The U.S. has hit a new low in the World Press Freedom Index, dropping seven places to 64th in the world.

Compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the index tracks press freedom worldwide using five indicators: economic, legal, security, political and social environments for journalism. This year’s index released over the summer shows rapid deterioration in the U.S. and across the globe since 2025.

“The Index’s legal indicator has declined the most over the past year, a clear sign that journalism is increasingly criminalized worldwide,” RSF said.

RSF chalked up the decline in American press freedom to concentrated ownership of media, a lack of protections for the press at the national level, economic constraints, attacks on journalists and Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, which “exacerbated” the situation.

The organization noted that the average score for all countries and territories worldwide is at its lowest, with more than half now under the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom. In 2002, 20% of the global population lived in a country where the state of press freedom was categorized as “good.”

Global press decline is the result of war and restrictions on access to information, the criminalization of journalism and political violence and security challenges, RSF said. The organization has continuously called for the decriminalization of journalism and prioritizing protection of journalists.

World Press Freedom Index

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Government That Doesn’t Suck: National Weather Service

Atmospheric conditions, weather forecasts and environmental alerts packaged into a small app on your phone, thanks to data and brilliant scientists with the National Weather Service. But that’s not all that the agency does. This episode explores the science, history and controversies behind America’s weather forecasting system, starting with the story of meteorologist June Bacon-Bercey.

The Good Government Show: Wine and Baseball in California

What is the price of good governance? Livermore Mayor John Marchand says it’s politics. Visit the birthplace of California wine industry and hear about playing ball and good government on the West Coast in this episode.

Outrage Overload: The Legal Glitch That Engineered Our Political Rage – Larry Lessig

Rage-mongering social media algorithms, the failure of human empathy as well as ingrained biases are common factors fueling political outrage. But what if a hidden legal loophole designed to drive voter turnout and instill fear is another trigger? Give this a listen!

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Jamila Michener on Politics In Question: How Do We Build and Break Power?

Jamila Michener is a professor of government and public policy at Cornell University. Her research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Institute for Research on Poverty, among others. Michener is the inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures.

Stephanie Luce on Future Hindsight: Be a Practical Radical

Stephanie Luce teaches labor studies and sociology at the City University of New York (CUNY). She is best known for her research on living wage campaigns and movements. Luce is the author of Fighting for a Living Wage and co-authors of several other books.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

Applications now open for TDG Fall 2026 Podcast Fellowship

After another successful cohort earlier this year, we’re excited to announce the return of our Podcast Fellowship this fall semester! Fellows will learn how to launch a podcast, develop their unique voice, grow an audience and engage diverse perspectives in just six weeks.

Know a young leader interested in democracy and podcasting? Send this their way! The application deadline is September 23.

TDG Podcast Fellowship

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Today we’re sharing a guest article co-authored by Dakota Hall, Executive Director of the Alliance for Youth Organizing, and Leela Strong, Newhouse Director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life.

Together, they explore the connection between the March on Washington and the resilience of a generation who has inherited what they deem as a weakened version of the Voting Rights Act.

- The Democracy Group

As the nation marks the anniversary of the historic 1963 March on Washington – coming just weeks after the 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act passed us by – a young voter stepping into the booth for the very first time this November was still learning to tie their shoes when the Supreme Court began unraveling the Voting Rights Act. They’ve never cast a ballot under the full protections the law once provided. Neither has anyone under 30. An entire generation has come of age in the gap between a promise made and a promise pared back.

That gap has widened twice in just over a decade. In 2013, Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the formula requiring federal oversight of jurisdictions with histories of discrimination, allowing them to quickly adopt restrictive voting laws and redraw district lines. This year, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais stripped away the law’s last major enforcement tool, leaving it with little practical force just as voting maps criticized as discriminatory are being drawn nationwide.

The generation inheriting the crumbs of the Voting Rights Act is a large, powerful voting bloc: nearly 49 million young people, ages 18 to 29, will be eligible to vote in 2026 — including nearly 8.5 million who have aged into the electorate since the last presidential election. Nearly half (47%) are young people of color, a population directly affected when district lines are redrawn without federal guardrails in place.

Anyone would forgive this generation for walking away from the unfulfilled promise of democracy they are experiencing. But the data says they aren’t. In fact, they are engaged and looking to participate and make a change.

CIRCLE’s Youth Electoral Significance Index (YESI) ranks the races where young people have the greatest potential to shape outcomes, and this year’s rankings look nothing like the last cycle’s. Six of the top ten Senate races in this year’s index were not ranked at all two years ago.

Consider Maine. The state rocketed from the bottom of the 2024 Senate rankings list to the top of the nation this year, propelled by 60% youth turnout in 2024. The Sun Belt broke through in the Senate rankings as well, with Georgia and North Carolina — both unranked two years ago — sitting at #5 and #7, respectively, fueled by their large, diverse youth populations poised to vote in races that are routinely decided by a few percentage points. Texas now appears in the same list at #10. Wisconsin claimed the top spot among governor’s races. And Michigan holds the #1 House district for the second straight cycle, along with the #2 spot for Senate and #4 for governor.

But the very traits that put a state at the top of the index — young, educated, fast-growing, closely contested electorates — are the same traits that put communities at risk when district lines are redrawn without the Voting Rights Act’s protections standing guard. The places where young people hold the most power to affect election results are, disproportionately, the places where that power is easiest to dilute on a map. This is not a coincidence.

Just as telling is who’s missing from this year’s list. The index has never been a prediction of turnout or results. Montana, which ranked #1 for Senate in 2024, no longer appears in this year’s top ten as the underlying conditions shifted. That’s a reminder that youth electoral significance isn’t fixed. It changes from cycle to cycle, state by state.

Despite these shifts, young people continue to show up. In a national survey CIRCLE conducted this year with When We All Vote, 56% of young people said they are extremely likely to vote in 2026. For a midterm year, that’s not a bare majority; it’s a battle cry. That number is on par with youth polling just before the last presidential election, and only 13% say they are unlikely to vote at all. One in three participates precisely because they dislike how politics works and want to change it. This illustrates a generation daring and hoping for democracy to meet it halfway.

However, wanting to show up and being able to are two different things. Nearly three in five young people struggle to meet basic financial needs, and that strain follows them to the ballot box. When civil rights leaders organized the 1963 March on Washington, it was explicitly framed as a demand for both “Jobs and Freedom,” a recognition that economic survival and civil rights are inseparable. 63 years later, young Americans are grappling with many of the same core frustrations, balancing the fight for systemic justice against the daily grind of making ends meet. The proof is in the numbers: 62% of financially stable young people intend to vote, compared to 53% of those struggling to get by. Worrying about rent doesn’t make politics any less important, but it makes participating that much harder.

And let’s be honest: organizing cannot pay anyone’s rent, either. But it can help young people understand the connection between their economic lives and their civic lives. Across the country, youth-led grassroots organizations like the Alliance for Youth Organizing’s Network are helping build spaces that meet young people inside their actual reality, not some abstract civics lesson. The first conversation is about rent, the tight job market, and the healthcare bill they can’t afford. The conversation about the ballot box comes later, once the trust is built. When we show up for each other first, showing up to vote naturally follows. That is the work the Alliance’s youth organizers do every day in many of the very states topping CIRCLE’s rankings.

The other half of the equation is demonstrated in the rankings themselves: laws that lower the cost of participating, like online, same-day, automatic registration, are a major reason Maine sits at the top. We cannot keep counting on and expecting a generation’s participation every two years without passing laws that support it. If the law meant to protect the vote has been demolished, the least we can do is stop making the vote harder to cast.

63 years ago, Americans marched on the National Mall for a principle that now sounds almost radical: that economic dignity and the electorate belong to everyone, not just to whoever holds power when the maps get drawn. The laws won in that era have been whittled down to a hollow shell. But the electorate those marchers fought for arrived anyway – 49 million strong, diverse, and defiantly willing to show up. Lines can be redrawn. Protections can be gutted. But you cannot gerrymander a generation out of a democracy that already belongs to them.

Subscribe now

Dakota Hall is a renowned national leader, organizer, and strategist with nearly a decade of experience in leading youth organizations and movements. With expertise in fundraising, organizational development, and campaign and organizing strategies, Dakota has made a significant impact on the landscape of youth civic engagement.

As the Executive Director of the Alliance for Youth Action and Alliance for Youth Organizing, Dakota oversees the largest grassroots youth organizing network in the United States. In this role, he provides strategic direction and support to a vast network of youth-led organizations across the country, empowering them to engage in effective advocacy, build power within their communities, and drive progressive change. His leadership fosters collaboration and innovation, ensuring that young organizers have the resources and guidance they need to succeed in their advocacy, base building, and civic engagement campaigns.

Leela Strong is the Newhouse Director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life, which researches youth civic participation and informs advocates, educators, and policymakers on voting trends, civic education, and the policies affecting young people. Previously, as Global Director of Nike’s Made to Play initiative, she led philanthropic strategy that reached 1.3 million children in more than 40 countries. She holds a BA from Lafayette College and an MPH from Boston University.

Would you like to collaborate?

We have an incredible group of creators at The Democracy Group who produce content about democracy, civic engagement, and civil discourse — including Substack!

Reach out to our Network Manager, Brandon Stover at bqs5748@psu.edu.

The New Books Network (NBN), a consortium of podcast channels dedicated to public education, goes back to the early days of podcasting. Its first show, “New Books in History,” started in 2007 when founder Marshall Poe wanted a way to let the public know about good books in the discipline. That show expanded into a network in 2010 after Poe’s colleagues in other disciplines asked him how they could start similar shows in their fields.

Today, the NBN has published more than 30,000 episodes across hundreds of podcasts spanning the humanities, social sciences, STEM, arts, and more. Episodes are hosted by volunteer scholars, students, journalists, and other experts in their respective fields. The network also partners with academic book publishers and scholars who want to start their own podcasts and publishes a newsletter that I hope you’ll subscribe to.

Episodes from Democracy Works and several shows in The Democracy Group have appeared on the NBN over the years and I hosted the network’s New Books in Journalism podcast from 2019-2022. I was pleased to reconnect with NBN CEO and Publisher Caleb Zakarin at HIgher Ed PodCon and followed up with a few questions about what they’re up to and the future of academic publishing and podcasting.

Podcasting and book publishing have changed a lot since the NBN was founded. How has the network evolved to keep up with these changing industries?

The network has grown astronomically since Marshall conducted the very first interview for New Books in History. Yet, the episode format has largely stayed the same. The goal has always been to unlock knowledge trapped in scholarly books. We still focus on showcasing important new research, but we’ve moved beyond history to nearly every subject under the sun. On any given day we publish around 10 episodes on everything from the history of tea and the politics of asymmetric warfare to Dragon Ball Z’s influence on global culture and the current state of research in quantum mechanics.

In recent years, podcasting has become more video forward. We’ve started posting clips on social media of some of the most interesting moments from our episodes. Producing video podcasts is more resource intensive than audio-only podcasts, so it’s been an interesting transition to navigate. Ultimately, we still find that many people like to listen to podcasts, especially when doing chores, buying groceries, cooking, or going to the gym. It’s great to offer both mediums, though, especially for younger generations.

The publishing industry is facing many challenges and opportunities, from AI to shifting consumption habits. We cover more than 3,000 books every year, and we see topics rise and fall in popularity. Every now and then we create new podcasts to capture these changes. For example, we recently launched New Books in Artificial Intelligence. We’ve also started producing podcasts about scholarly journals, as many disciplines are more article-driven than book-focused.

The biggest feedback we get is from professors who want to use our podcasts in the classroom but are constrained by our lack of transcripts. We’re currently in the process of getting all 30,000 episodes transcribed, so stay tuned!

What makes books and podcasts a good fit for one another?

I think podcasts are especially useful for academic monographs because they can be difficult to read and very expensive. People often speak differently than they write, and while an interview is certainly no substitute for actually reading the book, it can sometimes help clear up confusions generated while reading. Because books are not only expensive but very time-intensive, listening to an interview is much better than simply reading the blurbs or judging a book by its cover.

Most scholarly books take years to write, review, and edit. They are filled with citations and well-considered arguments. When you interview someone about a book, you can virtually guarantee that any answer they might give to a question is supported by evidence. Additionally, the guest is incentivized to be as interesting and compelling as possible because they have a book to sell!

NBN recently conducted an audience survey. What did you learn about who is listening to your shows?

