was no great problem, but did suggest that cruise being this chronically exhausted was likely to lead to sub optimal outcomes. Naomi, My first response to this was actually just one of seething jealousy because if there was one skill I wish I possessed but do not, it is the ability to sleep on flights. I mean I'm not delighted necessarily that pilots, it turns out, are really good at it, but I wish I was.
- [28:23]
A
But they only do it when there's a co pilot it well that is awake.
- [28:27]
C
So they're telling us. But if they're both asleep, who knows?
- [28:32]
A
I mean so on long haul flights they take it in turn. It's like when you're driving with somebody long distance and you know, one person drives, I don't know, a number of hours and while the other one sort of naps or you know, cat naps or sleeps and then you take it in turns. So of course it's more dangerous when you are in the air and just lights. We discussed earlier, there is AI I mean of course once you set the. If you're in the cockpit, which I have been many times. Everything is set automatically. I mean, and once it's set, basically both pilots have absolutely nothing to do unless there's a red, you know, light sort of that beeps because something has sort of, there's turbulence.
- [29:08]
C
You have to be hoping it's beeping pretty loudly.
- [29:10]
A
But, but this is the problem again that everything is automated. Once you set the, the journey, they virtually do nothing until they do the takeoff and they do the landing. And that is about it.
- [29:25]
C
I was very fond of the union's euphemism Lyn controlled rest phases during the flight phase, which is a nice way of saying pilot has gone face down on the control panel.
- [29:36]
B
Well, you know, I've been on as you have two long, long haul flights.
- [29:42]
C
Oh yeah.
- [29:43]
B
And if the pilot wasn't getting some sleep, I think I would be worried. I think I would be worried. Yet I don't expect a pilot to stay alert, you know, in those, you know, when you go through those phases where it's just 12, if you're on a 17 hour flight, I would hope you got 10 hours. No, I don't like you. But also I find I've been on helicopters a lot and, and if you're sitting on a helicopter for a long time, it can become a very lulling experience. And I have found myself going to sleep against my will and have hoped that the helicopter pilot is not doing the same thing because it's a little bit more dodgy. But yeah, I don't mind it. I think it's fine as long as they're not sleeping off the scotch they had before they got on the flight, that's okay.
- [30:39]
C
Well, on that heartwarming note, Lyn o' Donnell and Nomi Bar Yakov, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, there was a time when music criticism was actually and regularly and brutally critical. Pre Internet generations of music writers often approach their subjects not as cheerleaders or courtiers, but bouncers, willing and indeed eager to heave pretenders into the horse trough. Such severity is now confined mostly to the memories of those who read or to declare an interest, wrote for the music of a more rumbustuous, less deferential age. But where did it go? Why did it go? And is there reason to miss it? All of the above is considered in a recent essay in the New Yorker by staff writer Khalefa Sana. I spoke to Khalefa earlier and began by asking what the merit was of the proper old school critical shooing before.
- [31:31]
D
First, as a reader and someone who even growing up, enjoyed reading record reviews, enjoyed reading music criticism. And it's just fun to hear someone have a strong and sharp opinion. People are interested in negative reviews. And also, I think when you talk to a regular person, a civilian, a non professional about music, they tend to have really strong reviews. If you talk to your friend in a bar, they probably have music, sometimes entire genres that they can't stand. And so sometimes it can make critics seem a little untrustworthy if they seem to have mild opinions about everything. Because it's a very human instinct to hate stuff as passionately as we love it.
- [32:16]
C
I mean, that's absolutely true. And you're right to point out in your piece that so much of modern music criticism, which does no longer seem like quite the phrase, basically amounts to a review saying people who enjoy this sort of thing will find this to be the kind of thing they'll enjoy. Was there a particular period at which that changed?
- [32:39]
D
You know, I think that changed during the 2000 and tens for a bunch of reasons. One is there was a change in the structure of the industry, especially in the US and probably elsewhere. You went from having sort of singular critics who sort of sat at their desk and reviewed everything that went past their desk. Right. And. And if they hated heavy metal, then new heavy metal releases would probably get bad reviews or lower reviews. We kind of moved to a more freelance model where album reviews were getting assigned to freelancers. And I think, understandably, editors would assign the review to a freelancer who was a fan of that kind of thing. Right. You're getting a new heavy metal record, maybe we send it to the person who likes heavy metal. Maybe we send the K Pop release to someone who likes K pop. And I think sometimes even more specifically, maybe we send the Lady Gaga album to someone who likes Lady Gaga. So there was a sort of built in bias, maybe because of the way the industry changed. I think it was a couple other, other things too. I think there is often a pressure to maintain good relationships with artists. If your publication is trying to do features and interviews and photo shoots, it's sometimes helpful not to be too nasty to the people whose cooperation you might need. And finally, I think there was a changing philosophy. You know, a lot of people, me included in the 2000s, wrote about something called rockism, the idea that some critics had a bias towards only praising rock music and being sort of of dismissive.
