The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, I’m Taya Graham and welcome to our Inequality Watch Reaction video. It’s part of our ongoing reporting on the widening wealth imbalance in this country and the impact it has on our lives. And to do so, we’re going to focus on the especially egregious examples of the corporatist class or mainstream media bolstering and reveling in the spoils of almost unlimited wealth. We unpack what they say and do to reveal how it impacts us in ways both seen and unseen. And just to note, if you’re having trouble surviving in America’s great inequality machine or having trouble with the healthcare system or paying your rent, or if you just have a bad boss, please email your story to p@therealnews.com. Now, today we have quite a video to unpack. It features CNN anchor Brianna Keller using one of the most apparently feared words in America, socialism. But it’s how she does that and why she botched it that we will unpack today.

But first, Stephen, it has been a crazy week since the long shot candidate Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York. Now, the crony capitalist class has come knives out for this populist progressive with accusations of him being a terrorist, a duwell, and worst of all, apparently a socialist. And meanwhile, the establishment Dems have failed to come to his defense house. Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, as we know of today, still hasn’t endorsed him. And the corporate wing of the parties already beefing up campaign donations to bolster former cop and current mayor Eric Adams, who incidentally was indicted for taking bribes from a foreign government. But whose charges were dropped when the Trump administration said in court filings he could be useful for deporting immigrants. Steven, what is going on here?

Stephen Janis:

Okay, so there’s a lot to unpack here, but what you’re seeing primarily and what is most important to focus on is the fact that they have the brand, this candidate illogical. They have to give him the brand of everything he is doing and saying is irrational. Now, why do they have to do that? Why can’t they just fight him on policy? Because the policies are actually popular and the policies are actually useful, but he’s done the one thing you can’t do, and that is violate the terms of the late stage capitalism idea that government must bring profits to the wealthiest. And you’re seeing this in the current bill, the big, beautiful, bold, bad, sucky bill that they’re doing this. But nevertheless, this is the thing they’re going through a total branding of this man as just illogical to rob him of his agency and to never have to debate the actual ideas. They don’t want to do that. They don’t want to say, oh, well rents are too high. We can’t talk about that. We just want to make sure that he’s illogical and that’s what’s most important.

Taya Graham:

You know what, Stephen? It actually gets worse, much worse.

Stephen Janis:

Worse,

Taya Graham:

Yes. Because our corporate media brethren always willing to step into the breach to make sure to distort the narrative regarding inequality in his country and to misinform people most negatively affected by it. They decided to, well, let’s just say wield an idea that has been a catchall to discredit anything that might benefit the working class. And when I say wield, I mean she used it like an epithet. Steven, I’ve got a video for you to watch and let’s talk about it. When we get back.

Speaker 3:

I want to ask you about some of the energy in your party in harnessing it a democratic socialist. Of course, Zohran Mamdani is the likely winner of the Democratic Party in New York City. It’s quite a swing from a democratic mayor who was formerly a police officer. You’re in a purple state. So I wonder how you were looking at the dynamics of that election. Do you think that Democrats can harness the energy of the working class without entertaining or embracing socialist policies?

Taya Graham:

Okay, wait, stop the video. Stop it here. Now we’ve got about 18 months until the next. We haven’t even gotten a minute into this. I’ve got something to say. Alright, now if she asks if Democrats can win without socialist policies, but her question is entirely without any specifics, which I think is really revealing. Like what policies is she talking about? Cheaper groceries, free childcare. Free public transportation. Steven, why do you think she’s doing this?

Stephen Janis:

Well, because you have to simplify it. You can’t attack the ideas on literally going through them through the details. In other words, again, you have to brand them as simply inherently illogical and brand them holistically. You can’t separate each idea and say public transportation. We want to give nuance to that. You can’t make them complex. You have to make them simple. And the best way to simplify provocative non-capital humanitarian ideas is to brand them with something that you think conjures Marxism or fear in the hearts of Americans. Even though as you’re going to point out and we’re going to discuss, she simplifies it. But the point is to continue to simplify the ideas that would actually benefit people and to complexify the ideas that benefit the rich. That’s what you have. In other words, complexity for me and simplicity for thee. So that’s what you’re seeing here and that’s why she’s using this word because she doesn’t even define it.

Taya Graham:

You know what, Steven? That’s such a good point. But what was kind of driving me crazy here is that socialism is a big word and it comes in all shapes and sizes. It’s complex, but just like you said, it’s oversimplification for the rest of us. Look, while you were talking, it took me literally 30 seconds to Google this. Just look at this graphic with some of the different types of socialism there are, there’s utopian socialism and narco socialism, democratic socialism, state communism, market communism. There are actually fundamental differences in the different types of socialism. And we have seen them play out historically with a variety of results. We’ve seen the horrors of state socialism corrupted as well as the wealth and beneficial quality of life of the Scandinavian Democratic socialism. Okay, I’ll move on. But I just think it’s really important to be specific and factual here. And for me, when people avoid specifics, it’s for purpose.

Stephen Janis:

Agreed.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Let’s watch a little bit more of that video.