Each month, around 200,000 people download between 900,000-1,000,000 episodes. The NBN audience is extremely, geographically diverse. We quite literally have listeners in every country except North Korea (though, who knows). People of all ages listen, though graduate students tend to consume the highest volume of episodes. About 30% of listeners are actively on college campuses, and more than 75% of listeners have at least one advanced degree. Our listeners also buy a ton of books, frequent both public and research libraries, and love listening to audiobooks.

What can someone who is not a scholar gain from reading an academic book (or listening to a podcast about one)?

Some academic books are extremely technical and dense, but many are extremely well-written and accessible even for niche topics. Most scholarly presses publish “trade” books meant for wider audiences. If you look at your bookshelf, you’ll probably recognize some Princeton UP, MIT Press, or Oxford UP logos. Academic books are often extremely well-researched and written to stand the test of time. Too many non-fiction books coming out today are outdated within a year. I’ll often read scholarly books published 50+ years ago, and I’ll be blown away by their continued relevance.

What’s next for the New Books Network?

More video, transcripts for every episode, new channels, and 70 new episodes every week. We keep listeners up-to-date via our Substack. It’s completely free and we only email you once a week. If you want to learn about all the best new books coming out of the scholarly world, subscribe!

Americans aren’t simply civically engaged or apathetic, and even the least civically engaged group isn’t completely disengaged, according to a recent Pew Research Center study.

The July 16 report sorted U.S. adults into four distinct groups based on their political activity, civic involvement, religious attendance and attention to the news:

• Mobilizers (9%)are the most active group. They volunteer, attend local government meetings, donate to political causes, follow the news closely and attend religious services at high rates.

• Connectors (28%) are involved in their communities in other ways. They vote, participate in groups, donate to nonpolitical causes at high rates and more, but are less likely to take political action.

• Spectators (31%) are less likely to participate in civic or political activities, but follow the news at rates similar to Mobilizers and Connectors.

• Outsiders (31%) participate at relatively low rates across the areas Pew measured, but are not entirely disengaged.

Only 1 in 10 American adults are highly engaged across multiple areas of public life, and following the news doesn’t necessarily translate into civic action, the study found. Mobilizers, the most active group, are much more likely to be college-educated and have higher incomes than the general public.

Connectors, who tend to be older and more likely to be white, resemble Mobilizers in some ways but are less likely to contact elected officials, volunteer for campaigns or display public support for political causes, Pew said. Eighty-four percent of Spectators — the youngest group by far — follow national news at least somewhat closely, but largely stay on the sidelines of other civic and political activities.

The study also found that though Outsiders are less engaged than Americans overall, 41% said they voted in 2024 and 24% said they attend religious services in person at least monthly. About 4 in 10 Outsiders said they follow national news at least somewhat closely.

Read the full study

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Making Peace Visible: Beyond Polarization: Rethinking journalism in an age of outrage

The second episode of the Beyond Polarization series features Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Tina Rosenberg and Deseret News editor-in-chief Sarah Jane Weaver for a discussion on solutions journalism ahead of the midterms. They dive into how the media can cover hot-button issues while not reinforcing polarizing narratives.

The Context: Who Gets to Be American?

“When there’s economic opportunity, we let immigrants in. When there’s economic contraction, we blame immigrants,” said guest Patricia Campos-Medina, a scholar of race and immigration, who joined the episode to discuss narratives surrounding immigrants. The conversation examines the American immigration system that has turned many against their peaceful immigrant neighbors and ways to enforce change in today’s political climate.

TPNR: Protest Is Boring. Dialogue Is the New Counterculture. || Manu Meel of Bridge USA & Liz Joyner of The Village Square

BridgeUSA is a student-led movement for constructive dialogue and against political division on college campuses across the country. Co-founder Manu Meel joined host Corey Nathan and The Village Square president Liz Joyner for a conversation on bridging divides, navigating conflicts and controversies on college campuses.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

David LaGrand on The Good Government Show: Good Ideas Win in Grand Rapids

David LaGrand is the mayor of Grand Rapids, Mich. He previously represented the 75th district in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2016 to 2023. LaGrand was a member of the Grand Rapids Public Schools board.

Garlin Gilchrist on An Honorable Profession: How to Protect Democracy and Build Credibility with Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist

Garlin Gilchrist is the lieutenant governor of Michigan. He is a software engineer by training and has tackled issues such as criminal and juvenile justice, health care and affordable housing. Gilchrist is running for Secretary of State.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

Need help addressing problems in your community? Common Ground Action Network might be able to help

The Common Ground Action Network is offering five $1,500 micro-grants to fund local actions and support everyday individuals to manage conflicts. The program is for anyone tired of our differences stalling our ability to make things happen and willing to give time and energy to building more resilient communities.

The fall cohort will also meet for seven online sessions between September and December. Applications are due Aug. 28.

Learn more

Check out TDG’s free podcast library for political science courses

With the fall semester just around the corner, we have a fantastic collection of podcast episodes from across our network ready for political science curriculum. Whether you're a professor, educator or course creator, this curated collection of podcast episodes helps bring real-world political analysis into your classroom without adding prep work.

Check it out

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The Democracy Group is growing! We’re excited to welcome our newest member, Making Peace Visible, a show featuring conversations with journalists and peacebuilders to better understand conflicts and peace efforts at home and around the world.

We caught up with producer Andrea Muraskin about their mission, the role of the news media on US polarization and a brand new series, “Beyond Polarization.”

What’s the idea behind Making Peace Visible?

Andrea: The motivation behind Making Peace Visible is the reality that there are people working on peace around the world and bridge-building efforts here in the U.S., but these efforts are largely invisible because they don’t get a lot of press for various reasons.

Journalists, not always by their own choice, often miss stories of peace or cover war in ways that overlook the stories of civilians. At the same time, peacebuilders can have a hard time getting their message across to the media as they are understandably cautious about talking to the press. Making Peace Visible is trying to connect these two worlds, because if people hear more stories about peace, then hopefully they realize that peace is possible and war is not inevitable.

What does the Beyond Polarization series want to address?

Andrea: We continue to live in an environment of political gridlock where, even if your party wins, the margins are usually tight. Then, you get a Congress where not much gets done and candidates often play to the base. The more extreme candidate is often the one who wins the primaries. One serious problem is that according to a number of surveys, everyday Americans feel increasingly negative towards people on the other political side.

In a very divided nation, even someone who wins in a democratic system will have to work with the other side to make meaningful changes. One thing I’ve also heard repeatedly is that once you lose peace or democracy, it’s very hard to get back. These problems are very sticky and the situation can seem overwhelming. That’s why we decided to break it down into sectors. In each episode we speak to people who are working across the divide to solve problems. For instance, we have episodes on journalism, higher education and civil society.

What’s an example of journalism that reduces polarization instead of amplifying it?

Andrea: Generally local news. Local issues, like repaving roads and how much we should spend on it, aren’t inherently Democratic or Republican. There can be a lot of unity over the local college or high school sports team or other shared interests relevant to communities.

With the collapse of local news, you get national news filling the void, which can be more polarizing on its face and less personal. In smaller communities where you might meet somebody you see on the news face to face, you’re probably going to want to have a certain level of civility. Of course, there are also very polarizing local news outlets, but in surveys that show diminishing trust in the news, local news always remains the most trusted.

Making Peace Visible is hosted by Jamil Simon. Read our conversation here.

Listen to Making Peace Visible

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

TPNR: The Only Industry the Constitution Protects || Hugo Balta, The Fulcrum

Veteran journalist Hugo Balta, who spent decades at top American newsrooms, joined the episode to discuss how journalists are supposed to deliver factual reports and leave out their biases. He also explained why he left the mainstream media for independent journalism and why free press remains the only industry protected by the Constitution.

New Faces of Democracy: Preparing High School Girls to Save Democracy at DemocraShe

While it typically takes seven to nine conversations to get a woman to consider running for office, it only takes a man one. DemocraShe is trying to change that. The program empowers underserved high school girls, equips them with public policy skills and helps young women picture themselves as future leaders. DemocraShe founder Sarah Jakle tells us how on the episode.

Future Hindsight: Occupy! They Walk Among Us

The fourth episode in the “Occupy!” series, this conversation takes listeners inside the movement at a point when pressure has started mounting from every direction and rumors of sabotage began circulating. It was also confirmed that police have infiltrated Zuccotti Park. Where will the movement go from here as the most committed activists are starting to get worn out? Give this a listen.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Yuval Levin on How Do We Fix It?: #453. Hope Resilience and Citizenship. Yuval Levin

Yuval Levin is a political analyst, conservative political thinker and theorist. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of National Affairs and director of the Social, Cultural and Constitutional Studies at the think tank American Enterprise Institute.

Brad Carson on The Politics Guys: Who Controls AI—and Who Pays When It Goes Wrong?

Brad Carson is a lawyer and politician who served as the 21st president of the University of Tulsa. He served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is the co-founder and president of Americans for Responsible Innovation.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

TPNR’s Corey Nathan on ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ for The Dispatch

TPNR host Corey Nathan penned a personal essay exploring the Trump Derangement Syndrome and how supporters have willingly overlooked behaviors they would typically condemn, drawing from his religious and political experiences.

Read it on The Dispatch

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The Democracy Group is growing! We’re excited to welcome our first podcaster/content creator, Lindsey Cormack — a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, director of DCinbox, author of “How to Raise a Citizen (And Why it’s Up to You to Do It) and host of “Government That Doesn’t Suck” and “Civic Parenting”

We caught up with Lindsey about civic education, common misconceptions about government and what to expect from the podcast.

Why do so many Americans feel disconnected from government and politics?

Lindsey: For many students in America from the 1950s onwards, there hasn’t been a robust focus on civics education or knowledge and know-how around government and politics in most K-12 school environments. Most American students usually get one social studies class in middle school and one social studies/government class in high school, and that’s it. The idea that we would be able to understand our government if we get two shots of this in middle school and high school is not reasonable. I don’t blame anyone for not feeling connected to something that they don’t really understand in the first place.

What’s a misconception about government or politics that you’ve noticed?

Lindsey: Oftentimes, people will have a complaint about government, and they’ll see themselves as passengers on this moving ship of democracy or ship of the republic, saying “I don’t really like where we’re going.” When in reality, we are the crew, we get to direct where our politics go. If we wanted to do something different, we have to link arms with others and say “Let’s go in this direction.”

It’s seeing yourself as an agent of this country, not just something that’s acted upon. This is our country. It is mine just as much as it is yours.

What do you want listeners to walk away with after each episode of Government That Doesn’t Suck?

Lindsey: We want listeners to walk away with the idea that there’s a little piece of government that works and maybe something else could work in the future. It’s not cheerleading for the U.S. government because it often gets things wrong, but it’s to say that when we get things right, a lot of us don’t know that.

For instance, when NASA decided that they’re going to go to the moon with the Apollo mission, we didn’t even have pocket calculators or rolling suitcases at the time. And we thought that it was possible to put a man on the moon, and that’s incredible. It’s incredible to think that we could dream this big and then go achieve it. We hope people are going to walk away with the idea that, “I guess we have done this good in the past. I think we could do this well in the future.”

Government That Doesn’t Suck releases new episodes every other Monday.

Listen to the trailer

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Outrage Overload x The Politics Guys: Deconstructing Polarization

We love a network crossover episode! Hosts David Beckemeyer and Mike Baranowski sat down for a conversation that moved past partisan finger-pointing. The conversation examines deep misconceptions we hold about the “other side” and the role we play as media consumers in the information ecosystem.

The Great Battlefield: Running for Congress in Maryland after getting DOGEd with Alexis Goldstein

Alexis Goldstein previously worked on Wall Street and at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until she was fired by DOGE. She’s now running for Congress in Maryland. It’s a story about a former federal employee fighting back. Give this conversation a listen!

The Good Government Show: Mayor of Bankrupt City

How does the leader of the only bankrupt city in America manages the city with no money? More importantly, how did the city end up here?

Mayor Stefan Roots of Chester, Pa., chalked it up to years of horrible mismanagement among other fiscal problems. Hear where the previous administration went wrong, how far the city has come under Roots’ leadership and what good government looks like in this city just outside of Philly.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Claudine Schneider on Let’s Find Common Ground: Climate Forward 2026: “Is There A Republican Way Forward?”

Claudine Schneider is the first and only woman elected to Congress from Rhode Island. She previously served five terms as a Republican U.S. representative from 1981 to 1991. Schneider is the founder of Republicans for Integrity.

