Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Did Ukraine blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everyone. And have you seen the latest news on Nord Stream 1, 2? It has been months since that pipeline, those pipelines were destroyed, were sabotaged, and we haven't had any information on who's behind it. Been big questions. Why would the Russians blow up their own pipelines? I've been skeptical, and the investigations that the Europeans have been engaged in, no evidence whatsoever. There was this piece by Seymour Hersh that I looked into pretty closely, one anonymous source claiming the Americans and the Norwegians were behind it. That turned out to be not standing up on its facts on a whole bunch of pieces of ostensible evidence brought in the piece. But now we have a New York Times piece that's come out with direct sourcing from US senior officials, including intelligence officials, claim that there is evidence that a Ukrainian organization was behind the explosion.
Now, I want to say, first of all, that was my view over the last few months, is if anyone was likely behind it would probably be Ukraine. And the question is, would they have the capacity? Because the interest was certainly highest. They are the ones that desperately want to ensure that the Russians don't continue to have leverage to potentially drive a wedge around European support and get that gas flowing again from Russia into Germany and into Europe.
Now, they're big questions given the level of sophistication that would be required in pulling off an attack like that, and also doing it without any fingerprints at all in terms of the investigations and the intelligence, would the Ukrainians be able to pull it off? So they're very interested, but could they actually do it? And the view was, well, maybe not. And I would've said no, except for some of the other attacks that we've seen the Ukrainians pull off, like blowing up the Kerch Bridge from Russia to Crimea, which I was quite surprised to see them be able to do. As well as the assassination attempt that almost happened against Aleksandr Dugin, instead killing his daughter, and only because she decided the last minute to take the car that he was meant to be in, and that was just outside Moscow.
So the Ukrainians have shown more capacity than a lot of people have believed, but still lots and lots of questions here that are going to need to be investigated. One is this Ukrainian organization, this outfit, an extremist group, do we believe that they were operating by themselves or did they have direct support/complicity of the Ukrainian government? It's hard to imagine that such an attack would've happened and the Ukrainian government had no idea. And I say that in part because of funding and in part because of the impact that it would have, and so you're potentially doing a lot of damage to Ukraine's position vis-a-vis the Europeans, even the Americans, if you get away with it. Why would you take that kind of a risk as an organization ostensibly supporting Ukraine unless the government was behind it? Also, would you have that kind of capacity without direct governmental support?
So one would expect that if it's an Ukrainian organization, the Ukrainian government probably at some level knows about it, probably at a high level knows about it. Let's keep in mind that despite all of the support from the United States, and it's been incredible, the military support, the economic support, Biden's trip directly to Kyiv, that there's not a lot of trust between the United States and Ukraine at the highest levels. There's a lot of alignment. There's a lot of belief that the Ukrainians need to be able to defend their territory and beat back the Russians. There's a lot of respect with Zelensky's courage and his ability to lead his people over the last year of war. I mean, really facing death himself on a daily basis on the ground in Kyiv. He's enemy number one for Putin and the Kremlin. No one wants to be in that position, and yet Zelensky has been. But that's not trust.
And when you talk to senior level American officials and European officials as well, NATO officials, it's not as if they believe that the Ukrainians are telling them everything they're doing. And further, that if the Americans or Europeans were to press the Ukrainians, for example, on when negotiations might need to start, what they should be about, there's a view that you couldn't keep that private, that would be leaked by the Ukrainian government to harder line allies like Poland, like the Baltic States and to the press very quickly. So there is a challenge here that if this was credibly the Ukrainian government behind it, it is going to worsen the view in the United States and among allies that when push comes to shove. Zelensky as much as you want him to win, is not someone that you can completely count on, rely on with sensitive information or in the war's next phase. In other words, as you move towards at some point actual diplomacy. That's a problem.
I would also say there's a problem because the Europeans have made it very clear that whoever is behind this Nord Stream explosion, remember Russian pipelines, but critical infrastructure that was necessary for the Europeans, and in international waters, they said whoever's responsible for it, they must be held accountable at the highest levels. And I've heard that from Ursula von der Leyen. I had that conversation directly with the Estonian Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. She made that very clear. The Germans have made that very clear. Okay, well, at the beginning, I think there was a presumption on the part of many of them that, well, we're really talking about the Russians.
