
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


How has a phrase that just a decade ago had a narrow, technical definition come to essentially represent anything political that we don’t like? Jon Allsop, who writes Columbia Journalism Review’s daily newsletter and contributed this week to The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how “election interference” has become a ubiquitous term and what that indicates about the future of American political discourse. “It’s a project that is designed to insulate candidates against losing, whether they actually lose or not,” Allsop said.
By WNYC Studios and The New Yorker4.3
35823,582 ratings
How has a phrase that just a decade ago had a narrow, technical definition come to essentially represent anything political that we don’t like? Jon Allsop, who writes Columbia Journalism Review’s daily newsletter and contributed this week to The New Yorker, joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss how “election interference” has become a ubiquitous term and what that indicates about the future of American political discourse. “It’s a project that is designed to insulate candidates against losing, whether they actually lose or not,” Allsop said.

6,778 Listeners

3,348 Listeners

505 Listeners

9,182 Listeners

8,475 Listeners

1,347 Listeners

3,536 Listeners

2,145 Listeners

28,214 Listeners

6,294 Listeners

2,310 Listeners

32,365 Listeners

2,127 Listeners

7,077 Listeners

5,458 Listeners

5,761 Listeners

16,076 Listeners

641 Listeners

543 Listeners