1 Episode results for "Kathleen buck"
Wednesday 26 September
"You're listening to Midori house first broadcast on the twenty. Sixth of September, two thousand eighteen on monocle twenty four. Hello and welcome to Madari house coming to you. Live from studio one here in London. I'm Andrew Miller on today. Show the world versus Donald Trump, but will the rest of the UN he'd Emmanuel Macron's call for a revival of multi-lateralism. My guest, Kathleen buck and some Nath Butterball will be discussing this and the day's other top stories, including the spat gripping ustralia, which reveals the on these e relationship between national governments and national broadcasters. The efforts to interest American voters in their own midterm elections and eight were grabbing Dunkin for lunch. Wanna come Duncan for lunch. That's a good one. We're being serious, Dunkin donuts, and it's Dacia pivot away from donuts. That's all coming up on the Dory house on monocle twenty four right now. Welcome to Midori house. My guest today, Kathleen Burke professor of modern and contemporary history University College London, and some fat boil for the center for media studies lecturer in media, developed in media and development and international journalism at. So it's very complicated title. It is. You need to work out something easier to recite in a hurry. We will start tonight at the UN where the general assembly is ongoing. Much of this conclave of global leaders has been queue of speakers taking turns to take issue with US President, Donald Trump who yesterday once again, laid out his foreign policy, creative isolationism and ability. Nobody took more obvious issue than one president who Trump might previously have counted as a friend Emmanuel Macron France whose speech in defense of liberal multi-lateralism and against craven nationalism could have been readily mistaken for a point by point rebuttal of Trump's some that do you think that's how Macron intended it to be heard. Is he trying to put some distance between himself and Trump? Yes, I would agree to that done. I think that dude things which we should take into account one the Trump and Macron a very similar kind of politicians. It's this bad, dumb alpha male and of their persona, five, their politics. So there were bound to clash going to their first meeting that brazen bone crushing handshake than him moving away to its Merckel and not meeting Trump, and then there's bromance which developed. There's this kind of the intimacy or kind of re rebuff rebuffing which has been going on so that that found that they were bound to clash, take different positions was going to happen. Second thing is that while Trump has taken, this ultra nationalist anti-global position. Western Europe may has abdicated her, you know, Britain's Britain has abdicated the global position. Mercury strength was fighting for survival. There was a position which was clear and open for taking macro has taken that position. And you know, his speech was Dutch an older right things. Climate change, Iran, nuclear proliferation. So this was, as you said, clearly position against Trump, but also securing for himself position as a global leader, which other western powers have kind of let go, what do you think caffeine you think Micron sees a vacancy in the role of leader of the free world? Well, that's fairly obvious. It's been moving in that direction for quite some time. It also rather reminded me of the goal back in the sixties. Remember when he clashed with president Lyndon Johnson and what d- golden was not to bellow at the United Nations and say, you know, beat his chest and so forth. He started selling gold. Which meant that that dollars went now. Sorry, selling dollars for gold, which because the United States was already worried about what was happening to the dollar, attacked it in the most fundamental way. And there was nothing Johnson could do about another words. He didn't Bello. He. He did thinks it would actually hurt at the very foundation of of the American position. So the point is, well, there's several points and I quite liked my colleagues. Two points there is that macro has wanted to be the leader of Europe every since he became he became head of France. That position was there for the taking in the past two years after Merckel. There's no one else who has the position. Indeed, there's no one else who has a nuclear power now that now that Britain is is wondering often in another direction, but he cannot do this alone. I mean, Trump can do this alone at this point and mackerel can't. So he has to mobilize. He was trying to mobilize. I will be very interested to see what he mobilizes and how long this mobilization will last. And this is the thing we've been seeing a hint off from various western leaders. Certainly in the last couple of years, this realization that maybe they need to start not regarding Trump as if he is a temporary blip that everybody can just ignore ride out for four years or even eight years or however long this ends up lasting and it may be they do need to start thinking of ways to reorganize the west without America at the heart of a. Do you think Micron kind of is beginning to grasp that or nudge people towards it. Because as he correctly pointed out, he mentioned things like the Paris agreement and the Iran agreement both of which the US on the Trump has abandoned. Yeah. Yeah. One of the most interesting things he has said is that those who do not keep promises on international agreements, one should stop