Speaker 1: You're listening to Disinformed, a mini series from There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd. We've talked
Speaker 1: a lot about disinformation this season, but what happens when
Speaker 1: lies and distortions actually become law. Well, that's exactly what's
Speaker 1: happening in Georgia. Trump's big lie that he won the
Speaker 1: election and it was being stolen from him is being
Speaker 1: used to fuel a sweeping new law that many advocates
Speaker 1: say creates barriers to voting that will make it harder
Speaker 1: for all Georgians to vote. But it doesn't start there.
Speaker 1: I just want to find uh eleven thousand seven votes,
Speaker 1: which is one more that we have because we won
Speaker 1: the state, and flipping the state is a great testament
Speaker 1: to our country. On January two, Trump had a now
Speaker 1: infamous phone call with Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Brathinsburger,
Speaker 1: where he falsely maintained that he'd won the election in
Speaker 1: Georgia and pressured Raefensburger to quote find more votes in
Speaker 1: an attempt to make that fiction a reality. In the end,
Speaker 1: Raefensburger certified the election results because there wasn't no reason
Speaker 1: not to. After a statewide audit of the election results.
Speaker 1: Raefensburger himself said that Georgie's historic first statewide audit reaffirmed
Speaker 1: that the state's new secure paper ballot voting system accurately
Speaker 1: counted and reported the results. So, according to him, the
Speaker 1: election was secure. And yet last week, the so called
Speaker 1: Election Integrity Act was signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp.
Speaker 1: This law makes massive changes to how and when folks
Speaker 1: can vote in Georgia. Now, Kemp said this law was
Speaker 1: necessary to boost confidence in quote, secure, accessible, in fair elections.
Speaker 1: But if his own Secretary of State says the Georgia
Speaker 1: election results were accurate, the most really going on. Well,
Speaker 1: this is an example of what happens when disinformation becomes
Speaker 1: codified into law. Despite what Trump said in that phone call,
Speaker 1: there was no voter fraud or election fraud in Georgia,
Speaker 1: but that didn't stop the Georgia legislature from passing this
Speaker 1: bill that voting rights advocates say will overwhelmingly create barriers
Speaker 1: that keep black and brown Georgians from voting. And it
Speaker 1: was all based on a big lie. It's so important
Speaker 1: that we talk about this law for what it is
Speaker 1: and the impact it will have on Georgians, which is
Speaker 1: something a Noah Changa nos firsthand. It was really rooted
Speaker 1: in self determination for me. In seventeen, Georgia was facing
Speaker 1: a closely watched Democratic primary for governor between Stacy Abrams,
Speaker 1: a black woman who, if she had won, would have
Speaker 1: become the country's first black woman governor, and Stacy Evans,
Speaker 1: a white Georgia state representative. Both candidates were speaking at
Speaker 1: Netroots Nation, the largest gathering of progressive political organizers in
Speaker 1: the country, which was being held in Atlanta. Now, something
Speaker 1: to know about Netroots is that there is always a protest.
Speaker 1: It's basically expected at this point, and speeches always get
Speaker 1: interrupted by shouting. It's happened to Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, and Martin O. Valley. It's a thing. In
Speaker 1: two seventeen at net Roots, I was a partner group
Speaker 1: of folks who you know, led a protest to shut
Speaker 1: down um a speech that was being given by Stacy Evans,
Speaker 1: who was at the time running against Stacy Abrams for governor.
Speaker 1: And a lot of people thought it was just a
Speaker 1: bunch of oh, Stacy Abrams supporters who were shutting down
Speaker 1: this white woman. But that like at the time. I
Speaker 1: wasn't even like a Stacy fan. I wasn't even I
Speaker 1: was like, I'll probably vote for her, But it wasn't anything,
Speaker 1: and so many folks what it was was really about
Speaker 1: Stacy Evans was trying to be positioned as like the
Speaker 1: more progressive choice, and she had a bunch of votes,
Speaker 1: including some long education which were extremely problematic when she
Speaker 1: had was not being held accountable on And that day
Speaker 1: at net Root, she was speaking before Becky Pringle, who
Speaker 1: was then the vice president of the n e A,
Speaker 1: the National Education Association. So you're someone who has been
Speaker 1: pro charter school, um, pro you know, removing money out
Speaker 1: of education. You voted against the interests of teachers, students, families, unions,
Speaker 1: and you're speaking and ahead of like this prominent national
Speaker 1: black woman that has been this advocate for education. That's
Speaker 1: a Noah alongside a group of black women interrupting Stacy
Speaker 1: Evans's planned speech. They're chanting trust black women. The incident
Speaker 1: came up in a tense debate between Evans and Abrams,
Speaker 1: with Evans maintaining that what happened at net Roots was
Speaker 1: not a peaceful protest and kind of implying that the
Speaker 1: group was affiliated with the Stacy Abrams campaign, and I
Speaker 1: support the right of folks to peacefully protest. That wasn't
Speaker 1: what happened in that roots. And if something like that
Speaker 1: had happened to my opponent, whether the group was affiliated, unaffiliated,
Speaker 1: slightly affiliated, not affiliated at all, I would have stood
Speaker 1: up and said that it was wrong. But remember I
Speaker 1: Noah says she wasn't even a big Abram supporter at
Speaker 1: the time. Reporters just didn't really bother to talk to
Speaker 1: her or the group or find out more about their
Speaker 1: motivations or message and why they interrupted the speech. They
Speaker 1: just kind of ran with whatever. And this was hugely
Speaker 1: instructive for Noah. Now that didn't translate the way we
Speaker 1: thought it would, unfortunately, because no one in the media
Speaker 1: even cared to talk to us, to ask any of
Speaker 1: us about what happened. The way media reacted, like especially
Speaker 1: local media here in Georgia, ran with a particular narrative.
