This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The disenfranchised, cast aside people of the US find hope when an AOC, Brandon Johnson, Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders campaigns and wins public office. These campaigns overcame corporate backed opponents, relying on people power not corporate financing, organizing many thousands of our fellow working people to participate. Yet, possessing public office does not change the economic and class structure of this country, where the real ruling power lies. Our country’s system, on the local, state, and national level, is a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
The public offices they won are one cog in an entrenched economic and political structure, and changing this has little relation to winning office. Once elected the AOCs, Brandons, Bernies and Mamdanis can be easily swallowed up by the system run by billionaires. The billionaires have one thousand and one weapons to neutralize any progressive measures and make them compromise. They began as outsiders fighting the system, but step by step, they become its representatives.
Brandon Johnson, a Chicago Teachers Union organizer, political kin to Mamdani, was elected mayor of Chicago in April 2023, so gives a glimpse of Mamdani’s future as mayor. Mamdani made a name for himself by speaking out for Palestine. Mayor Johnson cast the deciding vote to pass the first Gaza ceasefire resolution in a big city. While Brandon’s campaign inspired progressives and the left, and many thousands volunteered, his platform was mild compared to the Great Society programs of LBJ and Nixon. He declared, “everyone in Chicago deserves to have a roof over their head,” and called for increasing the real estate tax on properties over $1 million to provide housing and services to the homeless. But, two and a half years later, taxes on the rich have not been raised. He called for childcare for all, now forgotten. He campaigned on replacing lead service lines to the 400,000 Chicago houses, eliminating a major source of lead poisoning. Chicago replaced 5,100 leadlines in 2024 and aims for another 8,000 this year.
Brandon campaigned on increasing summer youth jobs to 60,000. The number has reached 31,199 in 2025, half, but still a 55% increase since he took office. He campaigned on reopening all 14 mental health centers; two and a half years later, three were reopened.
Johnson campaigned on combating police abuse. Given a boost before he took office in 2023, voters elected community representatives in 22 Chicago Police District Councils, with the power to hold police accountable, said Chicago Alliance against Racist and Political Repression. Yet PBS reports slightly more police abuse. Moreover, in 2024 Chicago taxpayers spent at least $107.5 million on police misconduct lawsuits, the highest total in over a decade. In 2025, “Through May alone, the City Council has already approved at least $145.3 million in taxpayer payments to settle lawsuits involving the Chicago Police Department, a record number that dwarfs sums from past years.“ Where is the change?
Johnson’s program committed to free public transit for public school students. Today only the first day of school is free. It committed to reduced or eliminated fares for seniors, those with disabilities, and residents living below the poverty line. Today, there are reduced fares, though Chicago had free fares for the first two groups from 2008-2011 under Mayor Daley; still no reduced fares for the poor. Even if all were free, this is but a minor progressive change.
Brandon became mayor of Chicago, a city $29 billion in debt, in a state $223 in debt. His progressive platform morphed into overseeing cuts to manage the debt. Brandon’s new budget would cut Chicago Public Library funding for new books and materials in half – quite stunning for a Chicago Teachers Union organizer. We elected a progressive to do that?
Brandon Johnson did not betray his program. He, like the others, campaigned on wishes he could not keep, given real decision-making power is not in his hands. In this era of slow US economic decline of their system, the billionaire elite who lord over us reduce progressive agendas to moderating cutbacks to services provided the people. Once in office, these progressive Democrats face a power structure that boxes them, making their campaign commitments pipedreams.
What could Brandon, or AOC, or Bernie do? The rich with their vast wealth, control government, own the print media, TV, radio, social media, own the all-powerful banking system, business and factories, the food industry, real estate and housing market, educational institutions, the courts and legal system, and the police forces. All major institutions of society do their bidding.
The rich can buy members of the New York or Chicago city council, control state legislatures, dictate interest rates on city loans, launch hostile media campaigns, stymie the mayor through the city bureaucracy. They can use control of the police to let crime worsen, manipulate a city union to go on a disruptive strike, inflate or reduce real estate and home prices, cause business and jobs leave the city, block bank loans to the city, cut state and federal funds for city programs, and so on. Their control gives them endless tools.
As Susan Kang writes in Truthout that “analysts have rightly noted that a grassroots movement to reshape state-level politics and take on Wall Street will be necessary to realize Mamdani’s campaign promises.” Mamdani had 104,000 volunteers working on his election campaign. Bernie must have had the names of millions from his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. Block Club Chicago noted, How Grassroots Organizing Fueled Brandon Johnson’s Victory: ‘It Was 100-Percent People Power’ The people’s desire and commitment to fight for serious social change is real.
The only way to institute the (mildly) progressive programs Brandon or Mamdani ran on is to challenge the control by the rich, to educate, organize, and mobilize people in the streets, massively, repeatedly, to counter every attack by the ruling rich with a mass popular response. The only way to combat corporate control is to build an alternative center of organized power among the people, a popular power beyond the control of the two corporate parties. Otherwise, people like Mamdani will be neutralized, co-opted, swallowed up, reduced to administering the government apparatus for the ruling rich. Like AOC and Bernie do today.
This is the only feasible route to take. The Bernies, AOCs, Brandons and Mamdanis would have to explain to people how the rich control the government and the world we live in, explain to the people that their organizing and mobilizing does not end with the election victory, it is the first baby step. A long journey of trials would lie ahead, where the real organizing, mobilizing, and political education taking on the rich who run this country is essential.