- [34:12]
C
Of pop or R and B or.
- [34:13]
D
Country or anything that seemed too smooth, too slick, too commercial. And so I think in the wake of that in the 2010s there was a kind of counter reaction. Some people called it optimism, which was this idea that critics should be a little more celebratory of the music that people actually like, of the songs that were at the top of the charts. So I think there was also this kind of philosophical move to say nicer things about hit records.
- [34:41]
C
Is there an aspect of social media involved here as well? By which I guess I'm asking, have music critics become just plain scared? Because I wrote for the British music weeklies in the pre Internet age and occasionally somebody would write in to tell you that they did not like what you wrote about their favorite record and consequently did not like you, but you would not get many of those and you could either print them in the paper and make fun of them, or you could just roll them up and throw them in the bin. Whereas now I speak as somebody who does still occasionally get death threats from Mariah Carey fans over something I wrote for Melody Maker 34 years ago. You, you can be monstered all day, every day on social media. And I guess if, especially if you're a younger writer, if you're worried about making a living and carving a future, that can get intimidating.
- [35:33]
D
Yeah. I think first of all now I'm trying to do the math and try to figure out which Mariah Carey album that have been her debut album.
- [35:40]
C
I think it, I think it was the first, first one. Yes.
- [35:43]
D
Or, or maybe Emotions. I, I, I think she really came into her own with Daydream in 1995. But, but I think there's two things. One is that social media kind of blurs the line between talking about someone and talking to them. Right. So on social media there is this idea of you say something about an artist, maybe the fans jump in, maybe the artist responds. And so yes, the feedback can be a lot more personal. Right. Even if the artist doesn't say anything untoward, even if they just write back and say I disagree with their reviews. Brigaded online. And I think there was a fear, and maybe still is to some extent of some writers that they don't want to deal with the death threats. Is it worth it to write a negative review if it's going to blow up your inbox? I think the other thing is that there was one of the things that happened in the 2010s is that criticism got a bit more political and a bit more interested in categories of identity. And so in that case, if you are a man saying something very negative about a woman, if you are a white person saying something very negative about a non white person. I think there was a spirit, in a sense that some of the blowback you might get might be casting aspersions on who you are as a person, might be calling you racist, might be calling you sexist. And in an era where people were very concerned with those kinds of politics and those kinds of identities, I think it made people a little bit squeamish to criticize certain artists.
- [37:11]
C
Is there also a factor as well of people either forgetting or never really knowing how much criticism, both positive and negative, can add to the experience of listening to music? There's one line in your piece that stuck with me is the observation that listening to a song is often easier, quicker and cheaper than reading about it, which is the case. I mean, it does take a while to sit down with a 2000 word long record review. Assuming you can find anyone that's still printing such things and digest its contents. Have people got into a place of thinking that writing about music doesn't actually add anything to listening to. To it?
- [37:48]
D
Well, certainly the value proposition was a lot easier in an earlier era, right? In an earlier era, maybe you already got your newspaper every day and you could just look in the newspaper to see if the album was any good. And that would guide you in your purchase decision about whether you want to spend 10 bucks on the album, right? So there was an obvious role that music criticism served in that era. As you, as you say now, it's kind of the opposite, right? It's easy to get the music. Sometimes it's easier to listen to the music than it is to pay for or get the article written about it. And so music critics must face a very reasonable question, which is, what are we good for? What's the point? I think that's something that any critic has to consider and has to think about. And honestly, the only defense of music criticism is that some people like to read it. And so to write music criticism that people want to read is the challenge now maybe more than ever before. I think part of what that's meant is that some outlets, the criticism tends toward essays about big name artists because that's what people are really gonna, gonna wanna read, or it's maybe it's an idea driven. And the question of is this good or not? You know, to be quite honest, people are rightly less willing to take our word for it than they were in earlier eras.
- [39:03]
C
That was New Yorker staff writer Kalef Hasana speaking to me earlier. You can find his essay How Music Criticism Lost its Edge on the New Yorker's website. That is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Lyn o' Donnell and Nomi Bar Yakov. Today's show was produced by Hassan Anderson and researched by Daniela Braw Smith. Our sound engineer was Steph Chongu. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
- [39:41]
D
Sam.