Hugo Balta on TPNR: The Only Industry the Constitution Protects

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and publisher of the Latino News Network. He has spent three decades in the newsroom at NBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, CBS, ABC and ESPN, before leaving mainstream media for independent journalism. Balta teaches journalism courses at Columbia College Chicago.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

A summer reading list from Harvard’s Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation

Two hundred and fifty years of democracy explored through this list, with books on civic culture, political economy, changes and technology and more. See literary works detailing what has shaped American past and present, and what democracy leaders and historians say will dictate the country’s future trajectory. (Hint: It’s AI)

Allen Lab's summer reading list

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

We are living through one of the most chaotic information environments in human history. Every day, millions of people scroll through headlines, viral videos, political commentary, memes, podcasts, and breaking news — all competing for our attention, emotions, and beliefs. In that flood of information, it has become increasingly difficult to separate what is true from what is manipulative, misleading, or entirely fabricated.

Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is shared without malicious intent. Someone may genuinely believe what they are posting is true before passing it along to others.

Disinformation, on the other hand, is false information spread deliberately to deceive, manipulate, gain power, influence political outcomes, generate outrage, or profit financially.

While the two are different in intent, both can distort public understanding and erode trust in institutions, media, elections, science, and even each other.

The challenge is not just that false information exists. Lies, propaganda, and conspiracy theories have always existed. What has changed is the speed, scale, and sophistication with which information now spreads. Social media algorithms can guide users toward increasingly extreme content. Generative AI can create convincing fake audio, video, and articles. Political actors, influencers, niche online communities, and even entertainment platforms can all shape public perception in ways that blur the line between fact and opinion.

Yet many experts argue the deeper problem is not technology alone. It is the gradual breakdown of shared trust, civic bonds, media literacy, and our collective ability to agree on what is real in the first place.

In this article, experts from across politics, journalism, cybersecurity, technology, academia, and democracy advocacy explain how misinformation and disinformation spread, why people believe it, how social media and AI amplify it, and what individuals and institutions can do to fight back. The insights and quotes throughout this article come from podcast interviews with researchers, authors, political leaders, technologists, and media experts who study the modern information ecosystem firsthand.

Understanding misinformation is no longer optional. In a world where information itself can be weaponized, learning how to critically evaluate what we consume may be one of the most important civic skills of the modern era.

Related: If you teach political science, our free syllabus guide curates the best democracy podcasts on topics just like this—ready to assign.

What Is Misinformation?

First, let’s get a clear picture of what misinformation is and how it differs from related phenomena such as disinformation, propaganda, and fake news. Pauline Hoffman, also known as the Data Doyenne, is an esteemed infodemiologist and the author of Fake News, Witch Hunts, and Conspiracy Theories: An Infodemiologist’s Guide to the Truth. She explains the difference between misinformation and disinformation.

Pauline Hoffman:

“It could essentially be the same piece of information, but the difference is the intent.

Disinformation is when someone creates a piece of information for some kind of gain — political gain, power, money, or economic advantage.

Misinformation is when you might see that piece of information and think it’s true, so you share it with your followers or with somebody else. You are not doing it for any malicious reason. You’re simply sharing it because you saw it from a trusted source and believed it to be true.”

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Understanding the Infodemic: Pauline Hoffmann

American author, journalist, and activist Jonathan Rauch further describes disinformation as a form of information warfare.

Jonathan Rauch:

“Disinformation, or propaganda, or what’s often called information warfare — or what I call epistemic warfare — is about manipulating the social, media, and information environment for political advantage.

What you’re trying to do is divide, disorient, confuse, deceive, and ultimately demoralize your target population.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

Tactics of Misinformation & Disinformation

Now let’s look at some of the tactics used to create misinformation and disinformation — or to make the information environment so untrustworthy that falsehoods become more prominent than relevant, factual information.

Firehose of Falsehood

Jonathan Rauch describes a phenomenon known as the “firehose of falsehood,” a strategy that floods the information landscape with misleading or false claims, making it difficult for people to identify reputable sources.

Jonathan Rauch:

“How to adapt Russian-style mass disinformation techniques, like the so-called firehose of falsehood, and apply them to U.S. politics.

What’s the firehose of falsehood? That’s where you put out so many lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and conspiracy theories through so many channels simultaneously that people can’t keep up.

The media goes nuts trying to knock these things down, but two come, then three come, then a dozen more. Every time you knock one down, the claims are repeated again and again, so they soak into people’s heads.

The public becomes confused and disoriented. They no longer know who or what to believe because they’re constantly being hit with so many of these things all the time.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

Suppressing Information

Once the information environment becomes overwhelmed with false claims, additional efforts are often made to suppress factual information.

Bruce Schneier, a security technologist and New York Times bestselling author of Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship, explains how the same technology that could support an information-rich democracy can also be used to create an information-scarce autocracy.

Bruce Schneier:

“In theory, democracy works best when individuals know what’s going on, have access to accurate information, and are able to express their preferences within the group.

Authoritarianism works better when people do not know what’s going on. Giving people accurate information is harmful for autocracy because it lets people see where the system is failing, who is benefiting, who is not, who disagrees, and where the protests are.

An authoritarian regime wants to suppress accurate information about society, the government, the economy, and the things happening around people.

So the same technology that could be used in a democracy to move information around becomes a system used to suppress information.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Works: How AI is changing democracy

Mia Hoffman explains that some groups are particularly vulnerable to disinformation, especially around voting narratives and elections.

Mia Hoffman:

“Immigrant communities, in particular, are at a higher risk of harm because their languages and perspectives are not necessarily represented in mainstream media.

These communities often retreat to more niche platforms for news consumption. There is an information vacuum in their native languages around how election processes work, what changes in voting policy mean, or even the most common disinformation narratives.

There is also a lack of campaign outreach in their native languages. That vacuum creates room for malicious actors to inject disinformation through phony news sources or media pages that target these communities in their native languages.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Navigating Election Facts in the AI Era

Rachel Maron, author of This Woman Votes, explains why suppressing trust in information is such an effective tactic.

Rachel Maron:

“I think understanding reputable sources — that’s what this all comes down to. It comes down to the erosion of authority. How do we know what’s true? How do you know anything?

Once you start attacking the very idea of knowing, you erode everything.

You don’t have to tell lies. You don’t have to tell the truth. You simply create an environment where nobody knows what the hell is going on or who to believe.

And in that environment, when everyone is questioning everything, you can commit almost any atrocity you want because there aren’t enough people willing or able to stop you.”

Listen to the full episode on Freedom Over Fascism: Fighting the Epistemic War Against the MAGA Murder Regime with Rachel Maron

Generative AI

Of course, one of the tactics drawing the most concern today is the use of AI-generated content, which has become increasingly easy to create and increasingly believable.

Simone Leeper, host of Democracy Decoded and Senior Legal Counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, explains that misinformation and disinformation have become more convincing and persuasive with the rise of generative AI.

Meanwhile, Bruce Schneier and his co-author Nathan E. Sanders argue that AI itself is simply a tool — one that can either suppress democracy or strengthen it, depending on the intentions of the people using it.

Simone Leeper:

“Misinformation and disinformation are not exactly new threats to American democracy. For most of our history, however, for a piece of false information to spread widely, it had to fool people in the traditional news media into printing or broadcasting it.

Today, bad actors do not need to trick professional journalists. They simply need falsehoods to spread through the digital equivalent of word of mouth.

The newest tool bad actors can use is generative AI. It allows creators to make false audio, like the Biden robocall. They can create convincing images showing things that never happened, or even entire fake news articles in multiple languages.

AI changes the stakes for misinformation and disinformation. The content it creates is not simply false — it becomes false evidence supporting a falsehood.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Navigating Election Facts in the AI Era

Bruce Schneier:

“AI is a tool, but AI also has affordances. By making something easier, cheaper, or faster, it changes what is possible. We see that with propaganda.

Propaganda is not new. Disinformation is not new. Fake news is not new. What AI does is make it easier for ordinary people to produce convincing fake audio, video, and images.

We recently saw that with the invasion narratives around Venezuela, where fake images spread across the internet within hours.

AI will change things because of that dynamic. We are also living in a decade where democracy is declining in many parts of the world, and AI may exacerbate that decline. But AI also has the potential to supercharge pro-democracy movements, organizations, and governments.

So we are watching democracy and how it uses AI just as much — if not more — than the technology itself.”

Nathan E. Sanders:

“AI is a power-amplifying technology. It can turn speech or thought into action in a way that is both unique and more scalable than previous technologies.

We analyze AI as a technology that amplifies the power of whoever is using it, regardless of their purpose.

In a democratic context, if you want to use AI to improve the efficiency of benefits administration, it can do that. If you want to use it to enforce the agenda of a single authoritarian leader, it can do that as well.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Works: How AI is changing democracy

Why It Happens

Why does misinformation happen in the first place? According to Jonathan Rauch, agreeing on what is true is one of the most difficult challenges any social group faces.

Jonathan Rauch:

“The hardest thing for any social group — whether it’s a small tribe or a large society — is agreeing on a common account of truth: how we arrive at truth and who has authority over truth.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

Ulterior Motives

Mia Hoffman explains that misinformation and disinformation related to elections and politics are generally used to achieve three broad goals.

Mia Hoffman:

“The first is to sway voter opinions — to change how people feel about different candidates.

The second is voter suppression: discouraging people from going to the polls in the first place.

The third is seeding mistrust in electoral processes and democratic governance as a whole.

Many of the narratives from the previous election — manipulated voting machines or fraudulent mail-in voting, for example — helped create mistrust in electoral systems. That has really been the target over the past several years.

The internet, and social media in particular, have become the primary environments where misinformation and disinformation are shared and consumed. This includes platforms like Facebook and TikTok, but also more niche platforms we may not immediately think about, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and WeChat.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Navigating Election Facts in the AI Era

Are People Stupid?

It can be tempting to assume that people who believe false information are simply unintelligent or naive. But as Pauline Hoffman explains, anyone can fall prey to misinformation, and a lack of empathy only makes it harder to understand why these narratives spread so easily.

Pauline Hoffman:

“I still sometimes find myself speaking with people and thinking, ‘Maybe you’re just stupid.’ But the reality is that just because you don’t know what I know does not make you dumb.

I do not know what you know either, and that does not make me stupid.

I think we really need to understand why people believe what they believe — what their frame of reference is and what their background is — if we truly want to understand them.

That does not mean we have to agree with them. But if we want to communicate effectively and explain what is true, we first have to understand where people are coming from…

What I find troubling, particularly with conspiracy theories today, is that some people are living in a very different reality. Their definition of what is real is not the same as ours.

It becomes incredibly difficult to communicate when the world they have created — or are living in — does not match the same shared reality.

I do not mean they literally think the sky is green. But when people begin believing there are secret groups trying to undermine democracy or control the weather so hurricanes hit certain cities — things that are, of course, not true — they are often trying to explain events that do not have easy explanations.

Those narratives may feel logical to them. Of course, they are not logical, but to some people they can seem completely accurate.”

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Understanding the Infodemic: Pauline Hoffmann

Bad Information Ecosystem

Michael Rich, President and CEO of the RAND Corporation, explains three ways our information ecosystem has deteriorated, allowing misinformation and disinformation to flourish.

Michael Rich:

“The problem is much more insidious. That goes back to why I think about ‘truth decay’ and why I prefer that term over phrases like ‘post-fact era’ or ‘post-truth era.’

The first trend is the erosion of any distinction between fact and opinion — the blurring of that line, whether or not there is an intentional lie involved.

The second, which Sasha implied, is the explosion in the quantity of opinion relative to fact.

The third trend is the diminishing trust the public has in institutions that were once regarded as authorities on factual accuracy, scientific knowledge, and similar issues.

All three of those trends contribute to a fourth trend: increasing disagreement about objective facts, scientific consensus, and analytical interpretations of data.

Intentional lies are an important and difficult challenge, especially as technology makes it easier to fabricate audio, video, and so-called facts. But the problem is larger than that.

It also involves the unintentional spread of misleading information and people’s inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. Both have value, and both are forms of information, but they are not the same thing. They need to remain separate.

A variety of factors are making that separation more difficult, including changes in the information landscape itself.”

Listen to the full episode on Let’s Find Common Ground: Truth Decay

Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, further explains how the people and platforms shaping public information have changed over time — for better or worse.

