Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When the world changes in a single day

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

Microchip labeled "AI"
Preparing for an inevitable AI emergency
Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images

Nvidia and AMD’s China Chip Deal Sets Dangerous Precedent in U.S. Industrial Policy

This morning’s announcement that Nvidia and AMD will resume selling AI chips to China on the condition that they surrender 15% of their revenue from those sales to the U.S. government marks a jarring inflection point in American industrial policy.

This is not just a transaction workaround for a particular situation. This is a major philosophical government policy shift.

Keep ReadingShow less
Doctor using AI technology
Akarapong Chairean/Getty Images

Generative AI Can Save Lives: Two Diverging Paths In Medicine

Generative AI is advancing at breakneck speed. Already, it’s outperforming doctors on national medical exams and in making difficult diagnoses. Microsoft recently reported that its latest AI system correctly diagnosed complex medical cases 85.5% of the time, compared to just 20% for physicians. OpenAI’s newly released GPT-5 model goes further still, delivering its most accurate and responsive performance yet on health-related queries.

As GenAI tools double in power annually, two distinct approaches are emerging for how they might help patients.

Keep ReadingShow less
Avoiding Policy Malpractice in the Age of AI

"The stakes of AI policymaking are too high and the risks of getting it wrong are too enduring for lawmakers to legislate on instinct alone," explains Kevin Frazier.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

Avoiding Policy Malpractice in the Age of AI

Nature abhors a vacuum, rushing to fill it often chaotically. Policymakers, similarly, dislike a regulatory void. The urge to fill it with new laws is strong, frequently leading to shortsighted legislation. There's a common, if flawed, belief that "any law is better than no law." This action bias—our predisposition to do something rather than nothing—might be forgivable in some contexts, but not when it comes to artificial intelligence.

Regardless of one's stance on AI regulation, we should all agree that only effective policy deserves to stay on the books. The consequences of missteps in AI policy at this early stage are too severe to entrench poorly designed proposals into law. Once enacted, laws tend to persist. We even have a term for them: zombie laws. These are "statutes, regulations, and judicial precedents that continue to apply after their underlying economic and legal bases dissipate," as defined by Professor Joshua Macey.

Keep ReadingShow less