Speaker 4:

This administration and republicans in Congress have been doing what’s in the best interest of the wealthiest Americans, and I think that is a compelling story that we can tell between now and next November

Speaker 3:

Without entertaining socialism. Can you speak to that element? Because you groceries city owned or run grocery stores was something that was very popular or something that was promoted in his campaign. Do you think that there is a way for Democrats to really harness energy of your voters without entertaining socialist policies?

Taya Graham:

Now Steven, I have my own thoughts about this, but can you unpack why the corporate media misrepresents the word socialism and why her use of it is so disturbing?

Stephen Janis:

Well, like I said before, the idea here is to simplify brand and decomplexify a person with ideas that would help the working class. She noticed that she didn’t say or didn’t say during the interview, well, what about free mass transit for the working people? Or what about turning down the rent increases? It’s very, very interesting because one of the things I noticed when I was watching the whole, we covered the Republican National Convention and the Republicans and conservatives would say we’re going to lower inflation, but not a single person in the media ever asked why or how. Excuse me, not why, but how could they do that? How would that happen? Now, here’s the candidates offering some solutions that could literally lower the price of living for people. In other words, free public transportation in these grocery stores. And instead of discussing that very principle, she is really simplifying it so it’s completely seeming irrational to the people who would benefit.

She wants the people who would benefit from these policies to think that they’re irrational. And the way she does that is used as an oversimplification of a word that has been conjured in the worst sort of ways and not the complex ways and not the nuance ways, but ways that make you think, oh, I’m going to toss out that idea. Socialists, oh my God, forget about the fact that Medicare is partly socialists social security. It’s called social security. These are great ideas that have helped people and have made people’s lives better. They want to make sure that there’s no more gains in these type of policy areas. So they use oversimplification to make it almost impossible. It renders it almost implausible. You can’t do it if it doesn’t make money for the elite or for the wealthy. And if government doesn’t generate profits, then government isn’t working and it’s irrational. And that’s why

Taya Graham:

Steven, I think you’re right on target here. It’s the type of socialism that a lot of Republicans in Congress just got rid of the type that actually provides healthcare to people who can’t afford it. And it’s just become, the word, socialism become like a hammer for corporatists who just want to beat out all compassion out of governance. And Steven, this is what struck me. I want you to watch again how she asked the question a second time. She wants to trap Senator Kelly into admitting something horrible.

Speaker 3:

Do you think that there is a way for Democrats to really harness energy of your voters without entertaining socialist policies?

Taya Graham:

Okay, now set aside for a minute, her incredibly simplistic take on the idea, but it seems like any policy that benefits working people is somehow implicated by the idea of socialism. I mean, one of the reasons I take exception to this as a journalist is that she’s using highly simplistic representations here in her style of questioning. I mean, it’s like she’s trying to make him admit of satanist or something. Okay. The way she uses it, it’s like she’s challenging him to embrace connotations that suggest it is a wholly negative policy. Completely irredeemable, I’m not even sure I know just the right word here. I think she’s just doing what many who tout propaganda use as a highly effective technique repeat something over and over again in the most simplistic terms possible until it becomes a vessel for whatever demagogue perspective you want,

Stephen Janis:

Right? Yeah, very true. I mean, you have to realize that we are living in an age of hyper capitalism, right? It’s not late stage capitalism. It’s not any other way of conjuring capitalism. It’s hyper capitalism where, like I said, government has been armed and government has been pretty much revolutionized to become a profit machine for the inequality warriors in this country. So hyper capitalism requires hyper reality, and I’m not talking about the John Boulder yard part of hyper reality. I’m talking about a hyper reality where the rational becomes irrational. And I think one way to do that is to keep repeating this word, socialism, without defining it, without nuance and without complexity, and just make it very, very simple. I’m going to say socialism and conjure. I dunno what, but whatever the corporate warrior sink we need to conjure, I’m going to conjure it so that you are fearful and that you think everything that follows that word is irrational. And I think that’s what we’re looking at here.

Taya Graham:

You really have it, Steven. And instead of naming the specific policies, she just simply conjured socialism as a catchall for the futility of thinking about any kind of good public policy. Now, I have to say, I am reluctant to glom onto the criticism that mainstream media has been completely compromised by corporatism, but in this case, I think we have a pretty stark example of this. I mean, it’s right out there. It’s a scare tactic of the corporate class has turned this anchor into a mouthpiece for propaganda. Steven, I really want to hear your final thoughts about this.

Stephen Janis:

Well, yeah, so my thoughts, I think there’s one great, great example of what we talked about before about complexity for the wealthy and simplicity for the working class, and that is an article in the New York Times today talking to wealthy, wealthy real estate investors, brokers, whatever about their fears and concerns about his win. And what it shows is it’s a very nuanced, complex take on their fears and why they think he won’t be able to achieve what he wants to achieve and why rent must be high and why New York must be unaffordable. And it gives them the kind of coverage and the kind of elaborate explanations that are really only in this current media environment really given to the wealthy and the privilege. It’s like the inequality pyramid that we always see where there’s the few at the top and everyone else’s bottom has taken on form in our mainstream media.