Angelo Carusone:

“The way we do our work really starts with monitoring, and there are multiple ways to monitor information environments. The important question is: what are you monitoring in real time?

For most of Media Matters’ history, that was actually an easy question to answer. Who mattered — and when they mattered — was very static and stable. You always listened to Rush Limbaugh. You always listened to Glenn Beck. You always watched Fox News and a few other influential voices because their roles rarely changed.

What is different now is that everything is much more dynamic. The question of who matters and when they matter is no longer stable.

There are moments when Steve Bannon’s show gives you the cutting edge of what the right-wing narrative will become over the next day, week, or longer. Then there are periods where he is simply repeating ideas and not driving anything new.

The universe of what is considered politically relevant has also changed dramatically. Fifteen years ago, we would not have monitored comedy programs because they were not shaping political narratives. They were simply part of the broader conversation.

Today, however, we find ourselves monitoring podcasts centered on comedy because they can become deeply influential in politics during certain moments. They help shape the stories and narratives that many Americans ultimately walk away believing.”

Listen to the full episode on The Context: Maybe Don’t Get All Your News from Podcasts, America

Social Media

The next culprit people often point to is social media algorithms. Angelo Carusone explains how recommendation algorithms can gradually guide users toward increasingly extreme or potentially false information through associated content.

At the same time, Jonathan Rauch argues that social media itself is not the largest source of misinformation and disinformation. Rather, politicians are often the primary drivers, while social media acts as an amplification engine.

Angelo Carusone:

“We ran a study asking, ‘If someone watches a Joe Rogan clip on TikTok, what happens next?’ We conducted similar analyses using several of the top online programs.

What we found was fascinating. If you engage with one of those clips even a single time, TikTok’s algorithm assumes you may be interested in a much broader range of extreme content.

It immediately begins serving you a buffet of wild ideas: conspiracy theories, apocalyptic fearmongering, medical misinformation, Christian nationalism, trad-wife content, misogynistic content, and more.

It happens consistently. One engagement with one of these shows can trigger it.

Not all of your feed becomes that content. Much of it remains the normal recommendations based on your interests. But the algorithm starts layering these ideas in.

Then, if you engage with one of those fear-based or conspiratorial videos, the system gives you more and more of it. That is how people get pulled down rabbit holes.

That’s what makes these recommendation systems so significant. Joe Rogan did not necessarily do anything wrong in the clips themselves, nor did many of the other creators. The algorithm is what says, ‘We have a way to identify people who may become interested in extremist ideas, and we know how to guide them there.’

Many people will never become interested in hard misogyny, conspiracy theories, or fearmongering. But if you repeatedly serve people a buffet of increasingly extreme content, eventually something is going to resonate with someone. Once that happens, they get sorted into a narrower category and are pushed further and further down that feed.”

Listen to the full episode on The Context: Maybe Don’t Get All Your News from Podcasts, America

Jonathan Rauch:

“An important point I learned from people like Bill Adair, the founder of PolitiFact, is that social media is not the number one spreader of fake news and disinformation. It’s not even number two.

Number two is cable news. Number one — by a wide margin — is politicians. Politicians are the oldest form of social amplification that exists.

If a major politician says something, the media has to cover it. That is still the primary mechanism through which figures like Donald Trump spread information and narratives.

So we cannot assume Facebook is going to solve this problem for us. It will not, and it cannot.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

What We Can Do

So what can we do about misinformation and disinformation? Fortunately, many experts believe there is a great deal that can be done — from large-scale institutional reforms to small individual actions.

Jonathan Rauch outlines three broad approaches for pushing back against misinformation and disinformation.

Jonathan Rauch:

“The good news is that we are just beginning to fight back, and there is a lot that can be done.

You are never going to eliminate disinformation or social manipulation entirely, either in principle or in practice. But there are three dimensions where meaningful action can happen.

The first is institutions. This is where the work of people like Aaron comes in. Throughout history, including after the invention of the printing press, societies responded to information crises by creating buffers, guardrails, and incentives through institutions. These structures helped people become more resilient and better at navigating new media environments.

One example is Facebook’s Oversight Board. Another is the International Fact-Checking Network, where PolitiFact has been a leader. There are many others.

The second dimension is the individual level. Most of us belong to institutions that are truth-seeking, truth-based, or at least truth-friendly. There is always something we can do in our own environments.

We can be what I call ‘reality allies’ by speaking up and telling the truth, even when others are heading down some conspiracy rabbit hole.

Do not repost nonsense just because it is amusing and likely to go viral. If you see a cancel campaign targeting someone, do not join it. In many cases, those campaigns can be stopped quickly if enough people push back.

If you are an employer, do not automatically fire someone who is being publicly targeted.

We can also become smarter about how we consume media. Some of that is already happening.

The third dimension is civic institutions, which is especially relevant to organizations like Village Square. Propaganda and polarization go hand in hand. Every time we rebuild civic bonds, strengthen relationships, and increase trust between people, we reduce the ability of bad actors — whether Vladimir Putin or anyone else — to weaponize our social vulnerabilities against us.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

Fact Check Before Sharing

On an individual level, one of the simplest things we can do is pause before sharing information online.

Jason Reifler reminds us that there are many quick and accessible ways to verify information before spreading it.

Jason Reifler:

“One of the simplest things you can do is ask yourself whether the claim even seems believable. If you are unsure, Google it and fact-check it. If something seems unlikely to be true, there is a good chance it is not.

Use fact-checking organizations. Use PolitiFact. Use the Washington Post Fact Checker. Use FactCheck.org. Use Snopes.”

Listen to the full episode on The Politics Guys: What We’ve Learned About Fake News

Pauline Hoffman stresses that each of us has a personal responsibility to avoid contributing to the spread of false information.

Pauline Hoffman:

“Care before you share. Do not automatically repost things online.

I am guilty of knee-jerk reactions too. Sometimes I see something sensational and immediately want to share it, but I really try to stop myself from doing that.

Please do not share something simply because it is funny or entertaining, especially satire. Other people may believe it is real.

We have to be careful about what we spread online and do our best not to contribute to the infodemic. Fact-check information whenever possible.”

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Understanding the Infodemic: Pauline Hoffmann

Katie Harbath, an award-winning leader at the intersection of technology, policy, and elections and former Public Policy Director at Facebook, explains that social media platforms can also be designed to encourage more thoughtful behavior.

Katie Harbath:

“Research shows that directly telling people they are wrong can sometimes make them dig their heels in even further.

But there are other kinds of nudges that platforms can use. Community Notes is one example that many companies have been experimenting with.

Before someone shares content that fact-checkers have marked as false, platforms could display a pop-up saying, ‘Before you share this, please know this claim has been marked false, and here is more information.’

Or a platform might add context to an image, such as: ‘This photo is actually from five years ago, not today.’

There are many design approaches platforms can use to better educate people about what they are sharing and consuming online.

Part of the challenge is that there is no universal agreement about what kinds of speech should or should not be allowed.”

Listen to the full episode on Talkin‘ Politics & Religion Without Killin‘ Each Other: The Election Whisperer: Katie Harbath on Ten Years Inside Facebook and Panicking Responsibly

Consider the Source

Simone Leeper encourages people to strengthen their information literacy by carefully considering the source of the information they consume. Meanwhile, Samuel C. Spitale offers a simple but powerful question we can ask ourselves to evaluate the intentions behind a message.

Simone Leeper:

“So what can you do to become part of the solution to misinformation and disinformation? For starters, consider the source.

Where did the information come from, and is that source credible? If it is an article from an unfamiliar outlet, investigate the author. Are they a real person?

Consult trusted media organizations and look for other credible sources supporting the same story to determine whether it is accurate.

Taking a moment to double-check information before sharing it can go a long way toward combating misinformation. Encouraging your friends and family to do the same can help as well.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Navigating Election Facts in the AI Era

Samuel C. Spitale:

“One of the strongest questions you can ask about any media message is: ‘Who benefits from me believing this?’

Whether it is a political campaign ad or some other kind of media, that question often reveals when someone is trying to sell you something you may not need.

Another important thing to examine is emotion. If a message is built around strong negative emotions, there is a good chance someone is trying to manipulate you.

For example, on social media you often see stories highlighting crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. Those stories are usually wildly disproportionate to the actual data, since immigrants generally commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Most immigrants do not want to risk deportation.

But those headlines are often designed to trigger anti-immigrant sentiment, fear, outrage, or racism. They are also frequently used to discredit political opponents or government administrations.

When you stop and think about it statistically, one immigrant committing a crime does not represent all immigrants, especially when thousands of crimes committed by citizens on the same day receive no similar attention.

So who benefits from those headlines?

We need to pay attention to the language being used and the emotional response a message is trying to create. Fear, outrage, and hate can short-circuit critical thinking and make us more reactive.

The more emotionally charged we become, the less likely we are to stop, think critically, and evaluate the information carefully.”

Listen to the full episode on Outrage Overload: How to Combat the Misinformation Crisis

Educate Yourself

Pauline Hoffman believes that stronger education and literacy are essential if people are going to accurately assess the information they encounter.

Pauline Hoffman:

“I think the more educated we are, the better off we are going to be.

We have so many literacy problems in this country. We suffer from a lack of media literacy, health literacy, science literacy, political literacy, civic literacy — really, every kind of literacy you can imagine.

The only way to combat that is through education.”

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Understanding the Infodemic: Pauline Hoffmann

Katie Harbath explains that organizations can help by proactively providing accurate information before misinformation has the chance to spread widely.

Katie Harbath:

“Beginning around the 2022 midterms, many organizations started working with election officials on something called ‘prebunking.’

The idea is to give people accurate information before misinformation reaches them. That includes explaining how voting works, what different voting methods mean, and how people can vote safely and confidently.

For example, if someone does not want to vote in person, organizations can explain absentee ballots, mail-in voting, and other available options ahead of time.

The goal is to help people understand the process in advance so they already have accurate information if they later encounter misinformation or disinformation online.”

Listen to the full episode on Talkin‘ Politics & Religion Without Killin‘ Each Other: The Election Whisperer: Katie Harbath on Ten Years Inside Facebook and Panicking Responsibly

Consider Your Messaging

Denver Riggleman, former Congressman from Virginia, explains that politicians and public figures also have a responsibility to communicate carefully and remain committed to factual information, even in a chaotic media environment.

Denver Riggleman:

“Some candidates say to just ignore misinformation entirely. But we are operating in a new information warfare environment and a new kind of information battle space.

What I would tell candidates is that when something is especially outrageous, responding with humor and facts in a non-threatening way is often the best approach.

But you also have to choose your media outlets carefully because so many platforms are built around clickbait. Even if you give a thoughtful interview, headlines can still be manipulated just to generate clicks.

You have to be extremely careful about how you present yourself and how you communicate your message. You need a strong team that understands the media environment and can help provide proper context.

But even with all of that, you cannot abandon your responsibility to tell the truth, even when it is politically painful.”

Listen to the full episode on The Great Battlefield: Fighting Back Against Misinformation with Former Congressman Denver Riggleman

Diversify Your Media Diet

Both Jonathan Rauch and Katie Harbath remind us that we still have agency over the information we consume. One of the healthiest habits we can develop is intentionally seeking out a variety of perspectives — including viewpoints we may disagree with.

Jonathan Rauch:

“Try to avoid getting trapped inside a media bubble where you are only consuming right-wing or left-wing viewpoints.

If you are liberal, read the Wall Street Journal. If you are conservative, read the New York Times.

The goal is not necessarily to agree with the other side, but to understand the contours of their arguments and expose yourself to some degree of disconfirming information.

That is difficult to do. Studies show that many people would rather go to the dentist than encounter political opinions they disagree with.

But trying to understand opposing viewpoints will ultimately make you intellectually healthier.”

Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: A Defense of Truth with Jonathan Rauch

Katie Harbath:

“I would really encourage people to remember that they still have agency when it comes to the internet and the information ecosystem.

Personally, I try to conduct a kind of annual ‘news audit’ for myself where I ask: Am I actually reading the sources I want to be reading? Am I exposing myself to viewpoints from across the political spectrum, both within the United States and internationally?

For me, that mostly involves technology and politics, but I think it is valuable for everyone to pause occasionally and ask themselves whether their actual media habits align with the kind of information environment they want to participate in.

We do have control over where we spend our time and attention online.”

Listen to the full episode on Talkin‘ Politics & Religion Without Killin‘ Each Other: The Election Whisperer: Katie Harbath on Ten Years Inside Facebook and Panicking Responsibly

Don’t Feed the Trolls. Feed the Truth.