Speaker 1: I mean you even had like one one article written
Speaker 1: that just because I knew someone who was on staff
Speaker 1: senior staff at Stacy's campaign, we had worked together previously
Speaker 1: that because of that previous work relationship, they put me
Speaker 1: up to it without understanding that also when you're talking
Speaker 1: about black progressive political work, there's so few people in
Speaker 1: these spaces, whether you're working in black Organs or white
Speaker 1: lead Organs, it's just not that many of us. We
Speaker 1: all end up even are knowing each other directly or
Speaker 1: having people in common. So that experience really taught me
Speaker 1: about the power and necessity for telling our own stories
Speaker 1: um making sure our voices were being heard today. A
Speaker 1: Noah is a pretty prolific independent journalist who covers elections
Speaker 1: and local politics in Georgia, but instead of covering them
Speaker 1: like a horse race between two politicians, she centers the
Speaker 1: people impacted by the policies, people whose stories are often
Speaker 1: overlooked in favor of stories about political point scoring and posturing.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the new voting legislation in Georgia,
Speaker 1: this also means pointing out a lot of lies and
Speaker 1: distortions when we're looking at what's happening here in this law.
Speaker 1: Like I was saying, yes, you have the lives from
Speaker 1: the different state representatives and state senators, you have the
Speaker 1: lives from the various UM election officials, you know, varied capacities,
Speaker 1: but you have also our our governor who was the
Speaker 1: former Secretary of State, who is known for his own
Speaker 1: shegnanigans and foolishness. But I mean he's one who actually
Speaker 1: lied ahead of his own election for governor. The weekend
Speaker 1: ahead of his election for governor, he lied and said
Speaker 1: that Stacy Abram's campaign and Democrats were trying to hack
Speaker 1: the state of Georgia, which was not true. An investigation
Speaker 1: later revealed that it was not true, and he has
Speaker 1: never been held accountable that. So we know Brian camp
Speaker 1: lies on a regular rod. Raetherensberger also has fell into
Speaker 1: this hole of trying to appease his party and play
Speaker 1: cating and and and twisting, you know, rhetoric. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to deal with and be able to point out
Speaker 1: a bold faced lie, which we've seen in this testimony
Speaker 1: from Rudy Giuliani when he was in these various hearings
Speaker 1: in Michigan and here in Georgia, which we've seen unfortunately
Speaker 1: even in some of the testimony or some of the
Speaker 1: conversations happening in chambers in the passage of these bills
Speaker 1: by Republican elected officials, and I often harp on the
Speaker 1: Secretary State because everyone has in terms of national media
Speaker 1: has like lionized him and made him this very important figure.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, he gives credence and he
Speaker 1: finds ways to give legitimacy. Even though he has certified
Speaker 1: the election, even though he has acknowledged there's no widespread fraud,
Speaker 1: even though he acknowledged that this is the most secure
Speaker 1: election Georgian has ever had, all these other things, he
Speaker 1: will still say things that leave opened the door that
Speaker 1: act like there is legitimate concern. I mean, just even
Speaker 1: the widespread reporting or fraud that was happening, it was
Speaker 1: an issue at some point. It's not just simply that
Speaker 1: people don't know the process, that don't understand what's going on,
Speaker 1: and people are being willfully up to. As I have
Speaker 1: for more than twenty five years, I will stand with
Speaker 1: my fellow Georgians in pursuit of fairness. You see, I
Speaker 1: did so as a college student, speaking in the shadow
Speaker 1: of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. I did
Speaker 1: so as Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, and
Speaker 1: now I will do so as a private citizen. In
Speaker 1: the gubernatorial election in Georgia, Stecy Abrams acknowledged that her opponent,
Speaker 1: Brian Kemp would be the next governor of Georgia. I
Speaker 1: watched her speech from Atlanta, where full disclosure, I spent
Speaker 1: time in the state knocking doors for a campaign. During
Speaker 1: the election, Brian Kemp was Georgia's Secretary of State, which
Speaker 1: meant that he was in charge of overseeing his own election.
Speaker 1: As Secretary of State, Kemp purged over one point for
Speaker 1: a million and active voters, with low income and black
Speaker 1: Georgians being the most likely to have their registrations canceled.
Speaker 1: He also oversaw fifty three thousand voter registrations being put
Speaker 1: on hold thanks to Georgia's exact match policy that flags
Speaker 1: registrations from voters with any kind of name discrepancy in
Speaker 1: state databases. So if you registrated for your first learners
Speaker 1: permit with your first and middle name and then registered
Speaker 1: to vote with just your first name, you would be flagged.
Speaker 1: According to the Associated Press, nearly seventy of those voter
Speaker 1: registrations on hold were black voters, despite the state's population
Speaker 1: only being about black. Now. Because of all this, Abrams
Speaker 1: has said the teen gubernatorial election was stolen from the
Speaker 1: Georgia voters. After the race, she formed fair Fight, an
Speaker 1: organization aimed an increasing voter turnout and ensuring that all
Speaker 1: votes are accurately counted. It was hugely successful, and their
Speaker 1: work is often credited with securing the historic Democratic wins
Speaker 1: and Georgia this past election. But here's where things get tricky.
Speaker 1: Current Secretary of State Brad Raffensburger has compared what Abrams
Speaker 1: did to Trump's refusal to concede and pressuring officials to
Speaker 1: quote fine votes. In a recent USA Today op ed,
Speaker 1: he calls Trump's refusal to concede a page out of
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams's playbook, writing, abrams refusal to concede and her
Speaker 1: dogmatic conviction that her election was stolen had done significant
Speaker 1: damage to trust an election integrity in Georgia. You have
Speaker 1: Rappensburger recently writing and opped in the USA Today, and
Speaker 1: in part of the rhetoric for him and UM, one
Speaker 1: of his staffers, Gabe Sterling, blamey Stacy Abrams is saying
Speaker 1: that her fight around this way eighteen election and ongoing
Speaker 1: lawsuit in the work of fair fight is the same
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump, right, that false equivalency, and so while
Speaker 1: that's not like the exactly the same as the outright
Speaker 1: bold face line like saying like, oh, there was massive
Speaker 1: fraud happening in Fulton County or whatever. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it still lends credence, it still gives legitimacy. And because
Speaker 1: they did have the one brave stand which really was
Speaker 1: a matter of I don't want to go to jail
Speaker 1: because that's hella illegal, Like I mean, let's just be real,
Speaker 1: like Brad, Brad did not. Brad did everything else in
Speaker 1: his power. Brad didn't want to go to jail because
Speaker 1: that's like telling someone to go find some votes the
Speaker 1: same scandal, Like that's jail, right, let it's real life.
