 more hate views, more aggression from that hate takes place here in the United States. But this weekend, Joe Biden signed a bill that provides $40.1 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine. The Senate passed it on Thursday and the House passed it a week before this flew through so fast you would think the United States was under attack. But we have watched over the last three months U.S. hearts and minds being driven upside down into thinking weapons is an answer and brings us to peace. I remember the day the Iraq war resolution went to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of which Biden was chair. And instead of doing his job and saying no to Bush's lies, Biden said we need to bomb Iraq to peace. I count out you can't bomb anything to peace and was arrested. So lessons were learned and there are no lessons learned in the last 20 years and I see Janine's joined us. Janine, I'm just welcoming everybody and giving a little context, thanks for joining us. So, but 21 trillion of taxpayer dollars has been wasted. We see yet again the media driving a frenzy to war using the same playbook as the past where the people were fooled and later told the truth. But those lessons don't stick. So as I said earlier, we sent out an alert this week for our community to ask the media to quit calling for more war and instead plans for peace. And Lola will keep posting that link. If you haven't signed it, please do. The media has weaponized our compassion and empathy. So the weapons companies and their investors can make more money. The U.S. once had 25% of global GDP and now it has 16%. So it's only remaining power is militarism and it is using it with our tax dollars to bring us to the brink of a nuclear war, not just with Russia, but their real goal is China. So I'm thrilled to dive into how this happens with Janine today. Janine Jackson is the program director of FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting and the host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show, Counterspin. It's a weekly program of media criticism airing on more than 150 stations around the country. You can also read her articles. It's a lawn and common dreams and truth out in so many other places. She was also a contributor to Code Pink's Iraq Tribunal on the lies and costs of the Iraq War and wrote an essay for our book, Stop the Next War Now. In it, to stop the next war, she talked about how Bush took the nation's grief and anger and turned it into the support of an illegal immoral war. And here we go again. Welcome, Janine. Yeah, it's my pleasure. It's my pleasure and in some ways my sorrow to be here in conversation with you again. You can hear me, I'm assuming, based on what I've said. Yeah. I just want to say you're one of my heroes. You have been raising up the truth for decades and you never lose your passion or your clarity. And can we just start? Not on air. No, we just start by you telling us how you got called to do this work and how given the contortion of the media that seemed to just get worse by the year, you stay so fierce and inspiring in your work. Well, thank you very much. I very much appreciate that because I don't feel fierce every day. And it has been 30 years or so that I've been doing this work. And sometimes people say, you are trying to improve corporate news media and the way that they represent human beings and debate in this country. And so you're obviously failing, right? And the truth is if we woke up every day and judged ourselves at fair and our work by whether the New York Times was doing a better job being genuinely a force for democracy and free speech and a free flow of information, genuinely representing the public's view on critical information and stories like war, well, then we would think we were failures, right? But fair has always seen ourselves as a public education effort as much as a media criticism effort. And I do believe and it's maybe what I need to tell myself but it's also what I do believe is true is that in 2022 as compared to 1986 when fair started, we do have many, many, many more people recognizing the influence that corporate media have on their brains and their hearts and their understanding of political possibility. And we have more people who are unafraid to just straight up disagree with that narrative. Even though it is so hegemonic and so everywhere, we have, I think, many, many more people who say, yeah, I know it was in the paper, I still know it's not true. And what's more, I have other sources that I can look to to give me a counter narrative to explain the world to me in a different way. And I like to think that fair and counterspin have had something to do with encouraging people to ask those questions and to feel dissatisfied with the news media that they're getting. And then the other piece of it has been to redirect people to other sources of information. So if our point is to make the New York Times better, well, all right, but if our point is to encourage more and more people around the world to speak above and around and without corporate news media and to understand the influence that those media have in sort of co-opting our thinking. Well, then in that case, I think that we have come some way since 1986 and even from the Iraq War when we last talked, even though Gali, it's a disheartening time, absolutely. Well, thank you for starting us off with that optimism because I do agree with you and that's why you are one of my heroes is that in the face of, we say we can't inward till we end the war economy and you can't change the media until you change the war economy because they're just serving it. That's right. But what we can do is pull people away from being used by it. And you've really done an excellent job of that and you're a great teacher around that which I'm gonna bring up some of the teachings you talked about in the book of like how we do that. But so let's just, yes, more people know, but let's just look at the media a little bit about how is the media the same or different in