Misinformation and disinformation do not spread on their own. They spread because human beings share them, repeat them, emotionally react to them, and build systems that reward outrage more than accuracy. In many ways, the modern information war is not simply a battle over facts — it is a battle over attention.

The uncomfortable reality is that none of us are completely immune.

Intelligent people fall for false narratives. Educated people share misleading headlines. Good people repeat information that later turns out to be wrong. The issue is not whether you are “smart enough” to avoid misinformation forever. The issue is whether you are willing to slow down, think critically, and take responsibility for the role you play in the information ecosystem.

Every time you share an article without reading it, repost a sensational headline because it confirms your worldview, or spread a claim without verifying it, you become part of the problem — even if your intentions are good. But the opposite is also true. Every time you fact-check a claim, pause before reacting emotionally, seek out multiple perspectives, or respectfully push back against false information, you strengthen the culture of truth.

That responsibility does not belong only to journalists, politicians, tech companies, or fact-checkers. It belongs to all of us.

The experts throughout this article repeatedly pointed toward the same solution: stronger civic trust, better media literacy, healthier institutions, more thoughtful communication, and individuals willing to act with intellectual humility instead of tribal outrage.

So before you share that viral clip, repost that headline, or forward that “shocking” story to your friends, stop and ask yourself:

• Is this true?

• Who benefits if I believe this?

• Am I reacting emotionally or thinking critically?

• Have I verified the source?

• Am I helping inform people — or simply amplifying noise?

The future of democracy, public trust, and our shared understanding of reality may depend on how enough ordinary people answer those questions every single day.

Fifteen years ago, thousands of activists camped out in New York City’s Zuccotti Park for nearly two months to protest corporate greed and economic inequality. The Occupy Wall Street movement went on to reshape the national conversation about capitalism, popularize the phrase “the 99%” and inspire a generation of activists.

This summer, revisits the movement with its new series “Occupy! An Unfinished Uprising,” featuring conversations with activists took part in the encampment in 2011. Host Mila Atmos joined The Democracy Group to discuss the legacy of Occupy, why the movement still matters today and the power of collective action.

As the movement approaches its 15th anniversary this September, why did you want to revisit this conversation now?

Mila: Democracy has clearly been limping for at least the past 10 years since Trump first came into office. It’s become more obvious that we need a real movement — a real social, political, economic movement — that includes people from all walks of life, not just the working class.

To me, this series is more like a documentary than an attempt to tell the real story of Occupy. Since I come from Future Hindsight’s civic action lens, this is an excellent example of the things that worked, the things that we can use in this moment to build community and institutions in a new way because a lot of our institutions have been destroyed in the last 10 years because of Trump.

What part of Occupy remains unfinished 15 years later?

Mila: What remains unfinished is that — it’s clear then, and it’s even more clear today — that what we need is systemic change. I don’t know how we’re going to get there. Part of me feels like it’s through electoral politics and incrementalism from within the system, but I don’t know if that’s going to be enough.

What’s unfinished is this vision of a world that’s more just for everyone, and that includes economic justice. Occupy shifted the Overton window on talking about capitalism, and the big win is that people understood in a more common way across the board that when people have a lot of debt, it’s not a personal moral failure.

Seeing the successes and failures of Occupy, do you think collective action is still an effective strategy for creating change?

Mila: I think collective action is the only way. What Occupy has shown us is that collective action, even if it doesn’t change the system in the moment, it can change the conversation and it can change the way we think about the issue.

What I’d like people to take away from the series, which is what I always like people to take away when they listen to Future Hindsight, is that we are neither powerless nor hopeless. This small group of anarchists showed us what it looks like when you practice mutual aid. I want people to see that all is not lost. There is room for everybody to take civic action and participate, and every little bit matters. This may be a long game and the change we desire might not come immediately, but it’s all worth doing.

Occupy! An Unfinished Uprising will be released weekly on Wednesday beginning July 9.

Listen to the trailer

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

TPNR: Layla Zaidane, Future Caucus on Why Good Lawmakers Quit

With the average state lawmaker earning about $20,000 less than the average American worker, some have turned to driving for Uber or DoorDash to make ends meet. Layla Zaidane wants to change that.

Zaidane is the president and CEO of Future Caucus, a nonprofit that works with young lawmakers to bridge the partisan divide and empower Gen Z and millennial policymakers. She joined the episode to break down why legislators are leaving office over challenges that are entirely fixable.

The Context: The Constitution Is Not the Problem

The U.S. has officially turned 250 years old! Guest Melissa Murray, professor of law at New York University and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny, joined the episode to discuss the U.S. Constitution, where the Supreme Court stands on notable cases and what tools the Constitution equips the American people with to get democracy to work for everyone.

Democracy Works: How to create social change that sticks

“Somebody Should Do Something: How Anyone Can Help Create Social Change” co-authors Michael Brownstein and Daniel Kelly to discuss creating lasting, larger-scale change through individual actions. The conversation explores social change that stick and notable examples such as the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization. Give it a listen!

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Tabatha Abu El-Haj on Politics in Question: What Makes the Working Families Party Work?

Tabatha Abu El-Haj is a professor of law at Drexel University and an expert on the First Amendment and the right of peaceable assembly. She is a regular contributor to the Election Law Blog and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network. Abu El-Haj’s publications have appeared in the Columbia Law Review, the UCLA Law Review and more.

Monica Taylor on An Honorable Profession: How to Lead with Accountability

Chair Monica Taylor is the first African American woman elected to Delaware County Council. She previously worked at East Stroudsburg University and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Taylor has spearheaded an effort to create and launch the Delaware County Health in 2022 to build healthy communities.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

Tune into NPR 1A next week to support Mila and Future Hindsight 🎙️

Host Mila Atmos will join NPR 1A on Thursday when episode 1 of Occupy! An Unfinished Uprising drops to discuss the series live on the radio!

NPR 1A is live between 10 and 11 a.m. ET. Tune into the conversation and let us know your thoughts.

NPR 1A

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The highlights of the convening include two live recording events at the University of Southern California’s Capital Campus on June 8, which welcomed hundreds of attendees.

The first conversation featured Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark and senior fellow at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, in an episode of The Context. Longwell joined host Alex Lovit to discuss the state of our democracy, why messaging matters and how pro-democracy advocates can appeal to voters on issues they care about most.

Also host of the podcast The Focus Group, Longwell regularly conducts focus groups with voters across the political spectrum and discussed how the average American thinks about democracy issues and ideas. Listen to the live conversation, including the audience’s responses, below.

The Democracy Group

Want to Save Democracy? Focus on What Voters Care About

This conversation was recorded live on June 8 during The Democracy Group’s annual convening at the University of Southern California’s Capital Campus in Washington, DC…

Listen now

3 months ago · The Democracy Group

The second recording featured New York Rep. Yvette Clarke in an episode of At Our Table with former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison. Kamy Akhavan, executive director of USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and a member of The Democracy Group, introduced the conversation.

The congresswoman reflected on her upbringing as the daughter of Jamaican immigrants in Flatbush, New York City. She also discussed the Voting Rights Act and the Congressional Black Caucus’ push for corporations to publicly defend political representation.

The episode concluded with Clarke’s warning that silence carries consequences and her message to young Black voters. Listen to At Our Table: The Supreme Court Is Gutting Black Voting Rights at the link below.

At Our Table

Thank you to our partners, including the McCourtney Institute for Democracy, the Kettering Foundation, the Project On Government Oversight, USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and the Campaign Legal Center, for sponsoring the convening.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Outrage Overload: When the State Loses Moral Legitimacy

Is our society hollowing out from within? This special audio documentary challenges everything we think we know about government power.

The episode explores the friction of real-world noncompliance and how our current institutions were designed for a world that no longer exists and are now buckling under modern pressures. It also reveals why states don’t fall to outside invaders but instead evaporate quietly from the inside out when shared trust vanishes.

The Great Battlefield: The Politics of Sex Education with Jaclyn Friedman

EducateUS is a movement that looks to transform sex education in the U.S. by flipping the script on three key factors: voter ignorance, defensive posture and lack of movement power. Activist and founder Jaclyn Friedman joined the episode to discuss the organization’s mission, how revamping sex education could drive social change and her career as an advocate.

Future Hindsight: Activism vs. Majority Rule: Brian Adams

Activism is a way to enhance majority rule. The more people are engaged, the more policy reflects majority preferences. That’s what guest Brian Adams, political science professor and author of “Activism, Majority Rule, and Local Democracy: Rethinking Public Influence,” argues in this episode. Want to learn how to reinvigorate democracy at the local level? Tune in now.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

What’s your audience wedge? Take this quiz to find out

Pro-democracy communicators, organizations and funders typically match with one of these eight audience wedges: Build, Advocate, Protest, Investigate, Confront, Defend, Referee and Connect, depending on their traits and values.

A product of the Democracy Communications Collaborative and Harmony Labs, the map was created to help advocates reach their audiences in today’s fractured media environment, where vast amounts of information from a range of messengers surface every day.

Take the quiz below and let us know which wedge you got in the comments! We want to know who we’re serving and how we can grow moving forward.

Find Your Audience Wedge quiz

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Democracy is a conversation. In the United States, and every other democracy, we’re continually talking with one another about what issues deserve our attention, what our nation stands for, and what we want from our government. Politicians, parties, and media organizations compete for attention by telling compelling stories. This marketplace of ideas offers citizens and voters a wide selection of storylines and solutions. But even when free speech is protected, that doesn’t mean everyone is equally skilled at crafting compelling narratives.

In this conversation, taped in front of a live audience, Sarah Longwell joins host Alex Lovit to describe why pro-democracy advocates are losing the messaging war and what they can do to relate to the issues and values voters care about most.

is the publisher of The Bulwark, which she cofounded in 2019, and a Charles F. Kettering Foundation senior fellow. She regularly conducts focus groups with voters across the political spectrum and hosts the podcast The Focus Group.

Alex Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Kettering Foundation and host of The Context podcast.

Last week, we celebrated our spring 2026 podcast fellows and the release of their episodes at The Democracy Group’s student panel with PBS News Student Reporting Labs. From how student storytellers highlight underrepresented voices to lowering the barrier to democracy through conversations, the panelists discussed youth voices and the role of podcasting in democratic life.

Students also shared what they’ve been working on this semester, including the issues they addressed on the podcasts, remaining stories they still want to tell and what they hope listeners will walk away with.

Podcast episodes from our fellows will be rolling out over the next few days. Thank you to the Bridge Alliance Education Fund for supporting this program! Get a glimpse at these amazing productions below, give them a listen and stay tuned for more fellowship announcements.

Democracy is Art by Savannah Patterson

Democracy is Art argues that democracy and art are deeply connected and examines the ways both practices collide and intersect. In the first episode, host Savannah Patterson-Case focuses on theater, how it contributes to democratic causes and how theatrical participation champions democratic values.

Listen to Democracy is Art

The People’s Playbook by Valerie Pastrana

The People’s Playbook is a cheat sheet for understanding how government actually works. Politics now can feel loud and overwhelming, but has it always been that way? The first episode travels back in time, exploring political concepts and how democracy began through stories from ancient Athens as the first democracy. Host Valerie Pastrana promises “no jargon, no partisanship, no yelling!”

Listen to The People's Playbook

The Social Equation by J’Mariana “Dawn” Douglas

The Social Equation explores why politics has felt increasingly personal and the challenges that Gen Z faces in the new age. Host J’Mariana Douglas discusses how polarization affects young adults’ social lives through conversations from student perspectives. The first episode touches on Gen Z’s trend-driven subcultures and how party labels can shape people’s feelings about different topics.

Listen to The Social Equation

Patterns at the Polls by Isaac Mederson

Patterns at the Polls examines voting patterns in the U.S. and abroad with an emphasis on youth voting participation and its impact on recent elections in America. In the first episode, host Isaac Mederson links youth disengagement to low trust in government and social media-driven information ecosystems, among other factors. The season’s inaugural episode also features an interview with Mark Mederson, host of the podcast “Hard Pass” and media professor at Texas State University, about shifts from broadcast news to social platforms and misinformation.

Listen to Patterns at the Polls

The Separation of Pop and State by Amelia Callahan

The Separation of Pop and State compares political and pop culture moments, showcasing how treating politicians like celebrities can shape their behavior and public discourse. Host Amelia Callahan discusses “cancel culture” and “smear campaigns,” the importance of separating propaganda from facts and how forming opinions based on evidence can strengthen civic engagement, trust and democracy.