Speaker 1: And so but they will, they will still craft narratives,
Speaker 1: They still will shift things that still give support. And
Speaker 1: then people who are like, oh, well, he's a Secretary
Speaker 1: of State, he's selected official, he should get some deference,
Speaker 1: will cover a report what he says and does as
Speaker 1: if it's legitimate concern, when in fact it's really just
Speaker 1: also in the furtherance of the Republican agenda, which we
Speaker 1: have seen very clearly over this past year. But I
Speaker 1: mean you and I you know, as folks who have
Speaker 1: been digging in and and focusing and looking at the
Speaker 1: scourge that is disinformation have seen how deeply entrenched and
Speaker 1: widespread it has been, particularly over the past several years,
Speaker 1: and the very deep uh digital networks and that already
Speaker 1: exists in like you know, liberals and the left and
Speaker 1: progressives are way behind the eight ball. We react, unfortunately
Speaker 1: to things where these people are very strategic. I mean,
Speaker 1: even I was reading article this morning about one of
Speaker 1: the lawyers that was representing Trump with all that nonsense.
Speaker 1: She was actually one of the lawyers on that infamous
Speaker 1: phone call is now um heading up or at least
Speaker 1: co leading one of the efforts to attack HR one.
Speaker 1: And so it's not just Georgia, right, you see this
Speaker 1: coordinated GOP attack on voting rights and really on democracy
Speaker 1: at this point when we are having people lie and
Speaker 1: having those lives and shrined into law, and and I
Speaker 1: mean folks who say it happens in other capacities, but
Speaker 1: what's happening right now in terms of elections, in election reform,
Speaker 1: and how we are treating false allegations as valid considerations
Speaker 1: for law passing law. It's a very scary precedent as
Speaker 1: being set right now. I mean, it's so sad, but
Speaker 1: that's really been Trump's legacy you know, after the election,
Speaker 1: I saw this pull from our Street that said that
Speaker 1: two thirds of Republicans say presidential election was invalid. And
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of the point of this kind
Speaker 1: of disinformation, to make people really distrust our democratic process
Speaker 1: to the point where they just sort of check out.
Speaker 1: Even in states where Trump won, right, we're still seeing
Speaker 1: that happening in unfold. Right like in Iowa, We're still
Speaker 1: seeing a Republican majority in Iowa even though Trump won
Speaker 1: that state. Let's take a quick break back. Democrats have
Speaker 1: their own legislation to expand voting rights, called h R one,
Speaker 1: which should expand access to voting by making election day
Speaker 1: and national holiday, offering online and automatic registration for anyone
Speaker 1: who wanted it, and prohibit the kind of voter purchase
Speaker 1: that we saw before the governor's race in Georgia from
Speaker 1: taking place less than six months before in election. Now,
Speaker 1: even though we're talking about voting rights, and Noah says
Speaker 1: it's about much more than that. She says, it's about
Speaker 1: a coordinated right wing attack on democracy, like the waves
Speaker 1: of anti trans and anti abortion bills we've seen in
Speaker 1: some states, and any attack on identities is a direct
Speaker 1: attacked on democracies, like we're still seeing them them push
Speaker 1: through these types of laws. We're seeing it in Mississippi
Speaker 1: and Missouri, Like we're still seeing in areas that even
Speaker 1: like they're seizing, this isn't just about like, oh, we're
Speaker 1: upset because this happened. This is a real opportunity point
Speaker 1: for them, And this is like, really, do think that
Speaker 1: we we ignore, we forget like there's so much with
Speaker 1: so much focus on Trump and resistance and getting Trump
Speaker 1: out of office, that these state legislatures, these states, you know,
Speaker 1: capitals and governor seats, we've ignored the way in which
Speaker 1: that very in deeply entrenched rhetoric has permeated at the
Speaker 1: state level. And it's backed and funded by some of
Speaker 1: the usual suspects that we've been talking about over the
Speaker 1: last you know, however many decades um that that fund
Speaker 1: and get behind these types of work. And what was
Speaker 1: really interesting someone sent me an article recently they talked
Speaker 1: about like some of the major anti abortion folks are
Speaker 1: also getting in the fight behind HR one, Like so
Speaker 1: we also see I had an article a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks back in Truth Out just talking about how like
Speaker 1: when we're talking about voting rights, and we're talking about
Speaker 1: what's happening in these fights. It literally isn't we're talking
Speaker 1: about staving democracy. It's not just about voting rights, right like,
Speaker 1: it's about all these other opportunities and entry points. And
Speaker 1: we're seeing some of the worst legislation that is really
Speaker 1: denying people's humanity and rights to exist. When we see
Speaker 1: like the trans um sports bills being passed in various places,
Speaker 1: when we see these various attacks on you know, reproductive
Speaker 1: rights and freedom, and so we really have this much
Speaker 1: broader attack happening on democracy, and there are these various
Speaker 1: levels of lives. I mean, just thinking about the way
Speaker 1: the anti abortion stuff happens, Like so much of that
Speaker 1: is based on fear mongering around mistruths and disinformation as well, right, so,
Speaker 1: like it permeates across so much in conversations about this information,
Speaker 1: it's tempting to focus on foreign bad actors like Russia,
Speaker 1: but sometimes that can lead us to overlook the massive
Speaker 1: coordination of domestic bad actors or right here in our
Speaker 1: own country, and the powerful networks of online distortions they
Speaker 1: have at their disposal. We spent so much time in
Speaker 1: post election focusing on Russian interference right and Russian amplification
Speaker 1: of disinformation, but never looking at the disinformation itself, the
Speaker 1: domestic different information. And I think now and I really appreciate,
Speaker 1: like what you've been doing, like so many people have
Speaker 1: been like sounding the alarm on the danger of what
Speaker 1: is happening domestically. I think now maybe folks are starting
Speaker 1: to understand, but it's still being limited to Trump's big lie,
Speaker 1: which Trump's big lie is really having a grip on