this drive to war on Russia and China than it was with Iraq? Has anything changed? Well, what's interesting is that while on the surface things have changed, the message hasn't changed. So if for example, the question is exceptionalism, is US exceptionalism and the kind of us versus them framing that is really one of the main primary. And if anyone just takes anything away from this today in terms of what should I be looking for when I read corporate news media, it's that us versus them framing that I think you should look out for. The idea that there's an us and that is defined by geopolitical boundaries and that there is a them and that not only are they defined by geopolitical boundaries, there is also an implied moral distinction. We are good and whatever we do, how many other people at harms, it's in service of good. They are bad and they intend harm and whatever they do, it's in the service of harm. And I say that and it sounds very crude, but the truth is it's that crude. And when you look at news media coverage, whether it's on TV or in the paper, that's the question you should always be asking yourself, who are they presuming is an us and who are they presuming is a them? And if we take away anything else, it is that we should always be in our brains reframing to find a different us, which is human beings, everywhere around the world, who are affected by war, who are outside of power, who are just trying to live, who are not driven by hatred. And there's a them, which is the governments in the main that want to profit both politically and materially from making us fight one another. So to the extent that we can bring a framework to every news media outlet and story that we read that says, I assume that killing people is bad and that is the last thing that I would want to do. And so what is the argument that I'm being given here that is driving me to want to do this worst possible thing and who are they telling me is threatening me and who are they telling me I should identify with? And I think just asking those questions every time is always gonna be an appropriate first response. So that kind of US exceptionalism, when we do it, it's different. We're seeing that a lot and we're seeing it in particular with Russia and Ukraine and just one example that I'll give and I know folks will have other ones has to do with weapons, for example, has to do with, in this case, cluster bombs. We had NBC, this is February of this year, talking about Russia committing war crimes in Ukraine and saying that they seem to be using cluster bombs. And then they quote someone from Human Rights Watch saying, we think cluster munitions should never be used at all. So they cite a human rights expert as though they value that human rights expert and their expertise. And then the NBC correspondent goes on to say, yes, cluster munitions are banned by 110 countries, though not by Russia or the US. So they acknowledge, but then immediately that's followed by still the US hasn't used them since the first Gulf War over 30 years ago. They're used by the Russians in Ukraine, another sign of this war's growing savagery. So that's doing a lot of work there, right? That comment, you're just home watching TV. That comment's doing a lot of work. First of all, it's false, just straight up false. The US has dropped cluster bombs on Bosnia in 95, on Afghanistan in 2001 and two, and Iraq in 2003, you know, in Yemen in 2009, it's just false, right? But about the use of cluster munitions by the US. But moreover, the US has refused to join, has refused to sign the convention on cluster munitions that would ban their use, their use, their production, their transpire or their transfer or their stockpiling, right? So when NBC says these weapons are particularly savage, savage is an interesting word. Russia is savage for using these weapons. The US, oh yes, the US did use them, but we figured out that it was wrong until we stopped using them and all of that is false. Well, that's doing a whole lot of storytelling, right? That's doing a whole lot of storytelling about who is a savage, about who's using weapons, about who has agreed that certain weapons are unacceptable. And it's both false and misleading. And one thing that I would note is that when you call media out on this as fair does, you know, back in 2015, we had to write to the New York Times and say, you were pretending as they were that the US was following the provisions of the convention on cluster munitions and they wrote a correction because they knew it was false, right? But as everyone listening knows, fewer people read the correction than read the original story. So you have this narrative that says that we, whatever we do are in service of peace. Whatever war mongering we do is in service of ending war, whereas whoever else it is, in this case, Russia, they are simply trying to continue war because in this case, they are savages. And the other thing that I would note that also affects this is debate. Who gets to speak? And we talk about this all the time. Who are the sources? Who gets to come on the nightly news? And here is where we see, and folks can go to fair.org and look up the latest with regard to Russia, Ukraine, with regard to various stories. But what we find even up to today is that we are still overloaded with former military, current military, pentagons, weapons manufacturers, representatives, people who are former generals who are now on the boards of weapons manufacturers, but that may not be disclosed. And so we still have a conversation about the potential for war that is shaped overwhelmingly by people who profit from war. And it sounds crude, it sounds simple, but when you watch the debate, it sounds like it's nuanced. It sounds like they're having a complicated conversation about history and diplomacy and what needs to happen. But what we as viewers need to understand is that in fact, in many cases, the majority of the participants in those mainstream news media debates are people who have a vested interest, who literally make money