The Separation of Pop and State will be available on May 27 on The Democracy Group’s podcast feed.

If you missed the panel last week, check out the recording below and hear more about the students’ work!

The Democracy Group

How Student Podcasting Shapes Civic Storytelling

Read more

3 months ago · 3 likes · The Democracy Group

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Check out the student podcasts:

• Student episodes from The Democracy Group will publish from May 18th-27th on our network feed.

• Current and past seasons of On Our Minds.

Panel Recap

Democracy has a messaging problem.

For many people—especially younger generations—politics feels intimidating, exhausting, polarized, or simply disconnected from daily life. Civic engagement can seem like something reserved for people who already “know the language.”

But what if democracy sounded more like a conversation than a lecture?

That was the central theme of a recent collaborative panel between The Democracy Group and PBS Student Reporting Labs, where student podcasters and journalists discussed youth voices and the role of podcasting in democratic life.

The panel brought together high school and college students producing podcasts about politics and everyday civic life. Their message was clear:

Democracy isn’t just voting. It’s storytelling, listening, community, and making space for people to feel heard.

Why Podcasting Matters for Democracy

Podcasting has become one of the most accessible mediums for civic storytelling.

Unlike traditional political media—which can sometimes feel combative, jargon-heavy, or inaccessible—podcasts create room for nuance and human connection.

Student panelist Dawn, creator of Social Equation, reflected on what surprised her most about podcasting:

Because audio removes visual assumptions, listeners are pushed to focus on what people are actually saying rather than reacting to appearances or first impressions.

That matters in a moment when public discourse often feels fragmented and antagonistic.

The panelists repeatedly returned to a simple but powerful idea: thoughtful podcasting allows people from different backgrounds to understand perspectives they might otherwise overlook.

Democracy Happens in Daily Life

One of the strongest threads running through the discussion was the idea that democracy is not just an election-season event.

It’s deeply woven into ordinary life.

The students’ podcast projects explored democracy through surprisingly personal lenses:

• Art and political expression

• Community spaces and belonging

• Puerto Rican identity, gentrification, and local resilience

• How politics shapes friendships and social interactions

• The historical roots of democracy itself

Savannah, a journalism and political science student, explored the relationship between democracy and theater, arguing that art can help audiences become more attuned to rhetoric, political communication, and civic engagement. She emphasized theater’s unique ability to connect people and pull them into democratic participation.

Meanwhile, Miranda’s reporting from Puerto Rico examined neighborhood transformation, community struggle, and the impact of short-term rentals and displacement. What began as a local story became, almost inevitably, a political one.

The lesson?

Democracy is not an abstract institution living inside government buildings.

It shows up in neighborhoods and the stories communities tell about themselves.

Lowering the Barrier to Democracy

One of the most compelling conversations centered on why so many people disengage from politics in the first place.

Valerie, a political science student focused on democracy’s origins, argued that many people aren’t apathetic because they don’t care.

They’re intimidated.

Politics and democratic systems are often introduced through dense textbooks, academic language, and complicated frameworks that create a barrier to entry for everyday people. Podcasting, she argued, offers a different approach: a more digestible, welcoming way to invite people into important conversations.

Miranda echoed this point, noting that podcasts let people learn casually—while driving, commuting, or working—without needing to navigate dense academic writing or specialized jargon.

This may be one of podcasting’s most underrated civic strengths:

It makes democratic learning feel human-sized.

Youth Voices Are Not a Bonus Feature

A major theme throughout the panel was the importance of creating intentional space for young people to speak.

Not tokenized participation.

Not youth voices as an afterthought.

Actual platforms where younger generations are trusted to lead conversations.

Abby, a student producer from New Jersey, argued that youth creators bring a different kind of creative freedom to journalism and storytelling. Because they are newer to media production, they are often less constrained by assumptions about what stories “should” look like or what topics deserve attention.

The panelists also highlighted something adults often underestimate:

Young people are far more likely to engage when they genuinely believe their voices matter.

Feeling ignored, dismissed, or powerless discourages participation. Feeling heard creates motivation to contribute.

That insight feels relevant far beyond podcasting.

Listening Is a Civic Skill

Perhaps the most quietly powerful lesson from the panel had nothing to do with microphones, editing software, or analytics.

It was about listening.

Several students reflected on how interviewing changed them—not just as journalists, but as people.

Abby described learning that interviews aren’t rigid scripts controlled by the interviewer. The best conversations often wander into unexpected territory, revealing more authentic, human moments than any prepared question list could anticipate.

Lemon added another observation:

People love being listened to.

Through interviews and community conversations, they found themselves building friendships, confidence, and stronger relationships simply by giving people space to speak and genuinely hearing them.

That might be one of the most democratic skills of all.

Success Isn’t Just Measured in Downloads

In a digital culture obsessed with metrics, another refreshing takeaway emerged.

Success, according to these programs, isn’t primarily about audience size.

It’s about growth.

Confidence.

Voice.

Capability.

The organizers explained that while reach and analytics matter, the deeper success metric is educational transformation: students gaining skills, building portfolios, discovering new career paths, and learning how to engage their communities with confidence.

In other words:

The podcast episode matters.

But so does the person who learns they have something worth saying.

The Bigger Takeaway

The panel between The Democracy Group and PBS Student Reporting Labs offered something rare in today’s rhetoric: a hopeful vision of civic media.

It demonstrated what democratic culture can look like when people are invited into thoughtful dialogue.

If democracy depends on people believing their voices matter…

Then teaching people how to tell stories, ask questions, listen deeply, and participate publicly might be more important than we realize.

And these young podcasters seem to understand that already.

Virtual Panel: How Student Podcasting Shapes Civic Storytelling

This Wednesday, join The Democracy Group’s podcast fellows for a collaborative event with PBS Student Reporting Labs. The panel will focus on three themes:

1. The need for democratic discourse in today’s world

2. Podcasts as a tool for civic engagement among Gen Z

3. How student-led podcasts contribute to political conversations

The audience will have a chance to interact with our student panelists at the end of the event. If you have a question for members of Gen Z, this is a wonderful opportunity to ask it!

Details:

• 📅 Wednesday, May 20

• 🕕 6 PM ET

• 📍 Zoom

Register at the link below to receive the Zoom invitation.

Register here

LIVE Recording: Sarah Longwell on The Context Podcast

Tickets are going quickly for our second annual live podcast recording in Washington, D.C.! We hope you can join us on Monday, June 8 at the USC Capital Campus for a recording of The Context, the podcast from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and a member of The Democracy Group.

The Context is a podcast about how to get democracy to work for everyone—and why that’s so hard to do. It explores the ideas, history, and trends shaping our democracy, featuring deep-dive conversations with big-picture thinkers and hands-on practitioners, like activists, writers, historians, and community leaders. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.

Host Alex Lovit will be joined by Sarah Longwell—publisher of The Bulwark, host of The Focus Group Podcast, and a senior fellow at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation—for a conversation about her work as a conservative strategist and pro-democracy advocate. They will dive into her latest public opinion research and her advice for reclaiming American democracy in an era of political upheaval.

Details:

• 📅 Monday, June 8

• 5:30 PM: Reception sponsored by the Kettering Foundation

• 6:30 PM: Live recording with Sarah Longwell on The Context

• 📍 USC Capital Campus, Washington, D.C.

Please use the link below to reserve your ticket. This event will sell out!

Reserve a Ticket

LIVE Recording: Sarah Longwell on The Context Podcast

Join us on June 8 in Washington, DC, for a special live taping of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation’s podcast, The Context.

The Context is a member of The Democracy Group podcast network. The Context is a podcast about how to get democracy to work for everyone—and why that’s so hard to do. It explores the ideas, history, and trends shaping our democracy, featuring deep-dive conversations with big-picture thinkers and hands-on practitioners, like activists, writers, historians, and community leaders. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.

Host Alex Lovit will be joined by Sarah Longwell—publisher of The Bulwark, host of The Focus Group Podcast, and a senior fellow at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation—for a conversation about her work as a conservative strategist and pro-democracy advocate. They will dive into her latest public opinion research and her advice for reclaiming American democracy in an era of political upheaval.

What to Expect:

• 5:30 PM: Reception with food and drink

• 6:30 PM: Live recording with Sarah Longwell on The Context

Details:

• 📅 Monday, June 8

• 🕕 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM ET

• 📍 University of Southern California Capital Campus

Please use the link below to reserve your ticket. We will only have 100 spots available!

Reserve a Ticket

Virtual Panel: How Student Podcasting Shapes Civic Storytelling

You’re invited to celebrate The Democracy Group podcast fellows at the first-ever collab student panel with PBS Student Reporting Labs!

TDG fellows and On Our Minds student producers with PBS Student Reporting Labs will discuss three themes throughout the panel: the need for democratic discourse in today’s world, podcasting as a civic tool, and student podcasts highlighting everyday democracy.

TDG fellows will also discuss their work this semester, from interviewing experts and writing scripts to producing and promoting a podcast episode. On Our Minds student producers will discuss the podcast’s latest season, what motivates young people in their communities and in national conversations, and more. The audience will have a chance to interact with the panelists and pose questions toward the end of the panel.

Details:

• 📅 Wednesday, May 20

• 🕕 6 PM ET

• 📍 Zoom

Register at the link below to receive the Zoom invitation.

Register here

Independent Bookstore Day celebrations are still underway in several U.S. cities! The event honors local indie bookstores across the country and underscores a growing need for inclusive third spaces with communities.

During the week of April 25, indie bookstores pulled out all the stops. From author talks and in-store parties to exclusive merch and free audiobook credits, local shops found creative ways to draw in book lovers and new readers alike. In Central Virginia, 11 stores teamed up to create a three-week tour challenge, where Richmonders can pick up a special passport and collect stamps at each participating location.

Independent booksellers have long competed with larger chains. Today, they also face mounting challenges from AI-generated content, the dominance of digital commerce and a shrinking pool of niche-market consumers.

That’s why celebrations like Indie Bookstore Day matter. The annual event goes beyond book sales — it highlights indie bookstores as community staples, fosters human connection and champions diverse voices in inclusive spaces.

Indie bookstores provide welcoming environments for readers of all backgrounds. Their curated selections often spotlight local, indie and BIPOC authors. Many also host author events, giving audiences a chance to hear stories firsthand and engage with perspectives that are often overlooked.

As the rise of online retail reduces public gathering spaces like traditional malls, indie bookstores are helping fill that gap, serving as centers for connection, conversation and engagement. These community hubs nurture a sense of belonging and facilitate face-to-face interaction while also supporting local economies.

Did you participate in Indie Bookstore Day? Let us know in the comments.

The Great Battlefield: Author of That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America, Amanda Jones

Small town librarian, author and advocate Amanda Jones joined the episode to talk about her 25-year career and the ongoing legal fight against harassers behind a smear campaign. It started when Jones spoke out against book banning at a public library board meeting in Louisiana. Listen to her story and learn about her new book, “That Librarian.”

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Politics in Question: What Are the Rules and Procedures to SAVE America?

Supporters said the SAVE America Act protects election integrity, but how true is that statement? This episode discusses the latest updates on the voter ID bill, how it hurts and helps both political parties and election policies’ impact on a broader scale.

The Good Government Show: Life Saving Swimming Lessons in Miami

A Miami-Dade County initiative is working to address Miami’s leading cause of death for children aged 1 through 14: drowning. Zero Drownings Miami-Dade offers swimming classes and teaches young students water safety throughout the school year. The county’s Office of Drowning Prevention chief Jim O’Connor has more details on the episode.

The Politics Guys x TPNR: Will the Midterms Even Matter?/Why The Midterms Will Be Disappointing

We love a TDG crossover! Hosts Michael Baranowski and Corey Nathan discuss the 2026 midterms, how Democrats are regaining the U.S. House, election integrity and most important, whether of this matters. The pair makes several compelling arguments. Give this episode a listen!

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Nadine Strossen on Let’s Find Common Ground: Can You Really Say That?

Nadine Strossen is a legal scholar and civil liberties activist. She previously served as the president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1991 to 2008. Strossen was the first woman to lead the ACLU and was named one of the country’s most influential women and lawyers.