doing trade with them and Paris climate. Climate accord is one of them so he's clearly trying to is late US. It's a very difficult thing of course to do, given the trade and wealth which the US generates, but the clear strong positions which micro wants to take and wants everyone else to take and his talking about things like collective action upholding of sovereignty. So this clearly. Realize ation that Trump is not the most reliable. And as you said. Frans Germany u u k, the can't go it alone as Trump can. So there needs to be a collective realization of this and macaroni is the person who's trying to lead this at the moment. Michael has more problems than macro at home mayor has enough troubles. So. Perhaps it's, you know, the other leaders also allowing him to take the centerstage. Kathleen Macron is not without problems at home. No, at least not without a a problem, which is that nobody likes him very much anymore. As tends to be the way of things with presidents of the Fifth Republic. These are short honeymoons. We, we witnessing do you get the sense that I either he's pitching to a domestic audience trying to impress them by being the world leader, or is he just thinking? Well, the hell with that, it's more fun than more interesting and I can do. I can accomplish more as a global figure than a domestic one. Well, of course you can't be a global figure without a country behind you. So this would be a raw, the short term approach to he doesn't fact remember having majority in the assembly. He, you know, he can. He can. He has that behind him. It's only when his own supporters parties and decide to wander off the real difficulty. Yes. Obviously, his poll is poll numbers have plunged. He is now supported by fewer than fifty percent of the French population. That's quite a plunge from when he was elected, but it's a while till the next elections and France does like being considered an important country and Macron consistently do this better than along could do. So in that sense for those who like FRANZ to make a difference, he's a good thing, but he thinks FRANZ likes imperial leaders as far as I can tell, and the French are two minds about this as as we know it's difficult. His thing he should go for, I think is that you cannot trust Trump to keep his word. That is to say, why have an agreement? Because you cannot trust him to keep it North Korea's already said that, in fact that know you wanna make an agreement. So if you if he pounds on that one, that's a any any wants to isolate Trump that's probably as good as any recur. Well, let's move on somewhat. In fact, half a world away and look now at a stray Leah there as elsewhere. The relationship between the government and the public broadcaster is an uneasy one as boy and logic probably should be the strangest public broadcast. These tragic Broadcasting Corporation has enjoyed a long history of being suspected of bios and threatened with retribution by governments of all shades. The ABC is presently embroiled in a row verging indeed on an outright brouhaha over reports that it's chairman, Justin mill tried to sack its chief economics correspondent Alberici in. To present pressure rather from the present conservative government. And this follows the not entirely explained as yet sacking by Milne of ABC managing director, Michelle Guthrie. I don't want to get over absorbed in the minutiae of this dispute within Australia, at least partly because even within a stroke that nobody seems entirely clear on quite what went on all. Why did want to ask though about the relationship between government and public broadcasters? Some, not because it's something certainly. We hear a lot of here in the UK because it's the same kind of thing. Traditionally, when we'll traditionally lay become claims that the BBC is institutionally biased to the conservative party and the conservative party complains that the BBC is a NIST of treacherous metropolitan pinkos, but it's Beavis is a good place to start because in the nineteen twenties, when the British Broadcasting Corporation was created, there was this idea of this utopian public service. Don mills book. Myth of a public service, the BBC puts to rest any. I any sense that BBC was ever independent. Then there's garden Virginia bonds at Nagasaki of the BBC again, which shows how. Almost director after director have been. Forced coerced pressured by the government. And this is expected. We do not in the real political world when you're funded by the taxpayer and the government decides on the funding, there will be pressure. It will always depend on particular persons who are heading the board, how they manage that pressure and this in this particular instance, mill has obviously done it very badly. But when I read that text of that male which is sent out and I think it's simple, get rid of her. The journalists in question. One of the things one finds difficult is that there is no direct mention of who has pressured him in. This is a kind of general conversation. Was he asked to bend and has he crawled, we don't know. So immediately say that, but you have people in the government or high officers pressured. The gentlemen. Might be, we might be reaching too far. So again, one has to see if there was any direct pressure put because this text actually doesn't say much about in the broader question of. Do governments influence public broadcasting everywhere in every country since the nineteen twenties. In the third world from the nineteen sixties onwards. Of course