Speaker 1: our national politics right now. But part of the reason
Speaker 1: why it's able to do so is because these networks
Speaker 1: have been able to thrive and have existed for so long,
Speaker 1: and they're so deep and intense and so like it's
Speaker 1: a it takes it's a lot to like peel back
Speaker 1: those layers. I don't think people understand about like how
Speaker 1: people get targeted with disinformation, particularly when they come after black,
Speaker 1: Latino and other folks of color um through the various
Speaker 1: mediums like I know, you know Latino folks have talked
Speaker 1: to me about like the use of WhatsApp. I think
Speaker 1: some Asian folks too have talked about the use of
Speaker 1: what's app groups, which are very common with both communities
Speaker 1: in terms of how they share disseminate information. So what
Speaker 1: you end up happening is you might have somebody's auntie
Speaker 1: or whoever who sees like this post or sees this thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh my god, did you see this? And
Speaker 1: then it it spreads like wildfire. But like that information
Speaker 1: is not actually accurate, right, So we there are these
Speaker 1: other ways that it's very insidious and infiltrating trusted spaces
Speaker 1: um that somehow we have to figure out how do
Speaker 1: we help people become you know, better shares of information
Speaker 1: and really like see through because there are some things
Speaker 1: that might kind of make sense that that's like what's
Speaker 1: really tricky to right. People will say things that might
Speaker 1: make sense, like let's ptake for staff with the voter
Speaker 1: I D stuff. Right, So in the Georgia law, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a new voter idea requirement for folks who are
Speaker 1: voting absolutee ballot. And it will be like, well, what's
Speaker 1: wrong you need by I D for everything else? You
Speaker 1: need I D when you do this, Yes, you need
Speaker 1: I D. You need to prove who you are when
Speaker 1: you registered. But once you've registered, like why do I
Speaker 1: have to keep showing you the picture itself? Right? Like
Speaker 1: you need I D. You need I D when you
Speaker 1: go here, you need ID. Like, so people will do
Speaker 1: this thing. They're like, well that makes sense, but the rhetoric,
Speaker 1: the rationalization has to do with fraud when the fraud
Speaker 1: has never been proven to be an actual issue. Right,
Speaker 1: Like so they I remember, I remember doing some research
Speaker 1: during the election, and like an Alabama when alabam was
Speaker 1: adapting its voter ide law, the nuble A CP Legal
Speaker 1: Defense Fund looked back twelve years prior to the year
Speaker 1: when they're trying to enact the law, trying to see
Speaker 1: how many fraud cases there were. There was only like
Speaker 1: one or two in a twelve year period, right, And
Speaker 1: so like they will use the presence of like one
Speaker 1: or two and they'll be like, we'll see there's an
Speaker 1: issue because this is one or two happened, or someone
Speaker 1: made a comment about people changing you know, ballots, but
Speaker 1: it was a Republican postal man in West Virginia that
Speaker 1: was changing people's request ballots. And but it was caught. Right.
Speaker 1: That's the other thing, Right, the very rare instances where
Speaker 1: things happen, the people do doing it are caught like
Speaker 1: almost right away, right because of the mechanisms already built
Speaker 1: into the system. So media frustrates me too because how
Speaker 1: they report these things as if they're valid considerations on
Speaker 1: all sides, when really the only side we need to
Speaker 1: be thinking about is like democracy, right, And what does
Speaker 1: it mean to uphold and protect democracy? And how could
Speaker 1: you ever justify in rationals to say you're protecting democracy
Speaker 1: by keeping people out? Yeah, I mean you can't. You know,
Speaker 1: in a democracy, you want to expand voting access, you
Speaker 1: want to make it easier and get rid of barriers
Speaker 1: that people have to vote, not not an act more.
Speaker 1: And it was really disingenuous to see a statement today,
Speaker 1: I think from Kemp who was like, you know, oh,
Speaker 1: we're widening the like the ability for people to vote,
Speaker 1: We're expanding it. And it's just a lie. I mean
Speaker 1: you you, there is not a way that you could
Speaker 1: look at that and see the see the kinds of
Speaker 1: barriers that this legislation puts in place, and try with
Speaker 1: a straight faith to say that you're actually trying to
Speaker 1: make it easier for people to vote. If that's the case,
Speaker 1: why are you threatening souls to the polls? Why have
Speaker 1: you made it so to make it harder for people
Speaker 1: to give water to folks standing in long lines right,
Speaker 1: like if that's it's part of it. To me is
Speaker 1: shocking how they can sees on something that might have
Speaker 1: a nugget of truth to try to paint a wider,
Speaker 1: a wider you know, portrait of what's happening to your
Speaker 1: point earlier about the networks and how coordinated this is.
Speaker 1: Before you and I got on this call, I was
Speaker 1: just doing a little search about like what's the what
Speaker 1: you know, what am I seeing in like republican or
Speaker 1: right wing spaces, Like what's the conversation online? And what
Speaker 1: you said about like oh, you need a vote? An
Speaker 1: I d to go buy liquor, you know, an ID
Speaker 1: to do X y Z. Why is it bad to
Speaker 1: have to need an idea vote? It was interesting to
Speaker 1: me that in some uh large Facebook groups that are
Speaker 1: not even necessarily like explicitly political, I saw a bunch
Speaker 1: of memes this morning kind of making that point, and
Speaker 1: they make the point in a way that seems to
Speaker 1: make sense, like Okay, you know, I get the point
Speaker 1: that's being made, and it seems it seems non controversial,
Speaker 1: But when you think about it, you're like, oh, wait,
Speaker 1: in context, that's actually really messed up and then you know,
Speaker 1: it's just interesting to me how how there are these
Speaker 1: networks online that are ready to echo and amplify the
Speaker 1: distortions of folks on the right about voting and disseminate
Speaker 1: them into groups of people who might not even be
Speaker 1: necessarily primed to be looking at like politically charged contact.
Speaker 1: But this is exactly how we saw the stop the
Speaker 1: steel stuff spread, right, and the j racist insurrection, Like
Speaker 1: we these people have been primed and right, this is
Speaker 1: why you have so many quote unquote normal, mild mannered folks.