But of course we're probably not talking about the Russians. So what does it mean if the Ukrainian government is responsible at the highest levels? If we find that out, how are they going to be held accountable for blowing up these pipelines? And that's a very serious concern for the credibility of a coalition to hold together, as well as for strong, continued support of Ukraine by the West, which is utterly essential if Putin is going to stay on the back foot on the ground in Ukraine in terms of the ability to not make his war aims successful.
So I think this is important news. We're going to follow this story going forward. I'm glad that we're getting information finally, even if only a little bit from these investigations, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered. So that's the latest. Talk to you soon.
Lessons from the COVID lab-leak fiasco
The US Department of Energy made unlikely headlines over the weekend when The Wall Street Journal reported that new evidence had led the agency to conclude with “low confidence” that the COVID-19 virus probably escaped from a Chinese lab. The DOE’s findings match up with the FBI’s, which point to an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology with “moderate confidence.”
This follows investigations by four other agencies plus the National Intelligence Council that concluded with low confidence that the virus spread naturally from animals to humans, possibly in a wet market in Wuhan. Other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, remain undecided, much like DOE was until recently.
The bottom line is we still don’t know how the pandemic got started. Both origin stories – natural transmission and laboratory leak – are scientifically plausible. The DOE’s report should lead us to update our beliefs slightly toward the lab-leak theory, but the score in the intelligence community is still 5-2 in favor of zoonotic transfer, and all but the FBI’s conclusions were reached with low confidence.
One thing we do know – and all agencies agree on this – is that the virus was not deliberately engineered and released by China as a bioweapon. We also know that Beijing systematically lied to the international community, the World Health Organization, and its own citizens about the virus, making the outbreak worse than it had to be. (Yes, those two thoughts are compatible: The Chinese government’s sketchiness can be easily explained by many reasons other than bioterror.)
But we will likely never get to the bottom of COVID’s true origins, precisely because China refuses to allow a proper investigation.
So … what more is there to say about this?
Well, I think there is an important lesson here about the politicization of science in the United States. Coming out as a believer in the lab-leak hypothesis would have gotten you banned from social media just two years ago. Today, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies consider it reasonable if not likely. What gives?
Uncertainty reigned supreme in the early days of the pandemic. Nobody knew how deadly the disease was, how easily it could spread, who was vulnerable to it, or how to protect themselves from it. Back then, the dominant narrative about the virus’s origins was that it had jumped from a bat to a human at Wuhan’s live-animal market.
But in February 2020, Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton went on Fox News and raised the possibility that coronavirus may not have emerged naturally while accusing Beijing of a lack of transparency.
“We don’t know where it originated, but we do know we have to get to the bottom of that,” the senator said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level-4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases. We don’t have evidence that this disease originated there,” he clarified, “but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says, and China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.”
Cotton’s message found a receptive audience in right-wing conspiracy theorists. Almost immediately, what had started as a perfectly legitimate question got spun into an unfounded story that the virus was a bioweapon deliberately engineered by the Chinese Communist Party for nefarious purposes. Some even went so far as to claim Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the face of the U.S. pandemic response, funded China’s biowarfare program.
Mind you, Cotton himself never said he thought COVID was an act of biological warfare. In fact, he called that possibility “very unlikely.” All he said was it was an open scientific question that called for further investigation, requiring access to evidence Beijing was refusing to provide.
And he was 100% right. COVID’s origins were (and still are) very much an open scientific question. And this question was especially hard to answer given the Chinese government’s (ongoing) obstruction.
But, inured to former President Donald Trump’s racist antics and the American right’s penchant for amplifying misinformation, Twitter scientists, pundits, and journalists in the mainstream media rushed to shout Cotton down, lumping his views in with those of the cranks.