from war continuing, from the sales of weapons and from an overriding sense that war is the answer to whatever fear or anger that we have. So I will say again, there's details, there's subtlety, but overall the message is just as deep and crude as that. And it's about news media with the debate that they curate and who they allow to speak, telling us overwhelmingly that there is no other solution for any problem that is presented geopolitically than killing, than war. And diplomacy is weakness. And we have to have other spaces and grow other spaces to have the other kinds of conversations that we obviously and clearly need to have. Well, in the piece that SAU wrote for Stop the Next War now, and also the part of the debate you talked about was I think you said there were like 383 papers that were pro-war and only three that were going against it. I wonder if there is even one major mainstream media outlet that's speaking out against why this isn't working and why we not even calling for diplomacy. I don't know, have you seen one? You know, I couldn't tell you frankly of an outlet that has editorially suggested that there is another response apart from a military response. And let's just add Jodi that, you know, when we're talking about violent responses, sanctions are part of that. You know, when media present economic sanctions as an alternative to a violent intervention and what their meaning is blocking all food and medicine and needed supplies to people, we shouldn't get that twisted either. You know, I think we can ask ourselves straightforwardly, are we talking about harming the civilians of another sovereign country in the world? And what is our pretense for doing that? And the idea that the choice is between a violent military intervention or supplying or helping another country's violent military intervention or simply denying needed supplies to the civilians of that country, let's not be confused that those things have different wildly different impacts. Obviously, you know, there is difference there, but at the same time that the bottom line questions are the same. Why are we as United States citizens being told that it is up to us to harm human beings like us in another country in order to force them to have a different leadership? It's just, it's a bottom line question that we have to be countering and that corporate media get up every day, every day, every day and encourage us not to question. Well, and then we question why things like Buffalo happen when we say violence and murder is the only answer. It trickles down into other people's hearts and minds to be used also. It's the modeling from the top that trickles down. But, you know, another thing you said in your essay was that facts were important. And I wonder, you know, what do you think would be different if the media would have covered Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and the US drone strikes in the same way they have covered the war in Ukraine? Well, it's an interesting question. We have found, for example, that in the Iraq war, there was very little interest in civilian casualties, in Iraqi civilian casualties. Whereas in Russia's war on Ukraine, there has been a laudable and tremendous interest in Ukrainian civilian casualties. And there has been a tremendous amount of focus on civilians who are caught up in the war, you know? And one of the things that Julie Holler from FAIR found was that when we were talking about the first week of the Iraq war and Nightly News was mentioning civilian casualties, they were not talking about civilian casualties. They were mostly talking about military casualties and they weren't talking to civilians about that, you know? Also, they weren't talking about the US as being responsible for those civilian casualties. So when they covered Iraqi civilian casualties, the idea was these people have been killed by either war, you know, or by other Iraqis. When we look at Ukraine coverage, Russia is named as the perpetrator in every single one of the 28 mentions of civilian casualties that we saw looking at the early coverage of the war. So would it have made a difference if US media had connected US military to all of the civilian casualties in Iraq? I mean, it's such an alternative world, you know? I do believe that people are influenced by human beings they see on the news, human beings who are being harmed and they wanna know who's harming them, you know? But at the same time, you know, you had US media saying specifically in the Iraq war, yeah, you can show Iraqi civilians, but make sure that every time you show them, you point out that they're kind of to blame for it, you know, and the same with Afghanistan. Every time you show Afghan civilians being harmed, make sure you make it clear that things would be worse. So I don't know. Well, I mean, we have a journalist, we have a journalist in prison for exposing what happened in Iraq. You know, one single war crime exposed and he sits in prison, Julian Assange. And that was because of a whistleblower. Absolutely, absolutely. So we have to be mindful that, you know, what we say, you know, we say, oh, you can speak the truth. And this is why fair doesn't say news media never reported on civilian casualty here. News media always said that casual leagues were, we don't do never and always because you can always find a counter example. You can always find one story that did a great job, that did a complicated job or a nuanced job. We're talking about, what do you see on the front page? What do you see when you turn on the TV, the nightly news and what is the framing of that story? And I think, I don't think anyone who is a regular news consumer would deny that there is a difference between the way that the Iraq war perpetrated by the United States was covered in terms of civilians aren't being hurt, weapons are all, you know, very careful and directed and not hurting civilians. And the way we're covering Russia and Ukraine where isn't it terrible civilians are being harmed? Russia is obviously, you know, violent