Speaker 1: They've been all wrapped up in the Q and on
Speaker 1: and whatever, because again, this stuff is overlooked. It's not
Speaker 1: seen as important to engage with. I just remember seven
Speaker 1: years ago, just nonsense that would happen on Twitter, and
Speaker 1: then people be like, why do you even waste time
Speaker 1: debunking that? Like what's the point? Like I've learned they're
Speaker 1: probably are effective ways to do things and having one
Speaker 1: on one arguments with dumb folks on Twitter. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, like when you have people with large
Speaker 1: platforms who are engaging in some of this, you know,
Speaker 1: both sides or these red herrings and stuff, it is
Speaker 1: dangerous because they are then informing and engaging so many
Speaker 1: other people. But like with these various groups, I mean
Speaker 1: I've seen people talking about like the yoga groups, like
Speaker 1: some of them, the more like this basic spiritual type
Speaker 1: places that unfortunately end up being places where there was
Speaker 1: a lot of widespread COVID nineteen misinformation being spread as well,
Speaker 1: and not necessarily because the people sharing it themselves are
Speaker 1: malicious of trying to fool people, Like some of it
Speaker 1: made sense to people, but like whoever is putting it
Speaker 1: out there and creating it knowing that people are going
Speaker 1: to pick it up, Like, um, I think it was
Speaker 1: earlier this year. Uh, there's actually someone being charged by
Speaker 1: the FBI, which I don't really know how I feel
Speaker 1: about this, but at the same time, it is a
Speaker 1: very interesting conversation I have. There's someone being charged by
Speaker 1: the FBI, And part of it was as they were
Speaker 1: disseminating misleading information targeting predominantly UM, black and I think
Speaker 1: voters of color. But they were sending out what made
Speaker 1: it seem like you could vote by using a text
Speaker 1: code if you couldn't get to the polls and think
Speaker 1: about it, right, like people were doing innovative things help
Speaker 1: people vote in the middle of a pandemic. So if
Speaker 1: you're someone who's not very politically savvy, who doesn't know
Speaker 1: that you can't vote by texts or by tweeting at someone,
Speaker 1: I mean, like to me and you, that might seem like,
Speaker 1: of course you can't do that. But to somebody who
Speaker 1: doesn't know any better, who actually thinks that that could
Speaker 1: be a real legitimate option and their way of also
Speaker 1: engaging the process in the middle of a pandemic, that's
Speaker 1: kind of sucked up. And so like this person, I
Speaker 1: guess got investigated, and the other folks in this group
Speaker 1: chat they were and also got investigated, but they literally
Speaker 1: hadn't had a chat. They were surveilling these multiple different
Speaker 1: groups in different spaces and coordinating releasing these memes and stuff, right,
Speaker 1: and so like, I mean, that type of stuff has
Speaker 1: been happening. And so to my point about the Russia stuff,
Speaker 1: like what was happening with the Russia stuff in its
Speaker 1: place in the conversation, it really overshadowed the mass volume
Speaker 1: of what was happening domestically. And so people had years
Speaker 1: now unchecked to perfect that domestic system, and we're really
Speaker 1: seeing it rear its head in coordination with just the
Speaker 1: regular conservative you know, legislative or enchoranizing that already happens,
Speaker 1: like you know, you used to see people used to
Speaker 1: talk about like you would see the ALEC bills that
Speaker 1: basically was the same boil plate language and multiple states
Speaker 1: across the country. They're a little bit more savvy now
Speaker 1: because we're seeing similar things happening um across the country
Speaker 1: and it's clearly not a coincidence. Can you tell us
Speaker 1: some of what's in this law some of the must
Speaker 1: insidious parts of the law here in Georgia, UM, it
Speaker 1: removes the Secretary of State as the head of the
Speaker 1: State Board of Elections. State Board of Elections is a
Speaker 1: five person body. The General Assembly appoints two of those.
Speaker 1: Both the General Assembly will now point a majority three
Speaker 1: of the five UM with the removal of the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State as the chair, so a republic our Republican
Speaker 1: could control legislature will now in effect controlled the state
Speaker 1: election Board, which the state of Election Board sets down
Speaker 1: election you know, per view regulations for the entire state,
Speaker 1: which is how we select our members of a General Assembly.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a brilliant lawyer here that I
Speaker 1: that I follow and really looks too for good and
Speaker 1: Sarah uh Tindal Gazal and she was just pointing out
Speaker 1: in one of the hearings, like how ridiculous it is. UM.
Speaker 1: One of you know, the proponent Build proponents, Barry Fleming,
Speaker 1: was like, well, I mean the governor appoints the entire
Speaker 1: board in the regions. The governor appoints the transportation board.
Speaker 1: And she's just like, Okay, I guess I gotta explain
Speaker 1: this to you, But that's fine. The governor point appoints
Speaker 1: those bodies. But you all appointing the people who set
Speaker 1: the rules for how you all hold office isn't really
Speaker 1: like you're appointing your own referees and then we're expecting
Speaker 1: them to hold you accountable. Like it's it's just a
Speaker 1: wild proposition. Here's how one voter described her voting experience
Speaker 1: in Georgia. And I don't feel like this is happening
Speaker 1: at all polls. I'm in a three H three three
Speaker 1: one zip code and I feel like most of the
Speaker 1: problems that occurred and this is what we were told
Speaker 1: that certain polling UM locations have problems, and I do
Speaker 1: believe it's I think it's targeted. Another thing they did
Speaker 1: that directly targets Fulton County in particular, is forbidding the
Speaker 1: use of mobile vans for voting mobile voting. This is
Speaker 1: also something that was done in Harris County UM in
Speaker 1: Texas UM, and so like that helps because you know,
Speaker 1: Fulton County, Gwinnette County, the metro Alanta County is in particular,
Speaker 1: are often burdened with the very long lines, and so
Speaker 1: mobile voting was something that was implemented to help alleviate
Speaker 1: some of that. So it's basically setting up a mobile
Speaker 1: polling site. So that was that helped alleviate some of that. So,
Speaker 1: like when they're talking about, oh, we're making it easier,
Speaker 1: how are you making easier when you're restricting the period
Speaker 1: within which people have to request an absentee ballot and
Speaker 1: return it. Because if you really want to make it easier,
Speaker 1: you could have adopted the policy that several states have
Speaker 1: where you return the absolute ballot as long as it's
Speaker 1: postmarked on election day or the day before election day,
Speaker 1: as long as it's received in a particular time period,
Speaker 1: it would still count. They could have went that route.
Speaker 1: So there are things that they could have done, but
Speaker 1: they chose more restrictive means now. A lot of the
Speaker 1: headlines about this bill have pointed out that it puts
Speaker 1: a new restrictions on how volunteers can do things like
Speaker 1: give water or snacks or chair to people waiting in
Speaker 1: long lines to vote. But it's even more worrisome that
Speaker 1: it sounds so for folks who might not be familiar,
Speaker 1: like line warming is what is? You're keeping the line
Speaker 1: warm and keep people comfortable who are standing in line.