Jeffrey Rosen on Village SquareCast: UNUM: The Pursuit of Liberty

Jeffrey Rosen is the CEO emeritus of the National Constitution Center. He is a law professor at George Washington University and a contributing editor of The Atlantic. Rosen is the author of several notable books, including the New York Times bestsellers “The Pursuit of Happiness” and “Conversations with RBG.”

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

You’re invited to the ‘How Student Podcasting Shapes Civic Storytelling’ panel!

We’re so excited to introduce the first-ever collaborative student panel featuring The Democracy Group podcast fellows and On Our Minds hosts from PBS Student Reporting Labs.

Panelists will discuss podcasting as a civic tool, how student podcasting highlights everyday democracy and the need for democracy discourse in today’s world. TDG fellows and On Our Minds hosts will dive into producing their respective podcast episodes and what they’ve learned throughout the process.

Mark your calendar for Wednesday, May 20, at 6 p.m. ET. Register for the panel at the link below!

Register here!

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Note: This article was written by Anthony Payne with PBS News Student Reporting Labs for The Democracy Group.

Where former generations might’ve been able to look to the news as a gateway to civic engagement and a resource to build their opinions, young people now have little trust in the media. According to a 2024 study from the News Literacy Project, more and more teens believe unethical practices are a standard of the journalism industry, and a majority describe “news media” using negative words. Many don’t even understand what a journalist actually does – so why would they look for their takes?

Putting young people behind the mic in the role of researcher and storyteller is a direct way to equip students with the skills to navigate this complex media landscape.

Audio storytelling is an easy way for students to see behind the reporting curtain and try it themselves. They choose the topics that matter to them, ask questions of people in their communities, and get a sense of the editorial decisions that are made in real newsrooms. Students learn media literacy through media making, and often discover new ways of engaging with their communities along the way.

That’s what we do at PBS News Student Reporting Labs. We’re a national youth journalism training program. In recognition of America’s 250th anniversary, our team recently released On Our Minds: Road Trip, a collaborative podcast in which student reporters from across the US take listeners on a tour of their towns, cities, and neighborhoods, spotlighting the places and faces that make every corner of the country unique.

In one story, a student interviews members of a thriving LGBT community in Columbia, Missouri. Another explores how an all-ESOL school in Massachusetts helps students find a sense of belonging, while another episode zooms in on a small art store and the community they’ve built in Richmond, Indiana.

Through this reporting and production process, student reporters discover more about their hometowns and their own agency to participate in their local community. They develop the skills to seek out new conversations and sources to shape their attitudes and decide how they want to engage.

For this podcast season, students interviewed and connected with real people in their communities. They met their neighbors and then shared those conversations with a national audience, a reminder that even just going out and talking to someone at your park can shift your perceptions and teach you something new.

New episodes of the On Our Minds podcast produced by PBS News Student Reporting Labs will be released every Wednesday through June.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

The Politics Guys: The New Rules of Politics: Know Your Coalition

The third episode of the special series, “The New Rules of Politics,” takes a closer look at political behavior through politician coalition dynamics. The conversation examines why and how politicians typically target voters and funders who matter most rather than maximizing overall support, among other concepts.

The TRM Podcast: Season 5: Episode 9: A TRM Roundtable with Misurell, Oddo and Pekin

A special episode featuring the three most recent guests, this conversation brought together an independent candidate running for Congress, an entrepreneur who writes about modern democracy and a nonprofit founder working to strengthen our democracy. The panelists discussed deep systemic failures and a political system that traps voters in a lesser-of-two-evils choice.

The Context: Maybe Don’t Get All Your News from Podcasts, America

The rise (and fall) of Andrew Tate along with other extreme right-wing voices in podcasting can be explained by misinformation, platforms’ algorithms and fake news traps. Angelo Carusone with watchdog nonprofit Media Matters joined the episode to explore how the online media ecosystem came to be dominated by authoritarian and anti-inclusive narratives.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

FEATURED EXPERTS 📰

Some of the expert guests who shared their insightful knowledge within our network.

Ann Bausum on Future Hindsight: The Lost Cause Lie

Ann Bausum is an award-winning historian and author of “White Lies: How the South Lost the Civil War, Then Rewrote History.” She writes about history for readers of all ages, with many of her books exploring issues of social justice, free speech, immigration, women’s voting rights and queer history.

Susan Page on TPNR: The Queen Had a Front Row Seat to American Democracy

Susan Page is a journalist and the Washington Bureau chief of USA TODAY. She’s covered 12 presidential campaigns and seven White House administrations. Page is the best-selling author of biographies of Barbara Bush, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Walters. Her latest book, “The Queen and Her Presidents,” explores Queen Elizabeth II’s relationship with 13 American presidents.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

An interactive map visualizing the pro-democracy Substack ecosystem and how these publications connect

That’s the idea behind ProDemStack!

Created by from a dataset of 236 pro-democracy Substack sites, the live tool allows users to explore newsletters that recommend one another, along with their audience sizes and subscription data. The interactive map also categorizes these sites based on their tone, ranging from highly action-oriented to neutral to highly alarmist.

Key findings:

• 57% of the mapped sites were categorized as highly alarmist, including The Bulwark, Heather Cox Richardson and Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance.

• 30% of the sites were considered highly action-oriented, including the Brennan Center, Pete Buttigieg and Harry Dunn.

• Across both the top 25 alarmist and top 25 action-oriented Substacks, common headline language includes words like “kings,” “America,” “ICE” and “war,” as found in their word clouds.

Read more insights here. Interact with the tool at the link below!

ProDemStack

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

In most elections, voters are asked to make a single choice: pick one candidate and hope for the best. But what happens when that choice doesn’t fully represent your preferences—or worse, when voting for your favorite candidate risks helping the one you like least?

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) offers a different approach.

A ranked-choice voting system is an electoral method in which voters rank candidates on their ballots in order of preference. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters can express a fuller range of opinions—selecting a first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on.

The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, home of the RCV Clips podcast, provides information, research, and tools to educate the public about ranked-choice voting. They define RCV as:

“Ranked choice voting (RCV) is an election method in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of their preference (first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on). Ranking candidates is different from simply selecting one candidate, or what is known as plurality voting. If a candidate receives more than half of the first-choice votes, that candidate wins, just like in any other election. However, if there is no majority winner after counting first-choice votes, the race is decided by an instant runoff. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate as their first choice will have their votes count toward their next choice. This process continues until a majority winner—a candidate with more than half of the vote—is determined.”

At its core, RCV is designed to answer a simple question: not just who has the most votes, but who has the broadest support.

Supporters argue that this shift has far-reaching implications. It can reduce the so-called “spoiler effect,” encourage more positive campaigning, and give voters the freedom to vote honestly without fear of wasting their vote. It may also open the door to a wider range of candidates, reshape political competition, and even reduce the polarization that defines much of modern politics.

In the sections that follow, we’ll explore how RCV works in practice, the problems it aims to solve, and the real-world impact it’s already having across the United States.

Related: If you teach political science, our free syllabus guide curates the best democracy podcasts on topics just like this—ready to assign.

What Problems Does Ranked-Choice Voting Solve?

Nathan Lockwood, executive director of Rank the Vote, offers a detailed analysis of how RCV works and the problems it is designed to address.

Nathan Lockwood:

“You know, the way we’ve been voting our whole lives is pretty simple. You go into the voting booth, there are two or more candidates running, and you pick one. Whether there’s one candidate or ten, you choose one, and that’s your vote. Then we count the votes, and whoever has more votes than anyone else wins the election. They can win whether they have 70% of the vote or just 15%, as long as they have more than anyone else.

This method works fairly well when there are only two candidates. You’re guaranteed to get a majority winner—although it limits voter choice. But problems arise as soon as you add even one more candidate. That’s when you get what’s called the spoiler problem, where a candidate who is similar to a frontrunner can split the vote and unintentionally penalize them.

A well-known example is the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader also running. At the time, many Democrats were concerned that Nader’s candidacy would pull votes away from Gore. People would even tell their friends, ‘Don’t even think about voting for Ralph Nader,’ because they were worried about the impact.

And they had reason to be concerned. The election came down to Florida, where George W. Bush won by just over 500 votes. Meanwhile, Ralph Nader received about 100,000 votes. Exit polling suggested that, had Nader not run, about half of his voters would have chosen Gore, about a quarter would have chosen Bush, and about a quarter would not have voted. That likely would have resulted in Gore winning by 15,000 to 20,000 votes, instead of losing.

Our current election system penalizes candidates in these situations—it’s an equal-opportunity punisher. For example, in 1992, George H.W. Bush faced strong competition from independent candidate Ross Perot. Many Republicans believe Perot took more votes from Bush than from Bill Clinton, who ultimately won the election with just 43% of the popular vote.

Ranked-choice voting addresses this problem effectively with one simple change: instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference. You can say, ‘This is my first choice. But if they don’t have enough support to win, count my vote toward my second choice.’ This allows voters to support their favorite candidate without worrying about wasting their vote.

Because we gather more information from voters, we get a clearer picture of who the majority actually prefers. Using the earlier example, a Nader voter could rank Nader first and Gore second. If Nader is eliminated, their vote transfers to Gore.

The counting process works like an instant runoff. First, we count all first-choice votes. If a candidate has a majority, the election is over. If not, we eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes and redistribute those ballots to each voter’s next choice. This continues until one candidate has majority support.

It’s an efficient and elegant way to determine who truly has majority support, while allowing voters to express their real preferences without fear.”

A philanthropist and former CEO, Katherine Gehl examines America’s political system through an industry-competition lens to better understand its biggest problems and identify achievable solutions. She explains how RCV could create beneficial competition by lowering barriers for candidates to run for office.

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Ranked Choice Voting: Nathan Lockwood

Katherine Gehl:

“In business, we often talk about barriers to entry—how difficult it is for a new company to enter and compete in an industry. In American politics, we have an extremely high barrier to entry. As a result, we effectively have only two ‘companies’—the two major parties—that can consistently win elections.

Many people assume this is by design, as if America is inherently a two-party system. Some even think political parties are written into the Constitution. But that’s not true—it’s a historical accident.

I learned this from political scientist Lee Drutman in his book The Doom Loop. When the founders created the Constitution, they established the framework for elections but left many details undefined. At the time, there were very few examples of democratic elections to draw from. One model they found was in rural England, where local elections were decided by whoever received the most votes.

That may sound logical, and it’s still how we run elections today. But it turns out to be a flawed system. If you allow the candidate with the most votes to win without requiring a majority—more than 50%—you can end up with winners who are not supported by most voters.

For example, in a three-way race, a candidate could win with just 34% of the vote if the other two candidates split the remaining votes. That means a majority of voters actually preferred someone else.

This dynamic creates the ‘lesser of two evils’ problem and discourages new candidates from entering the race. Any additional candidate risks being labeled a spoiler, and voters worry about wasting their vote.

The solution is simple: require a majority to win. Once you do that, you need a system—like ranked-choice voting—to determine which candidate has majority support among multiple candidates.

When you remove the spoiler effect, you open the door to more competition. And that competition benefits voters. It encourages candidates to focus on solving real problems rather than just defeating the other party. Ultimately, it creates a healthier and more functional political system.”

Listen to the full episode on The Context: Elections Are Broken. How Do We Fix Them?

Benefits of Ranked-Choice Voting

There are many additional benefits to ranked-choice voting (RCV), including broader support for candidates, more constructive political discourse, reduced polarization, and ease of use for voters.

Candidate Support

Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at CLC, and Alexandra Copper, legal counsel for litigation at CLC, explain how ranked-choice voting helps ensure that voters’ voices are more fully represented:

Simone Leeper and Alexandra Copper:

Leeper: “Data shows that ranked-choice voting helps elect candidates with the broadest public support. Another benefit is that it incentivizes candidates to focus on representing their constituents, rather than engaging in negative campaigning against their rivals.

Copper: Under a traditional winner-take-all system, candidates are often incentivized to use negative campaign tactics because they distinguish themselves through criticism of their opponents.

Leeper: Because candidates are competing to be voters’ first, second, and third choices, they are more likely to avoid alienating voters who might otherwise rank them lower.

Copper: Candidates are therefore encouraged not to tear their rivals down, but instead to build coalitions with ideologically similar opponents and their supporters.

Leeper: Ranked-choice voting also broadens the public discourse during an election.

Copper: At the same time, a more diverse group of candidates can run and share their ideas without the risk of spoiling the race.

Leeper: Those ideas can then be adopted or adapted by winning candidates when they see the level of support voters express for them in a ranked-choice election. Candidates in an RCV system are also more likely to reach out and engage directly with voters, which can positively impact voter participation.