But none of these candidates, now officials, call for building a people’s political force independent of either of the two corporate parties. They discourage it. They push the movement into the Democratic Party, and this party only serves to derail the movement into ineffectual protest channels. Seven million turned out for the Democrats’ No Kings Day, and just three weeks later the Democrats are surrendering to Trump’s social budget cuts.
In effect, the great hope of an AOC, Mamdani or Brandon Johnson ends the day they take office. No longer it is a campaign for the people to take over government. Rather, we watch the people’s hope turn into a government clerk for the rich.
When new progressive leaders build an election campaign and movement independent of the two corporate parties, as Bernie had advocated before his capitulation, then we will witness a profound breakthrough in the system.
The post Zohran Mamdani Will Follow the Path of AOC, Bernie, and Brandon Johnson first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Do Journalists Protect or Harm Democracy?
Almost half (45%) of teens in a recent survey by The News Literacy Project said journalists harm democracy. Only 56% believed reporters value fairness and accuracy. 80% concluded that news content is subjective, and nearly 70% thought press outlets intentionally add bias to their coverage. The cynicism illustrated in the study reflects one of the extreme positions toward the press that is undermining democratic norms.
The other extreme is the blind trust that citizens have in certain news outlets. As I noted in The Anatomy of Fake News (University of California Press, 2020), history is filled with examples of journalists getting things wrong, inserting bias, or serving as mouthpieces for powerful interests. Indeed, from the Pentagon Papers to Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, the news has at times spread false, baseless, and damaging narratives masquerading as truth. Yet, total rejection of journalism is equally dangerous. Some of the most important democratic movements in U.S. history—from the civil rights outcry following the murder of Emmett Till to the global protests after the killing of George Floyd—were fueled by courageous reporting that forced the public to confront injustice.
In a democracy, the citizen’s job is neither to worship nor to despise the press, but to engage critically with it—to analyze, question, and hold it accountable while defending its freedom to exist. It’s not easy work. Democracy, after all, is a 24-hour job. The alternative is authoritarianism, a system that reduces citizens to obedient, vapid vessels, their lives and futures dictated by power—not by the will of the people. The Gaslight Gazette exists to help citizens do that work—by examining journalism, exposing propaganda, and defending truth.
This mission has never been more urgent, as mounting evidence suggests that citizens are inadvertently leading the nation toward authoritarianism by choosing passive consumption over critical engagement with journalism. Indeed, the powerful know that fake news is their most effective weapon—one that turns people against democracy by sowing cynicism and distrust. Consider Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter) and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX. Musk recently claimed to have uncovered an election scandal in New York City’s mayoral race, alleging that the two candidates—Democratic Party and Working Families Party nominee Zohran Mamdani (who won the race) and Republican Party and Conservative Party nominee Curtis Sliwa—had cheated by appearing twice on the ballot, while his preferred candidate, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had to create the Fight and Deliver Party because no existing party would nominate him, appeared only once. Musk seemed unaware that in New York, political parties can cross-endorse candidates, allowing their names to appear multiple times.
When misinformation spreads, it always has consequences. In Ireland, residents recently witnessed how easily fake news can trigger chaos: police were inundated with emergency calls about a supposed loose lion, only to discover it was merely a dog with an unusual haircut. Harmless, perhaps—but it illustrates how swiftly false information can spark public panic.
More dangerously, fake news can stoke prejudice and hate. Recently, Fox News Channel aired a segment about videos supposedly showing people of color complaining about losing government assistance during the 2025 government shutdown. The videos were later revealed to be AI-generated. Though Fox issued a correction, it framed the issue as the public being duped—without admitting the network itself had been spreading racist, fabricated content disguised as journalism. And it’s not just conservatives. Leftists, too, have fallen for sensational claims, such as online theories about President Donald Trump’s health based on photos of bruises and swelling, videos of him falling asleep are spun into proof of hidden medical decline.
This erosion of trust fuels a dangerous doom loop: as fake news spreads, cynicism grows, and even factual reporting becomes suspect. Truth itself becomes relative, collapsing the foundation of democracy, which depends on an informed public capable of discerning fact from fiction.
A recent Politico survey revealed that two-thirds of Americans believe the government lies to them. This widespread distrust crosses—felt by 64% of Trump voters and 70% of Vice President Kamala Harris’s supporters—suggests that people no longer see the government as a democratic institution “of, by, and for the people.” The collapse of trust became painfully clear when Trump’s former FBI Director Kash Patel announced a supposed Halloween terror plot in 2025, instantly dividing Americans along partisan lines.
The distrust extends beyond government. The public’s confidence in science has also deteriorated, partly due to disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plandemic conspiracy documentary and missteps by figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, who blurred the line between scientific research and political decision-making, fueled skepticism across the ideological spectrum. Today, such scientific denial remains strong in online spaces and contributes to growing numbers of men now reject scientific consensus altogether—a grim testament to how disinformation corrodes not just politics, but the very idea of truth.
So, do journalists protect or harm democracy? The answer depends not on them—but on us. When citizens demand accountability, truth, and transparency, journalism can be democracy’s greatest ally. But when we surrender to cynicism and stop thinking critically, even the free press becomes another tool of manipulation.
Democracy dies not when the press lies, but when the public stops caring to find the truth.
The post How Censorship and Smears Are Chipping Away at Democracy and Freedom first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