Speaker 1: I remember in UM, the New Georgia Project, in some
Speaker 1: of their electric protection folks, they literally sent a Mariachi
Speaker 1: band to one line to keep people entertained because they're
Speaker 1: waiting in line so long. UM and so, because we
Speaker 1: have these long lines because it depending upon the weather,
Speaker 1: if it's in like you know spring, because we have
Speaker 1: very warm in spring time here in Georgia, or if
Speaker 1: it's very cold for whatever reason or raining. You know,
Speaker 1: people have handed out ponchos, people have handed out handwarmers,
Speaker 1: food like snacks. I mean, you have pizzas to the polls.
Speaker 1: You have the chef for the polls with chef Jose
Speaker 1: Andreas started the chef to the polls UM this past
Speaker 1: cycle too. So you have these other things that people
Speaker 1: are doing, and they have tried to compare it to
Speaker 1: a partisan electioneering in in the past, and you even
Speaker 1: had Brad Roethlisberger telling media that it was in fact
Speaker 1: illegal and a felony. So before the state actually made
Speaker 1: it illegal, you had the Secretary of State telling people
Speaker 1: that it was illegal, and you had people being harassed
Speaker 1: accordingly because of his misinterpretation the statements of law. So
Speaker 1: now that it is illegal to be within a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty defeet, that's the same why that that hundred
Speaker 1: defeat feat Why I keep HARKing on that is because
Speaker 1: that is the same distance that if you're representing a
Speaker 1: party or a candidate, you have to be away. So
Speaker 1: they have compared nonpartisan activity to partisan activity, and that's
Speaker 1: a very real attack on black and brown and other
Speaker 1: organizers of color who have been trying to help alleviate
Speaker 1: what we see. You know, we don't want people to
Speaker 1: be discouraged. So I will also note that because there's
Speaker 1: not anything clear cut and law, and like voting rights
Speaker 1: law period, the way people have tried to kind of
Speaker 1: just protect themselves to make sure they don't end up
Speaker 1: being accused of violating any type of federal laws. Because
Speaker 1: it has been a law I think since the forties
Speaker 1: that you cannot give anyone of something of value for
Speaker 1: their vote. And so unfortunately because of the discretion involved
Speaker 1: and are interpreting, you know, a Secretary state like Brad
Speaker 1: Robinsborg could interpret that as you know, giving something someone
Speaker 1: of value because they're in line to vote, which it's
Speaker 1: like whatever, it's a stretch, but whatever. So how a
Speaker 1: lot of folks have dealt with that is like anyone
Speaker 1: in the vicinity, whether it's the poll workers, if you're
Speaker 1: at someplace that has security, if there are other people
Speaker 1: passing through the general community, anyone can get anything we're
Speaker 1: giving out no matter what, right Like, it's a service.
Speaker 1: And you know when I when I gotta, I got
Speaker 1: some quotes when I was writing an article, like from
Speaker 1: the piece of the poll folks. One of the things
Speaker 1: they said was, we see this as a way of
Speaker 1: incentivizing civic engagement in the general community, so we'll provide
Speaker 1: it to anyone, right And I know that several lawyers
Speaker 1: have advised people that that was the best way to
Speaker 1: handle it as well. But now it doesn't matter who
Speaker 1: you're giving it to regardless, just the very act of
Speaker 1: being close to the poll location they have now decided
Speaker 1: to criminalize. And that is a very clear attack, on
Speaker 1: a very real way, at something that is very commonly
Speaker 1: known to be you know, seen as an added value
Speaker 1: and benefit to communities. And so we're seeing this a
Speaker 1: very real attack not just simply on democracy, but on
Speaker 1: our participation as you know, people of color who are
Speaker 1: exercising and leveraging that power. And you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of folks are comparing this to Jim Crow. And I'd
Speaker 1: really be interested in talking to some historians just to
Speaker 1: learn more about that post um that early the pre
Speaker 1: you know, fifties, sixties civil rights areas, so like you know,
Speaker 1: the late eighteen hundreds to like thefties, because it seems
Speaker 1: like in some ways we're really in that period like
Speaker 1: post Reconstruction, where we saw very blatant, active attempts to
Speaker 1: strip black political power from communities. This attempt to strip
Speaker 1: black communities of power via curbing access to voting is
Speaker 1: nothing new after the Civil War. During Reconstruction, black folks
Speaker 1: were attacked by racist poll taxes and literacy tests and
Speaker 1: other barriers to make it harder for us to vote.
Speaker 1: According to the Brennan Center, even though these laws are
Speaker 1: over a century old. As recently as forty six states
Speaker 1: allowed for voter challenges, laws that allowed any private citizen
Speaker 1: to challenge the eligibility of prospective voters on or before
Speaker 1: election day. Now, these kinds of barriers to voting have
Speaker 1: never gone down without a fight. Organizations like Black Voters Matter,
Speaker 1: led by Cliff Albright, have already challenged Georgia's new law
Speaker 1: on the grounds that will unfairly hurt black and brown voters.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be interesting about like how some
Speaker 1: of this stuff even stands up in court. New Georgia Project,
Speaker 1: Black Voters Matter, fund and Rise all filed. They fill
Speaker 1: the joint suit the same night that can't sign the bill,
Speaker 1: So it's gonna be interesting to see how that moves
Speaker 1: forward and unfolds. Um. But but the the voter challenges
Speaker 1: so so basically, and this is like something that used
Speaker 1: to happen in the old days too, like you could
Speaker 1: just go in or really white people could just go
Speaker 1: in and be like, no, that person can't vote for
Speaker 1: whatever reason or whatever, and you would literally have to
Speaker 1: have like a white person like someone come vouch for you.