They called any suggestion that the virus did not emerge naturally a “debunked conspiracy theory” motivated by an anti-China and anti-science agenda, even though the lab-leak hypothesis was neither a conspiracy theory nor had it been debunked. They dismissed the message not because it was wrong but because they disagreed with the messenger’s worldview and disliked some of his political bedfellows.
As it turned out, the fact that Cotton’s doubts may have been colored by his anti-China bias, or that others took his hypothesis too far, was irrelevant to the question at hand. And the media’s uber-confident proclamation of a fake consensus when the science was nowhere near settled did real harm, delegitimizing public health authorities and further eroding trust in science.
Why did otherwise smart, judicious, and well-intentioned journalists and scientists react so virulently – and, indeed, unscientifically – to the lab-leak hypothesis? Two words: politics brain.
The political environment was exceptionally charged back then. Partisan polarization had divided Americans into tribes bitterly pitted against each other. Citizens were constantly bombarded with conflicting information, and whether something was accepted as true or false depended as much or more on who it came from than whether it was actually true.
So when a vocal China hawk representing a political party hostile to science and comfortable with conspiracy theories raised questions about the prevailing narrative, the natural instinct of many in mainstream media was to push back. Because many of those who publicly raised questions about the virus’s origins were bad actors, the act of raising questions itself became an act of bad faith. That’s what politics brain does to us: It clouds our judgment and supercharges cognitive biases like groupthink, mood affiliation, and motivated reasoning.
There’s another lesson here. Yes, parts of the media and the scientific community were biased. Bias is human. Bias is inevitable. I can live with bias. But the bigger problem was the misplaced confidence.
One thing that annoyed me about Dr. Fauci – who I’ve gotten to know a bit and consider a dedicated public servant – was how certain he came off in some of his early communications on questions that he obviously wasn’t certain about. Now, people don’t like uncertainty, and science is hard. Sometimes it needs to be simplified for the public to understand. Fauci didn’t want to cede any ground that the anti-science crowd could exploit to sow doubt. I get that.
But all that false certainty ends up doing is delegitimizing science at a time when trust in objective truth and institutions of knowledge is at historic lows. It’s genuinely better to treat people with respect, explain the nuances, say “I don’t know” when you don’t know, and hope they’ll get it. That goes for the pandemic’s origins, vaccine effectiveness, long COVID, climate change, and many other areas of scientific inquiry.
When it comes to science, just … follow the science.
________________________________
🔔 Be sure to subscribe to GZERO Daily to get the world's best global politics newsletter every day on top of my weekly email. Did I mention it's free?The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic
Less than a month ago, the Biden administration finally dropped its long-anticipated National Security Strategy. The No. 1 external enemy is not Russia but rather China. It also emphasizes the homegrown threat of Americans willing to engage in political violence if their candidate loses at the ballot box.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger about the key national security threats facing the United States right now.
Sanger believes the biggest threat to America's national security right now is an "insider threat" to the stability of the election system coming from Americans willing to engage in political violence. Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion.
On Russia, Sanger believes that Ukraine and the world face the paradox that the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely Putin might launch a tactical nuke. And if he does, he might just get away with it.
This interview was featured in a GZERO World episode: US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
Iran's morality police: not disbanded
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. There's plenty to talk about around the world but I wanted to focus a little bit on Iran. We've had over two months of demonstrations across the entire country, grassroots, mostly young people, led by women in opposition to the morality police and the incredibly oppressive treatment that women in particular have in that country, not least of which, the forced wearing of the hijab under penalty of arrest.
Now, it's very interesting that over the course of the weekend, there was all sorts of headlines put out that the Iranian government announced that they were abolishing the morality police, and if that were true, it would be a big deal. Remember, Iran, for over two months, the only response to the demonstrations has been repression, and the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, came out just a week ago and said that he would not listen to the voice of the people. He absolutely rejected that, and instead, what we've seen is more arrests and increasingly, we're seeing harsh sentences being put against those people that have been involved in demonstrations. In some cases, even the death sentence.
If the morality police were actually abolished, that would be a big deal and there were major headlines in the New York Times and the BBC and Reuters and others that indeed made that announcement. Unfortunately, that's not what actually is happening. This was one government official who said that it was closed in response to a press conference question, the morality police, as opposed to suspended or abolished. And in that regard, it doesn't mean that it was disbanded.
