Lose Lose
2024-07-19 00:34:18
Radiolab is on a curiosity bender. We ask deep questions and use investigative journalism to get the answers. A given episode might whirl you through science, legal history, and into the home of someone halfway across the world. The show is known for innovative sound design, smashing information into music. It is hosted by Lulu Miller and Latif Nasser.
Radiolab is supported by BetterHelp. It's a simple truth no matter who you are, mental health challenges can affect you, and how you manage them can make all the difference. That's why everyone should have access to mental health support that meets them where they are and helps them get through. BetterHelp provides online therapy on your schedule.
It's flexible, simple to use, and can be more affordable than in-person therapy. Connect with a licensed therapist selected just for you. Visit Betterhelp..com Slash Radiolab today to get.
10 off your first month.
WNYC Studios is supported by Apple Card. Reboot your credit card with Apple Card, earn up to 3 daily cash back that you can grow at 4.40 annual percentage yield. APY. When you open a savings account through Apple Card, apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app on iPhone, subject to credit approval.
Savings is available to Apple Card owners subject to eligibility. Savings in Apple Card by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch member FDIC terms and more at Applecard.com.
Okay, so you don't know what we're talking about, right? or you do know what we're talking about. We're doing lose, lose, right, right? We're gonna play an episode from a few years back called Lose Lose.
It's an Olympic story which we're playing now because the Summer Olympics are starting very soon. But before we play that episode, I have a related thing that I'm very excited to tell you about. Oh, yeah, you're going to the Olympics.
I'm not going to the Olympics, but I just, I love the Olympics. I don't know if you know this about me, I don't know that about you. I really love the Olympics.
And like a few years ago, I got really fixated on the medals, like, why gold, silver, bronze? Why are there three of them? It just seems like kind of a random like, I don't know, like, why is it this way?
And how did it become this way? I'm such a I didn't even think.
To question it, I was just like, gold is more expensive than silver than bronze.
Well, so, okay, so this is interesting, right? Okay, so let's so first rewind all the way back to the ancient Olympics, right? Let's say you win, there's one winner per event, there's not three winners.
There's one winner per event. Okay, and they get a wreath of olive, like of olive leaves, they get like an olive branch, right?
No medal, no medal, no medals, zero medals in ancient Olympics. But like, also when you think about it, like, it's Greece.
Olive trees are everywhere. Like this is not a good present. This is the lamest prize. Like, imagine if you spend your whole life working up to the Olympics, you win the Olympics and they give you like, it's like, congratulations, you won water polo. Here's a pine cone, like, like, that's what it's like, right?
It's so weird, they wove it and and you?
Get to wear it. It's a little, you know, there's a little bit of care they did.
Take the olive branches from special trees that were near like Mount Olympus, like like it was like they were special olive branches. But still, like, it still feels like you're like, come on. It's imbued with meaning, but not actual value, right? That's right.
Okay, okay, okay, so now fast forward to the modern Olympics, right? okay?
1896 Right? They're doing the Modern Olympics in Athens. Yeah, they're rebooting it, mm-hmm.
They decide to have medals, but listen to how they did it okay, first place silver medal, oh second place bronze medal.
Huh? Third place? nothing, you don't get anything for third place, so silver, so gold isn't even.
A part of the deal was gold too expensive? then gold was it felt too vulgar.
Like?
People felt like, it's it's if you're doing it for gold, you're doing it for money.
Like, it should be more symbolic. Wow, okay, and like today, it would be like we don't need a diamond medal. That's absurd.
Yeah, that's right, like 10 million, that's right.
Okay, that's right, huh? And so, first of all, everyone was like, Okay, this Olympics? Oh, this was so great. Like, Uh, this went so well.
Like, we rebooted this ancient thing, yeah, and they're like, Okay, great, let's do it again in four years. And everyone just assumed that it would be in Athens.
Okay, but but then the guy who's sort of in charge of it, uh, uh, Pierre de Coubertin. He was like, No, let's do it in Paris, and everyone's like, why would we? why would we do it in Paris, right? Um, and then there was kind of a big fight.
So did he prevail, so he prevailed. So it was in Paris, but partly because the debate over where it should take place took so long, um, but partly for other reasons, um. The 1900 Olympics in Paris is one of, if not the worst, Olympics in history. It was a chaotic disaster of an Olympics.