Speaker 1: And so it's something very similar like they can come
Speaker 1: in and just challenge anyone for any reason, And that
Speaker 1: is very um intimidating, is very stressful. That is something
Speaker 1: that actually is very insidious. It also kind of feels
Speaker 1: like an attack on some aspects of the black way
Speaker 1: of life. I know, I have older women in my
Speaker 1: life who I call auntie and drop off mail and
Speaker 1: groceries and prescriptions for who are not actually my blood relatives,
Speaker 1: and I wouldn't be able to touch their ballots. You
Speaker 1: can't have other people collecting your ballots for you. And
Speaker 1: again that might even sound logical to people, but you
Speaker 1: have some folks. What about people who can't get around
Speaker 1: and get out? Right? Like we all know folks. So like,
Speaker 1: if I know people in my general like life, unless
Speaker 1: I'm directly related in a household with them, I can't
Speaker 1: touch their ballot for them, right, But if they don't
Speaker 1: have anyone and a lot of us live in families
Speaker 1: and community like that, right where we have missed so
Speaker 1: and so, who know, I'm technically not related to her,
Speaker 1: but she's still my auntie or she's still my grandma
Speaker 1: or whatever. And it's not anything nefarious for I know.
Speaker 1: One the root of this is so obvious it's racist.
Speaker 1: The root of it all is they are afraid that
Speaker 1: they won't win elections unless they do this. It's not like, Hi,
Speaker 1: I should adopt better policies, or maybe I need to
Speaker 1: not be so extremists in our positions. It's like, no,
Speaker 1: we just need to do whatever we can to retain
Speaker 1: and maintain power and make sure them darkies don't because
Speaker 1: that's really what it is. Like I don't know, we
Speaker 1: talk about it, but it's like you and I both
Speaker 1: know what's up right. It's so clear. No, like no
Speaker 1: one wants to come out and say it. They don't
Speaker 1: say it. They dance around it, but it's clear that's
Speaker 1: what's happening. Anybody, anybody can see it more. After a
Speaker 1: quick break, let's get right back into it. Camp, flanked
Speaker 1: by a bunch of white male Georgia State legislators, signed
Speaker 1: the law under a painting of a slave plantation. When
Speaker 1: folks are pointing to Camp signing that bill under a
Speaker 1: picture of not just any plantation, right, like what someone
Speaker 1: several folks have just pierced out the history of the
Speaker 1: plantation that's depicted A y A brutal, atrocious you know? Uh?
Speaker 1: That held Like I think upwards of a hundred slaves
Speaker 1: like that with and then I mean also you have
Speaker 1: him flanked by six white men um which I believe
Speaker 1: just quite take a quick glance, and that's like six
Speaker 1: people who are above house inciate leadership. I mean, the
Speaker 1: fact that you know, the leadership of our government is
Speaker 1: all white men in a rapidly diversifying state like Georgia
Speaker 1: is quite telling. I mean, that's the other thing, right, Like,
Speaker 1: there is this real fear that they are losing power,
Speaker 1: and that's at the heart of it. But we know
Speaker 1: what happens when white fear controls um policy, right, We've
Speaker 1: seen it. We've seen you know, folks can act like,
Speaker 1: oh that KKK or white supremacy is just some white
Speaker 1: that's some extreme outside thing. But unfortunately, a lot of
Speaker 1: those same tenants, a lot of those same attitudes influence.
Speaker 1: When we're looking at the way in which people are
Speaker 1: charged with various crimes, where we're looking at the decisions
Speaker 1: that are being made, we're looking at the way in
Speaker 1: which our children are treated in public schools, we see
Speaker 1: the very deep rooted nature of white supremacy across so
Speaker 1: many fascests of society. So you can't just you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not enough to just say this is Trump's
Speaker 1: big lie, Like it's so much more than that happening.
Speaker 1: And I'm just really like excited for the work that
Speaker 1: you're doing in the conversations you've been having around this information,
Speaker 1: because we really need to understand how these systems are
Speaker 1: operating and what role do we all have to play,
Speaker 1: and we really should take that role. Seriously, I really
Speaker 1: do believe that we all have a role to play
Speaker 1: and fight against if this information. And it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if you are aligned ideologically you're a conservative, if you're
Speaker 1: someone who believes in more moderate or conservative value, you
Speaker 1: should want people telling the truth like you just you
Speaker 1: should want facts. You should not want to exist with
Speaker 1: people distorting information and blatantly lying. It's a wild time.
Speaker 1: We're in a bridget like, this is a wild time.
Speaker 1: It's a wild time. I guess that's one of my
Speaker 1: last questions for you. What what do you think is
Speaker 1: next for the state of voting in Georgia? What's that's?
Speaker 1: Where do we go from here? Uh? We keep doing
Speaker 1: what we've been doing, Like like I keep reporting, but
Speaker 1: I've been reporting, I'm sure organizers like I just finished
Speaker 1: interviewing UM Cliff Albright and UM some other folks Simone Bells,
Speaker 1: a former state rep. And UM, and we were just
Speaker 1: talking about like what's next. Right in conversations with folks
Speaker 1: are just like, so, now what and so folks are
Speaker 1: you know, working through like what does it look like?