Indeed, when this what they call guidance force, that's the literal term of the morality police, became a part of the law enforcement force under then President Ahmadinejad, you remember the Member's Only jacket guy with the beard, it was then renamed as a police force for social security. So for all we know, the statements that were made could literally be made that they don't have guidance police/morality police anymore because they've already used that name change. In other words, there's nothing thus far that shows that there is any change in actual policy or enforcement on the ground in Iran, and certainly just even today, we've seen more harsh repression against demonstrations. There's no reason to believe that.
Now, I pointed that out to the New York Times yesterday and asked them to clarify or take down their headline. They have thus far refused to do so. It feels too cute by half. It makes it seem as if the Iranian government is responding to the demands of the demonstrators, that the demonstrators are winning. That's not at all the case on the ground. I wish it were but we need the major newspapers and media outlets in the world to be honest, and when they make a mistake, admit that they make a mistake.
And I'm quite disturbed actually that this has been handled this way, especially because there are all sorts of bad actors and political actors that are willing to take a mistake like this and run with it and say that these media organizations are no good at anything. And of course, the mainstream media across the board, whether it tilts left like the New York Times or it tilts right like Fox or the Wall Street Journal, have been losing a lot of credibility over the course of the last years, especially given the preponderance of social media actors, and so this doesn't help, doesn't help at all. So we don't know about what's happened, if anything, to these police.
There is an open question as to whether or not there will be any shift as to behaviors that are tolerated, specifically the hijab. And as of right now, harassing women on the streets is an important way, a critical way that the theocratic regime in Iran exhibits its power and I think giving that up permanently will be incredibly difficult for the Iranian government to do. Now, if they were to do that, that would be a big deal. That would be an enormous win. It would weaken the theocracy significantly and it would create much more capacity for rank and file Iranians, especially women, to live their lives in a normal way, but I personally doubt it, especially in a systematic way.
I think the question of the hijab goes well beyond the morality police and it's actually turned into a barometer, a quick way of understanding who is a believer, an insider, and who is a nonbeliever, an outsider. It's a tool through which the citizen's willingness to submit to the practices that it finds oppressive and abhorrent is tested every day and imposed, from getting a driver's license to a passport to entering government buildings, women have to practice the ritual of a correctly donned hijab, and I think that that level of imposed ritual is incredibly important to the perceived legitimacy and power of the theocracy.
It is the core of what they are fighting over right now, even if that's not what they're saying on the streets, and as a consequence, I will be enormously impressed, you'll hear it from me, I'll be very happy and the outpouring of emotion that we see around the world in sympathy and alignment with these women on the streets that are taking their lives in their own hands by yelling and screaming for freedom and taking off their hijab, I think it's a huge deal. But so far, no reason to believe that the Iranian government is changing its behavior and I will believe it when I see it.
So that is where we are right now on the Iranian situation on the ground. We'll do our best to continue to get you everything we know and analyze those things we're not certain of, and we'll talk to y'all real soon. Thanks and be good.
China and US economic interdependence hasn't lessened
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week with a look at the China-US economic relationship, North Korea's missiles tests, and the New York Times' investigation of the US drone strike in Afghanistan.
China owns more than $1 trillion US debt, but how much leverage do they actually have?
I mean, the leverage is mutual and it comes from the enormous interdependence in the economic relationship of the United States and China. And it's about debt. And it's about trade. It's about tourism. It's about sort of mutual investment. Now. There is some decoupling happening in terms of labor, increasingly moving domestic in terms of the China five-year plan, dual circulation focusing more on domestic economy, and in terms of data systems breaking up, the internet of things, being Chinese or American, but not both. And indebtedness is part of that. But I don't see that unwinding anytime soon. And certainly, the Chinese knows if they're going to get rid of a whole bunch of American debt, they wouldn't be as diversified in global portfolio. Not as great, it's much riskier. And also, the price of those holdings, as they start selling them down would go down. So, I don't think there's a lot of leverage there, frankly. I think the leverage is interdependent.