and savage because of what they're doing evidenced by what they're doing, we can see that this framing is different. And I think it's a question of how grown up do we wanna be as US people? Do we genuinely think that everything the US does is good and everything any other country does is bad? Like is that the story that we need news media to tell us or can we actually handle reality and make difficult political decisions about what we wanna do as citizens living in a country that is an imperialist violent country that does many, many things that we disagree with. Yeah. Well, so, you know, a disservice, like do you think the media has made US citizens stupider? I mean, when you don't get to see the truth, like I say, if you didn't get to see what happened when your country was bombing and maiming and, you know, if you don't get to see the results of sanctions as people are starving to death in Iran and Venezuela and Cuba and you don't, I mean, are you not really made unintelligent by the media? And then, you know, here, I don't remember this in Iraq, you know, leading up to Iraq, but we actually have great journalists that are being censored and we have, you know, full-on journalism around China. There's a film out that shows how the Chinese have taken everyone out of poverty was produced by PBS and now is being censored because it makes Beijing look too good right when the US wants Beijing to look bad. What have you seen a change and how easy it is to affect US citizenry through mainstream media? Or do you find that it's just always been pretty much the same? I guess what I would say, going back to kind of where we started, if anything, corporate media, I believe have become have doubled down on their weird, you know, centrism, uber-alice, pro-military, like the New York Times is, I just don't, I don't think corporate news media are getting better. And by that I mean, I judge media by whether they are rising to the occasion. And we are in a very, very, very, very, very, very, very particularly difficult occasion in terms of attacks on democracy. And so what I see is corporate news media failing, big time, hugely to respond to the attacks on free speech, the attacks on democracy and the attacks on the free flow of information. That's just a major failure. At the same time, if I'm looking at the big picture, I do see more independent media, more other news media that you can even be pointed to from stories in corporate news media, you know, they're not a monolith, they're great reporters, but there's never been a substitute for informing yourself independently as a citizen. So it's difficult for me to say whether corporate news media have gotten better or worse because the situation, the landscape has changed a tremendous amount. Certainly I feel that they are, I feel they're doing worse because I feel that there are more is being asked of them and they're failing bigger and more impactfully, you know. At the same time, you can go out there and you can find other sources of information and the truth is you always needed to do that. The truth is there was never a time when you could read The New York Times and imagine that you got the whole story of the world. There was never a time when you could watch Walter Cronkite, you know, God bless and imagine that you got an understanding, you know, of what was happening in the world and the US's role in it. That was not the case. So is it more fractured now? Do you have to work harder as a news consumer? Absolutely. Are the news media that are harming us more powerful, more concentrated? That's also true. So we have to work at a number of levels, the policy level to break up the big dominant media to fund and support independent media. But then we can't waste time, you know, life's going by. We have to talk around and without news media right now, right now. And we really have to decode and deconstruct and not believe the narratives and the stories and sometimes even the information that we are getting from those big media. So there's a question from Avatar Drake Decker, I think. She asks, like, what are some of the hardest challenges that we're facing today in journalism? And do you recommend any resources to learn or groups to volunteer to in order to make a positive impact? You know, I guess what I would say is that I do think there's a lot of energy and newness at local media at that level. I was very excited by a project that sort of started at FreePress, but it's not really a FreePress project. It's the New Jersey Civic Information Consortium and it's about using public dollars to fund hyper-local media. And not only do I think that that's a place where there's an absence of information and where that information is immediately usable by people, I also think it's a space for young journalists who wanna start working and doing stories that immediately have an impact in their community. You know, I really do believe in local media as a way to start talking to one another, as a way to continue talking to one another and to grow journalists, you know, and start them speaking truth to power. Well, that's good that you have a lot of hope in journalism because sometimes we look at it and we that we're not sure journalism even happens very, it's so rare sometimes. You know, it's gotta be where you look. And honestly, focusing on local journalism has been a tremendous source of hope for me. You know, honestly, if it was about every day waking up and reading the New York Freakin' Times, you know, it would be a different kind of disheartening. But I think a lot of folks have learned that a lot of big media simply don't speak for or to them. And they are finding and creating other outlets. And I think we shouldn't overlook that. It can be super, super meaningful. And as we learned with social media, big media will just look to you to start, this is why every other story in your mainstream Newdy outlet is something they saw on Twitter, right? Because they are looking for other sources of news and of resources. So grow it wherever you are and let