Speaker 1: Possibly as economic boycott strategy or continuing the corporateive accountability
Speaker 1: strategy as a pressure Pointuh, to paraphrase Cliff, just thinking
Speaker 1: about like the Georgia law has been has been passed,
Speaker 1: it's now that's up now that for that specifically, that's
Speaker 1: up to the lawsuit. Right, the legal strategy, there's always
Speaker 1: still the organizing strategy and working within the confines of
Speaker 1: the new limitations that exist. We see folks continuing to
Speaker 1: you know, strategize or organized and just get more people
Speaker 1: in the process. But that corporate accountability strategy, you know,
Speaker 1: folks are all hyped of about boycotting Georgia, and I
Speaker 1: personally tend to object to boycotts unless they are called
Speaker 1: directly by people themselves. As soon as the legislation was
Speaker 1: signed them too law people on social media began calling
Speaker 1: for boycotts of Georgia based corporations like Delta Airlines and
Speaker 1: Coca Cola until they came out against the law. Now,
Speaker 1: boycotts like these have been effective in the past. In
Speaker 1: the eighties, organizers called for a boycott of Coca Cola
Speaker 1: and other US companies if they didn't divest from South
Speaker 1: Africa to help end apartheid. But the differences those boycotts
Speaker 1: were led by local folks on the ground, not outsiders
Speaker 1: on Twitter. And Noah thinks any calls for boycotts should
Speaker 1: be led by organizers in Georgia, not people who don't
Speaker 1: live there. But also, like with a boycott, and you know,
Speaker 1: I had folks, folks like well, you know, they did
Speaker 1: it in the eighties with CoA Cola. That was part
Speaker 1: of a very strategic effort around divestment from South Africa, right, Um,
Speaker 1: And I do remember as a kid, we did not
Speaker 1: drink Coca Cola or wear rebox because as of divestment,
Speaker 1: that's like the only thing like I really remember, you know,
Speaker 1: being a young child in the eighties. Um. That and
Speaker 1: then by their early nineties, like a Different World episode
Speaker 1: where one of the characters had to give up or
Speaker 1: chose to give up a scholarship because the company had
Speaker 1: not divested from South Africa, economic accountability, economic corporate you
Speaker 1: know Boycott's that stuff can work, but it's strategic. It
Speaker 1: has to be led by impacted people who are very
Speaker 1: clear on what the goals are. I think Senator Warnock
Speaker 1: actually said this really well and an interview recently. Um,
Speaker 1: you know they're so busy asking Democrats about why the
Speaker 1: you know, the Filibus and the Philippus are It's like,
Speaker 1: why aren't you asking Republicans about why they're not protective
Speaker 1: voting rights, like why they don't care? I think that's
Speaker 1: what But where we all go, I think we need
Speaker 1: to have a very clear commitment and understanding that democracy
Speaker 1: is not just some stagnant thing that just exists. It
Speaker 1: is really an active process that requires us to play
Speaker 1: a very clear, consistent role. So whether that's just being involved,
Speaker 1: and you know, even if it's being involved in your kids,
Speaker 1: like if there's like a local school council or something
Speaker 1: for your district or your school, or if it's you know,
Speaker 1: when you can and have the time, because I also,
Speaker 1: I mean I've been a single mom my entire adult life.
Speaker 1: I had my daughter when I was twenty um when
Speaker 1: almost my entire adult life not gonna this count the
Speaker 1: years their dad was around. But like I, you know,
Speaker 1: so I get being busy, right, Like I get having
Speaker 1: multiple competing things. You know, I've taken care of other
Speaker 1: people in addition to my kids, So I understand having
Speaker 1: other things pressing on us. But we can still find
Speaker 1: a way to write off that letter to UM. You
Speaker 1: know now that now with the technology is so easy,
Speaker 1: you can automatically send out the text to do stuff,
Speaker 1: the auto populate the emails. I mean, we we can.
Speaker 1: We can. We can follow and support the work of
Speaker 1: black and other organizers of color, not just here in Georgia,
Speaker 1: because yes, they're amazing people Georgia, but you know what,
Speaker 1: there are awesome folks thrown down all over the South
Speaker 1: and really all over the country. I think between Georgia
Speaker 1: and the Midwest, not to exclude anyone else the South
Speaker 1: and the Midwest, I've met some of the most prolific
Speaker 1: organizers really grinding and working at multiple intersections of crisis
Speaker 1: right now, because we still do we're still in the
Speaker 1: middle of a pandemic, and we have the democracy issues
Speaker 1: and then just the regular issue based you know, work
Speaker 1: that people are doing. So I think about folks like
Speaker 1: Mississippi Votes who the People's UM Advocacy Institute led by
Speaker 1: Rakia Lamumba and Mississippi Votes is recommitted UM. I think
Speaker 1: about work over in Louisiana, UM, I mean, and up
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin you have uh uh lit leaders igniting transformation
Speaker 1: and block Black Leaders organizing communities. And those are both
Speaker 1: organizations that have worked UM around multiple issues as well
Speaker 1: as elections and civic engagement, while at the same time
Speaker 1: holding space for community in the medd of a pandemic.
Speaker 1: And so these types of groups exists all over. Some
Speaker 1: of them may be smaller and may not be as
Speaker 1: well funded, and that's definitely where like your support, I mean,
Speaker 1: like we act like you know, donations don't matter, but
Speaker 1: like financial freedom, writers are a thing. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: UM is definitely necessary. Not all of us can get
Speaker 1: there and be there physically in person. Not everybody has
Speaker 1: to be on the front line. That's one of things
Speaker 1: I appreciate about the pandemic too. I think that folks
Speaker 1: have learned there are different ways that you can contribute,
Speaker 1: and being like literally on the front line is not
Speaker 1: the only thing of value you can do. Can you
Speaker 1: feed some folks every once in a while. That's that's
Speaker 1: also really valuable. So I mean, I just think as
Speaker 1: we're wrapping up, like you know, and just thinking about
Speaker 1: where to go next, also sharing good information, sharing podcasts
Speaker 1: and you know, like you're sharing articles like the ones
Speaker 1: I write, Like that goes a long way because we
Speaker 1: don't necessarily have the same distribution networks that the other
Speaker 1: side does, and so we need to get our information
Speaker 1: out there. I'll just share a real quick personal story,
Speaker 1: like I've had these conversations with my mother about codes
Speaker 1: sharing bad information about COVID, whether the vaccine or whatever,
Speaker 1: and she and it's the same thing. They target black folks.
Speaker 1: It sounds kind of right, right, like it makes kind
Speaker 1: of sense. They get you hooked in. But I had
Speaker 1: to walk through with my mom. I had to point
Speaker 1: her two black doctors she should be following. And one
Speaker 1: thing she said, well, she goes, well, if they're saying
Speaker 1: such a good information, why isn't there information be shared everywhere?
Speaker 1: I said, unfortunately, because of the way these algorithms work,
Speaker 1: the way the sharing systems work. She was like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: so I'm taking the time to just talk to our folks, right,
Speaker 1: Like that's that's super critical. A lot of people have
Speaker 1: said the black vote saved us from Trump. Now it's
Speaker 1: time for all of us to help protect it. If
Speaker 1: you're fired up and ready to get involved, check out
Speaker 1: the New Georgia Project, a group that works to protect
Speaker 1: voting access in Georgia, at the New Georgia Project dot org.
Speaker 1: If you've enjoyed this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing.
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
Speaker 1: just want to say hi, We'd love to hear from
Speaker 1: you at Hello at tango dot com. Dis Informed is
Speaker 1: brought to you by There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeart Radio and Unbust Creative Jonathan
Speaker 1: Strickland is our executive producer. Tory Harrison is our supervising
Speaker 1: producer and engineer. Michaelmato is our contributing producer. I'm your
Speaker 1: host Bridget Tod. For more great podcasts, check out the
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.