It was notoriously mismanaged. It was like, Okay, just chaos, so. But and one of the things they did, cause it was so poorly planned was they were like, Okay, you know what? Oh, we don't know about the medals or whatever. Like every sport, just fend for yourself, like, figure out what your own prizes are.
And so so you just read the list of, like, what people won that year and there, it's so funny. There was a lot of in general, there was a lot of like porcelain, and there was just like a lot of like paintings and really tacky art. Uh. One Australian runner won several prizes. These are the prizes a small clock, a lady's purse and a silver letter opener.
There's one guy, he was an American pole vaulter, and his prize was an umbrella.
Oh man, that's so sad and you just picture him like walking away into the sunset with.
His little umbrella Wow, um, okay. So that's one of my favorite Olympics stories. And then, actually, the next year, 1904, was also chaos. But at least by that time, they had figured out they'd sort of standardized the medals as we know them today.
Um, okay, so by then it's gold, silver, bronze. Then it was gold, silver, bronze. And my feeling was like it was like by then, like it was like, after all the tacky art and stuff, they were like, okay, like gold doesn't seem so so ridiculous anymore, okay?
So that was a story from an Olympics in Paris 124 years ago, but now the Olympics is. You know, is is a well oiled machine to the degree that, you know, there's. There's very little chaos, it's all very, very, very perfectly planned in advance. But there there was one recent Olympics where a bit of chaos did emerge, and that little bit of chaos. It felt like a sort of a glitch in the matrix. That made you, made all of us, made the whole world. Kind of ask, like, wait a second, what are we doing here again?
And what is the point of sport, what is fair, what is within the rules, and what are you actually allowed to do in the service of winning? Yeah, and it's.
A great story, you, you reported it. This is a rerun from a while back. Do we just kick it over, bounce it over, hit it, swat it over to, uh, to the to you and the old, the old.
Man of yours, Robert Krelwich, Let's serve it up. Okay, yeah, wait, you're listening?
Okay, all right, okay.
You're listening to Radiolab Radiolab from WNYC.
Three, one.
Hi, I'm Robert Krelwich and I'm Latif Nasser. This is Radiolab and today we're going to.
Upside down and inside out. Yes, it's, it's a sports story sort of, but like none you've.
Ever heard? And therefore we found a reporter who is a sports reporter like none you've.
Ever heard? Yeah, I've been to a gym lately. Mike Peska He's the host of The Gist podcast, formerly of NPR.
And now he's here, telling the story to us. Yeah, and how did you even first hear about this? Were you covering it? Oh, yeah.
Yeah, so this is morning edition from NPR News. I'm Renee Montagne. I was covering the 2012 Olympics for NPR Good Morning.
Hello.
And I declare, Open the Games of London, the stories of the Olympics. Um, you try to find your own stories that are obscure, but if there was a big story, you chase it so in.
Those Olympics, So for you, what were the most notable achievements in the first week of the Games? Well, it's history of the best time. Microsoft's breaking the all time record.
Obviously so. In over a hundred years, nobody's won as many medals of the Olympic Games.
And everyone knew that Bolt and his record-setting quest in the Hundred would be huge. Oh, he's returned his title in the most emphatic way. Brilliant, brilliant. But then this badminton story pops up and everyone rushes to figure out what the heck's going on with badminton.
Cause the 2012 London Olympics badminton tournament just. It took this somewhat obscure sport, and it morphed it into this bizarro thought experiment about competition and integrity and what it means to win. Okay, but mostly I think that the although to be fair, Mike, he jumped on this story for very personal reasons. As a New Yorker, I say a lot of words.
And they're mispronounced, and the NPR audience would jump on them. But I always can say the N in badminton and get a lot of plaudits, so I'm attracted to badminton. What's the?
Wrong way to say badminton? Most people say badminton, badminton like, you're talking.
To some hand wear at wintertime, like you're chastising a playful cat, right? Badminton bad?
I see, and then also, Um, you know you, you and I probably think of badminton as this backyard fun, silly game. But according to Mike, No, this is anything, but it has nothing.
To do with the badminton you play in your backyard.
It's much faster than you think.
It would possibly look you get these players flying all over the court, stretching, reaching.
