Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When the world changes in a single day

Opinion

Fall of the Berlin Wall

Thousands of people celebrate during the hours following the opening of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989.

picture alliance/Getty Images

Davies is a podcast consultant, host and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com.

On the dramatic day the wall came down — Nov. 9, 1989 — I got a call from my boss at ABC News Radio. “Get on tonight’s flight to Berlin," he said.

For a young network news reporter, it was a dream assignment. Over the next two weeks, armed with a portable cassette recorder, notepad and microphone, I covered many stories of joyous family reunions and discoveries of newly won freedoms.

We alI knew at once that the abrupt decision by Communist authorities in East Germany to remove rigid travel restrictions and allow travel to the West was much more than a big news story: It was history in the making. The Cold War was coming to an end. Nothing would be quite the same again.

Twice since then, our world changed in a single day: the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and then one month ago on Thursday, Feb. 24, with Vladimir Putin’s malevolent, bloody invasion of Ukraine.

These sudden events should force us to alter glib perceptions about the world, and they are reminders that confident predictions made by economic forecasters, stock pickers and political pundits are often hopelessly wrong.


History throws its curves,” Peggy Noonan wrote in her Wall Street Journal column earlier this month. “You watch stunning new factors emerge and at some point you feel grateful to be humble. This ol’ world can still surprise. It can confound every expectation.”

Perhaps we need a greater sense of modesty and a deeper faith in democracy. The deep flaws of our system are well-advertised, and rightly so. Racism, inequality, environmental destruction and rigid partisan polarization are the focus of daily news coverage. But the quiet quotidian protections offered by the rule of law, separation of powers and our constitutional system of governance also deserve greater attention and vigilance.

The people of Ukraine, and their president, Volodymyr Zelensky, know what they’re fighting for. Brave reporters in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities are risking their lives to tell the remarkable stories of resistance, defiance and national pride. “No matter what happens in Ukraine, Putin will be a loser with no moral stature and Zelensky will have towering moral stature,” wrote Maureen Dowd in The New York Times.

That’s a provocative statement, and I would argue that we need greater context for the ideas behind it.

While urgent news headlines give us a sense of what happened in the past 24 hours, they usually lack context about the history and unique challenges faced by a people at war. Perhaps we need to change our media consumption habits.

As a podcaster, I believe that our medium is uniquely positioned to help listeners gain a richer, deeper understanding of the world.

At their best, podcasts are intimate, intelligent and informal. Unlike social media, they develop a set of ideas over time — often half an hour or longer. Podcasts come without the often weird distractions of video ("does that news anchor’s tie look strange, huh?”) and pop-up messages on computer screens. We usually listen to them alone — while commuting, exercising or walking the dog. Unlike broadcast media, where the audience often tunes in halfway through a story, podcast listeners always start at the beginning.

“The Daily” from The New York Times and “The Economist Asks” are good places to look for context. Unlike some of their competitors, both of these podcasts usually tackle a single subject per episode and often go deep.

How Do We Fix It? ” — the show that I co-host and publish — has put out two recent primers in response to the war. One, with Yale University historian Marci Shore, looks at the recent changes in Ukraine and growing support for democracy and civic pride in the years immediately before the Putin invasion. The second episode considers whether the cause of global democracy has been strengthened by the alarming events of recent weeks.

While expressing solidarity and sympathy for those who are fighting for their lives in Ukraine, we can all gain a deeper understanding and respect for the universal principles that we share together.


Read More

Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Teenager admiring electronic hobby robot.

Explore how China is overtaking the U.S. in the global innovation race, from electric vehicles to advanced research, and why America’s fragmented science policy, talent loss, and weak industrial strategy threaten its technological leadership.

Getty Images, Willie B. Thomas

America’s Greatest Geopolitical Blind Spot

The global hierarchy of innovation is undergoing a structural shift that Washington is dangerously slow to acknowledge. For decades, the prevailing narrative in the United States was that China was merely the "world’s factory"—a nation capable of mass-producing Western designs but inherently lacking the creative spark to invent its own. This assumption has been shattered. Today, Beijing is no longer playing catch-up; in sectors ranging from electric vehicles and next-generation nuclear power to hypersonic missiles, China is setting the pace.

The central challenge is that China has mastered the entire innovation ecosystem, while the United States has allowed its own to fracture. Innovation is not just about a "eureka" moment in a laboratory; it is a relay race that begins with basic scientific research, moves through the training of specialized talent, and ends with the large-scale commercialization of "hard tech." China is currently winning every leg of that race.

Keep ReadingShow less