Copper: In turn, young voters in ranked-choice voting cities are significantly more likely to vote, with turnout increasing from 77% to 86%.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Better Choices, Better Elections

A Tool Against Polarization

Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, explains how ranked-choice voting (RCV) can help reduce political polarization often associated with traditional voting systems:

Deb Otis:

“I think people can win ranked-choice voting elections from across the ideological spectrum. If you implement RCV in a purple state, you’re likely to see more moderate candidates who reflect that balance.

In a blue city, you’ll see liberals and progressives elected. In red cities—like several in Utah that have used RCV for mayoral and city council elections—you’ll see strong conservatives elected.

In Alaska, we saw instances where more moderate Republicans prevailed over more extreme candidates. Lisa Murkowski is one example. She’s known as a senator willing to be bipartisan and occasionally go against her party. She faced a more conservative Republican challenger and still won.

Ranked-choice voting played a significant role in that outcome. It can even create competition within parties. But ultimately, it’s not about ideology—it’s about how candidates campaign and the type of electorate they’re appealing to.

Candidates perform best in ranked-choice elections when they build broad support. If a candidate can only appeal to a narrow base—say, 30% of voters—while 70% strongly oppose them, that’s no longer enough to win.”

Listen to the full episode on The Politics Guys: FairVote and Reforming Voting

Ease of Use

Ranked-choice voting is already used across the United States in a wide range of jurisdictions. As of the 2022 elections, it has been adopted in 62 jurisdictions, including Alaska, Maine, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and San Francisco, California.

Rob Richie, cofounder and senior analyst at FairVote, shares how smoothly RCV has been implemented in New York City:

Rob Richie:

“It’s encouraging to see real-world evidence addressing concerns about usability. Take New York City—a large, diverse city with voters from many countries of origin, including many first-generation Americans. During the pandemic, turnout in the primary election was higher than it had been in years.

Even so, 90% of voters—using ranked-choice voting for the first time—chose to rank more than one candidate. More than 70% told exit pollsters that they found the process easy.

Similarly, Virginia Republicans used ranked-choice voting for the first time in a statewide contest, and the process went very smoothly.”

Listen to the full episode on How Do We Fix It: The Case For Ranked Choice Voting. Rob Richie

Don’t Just Vote—Vote Smarter

Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. It begins there.

Ranked-choice voting isn’t just a different way to count votes—it’s a different way to think about power. It asks a better question: not just who can win, but who truly represents the will of the people. And as you’ve seen, that shift has real consequences—from reducing the spoiler effect, to encouraging more constructive campaigns, to giving voters the freedom to express what they actually believe.

But none of that matters if people don’t understand it.

Systems don’t change on their own. They change when informed citizens decide they should.

If you’ve ever felt like your vote didn’t fully capture your voice…
If you’ve ever hesitated to support a candidate you actually believed in…
If you’ve ever walked away from an election feeling like the choices were too limited…

Then this is your invitation to go deeper.

Learn how your local and state elections work.
Explore whether ranked-choice voting is being discussed—or already used—where you live.
Share what you’ve learned with others who feel just as frustrated or disengaged.

Because the health of a democracy isn’t determined only by its leaders—it’s shaped by the understanding and participation of its citizens.

The more informed you are, the more power you have.

And the more people who choose to understand the system, the harder it becomes for that system to ignore them.

Ranked-Choice Voting Resources

To gain a deeper understanding of ranked-choice voting (RCV), explore the resources below from our partner organization, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center:

• Why Adopt RCV

• How RCV Works

• Types of RCV

• History of RCV

• Where RCV Is Used

• FAQs

You can also listen to their podcast, RCV Clips, to hear real-world case studies from jurisdictions that have implemented—or are in the process of implementing—ranked-choice voting.

We have a fun (and low-pressure) opportunity to support the next generation of podcast creators.

The Democracy Group Podcast Fellowship is a 6-week remote program for young leaders who want to launch podcasts that strengthen democracy, engage diverse viewpoints, and help bridge political divides.

As part of the program, our fellows will be practicing their interview skills—and we’re looking for a few volunteers to join us as mock podcast guests.

Details:

• 📅 April 15th

• 🕕 6:00–7:00 PM ET

• 📍 Zoom (fully remote)

• 🎙️ No preparation required

• 🔒 Interviews will not be recorded

This is a great opportunity to:

• Practice being a podcast guest (especially if you’re new to it)

• Share your perspective with thoughtful, curious fellows

• Support emerging voices working to strengthen civic dialogue

Our fellows are a bright and inquisitive group, and they’ll come ready with engaging questions.

If you’re interested, just reply or email Brandon Stover (bqs5748@psu.edu) and include any links, bios, or background info that might help the fellows prepare.

We’d love to have you join us!

The Democracy Group’s podcast fellowship is back! We’re so excited to introduce you to our newest cohort of fellows eager to get to work. For the next few weeks, they will learn how to start a podcast and build an informed and engaged audience to strengthen our democracy!

Savannah Patterson-Case is a third-year student studying political science and journalism at the University of Central Florida. With a theatrical background, she is excited to continue storytelling and truth-seeking through podcasts. Savannah hopes to be a journalist, working in radio or podcasting.

Mhambi Musonda is a student at Montgomery College studying international relations. Mhambi enjoys sports, photography and reading, with an interest in books on history, politics and current affairs. He aspires to become an active participant in the politics, potentially through a career in public service.

Valerie Pastrana is a political science major at the University of Central Florida, specializing in international relations and comparative politics. She is passionate about raising awareness of global issues often overlooked by creating podcast episodes that present international politics in a clear, engaging and accessible way for a broad audience.

Amelia Callahan is a first-year student at Florida State University studying political science with a minor in political philosophy. She aspires to become a political reporter and newscaster, combining her passion for current events with her interest in reporting. Amelia is particularly drawn to podcasting as an engaging and dynamic medium for discussing news and politics.

J'Mariana “Dawn” Douglas is a political science major with a minor in criminology at the Florida State University. She is passionate about podcasting due to her strong interest in education and civic engagement. Dawn hopes to attend law school and pursue a career in criminal defense.

Isaac Mederson is a political science student at the University of Minnesota and a solder in the Minnesota National Guard. He plans to either attend law school or pursue a master’s degree, with the goal of building a career in the federal government. Isaac is eager to deepen his understanding of democracy and government while connecting with others who share similar interests.

Civically Thinking: How Young Leaders are Shaping Democracy by Annalise Huang

To welcome the new cohort, we’re bringing back an episode from the previous fellowship made for young people by young people. TDG fellow and host Annalise Huang spoke with Kayla Pilgrim, the 19-year-old founder of Civic Success. Pilgrim shared her journey in civic engagement, motivations behind her work and how she's inspiring young people to participate in civic life.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY 🎧

This is Jessie Nguyen, The Democracy Group's Community Manager. Here are some of my favorite podcasts this week. Check them out!

Outrage Overload: I Bought a Bar: An experiment in bridge-building - K Scarry

“I know a woman who literally purchased a bar in downtown DC because she was concerned about the lack of third spaces in her community,” a guest told host David Beckemeyer. That “woman” is community builder K Scarry. She joined the episode to discuss bridge building, conflict and how “third spaces” can act as a civic hub and.

RCV Clips: Geaux Rank with Lavar Henderson

This episode features a conversation with Louisiana State University student body president Lavar Henderson on the use and implementation of ranked choice voting at LSU. Henderson also delved into election mechanics at the school, campaign tactics and his experience running in LSU’s presidential election.

Democracy Works: Is public media still public?

NPR host Ayesha Rascoe joined the episode to discuss public media, including its mission and identity, as outlets face deep funding cuts and declining trust in among some audiences. Rascoe also shared insights from her journalism career, from covering a story to teaching her children media literacy.

Subscribe to our network’s podcast feed to receive a sampling of new episodes from across the network every week.

DEMOCRACY CORNER 📓

2026 is the year to explore, learn and engage. Welcome to Democracy Corner, your hub for civic knowledge, happenings and action!

Looking to get involved with TDG Fellowship? Here’s your chance — and it’s easy

As part of the fellowship, TDG fellows will be doing mock interviews for one of the workshops. We’re looking for guests, democracy leaders, students, experts and anyone who’s interested in being interviewed. If you would like to help out our fellows, let network manager Brandon Stover (bqs5748@psu.edu) know!

Learn more about the fellowship

Forwarded this message? Subscribe to our Newsletter!

That's all for this newsletter. But if you want more content to become a more informed and engaged citizen, subscribe below.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

What are the most urgent threats to democracy right now?

The answers weren’t abstract. They were grounded in lived experience—from a voting rights lawyer, a public service advocate, and a technologist studying polarization. Together, they painted a picture that is both concerning and clarifying.

This panel—featured in the fellowship’s opening workshop—was moderated by Jenna Spinelle and introduced by Brandon Stover, who reminded us why this work matters: helping new voices enter the public conversation and strengthen democracy through storytelling.

1. The Strain on the Rule of Law

Simone Leeper (host of Democracy Decoded and a redistricting lawyer) framed one of the most pressing concerns: a growing threat to the rule of law.

This isn’t just about one policy or one administration. It’s about the erosion of norms that underpin democratic governance:

• Executive overreach

• Ignoring or challenging court authority

• Attempts to control election systems

• Politicization of institutions like the Department of Justice

None of these are isolated incidents—they’re part of a broader pattern that challenges the balance of power.

What’s striking is the shift in focus for many democracy-focused organizations. As Simone noted, the work is no longer just about improving systems—it’s increasingly about defending the baseline protections we already have.

2. The Quiet Crisis in Public Service

David Martin, host of The Good Government Show, highlighted a less visible—but equally dangerous—trend:

We are losing experienced public servants.

Across agencies and levels of government, talented, mission-driven individuals are leaving:

• Inspectors general with decades of experience

• Justice Department attorneys who handled major cases

• Civil servants who simply no longer feel they can do their jobs

When they leave, they take institutional knowledge with them. And often, they take others along too.

Even more concerning: some current public servants feel unable to speak publicly at all—fearing professional consequences.

At the local level, the effects are just as stark. Election workers—often volunteers—are stepping away due to harassment and pressure. These are the people who make democracy function day-to-day.

When they disappear, the system weakens and it becomes harder to repair.

3. Hyper-Partisanship as the Root Problem

David Beckemeyer, host of Outrage Overload, zoomed out further.

His argument: hyper-partisanship isn’t just a problem—it’s the environment that enables all the others.

In today’s climate:

• Politics feels existential

• Opponents are seen as enemies

• Compromise becomes betrayal

And perhaps most dangerously:

We often don’t recognize when we’re contributing to the problem ourselves.

This psychological blind spot fuels a cycle:

• We reward performative conflict

• Leaders respond with more conflict

• Citizens become “combatants” instead of collaborators

Democracy, however, depends on coexistence—not victory.

4. The Role of Media—and Podcasters

As the discussion opened to fellows, a powerful question emerged:

What role can media creators play in this environment?

The answers pointed to a few key opportunities:

1. Surface Untold Stories: Many important efforts—especially local or nonpartisan—aren’t being covered by mainstream media.

2. Create Space for Nuance: Podcasts can go deeper than social media, allowing for complexity instead of soundbites.

3. Rebuild Trust Through Examples: Highlighting what works—effective programs, dedicated public servants—can counter cynicism.

4. Enable Safer Conversations: Even experimenting with anonymity or alternative formats can help bring forward voices that might otherwise stay silent.

A Note on the Next Generation

One of the most encouraging moments came from the fellows themselves.

Many expressed uncertainty about pursuing careers in politics or public service—often met with skepticism from others.

The panelists were unequivocal:

We need more young people in this work—not fewer.

From mayors in their 20s to first-time candidates, younger voices are already reshaping leadership at the local level.

And importantly, they may be better positioned to challenge rigid partisan frameworks and bring fresh approaches to governance.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

Across all three perspectives, a common thread emerged:

Democracy is being strained across multiple, interconnected systems.

• Institutional norms are being tested

• Public service pipelines are weakening

• Social trust is eroding

But there’s another thread too:

People are still showing up.

Lawyers are litigating.
Public servants are adapting.
Young creators are building platforms.

And conversations like this one—honest, nuanced, and grounded—are part of that effort.

If democracy is under pressure, then participation isn’t optional—it’s essential.

And sometimes, it starts with simply asking better questions.