Diving the skill of the competitors is, you know, readily apparent. This is pulsating badminton. A shuttlecock is a funny thing and perhaps not as impressive a thing as a tennis ball, but it looks, you know, a lot like tennis. And there's a lot of tension, severe pressure, and there's a lot of grunting, and it totally seems like every bit of a legitimate.
And highly skilled sport.
Wait, I'm going to start. Okay, so so Robert, So you haven't seen this yet, but I would like to show you something, Okay, this is it.
It's an ad.
Yeah, this, okay, this is the game that is at the center of this whole story.
Women's doubles badminton It is not a medal round, it's in the group play stage. There's a huge crowd here, like the place is packed.
Yeah.
So these two teams come out, uh, you got China yellow and red uniforms, yellow shoes, so here come versus Korea purple and white. Yeah, and let's just skip ahead here, all right?
So here we go, game on. This is the first serve, Korean serve, so the Korean player flicks her wrist, the shuttlecock goes over the net.
China returns right into the net. That was it, that was the whole thing. Oh, that was just a all right. Um, so Korea second serve and Chinese return.
Yeah, so the service has turned over. Now. The Chinese are serving China, Korea, China.
Uh, yeah, this is not exactly scintillating, I was going to tell you.
Just watch this next point. So the Korean player serves it, yeah, it sails over the net and then it goes, goes, goes, goes, goes, and the Chinese player clearly is right there.
She has it, she then winds up just a slight bit, like you could see. It's like she has this deep, ingrained muscle memory from years of doing this. She winds up, she's about to hit it, and then she stops and the shuttlecock just plunks onto the floor.
Inbounds point to Korea. And then, tellingly, she looks back at that corner of the court where her coach is sitting. Uh, they both are, yeah.
This is a fix, they're fixing this like this is, yes, but there've been plenty of occasions where.
One side wants to lose and it ain't hard to lose, and the more important thing is, it ain't hard to.
Usually, you wouldn't even notice it, you know, it's the difference between a couple serves.
Uh, over the line, a couple of balls into the net, but in this case, as the match goes on.
You start to realize that Korean players seem to be trying to lose, too. They're serving faults.
Yes, it's a rally, of course, but everybody be trying to lose both sides. Well, it's actually.
A strategy because the way the tournament is laid out, both these teams are going to be moving on to the metal rounds. But whoever wins this game is going to have to play another Chinese team. A really strong team I see, and whoever loses is going to play a way easier. Danish So both teams.
Are hoping to lose? Yeah, and it is the rare instance where you have both sides incentivized to lose. That you get something that should be scored by Spike Jones. It's a little bit of a prisoner's dilemma, right? Either side could lose, but when both want to lose, it becomes this.
Surreal waiting game, right? You know who's going to crack first and score a point? And so you've got the best players in the world who just start hitting the shuttlecock out of bounds. They're serving fault after fault, faulting on purpose, and we're just hitting the ball.
Straight in the net, hitting the shuttlecock into the net. I'm sorry, you know, it's blindingly.
Obvious what's going on. And you know, they're both trying to lose. Sometimes they hit it below the net and that is unforgivable, they're hitting it straight into the ground, all but.
Tripping over their own shoelaces purposefully, and so what you get is serve up all into the net.
Point after point of just terrible badminton, and it just devolves into this absurd, repetitive, crazy making lose a thon. This is an absolute disgrace. So obviously lame. I mean, this is not.
This is not sport, but it is kind of a sport because, and this is why I really love it. At a certain point, these two teams have to start competing with each other to lose. Let me play you this point. So China serves it, Korea hits it back, but it's going way out of bounds now.
Now, in a normal world, China would obviously let that fall. So that they could take the point. But they lunge to save it right, and they're hitting it back now. Korea. Then they are like, No, no, no, you know what?
We're pretty sure we want it out of bounds, they hit it in the opposite direction, even further out of bounds. So now China goes to save it once again. But they don't get there in time. So the point goes to China, which China actually didn't want, and the Koreans wanted the whole time.
So what are you saying? Well, it's like it's like they invented a whole new sport, which is the exact opposite of badminton. It is, it is photo negative badminton.
But then, towards the end of the first set, tournament referee has been called for out, comes the referee. Here comes Torsten Berg. Hello, Torsten, speaking. Hi. How are you?