it has happened, but that being the case, Kathleen, would we be better off thinking of this. The other way around in the time to worry is when the government and the public broadcaster and not rowing. I couldn't agree more. I, I have couple of a couple of things stick in my mind. First of all, Suez crisis, the BBC did not bend, did not break Anthony and the prime minister said, look, you know, they're, they're being, you know, they're, they're betraying the country. They can't say things like that. They didn't break the fact that the World Service's even listened to by by those who hate the west because it is more trustworthy than any other broadcasting if they can come across. Even their own tells me again that the BBC's the BBC the probity of the BBC is rather more than almost any other one one can imagine. Now that's different. Also more widely admired I think outside the UK is an in it well, indeed, a couple of reasons. I mean, I have always thought, well, always not before I was born, but I have thought for decades that in terms of British soft power, there's nothing really to match the BBC that that provides such such a equality of perception of Great Britain that I, I hope that they appreciate it. But yes, I mean, the point is domestically, it's more of a problem. The BBC in this passion for balanced comes up with some of the most idiot combinations program. One can actually imagine, but I agree it is difficult. It is difficult. The thing about this country of course, is that if people, if if if if the board, if if the director general does try did try something like this, it would be revealed so fast. Then they backpedal madly, you know, because the BBC also doesn't lie. To be in a political row. It sounds as ABC and and and the government over there are enjoying themselves. I mean, I think they are. I mean speaking as an Australian citizen, my only my own slightly jaundiced interpretation of this story is exactly that that everybody is quite enjoying the row because there's really not an awful lot else going on, but there is an issue he though I think wanted to one some, nothing when government starts beating up on the national broadcaster and starts muttering about and it. It's a common sort of conservative slash libertarian refrain. Now, the injustice of the license fee that this is something people are obliged to pay. Do you risk undermining public faith? Not just in the public broadcast, but in public institutions, generally? Yes. And then every time things like this happens, heads of governments like Trump will try and slash public broadcasting and funding. So that's the downside of it. But this kind of conversations and checks and balances. We need to keep on having one is the two issues. If we're talking about government interference, we're talking only about editorial interference. We need government intervention and interference as far as securing public Butkus. So you know the two things to to have one without not having the other completely is a very difficult situation. And I agree with you BBC's kind of the highest example when talks about property and and you know the best that public broadcasting service can offer. But my point earlier was that even within the pinnacle, when you look at it very closely, researchers have found huge problem problem. So even within the best. So the question the larger question is, therefore in the twenty first century, what role does public broadcasting service play? And should we give up on it and relied totally on private because the pro- the problem with private is greed becomes a factor. Profit becomes a factor. Why. In the public broadcasting that doesn't. So this is balanced, which one needs to get to. We will take a short break now before we do that, though, it'd be remiss of me as an Australian talking about the not to impart my favorite ever pub quiz fact, which is ABC postal address in every state PO box nine, nine, nine four was chosen in honor of the batting average of Saddam Bradman. You're listening to Madari house with me, Andrew mullets with me, Kathleen Burke and some better boil. We'll be back shortly. This scape has takes you to places less explored and this special edition. We hope on a hotchpotch of connecting trains to recreate the story journey of the Orient Express from London to assemble. We passed by drive thru liquor stores in small desert towns, adventurous road trip from New Orleans to Texas and visit Europe's highest airports for the jet set is among you. We'll show you how to beat jet lag in cities from Hong Kong to LA and reveal annual travel. Talk fifty highlighting the best in transport and service from the most picturesque rail journey to the airline, you'll poured feel next trip perhaps that next flight will deliver you to Cairo on Madeira or the island of Tishina. We'll take you that and we'll tell you where to stay drink and dine. Next time you find yourself far from home. We've even put together a wardrobe for wherever your travels may lead you as well as in the clinic selection of books and songs to keep you entertained on the journey when you're not too busy looking at the windows, putting the places you've yet. Visit this guy pissed from the editors and bureau of monocle magazine is out. Now get your copy today. We'll subscribe at Monaco dot com. You're back with Madari house with me under Melissa with me, are Kathleen book and some left better by now in normal times, midterm elections in the United States are of interest mostly to friendless