North Korea tested new long-range cruise missiles. What message is Pyongyang trying to send?
Well, they're medium-range missiles. They don't have the ability to hit the United States. And if you remember in the early Trump days, that was the red line. It also started reprocessing at Yongbyon, again their facility; that is, they had stopped that. I mean, clearly this is a couple of incidents where Kim Jong Un is angry that he's not getting engagement in any sanctions reduction from the Biden administration. Certainly no bilats, and so he's pushing a little bit. He wants more attention and he's going to get it from the Biden administration, but I don't think he's going to get much of a negotiating stance change. And in that regard, I would expect at some point more saber-rattling from Kim Jong Un. Maybe that could be more destabilizing. But what we're seeing right now are very early days.
What was revealed in the New York Times' investigation of the US drone strike in Afghanistan?
Well here, this is an ugly one. I mean, this is 10 Afghan civilians who were killed in this drone strike by the United States. President Biden, and seniors in the administration, and the Joint Chiefs, Milley, and others said that this was a strike that got a suicide bomber who was about to attack the United States and Afghan civilians at the Hamid Karzai International Airport. That was not the case. That information was faulty. The trigger finger was too quick. And as a consequence, the last act on the ground of the Americans at a 20-year war in Afghanistan was killing a bunch of civilians. It's horrible. Certainly, accountability needs to be made. The New York Times did a fantastic job of forensic investigating on the scene. They had to be applauded. Surprised it hasn't gotten more news, frankly, more coverage. Broadly though, now the US troops are all gone in Afghanistan, we are not spending as much time talking about it. So, but we still will, here at GZERO.
- As US-China rivalry intensifies, Biden looks to Southeast Asia ... ›
- China takes a “rare” swipe at the US - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Was the US war in Afghanistan worth it ... ›
- North Korea's Kim Jong Un vows to boost military capabilities at rare ... ›
- Record US inflation levels worsen Americans' view of the economy - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: This day dwarfs Black Friday - GZERO Media ›
Don’t "give up" on all 73 million Americans who voted for Trump
In an op-ed in the New York Times, author Wajahat Ali says he's giving up on reaching out to Trump supporters and thinks Ian Bremmer and others shouldn't bother trying. On this edition of The Red Pen, where we pick apart the argument in a major opinion piece, Ian and Eurasia Group's Jon Lieber explain what Ali got wrong - and right - and why it's important to see the 73 million Americans who voted for Trump with nuance.
Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here with your latest edition of The Red Pen. And today we're taking our red pen to an op-ed by New York Times contributor and author, Wajahat Ali. The title says it all, Reach Out to Trump Supporters, They Said. I Tried. I Give Up.Wajahat is saying that trying to understand and connect with Trump supporters is futile for the other side, and that a chorus of voices, mine included, according to Wajahat, who name-checks me and Pete Buttigieg as wasting our breath, are fighting a losing game trying to promote empathy. Here's the tweet from me he specifically referenced.
So, I want to start by saying that there is a lot that Wajahat points out in this piece that is irrefutable. He's right that Trump has worked hard to further divide America. He's right that racism and Islamophobia are real, and that people who hold those bigoted views have been emboldened by President Trump. There have been Trump policies like the Muslim ban that only fueled the notion that there are good immigrants and bad ones, as he states. And yes, way too many people see whiteness as good and blackness as bad, even though they might not admit it. That shouldn't be tolerated. None of it. And I get why Wajahat doesn't want to engage in that conversation any longer.
But I want to defend the idea that we are one country and need to be talking to each other. Canceling 73 million Americans, fellow Americans, the Trump voters, and refusing to find those within that wide swath who might see your point on an issue or three feels like more than a missed opportunity to me. So, let's get out the red pen.
Wajahat argues that he sought to reach out to Trump supporters after the 2016 election, quoting his own video that included the message, "You might not like me and I might not like you, but we share the same real estate." Okay.
So, I'm starting off with an easy one. As Biden might say, "Come on, man." How do you think Trump supporters felt when you started off by saying you don't like them or assuming they don't like you? I got to tell you, if someone started a conversation with me by saying, "I don't like you," I am not inclined to listen to you for much more. Okay. That's the easy one.