Torsten Berg was the.
Head Olympic badminton referee Who got that call? And I also heard the spectators boo, so I went to watch it. It looked pretty awful. This was not right. The referee is pulling the players together and told them that they were not playing seriously and they were making a very serious mistake.
And they played stupid and said, No, we're playing, we're trying our best.
We were actually able to get in touch with three of the four players in that match. Both Korean players Jung Kyung-eun and Kim Hana, and also one of the Chinese players, Wang Xiaoli and Wang Xiaoli told me they were trying to lose in that match.
But what we didn't expect South Korea would do the same thing.
And as for the Koreans, Jung Kyung-eun said that they too were trying to lose, at least during certain moments in the game. But when the crowd started to boo.
And the ref came out. Her partner, Kim Hana, said that I was surprised and embarrassed. They were just.
Scared, we just wanted to get out of the court as soon as possible.
So Torsten walks off the court, They went on court again, and then the second serve after Torsten walks off the court. Nothing but net. So for the next few points, it does not get much better.
No, it didn't look like world-class badminton at all.
So the set comes to an end, Korea wins the set and while the players are waiting on the sidelines, here comes the tournament referee again.
Torsten comes back onto the court, he walks up to the players and he pulls out of his pocket almost subtly and shows to the players this black card.
The black card, which means disqualification.
This is absolutely extraordinary. He has given both teams a black card or has he threatened them with a black card? I'm really not terribly sure the players have returned to court.
It was now that they should play, or they would be in deep s**t, sorry.
Maybe I shouldn't say so. The Black Card says that pretty clearly.
The black card was out. And I told them in very clear words and very seriously, that in order to help themselves, they better play now.
The Korean player, Jung Kyung-eun, said that she turned to her partner.
And I told her, There are them and we are we, so let's just play and do our best.
The second set starts, and pretty quick.
China's Wang Xiaoli told me.
Both sides changed a little bit.
Instead of just serving into the net, things started to get better.
A rally.
They would get the rally going.
But then, as the points kept coming, you started to notice, like.
They were playing very slowly, there's something still really off here, They were not hitting the ball very hard.
Now, the Korean team wouldn't admit this, but Wang Xiaoli said that both teams.
Didn't change the basic fact.
We're still trying to lose.
Which, I have to say, is exactly what it looks like when you watch it. Because for the rest of the match, you get a bunch of these points, where, like, where? Just. They'll lob it super high, you know, as if to say, hey, smash it down on us. Or they will, you know, hit it out of bounds and then facepalm just, you know, practice their swing after they missed one.
Just to say, Oh, you know, my mechanics are off, I just got to just practice this a few more times. Because it's like we've entered a whole third iteration of this game where it's like they're not just trying to lose, they're trying to cover up badminton.
You're trying to lose, but you're trying to look like you're trying to win.
I don't think they're seeing anybody here.
You know, no? So finally, after 20 long minutes of this, the Korean team loses the match by winning it.
Tonight has left me with a very nasty taste in the mouth.
Tonight was not sport, it was a disgrace.
Good night.
So all four players walked off the court, and Kim Ha-na told me.
It was not a pleasant winning at all.
That her parents were in the audience that day, and afterwards they asked her what happened.
What happened and why? Why do you have to get the booze from the audiences and et cetera? And I was, I was sad and felt defeated, so I didn't even want to talk to my mom.
So I remember I just went to the hotel and had rest.
And the next morning, at eight o'clock, all four pairs, in fact, were disqualified, according to the disciplinary regulations of the Badminton World Federation.
Which has a rule on the books that you can be disqualified for failing to use your best effort.
And the same evening, they were on the plane home.
They were just thrown out of the Olympics.
A scandal at the Olympics, this whole to-do about the badminton players, everyone was talking about. Some losers. Shuttlecocks were going out, tippy-topping the shuttlecock into the net.
Like a five-year-old in the backyard picnic, it was downright humiliating.
It was just sad that they were committing suicide in that tournament.
At that time, the punishment hit me quite hard.
I was very sad and I felt helpless.
I was perplexed and didn't know what happened, we just cried.
Oh, this doesn't sound like it's getting any better.
No, but there's still more after the break, OK?