“We had the cure for death from malnutrition, and we took it away.” We speak to surgeon and health policy expert Atul Gawande about the Trump administration’s near-total dismantling of USAID. Gawande, the head of global health at USAID during the Biden administration, is featured in the short film Rovina’s Choice, filmed at a refugee camp at the border between Kenya and South Sudan earlier this year. We play an excerpt from the film and discuss the impact of USAID cuts on humanitarian crises around the world. Gawande says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred as a result of the loss of aid. “We’re seeing early deaths, like the malnutrition cases, and then we’ll see the wave that’s more to come.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

“We had the cure for death from malnutrition, and we took it away.” We speak to surgeon and health policy expert Atul Gawande about the Trump administration’s near-total dismantling of USAID. Gawande, the head of global health at USAID during the Biden administration, is featured in the short film Rovina’s Choice, filmed at a refugee camp at the border between Kenya and South Sudan earlier this year. We play an excerpt from the film and discuss the impact of USAID cuts on humanitarian crises around the world. Gawande says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred as a result of the loss of aid. “We’re seeing early deaths, like the malnutrition cases, and then we’ll see the wave that’s more to come.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

“We had the cure for death from malnutrition, and we took it away.” We speak to surgeon and health policy expert Atul Gawande about the Trump administration’s near-total dismantling of USAID. Gawande, the head of global health at USAID during the Biden administration, is featured in the short film Rovina’s Choice, filmed at a refugee camp at the border between Kenya and South Sudan earlier this year. We play an excerpt from the film and discuss the impact of USAID cuts on humanitarian crises around the world. Gawande says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred as a result of the loss of aid. “We’re seeing early deaths, like the malnutrition cases, and then we’ll see the wave that’s more to come.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