political obsessive, especially outside the United States as one may glean from picking up any given newspaper. However, these are not normal times. And for that reason, these midterms Jew, this coming November have become the subject of global fascination, especially among those hoping for a large-scale repudiation of the present. Occupant of the White House. It is maddeningly open question. However, whether this fascination is shared by American voters in the two thousand fourteen midterms, turn out was thirty six point, four percent, Kathleen, do you expect that to rise this time? I do indeed both Democrats who went to change the composition of the house and the Senate and Republicans who want to make sure they aren't changed. Certainly turnouts going to be key on this. There are various other interesting things. One of course is, is the me too movement which is produced hundreds of more female candidates than has ever been seen before. The another question is what is going to be the Hispanic American turn out that will be crucial. Will that turn Texas back to being democratic? That's certainly not a probability, but it's a possibility if that makes any sense, if doesn't too bad. And and essentially what we have to remember of course and might who knows which way this is going to do that. Traditionally in the first midterms that public tend to vote against the occupant of the White House. That is to say, when Obama when it was the Democrats, the Republicans took the next mid terms of a tradition as he gave the president of kicking, let them know that they're not. They're not getting all their own way. Well, it might not be precisely what's in one's mind, but by that. Time, of course you don't like what the president is doing. And so you think you'll have a go with a with a another party, I suppose, but that's the tradition. So it'll be interesting to see if there's such a polarization if Republicans get their people out whether that is negated this time. So what is being fondly hoped for here by at least by the Democratic Party ended, sympathizers is, is the so-called Blue Wave. This idea that there will be a huge repudiation of Trump which will bring into play, which will not merely bring back what might have been lost by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, but will turn new areas blue. Like for example, Texas has Kathleen suggests which which has been a democratic state before, admittedly, not for some decades. How confident should the Democrats be about a Blue Wave? They were pretty confident at the last presidential election as I recall the dumb Bluewave our midtown wave again, as you said, it's always anti goes against. Yes. But this anti presidential wave went against Clinton and Obama because this liberal media, all of us do not like Trump very much. We've just kind of spinning it on Trump and because Trump is there. We'll have this blue, but you know, Clinton and Obama were much liked by the liberal media. And again, there was a wave against them. Having said this, it appears as you just said, Kathleen, that Democrats are appearing highly competitive in conservative districts. The battle ground is opening up much more than what Clint in the Hillary Clinton's. Oh, sorry. I shouldn't have said that the cloud hanging. So I think that back. There is definitely conversation and the polls seem to show that Democrats are making inroads into areas which was traditionally read. Now how this will turn out one of the things to remember this four hundred thirty five seats in play, which means at least eight hundred thirty seven candidates. Just to put it down to Trump and an anti-trump movement might be too much because there's our local particular issues and how this will play out in again. Ninety days, Kathleen as you correctly, observed turnout will be key, and I'm I, I'm always fascinated slash uphold by low turnout figures that partly because I think voting is something that people should just do. And also because I come from a country Australia in which you don't get a choice, even if you don't vote, you are stool compelled to at least walk up to the primary school at the end of the street and scroll some obscenity on the ballot paper. Is there anything that can be done? What should be done to increase turnout. Well, land free home in the rave and you. You cannot tell people they have to vote. I mean, I agree with you. I think when so many people have died and fought to have the right to vote it quite appalling when people do not do. So, unfortunately, people don't listen to me on that. I. Turnout depends on people wanting to vote for particular candidate or vote against a particular candidate. Turn out is likely to be higher because they're an awful lot of candidates that go into that area. There are so many candidates. I mean, forty three representatives are not running again because things are so turbulent in their own constituencies. So in that sense, I mean, I agree that I mean, every member of the house of representatives is up and we have to remember that the intention of the founding fathers in the constitution was to make certain that they are controlled by the constituency. I mean, senators are meant to look for the country. These people are meant to respond to their constituencies. So in that sense, no one can save them if their constituencies don't like them and which also made you get some absolutely appalling policies because a small towns in rural Arkansas insist on. Something, but you know that that was