Apple Card isn't your typical credit card, it's everything a credit card should be.
There are no fees with Apple Card, no late fees, no annual fees, no foreign transaction fees, no fees.
Period.
The best part is it's the only credit card built into the wallet app iPhone, so you get the same ease and simplicity that you get from iPhone.
Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch, subject to credit approval. Variable APRS for Apple Card range from 19.24 to 29.49 based on credit worthiness rates as of February 1st, 2024..
Terms and more at AppleCard.
Com.
It's Madeline Barron from In the Dark. I spent the past four years investigating a crime.
When you're driving down this road, I might plan on killing somebody.
A four-year investigation, hundreds of interviews, thousands of documents, all in an effort to see what the U.S military has kept from the public for years.
Did you think that a war crime had been committed?
I don't have any opinion on that.
Season three of In the Dark is available now wherever you get your podcasts.
We're back.
I'm Robert Krolwich and I'm Latif Nasser.
This is Radiolab.
And when we left off, the Korean and Chinese women's badminton teams had just been disqualified, kicked out of the Olympics.
So what? So then what happened to the with the players? Like, what happened?
Well, all four of them did keep playing badminton professionally. After this. Jung Kyung-eun, from Korea, even went on to win the bronze in Rio. But at the time, this was a brutal punishment for all of them.
Well, but you know, they, they did something wrong, this wasn't right, right?
I, you know, I don't even. I question whether it's even unethical. I think it's ethical, in a way, what they did.
Really, what the players did.
I do, I think it's ethical.
How so?
OK, so is the definition of ethics in sports to to win, sure, without cheating? Yes, does that mean to win every point?
No, not necessarily. You know, in baseball, there's the thing called the intentional walker. In football, a team will take a safety instead of punting and letting the other team score a touchdown. So this is a calculation where a point here or there is not as important as the whole, and the whole is the game.
So OK, let's move back, let's pan out a little more. I think an individual game is often lost. Look, we're not going to put our good starter here, we're going to manage the lineup because the goal is to win the championship.
And the thing to remember about these players is if what we want is players who are hyper competitive and actually want to win at all costs. That's exactly why they were losing so badly, because they wanted to win the overall championship at all costs. And the badminton federation had a set of rules that all but guaranteed that this would happen.
Well, yeah, I mean, it's stupid to have an event where people are trying to lose. If that event is a sporting event, especially at the apex of, you know, the only time people care about badminton, it seems, really.
So this is Chuck Klosterman. We called him in because he writes a lot about sports, and also because he wrote the Ethicist column for the New York Times magazine.
Now is this some kind of tragedy? Well, it's not, I guess. Unless badminton is really important to you, then it probably is.
Well, in this, in this case, I think the thing that people got really upset about is this is this idea of the Olympic ideal.
In the name of all the competitors, I promise that we shall take part in the Olympic Games.
The athletes oath in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of the sport and the honor of our team. To transcend in the way that as a superb athlete, you're transcending your humanity. But then also as like this representative of your country. And I think it did poke a lot of people, like a lot of people did seemingly get kind of upset about it.
Well, yeah, I mean, for some reason, it is disturbing to see athletes failing on purpose. That just it seems to kind of like, tap into some, like it was immoral, somehow.
Tonight has left me with a very nasty taste.
Yes, like, like, like. I don't know if not. Trying in a sporting event is a moral question, but it feels that way when you see it happen is unforgivable here again. One of the interesting thing about sports is that we watch these adults playing multimillion dollar games. But they're the same games that like a six year old or seven year old plays. So when you have a seven year old kid, you would say, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it doesn't matter what happens.
Just play hard, you don't have to succeed. It's the trying that matters, so when you see people at the highest level not trying, there's it's almost.
It sort of wrecks the entire idea of why we play sports at all. You know why? If you're at a playground and two kids race across the playground to see who can get to the swing faster or whatever. Like, that's like a biological thing. Maybe we are biologically driven to compete, so that's the baseline expectation of what we have of these badminton players that they will try to compete.
But it seems to me there's an opportunity here for true athleticism in a kind of topsy turvy way.
Flip it and reverse it.
Flip it and reverse it and see if you can do that as well as you do the other way.