Let’s talk to these 10 people. You didn’t see an article about 10 New Yorkers who can’t afford their rent. You saw an article about 10 big time wealthy corporatists who were saying his policies are impossible. And I think that is why we’re in this horrible dilemma. We’re capitalism and government policy have become more ruthless and I think in a way less compassionate than in the history maybe the past 50, a hundred years history of this country. It is happening because we are constructing, basically constructing an idea like constructing a reality that cannot be punctured, that the only way to make government effective is to make it profitable. And that’s just what he is challenging. He’s challenging an orthodoxy. It’s like he’s challenging a religion and the religious knives are coming out for him. And the people who are the priests of that religion in the sense capitalists are attacking him on theological grounds. You can’t say that we can have affordable housing. It’s impossible. Well, yes, you’re also making a billion dollars a year selling condos. So really it’s impossible. Is it really impossible? No, I think it’s just that he has violated the theology of the wealthy in this country and the hyper capitalists, and he is paying for it by them trying to simplify him in the worst sort of way.

Taya Graham:

Steven, that’s a really interesting perspective

As a journalist and sometime commentator, I feel we have a responsibility to provide the same context and facts and reporting for the average American as we do for the wealthiest. I mean, there’s a saying in our profession that our job is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted and just watching the c an anchor Brianna, she’s certainly turned that adage on its head. I mean, the fact that she can’t fathom why desperate New Yorkers who are some of the most rent burdened people in this country would respond to someone who offered a different vision of the world where government could actually help people live better lives. I mean, the fact that she would just simply dismiss that desire for fairness and equity as an embrace of evil, she doesn’t seem to understand. It’s not socialism. This is just bad journalism. I think it’s honestly inhumane.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, very true. And I can’t agree more. And I just was struck by kind of her demeanor when she was rolling it out, like you said, like, oh, do you support satanism Because socialism, satanism are interchangeable, and you know that that’s part of the purpose, the way that she performed, that the performative hyperrealism here, this discredited idea, which I will not explain to my viewers, is now blanketly sort of negating any sort of ideas that this candidate who won has.

Taya Graham:

That’s exactly right. And for that reason, I think we really should actually interrogate the idea of why Ani poses such a threat that a major news network would have to engage in such careless demagoguery. I mean, what is it about him that makes a million dollar a year anchor anxious? I can explain it pretty simply. His policies are based upon the premise that challenges our countries, like you said, greatest orthodoxy,

Stephen Janis:

That

Taya Graham:

All of our collective ambitions and national aspirations must culminate in one result, making rich richer through profit. So apparently profit is a human right, but healthcare isn’t. That’s pretty interesting. I mean, just look at the big beautiful Bill. I didn’t hear a CNN anchor asking about the underlying cruelty of it, about how kicking 11 million Americans, Americans off their healthcare could lead to innocent people dying, or how nursing homes across the country have said they will lose staff services or have to shut down completely, or even really truly question the premise that those 11 million people are somehow not deserving of their basic human dignity and to have access to medical care. Not one of these millionaire anchors is even close to apologetic about it. I mean, where’s the urgency there? Where’s the breathless questioning of what will actually be accomplished with the cruelty embedded in this bill? I mean, where’s, like you said, the complexity for the lives that will be affected. I mean, we’re talking about millions without insurance, millions left to suffer, millions who will go untreated and millions who might die because of it. And what she’s worried about socialism, socialism, one mayor in one city implementing a few socialist policies, it’s apparently what some of the voters in New York want. So why are these folks so afraid of letting them have it?

Stephen Janis:

It’s such a contrast to the way they treat Trump voters, where the Trump voters, they spend so much time trying to dissect what they want, why they want it, and never really questioning the whole idea. Trump voters were like, I can’t stand inflation or I’ve lost my job. And that has never been interrogated the way they’ll interrogate socialism. It was never, ever, the whole underlying principle of what Trump voters want was not questioned in that way by the mainstream media. But the mainstream media, if someone comes up with an idea that could be beneficial, socially beneficial governance is suddenly questioned, interrogated to the point where it’s like I said, practically theological. How can you even believe this? It’s so irrational. It’s like believing in the Easter Bunny. It’s so crazy. Exactly. You guys are in lunatics, and I feel like that’s, and the word socialism is supposed to brand everyone kind of a lunatic, even though there are so many, as he’s point complex ways that socialism plays out in many different countries and many different societies, and we have to interrogate that and think about that. There’s complexity there and we have to embrace it and we have to provide the context.

Taya Graham:

Right? Maybe they should be trying to find out why young people are embracing it.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, that’s another inequality watch reaction video.

Stephen Janis:

That was fun.

Taya Graham:

And I want everyone watching to know that if you have a topic you want us to include in our inequality reporting a problem with the healthcare system or trouble with a bank, or any other form of crony capitalism, please email us@therealnews.com. I’m Taya Graham, your inequality watchdog reporting for you.