Now let's be more serious. Next, Wajahat describes engaging Trump supporters solely on the issue of race. I warned them that supporting white nationalism and Trump in particular would be self-destructive. Here's the heart of the problem. Wajahat's belief that Trump supporters are irredeemably racist blinds him to the fact that there are other economic, social and cultural concerns that really, really matter. In fact, the top issue for voters in the exit poll was the economy, as it most often is.
Now, I understand the view that by voting for Trump, you've endorsed those uglier elements, including Trump's racism. But there is a lot more nuance in the 40% of the American population that Wajahat is not acknowledging.
He also writes, "The majority of the people of color rejected Trump's cruelty and vulgarity, and that he supports creating a multicultural coalition of the willing, including white Trump supporters." And look, Wajahat is right that a majority of people of color voted for Joe Biden, but Donald Trump earned more votes from people of color in 2020 than he did in 2016, especially among black voters. It's a sign that the GOP's base is shifting, and the conventional lines and the assumptions about politics in America are no longer totally true. There are lots of other factors at play here that the argument does not address.
Heck, maybe it's easier for me because I don't usually talk about race when I'm talking to audiences across the political spectrum. I talk about global issues, and that's where things get a lot less black and white. I mean, hey, the 20-year war in Afghanistan failed. Hey, free trade might be great for me in the 1%, but what have you gotten from it? Even immigration, should we be bringing in as many people when labor needs are actually decreasing? These are conversations that you can have across the entire political spectrum that also matter and that engage people, real people. The future of our country also relies on them.
So, I mean, in the same way you say in your family you used to avoid race and sex and politics, maybe going right into the most divisive issue is not the way you start the conversation with people that you're trying to create any sort of bridge with.
Finally, Wajahat writes that he did his part in reaching out to Trump supporters by going on a speaking tour in states where Trump won. And I want to say here that empathy is more than just being paid to deliver a dozen speeches, and it's more than just chatting with your driver. That's an anecdote that Wajahat actually describes. You can't grab Tom Friedman's talking to your drivers stick in the New York Times op-ed. I mean, that's ballsy. But it's about not assuming the worst of people and trying for a moment to put yourself in the shoes of someone who may support Trump's economic or conservative social policies and is tired of being told he's racist by liberals in New York. I assume Wajahat isn't going to agree with my last point, and maybe some of you won't either. But I still argue there's truth in it.
Now, in his final sentences, Wajahat makes an argument I strongly agree with. We should all work to combat misinformation and lies coming from political henchmen and landing onto social media sites. And those sites need to be doing a hell of a lot more to prevent those lies from catching like wildfire. Agreed. But no, I do not believe we should stop talking to people who don't see it our way. And I don't think Joe Biden as president will get very much accomplished if he can't find a way to connect with some of the 73 million people who didn't vote for him.
The main reason to engage with people you disagree with in your own country is they are fellow citizens, regardless of what they believe. And I tell you, if you don't, you can be damn sure that somebody else will. If you want to give 73 million Americans over to the Proud Boys and Steve Bannons of the world, they'll be more than happy to organize them on Facebook.
Anyway, that's your edition of The Red Pen this week. I'm Ian Bremmer. Stay safe and avoid people.
China Expelling Journalists | US-China Tensions Rise in Pandemic
China's ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai, discusses his nation's decision to expel reporters from major publications like The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, saying it was in retaliation for similar treatment of Chinese journalists in America. Ian Bremmer then asks him if the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated already strained China/US relations.
Covering a Pandemic: COVID-19 and the Media
In this week's episode, Ian Bremmer explores the media's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and President Trump's treatment of journalists. With guest Ben Smith, media columnist at The New York Times and former head of Buzzfeed News, the show looks at global coverage of COVID-19, including misinformation campaigns and social media's role in society today. Later in the program, meet Danny Rogers of The Global Disinformation Index. His group is working hard to find harmful or misleading information online and alert major publishers and tech platforms.