“We had the cure for death from malnutrition, and we took it away.” We speak to surgeon and health policy expert Atul Gawande about the Trump administration’s near-total dismantling of USAID. Gawande, the head of global health at USAID during the Biden administration, is featured in the short film Rovina’s Choice, filmed at a refugee camp at the border between Kenya and South Sudan earlier this year. We play an excerpt from the film and discuss the impact of USAID cuts on humanitarian crises around the world. Gawande says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred as a result of the loss of aid. “We’re seeing early deaths, like the malnutrition cases, and then we’ll see the wave that’s more to come.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn into office by House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday, fifty days after winning her seat in Congress. Grijalva won a special election to fill the seat left vacant when her father, longtime Congressmember Raúl Grijalva, died in March. Up until yesterday, Johnson had refused to swear in Grijalva in an effort to block her from submitting the final signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the Justice Department’s full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. We air Grijalva’s first House speech and speak to her from Capitol Hill on her first full day in office.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn into office by House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday, fifty days after winning her seat in Congress. Grijalva won a special election to fill the seat left vacant when her father, longtime Congressmember Raúl Grijalva, died in March. Up until yesterday, Johnson had refused to swear in Grijalva in an effort to block her from submitting the final signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the Justice Department’s full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. We air Grijalva’s first House speech and speak to her from Capitol Hill on her first full day in office.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn into office by House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday, fifty days after winning her seat in Congress. Grijalva won a special election to fill the seat left vacant when her father, longtime Congressmember Raúl Grijalva, died in March. Up until yesterday, Johnson had refused to swear in Grijalva in an effort to block her from submitting the final signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the Justice Department’s full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. We air Grijalva’s first House speech and speak to her from Capitol Hill on her first full day in office.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn into office by House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday, fifty days after winning her seat in Congress. Grijalva won a special election to fill the seat left vacant when her father, longtime Congressmember Raúl Grijalva, died in March. Up until yesterday, Johnson had refused to swear in Grijalva in an effort to block her from submitting the final signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the Justice Department’s full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. We air Grijalva’s first House speech and speak to her from Capitol Hill on her first full day in office.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

After months of delays, House Republicans have released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, after Democrats earlier publicized emails suggesting that President Trump was aware that Epstein was abusing and trafficking young girls and women. In one of those emails, Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls.” Trump’s allies say the larger set of documents released Wednesday afternoon provide evidence of Epstein’s later animosity towards Trump and support Trump’s claims that he was not previously aware of Epstein’s crimes. Still more evidence — namely, photographs and videos — may soon be publicized, as a petition for the House to vote on the full release of the “Epstein files” received its final signature from newly-sworn in Congressmember Adelita Grijalva. “There is a lot more to come,” says Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represents several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and who has reviewed much of the still-unreleased evidence, which is currently under a court protection order. “The FBI does have more information that needs to be released.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

After months of delays, House Republicans have released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, after Democrats earlier publicized emails suggesting that President Trump was aware that Epstein was abusing and trafficking young girls and women. In one of those emails, Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls.” Trump’s allies say the larger set of documents released Wednesday afternoon provide evidence of Epstein’s later animosity towards Trump and support Trump’s claims that he was not previously aware of Epstein’s crimes. Still more evidence — namely, photographs and videos — may soon be publicized, as a petition for the House to vote on the full release of the “Epstein files” received its final signature from newly-sworn in Congressmember Adelita Grijalva. “There is a lot more to come,” says Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represents several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and who has reviewed much of the still-unreleased evidence, which is currently under a court protection order. “The FBI does have more information that needs to be released.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

After months of delays, House Republicans have released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, after Democrats earlier publicized emails suggesting that President Trump was aware that Epstein was abusing and trafficking young girls and women. In one of those emails, Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls.” Trump’s allies say the larger set of documents released Wednesday afternoon provide evidence of Epstein’s later animosity towards Trump and support Trump’s claims that he was not previously aware of Epstein’s crimes. Still more evidence — namely, photographs and videos — may soon be publicized, as a petition for the House to vote on the full release of the “Epstein files” received its final signature from newly-sworn in Congressmember Adelita Grijalva. “There is a lot more to come,” says Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represents several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and who has reviewed much of the still-unreleased evidence, which is currently under a court protection order. “The FBI does have more information that needs to be released.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

After months of delays, House Republicans have released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, after Democrats earlier publicized emails suggesting that President Trump was aware that Epstein was abusing and trafficking young girls and women. In one of those emails, Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls.” Trump’s allies say the larger set of documents released Wednesday afternoon provide evidence of Epstein’s later animosity towards Trump and support Trump’s claims that he was not previously aware of Epstein’s crimes. Still more evidence — namely, photographs and videos — may soon be publicized, as a petition for the House to vote on the full release of the “Epstein files” received its final signature from newly-sworn in Congressmember Adelita Grijalva. “There is a lot more to come,” says Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represents several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and who has reviewed much of the still-unreleased evidence, which is currently under a court protection order. “The FBI does have more information that needs to be released.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Democracy Now! Thursday, November 13, 2025
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.