I mean, sports only work one way, though they don't work both ways. I mean, it would be like going to your wife and saying, like, Okay, you say you really love me. Prove it by hating me in a creative way. Or to go to a great piano player and say, like, if you're so awesome at playing piano, bang your fist against the keys in a way that I will be sickened by it.
But if we take it out of matters of the heart and put it back on the field. What would be the most radical solution that you could imagine if your desire was to, convincingly and astonishingly, athletically, lose?
I suppose if they were both trying to do it in the most convincing way, it would be that was not really the case here.
Well, I guess they never confronted it. How do you lose on purpose if the other side's also trying to lose on purpose? And I'm trying to think there are some sports, so in football, let's say in American football, let's say both sides wanted to lose. Well, here's how the sport would go.
You can't make the other team score, but you can score a safety on yourself. So the quarterback would get the ball and start running towards his own end zone, and then there'd be a jailbreak by the defense to tackle the quarterback.
Baseball is hard, you could hit the batter, that would be, that would be an interesting game. What about darts?
Instead of aiming at the dartboard, just turning around and aiming at your opponent.
That's like the baseball strategy.
How about the sport of bodybuilding? Think about the implications.
I would win that, I would win, that would you, I think I would win.
I'd see, like, a Will Ferrell movie out of this. Yes, that's what I've been thinking. We get to a point, our team, all right, this is what we need.
You got to go out there.
And then there's a loser on the other team, who's who's also very good.
And the two losers are eyeing each other down.
Yeah, losers, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You can hear more of Mike Preska on his podcast The Gist, more of Chuck Klosterman in his latest book. But what if we're wrong? Big thanks to all the players who talked to us and to those who helped us get those interviews. Joy Lee Mikyung, Kim Yuni, Kartika.
Thanks to Parnan and Charla who came in and helped us puzzle this whole match out, and in addition, a special thanks to Gracia Polly. Gracia was on the Indonesian badminton team in those same Olympics. And an hour after the match we featured, she faced off against a different Korean team. All four players in that match were also disqualified for not using their best efforts to win.
She really helped us understand what it was like to be in that situation.
This story was produced by Matt Kielty and Annie McKeown and Latif Nasser. I'm Robert Kralwich.
And I'm Latif Nasser.
And I guess that ends the game at this point.
Hi, I'm Rianne and I'm from Denny Garden, Ireland, and here are the staff credits. Radiolab was created by Jad Abumrad and is edited by Soreen Wheeler. Lulu Miller and Latif Nasser are our co-hosts. Dhrinkeef is our director of sound design.
Our staff includes Simon Adler, Jeremy Bloom, Becca Bressler, W. Harry Fortuna, David Gable, Maria Paz Gutierrez. Sindhu Na Nisamudam, Matt Kielty, Annie McKeown, Alex Neeson, Sarah Kari, Valentina Powers, Sarah Sandbach, Arianne Wack, Pat Walters and Molly Webster. Our fact-checkers are Diane Kelly, Emily Kruger and Natalie Middleton.
Here's an idea I have. There's an old riddle and it goes like this. A king talks to his two sons, two princes, and he says, Here's what we're going to do, get those horses out of the stable. Here's what I want you to do.
I want you to jump on your horses and ride to the City gate. Whichever horse gets to the City gate last, you're going to inherit the fortune. Maybe it's a crazy king. So the two princes look at each other, they both think, and then they jump on their horses and they ride fast as they can.
Why?
To rein in their horses at the very last minute, jump off the horses and say, Whoa, and then wait until the other one, I don't know.
Are they planning on just removing a section of the gate and then just smashing it up against the other horse?
Yeah, no, that's terrible. No, okay, you like the answer?
What is the answer?
They jumped on each other's horse, they jumped on the other brother's horse, maybe.
Let me just think about that. That was fun. They jumped on the other's horse, of course.
Hi.
This is Tamara from Pasadena, California. Leadership support for Radiolab science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred G. Sloan Foundation.
You come to the New Yorker Radio Hour for conversations that go deeper.
With people you really want to hear from.
Whether it's Bruce Springsteen or QuestLove, or Olivia Rodrigo, Liz Cheney, or the godfather of artificial intelligence, Jeffrey Hinton, or some of my extraordinarily well-informed colleagues at the New Yorker. Join us every week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts.
v1.0.0.250616-1_os