the way the founding fathers wanted it, what we should move on. Finally tonight to what may be the least meaningful rebrand in corporate history. As of January Dunkin donuts will be known merely as Dunkin, presumably in a bid to stop repelling. Those very many people who would totally have come into a shop full of doughnuts if only the would doughnuts did not appear on the sign, the official line is that the company shortly to be formerly known as Dunkin donuts wishes to establish itself in the popular imagination as a purveyor of other things. Besides doughnuts, like coffee, for example, I I have in my time, I'm going to start by saying, had the coffee at Dunkin donuts, I'm I'm not proud of it, but. It was open. They need to work on that on the coffee is my my, my humble tentative suggestion before they go all in on this, some that does this alter your perceptions, opinions view of Dunkin donuts significantly one way or the other nail in the only time I've been in America at I, my second visit to a shop was Dunkin donuts mope for all my sins, and I did have a doughnut under coffee and like you. I agree the coffee needs improvement. It's pretty good. But you know, you've been to India, you never think of Calcutta skull kata or bomb bays Mumbai. Some brandings don't work, and I think so my vote here should have would have been with Dunkin donuts. So the thing is some of those city rebe runs the Indian ones. I think have mostly star. I do now here more. I think of it myself more Mumbai than Bombay, not use the Calcutta cult. The Calcutta, co-counsel one, not so much because it didn't really make mattress. Yeah, I I would say I would say tonight rather than Madrid's sadly I wouldn't, but I'm a historian after. Wants did stick. I mean, Kathleen does, does this strike you? The removal of donuts from the Dunkin donuts, Mark has a particularly significant moment in our culture. Well, I it it. It's only the latest in a long line. We used to know what I mean used to be British Telecom, which had a certain ring about it. I also noticed as we were discussing earlier Weight Watchers is now w w it's hard to say WW, but I suppose that means that people who are going to Weight Watchers. It's a lot easier to admit, they're going to w w. So I, I can only assume that's that's the reason. And also they're all short. We are in a land. We are in an era of soundbites, are we not? And I've just said one and it's an awful lot of advertising. An awful lot of of companies, in fact, have decided that it's God knows why that it is more memorable and easier to cope with. If you've got three large capital letters than if you've actually got a name. So what you wanted these Dunkin coffee, don't you. Dunk, what they could if they could have gone? Well, the thing, I guess with Dunkin donuts, if they'd reduce that to the abbreviations that that would have DVD that would have that would have. Opened up a whole. Bangalore been going to. Again, I've, I've, I've no particular problem. We have to stop this one's trying to hide pumpers round on what Indian cities are cold now that used to be what they used to be called. I mean. Kathleen mentioned that they have been some, especially the Arctic runs in recent British history, the post office called it self something else for a while as well. Consignia I think. Nobody understood of dole minute changed its name back after realizing the entire country. Now, no little understood what they actually did. British Steel called itself. Something else after a while as well. Can I tell you a story about my college which is go scooter forty until an African studies, and everyone thought he was very colonial African and all the wrong things given that it's supposed to be a postcolonial institution. So now because it sell us and it apparently does letters, don't mean anything. That's what our director said, but isn't a nutcase good letters don't mean anything because then it becomes waiting. They end up meaning is the institution for which you work. That's that becomes the definition of sewers. I didn't know what you mean. Well, if nothing else is called so s and then so ends up being called. So s and that's fine. To say this, what do you like from problem in? I mean, I'm UCLA and which is sort of a block away from so as, but we've also got cease which is a school of Salonika and east European studies. No one knows what that is either that's cease as opposed to being. So as a you just sort of, no. Which region of the world at it is it reflects response doors, part of you just well, I mean, it's easier to remember. I'm going to so as I'm not, but you're going to sit less than it is to to spell the whole thing out. It's shortness is like Dunkin or w w. I think at that point we the the clock is against us a thank you both for joining us Kathleen Burke and so north Butterball, and let's let's all be grateful that we're not going to be the person who is going to have to spend the rest of their lives sending litters in meteorologists correcting them. Every time they referred to Dunkin donuts that does bring us to the end of today's edition of what I suppose we should call 'em h. It was produced by Ben Ryland research by. Fernando, Augusta, Pacheco, moth Libro studio manager was David Stevens music next at nineteen hundred. It's a business program. The entrepreneurs. We'll have more on the day's main stories on the daily at twenty two hundred Madari house returns at the same time tomorrow. Eighteen hundred London. I'm Andrew mullet. Thanks for listening.