them come to us. Yes, cultivate your local peace economy. It starts at home. So yes, I think that, you know, we'll respond to everyone who RSVP'd for this with tools to do a letter to your editor in your local newspaper. Thank you for that. Yes, Janine. Absolutely, and folks can ask me. I'm J. Jackson at fair.org. You have questions or thoughts or things that we can weigh in on. And I'm super happy to respond to folks. Well, so I have a question now from Steve Roddy. Stephen Roddy who says, thank you so much, Janine. You've definitely educated me all these years, one of the most insidious aspects of our media system is how it is able to smear Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan sources as so-called state-sponsored, which therefore it's so fact it was 100% propaganda. And then to denigrate those countries' population as, you know, benighted when they support their governments. Yet in fact, many, even perhaps most people in those countries are often much better informed than we are and that their media are often full of excellent balanced reporting that we should be paying attention to in order to understand the world. In other worlds, how do we encourage international media literacy, especially now that so much of it is accessible in English? Well, I just encourage it, straight up encourage it. And Venezuela is an excellent example. I remember a guest from Venezuela visiting the fair office 15 years ago and talking, and I'm sure it's different now, but talking about the Venezuelan media landscape that was, yes, a lot of it was private and a lot of it was state-sponsored. And then there were some spaces that were designated for civic organizations, for religious organizations, for labor organizations. In other words, there was a conscious idea of trying to have a diverse landscape of media in terms of ownership, right? So I think that, but when I would travel to South America and say, we think it's great that your state sponsors media, they would say, oh no, state-sponsored media is bad, right? You want private sources because private is more free. And I was like, yeah, give it 30 years and we'll talk about how corporate commercial sponsorship is more free than state sponsorship. Obviously it's contextual. Obviously it's different in different situations, but I do think the idea of talking about a mixed landscape of ownership. First of all, recognizing that structure, ownership structure does determine content. The idea isn't that content we're gonna demand that it'd be smart or it'd be clever. It has to do with who signs the checks. It has to do with who is this outlet accountable to. So we do need to recognize the importance of structure and then think about having a landscape of differently structured media outlets. It's something to talk about. Back to US exceptionalism, we can only ever do it the way that we do it in this country. Well, no, actually you can look outside our borders and see the way that other countries do it and some, maybe you like it, maybe you don't but there are other models. There are other models that we can look to and we should look to because we are not a fixed thing. We are a country in motion. We are a society that's aspiring to democracy. We are not there. And so we should be open to trying different kinds of models and different kinds of communities and different kind of structures as we get to the kind of place that we wanna live in. Thank you, yes. And I think the structure piece of knowing the goal of the structure itself. So the goals of the structure even of the United States that serve the rich and seem to serve the militarism. But here's a question from Christopher. He says, when criticizing or deconstructing the media, how can we avoid feeding or being perceived as aligned with the ultra-rights stop the steel fake news narratives? Well, you know, content in your conversation, you know, once you get past slogans, it gets less difficult to delineate what you're actually for. I can guarantee you that when you talk about your issues with news media being corporate ownership and sponsorship and a relative absence or marginalization of public interest voices, you will lose a whole lot of folks and you will immediately be in a deeper conversation. So the truth is, it is difficult to have real conversations with real people about real work. It's much easier to write an op-ed in which your opponent isn't there, they're just in your head and you're making them up and then you slam down all of their points, golly gosh. But when you're actually talking to a person and they're like, well, how is that different from the right wing saying this, that or the other, you're in conversation and your answers and your responses come from the context of your conversation and what you are actually trying to achieve in that moment. Why are you talking? Why are you talking to this person? If you're asking me, how do I shut people up on Facebook when they say this and I wanna say that? I don't have an answer for you frankly because I'm kind of over shutting people up on Facebook as being the way forward to changing our society. I actually think that the work is in real conversation on real projects talking to real people. And that is very important to have talking points and it's very important to have your debunking information together. And I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I will definitely provide context and resources for this person. But my general thing is it's not about what can I say to disabuse this person of their ideas about media. I just feel that that doesn't work and that in general, we need to be talking about how do I work with actual people to make actual change in the world? And that once you're doing that the need for magic slogans and things disappears. That is so important. I almost want you to repeat this because more than anything what you've talked about and how you've built there is because it's the place we can go and you teach us and you do it, like even on your show you're disarming with your ironies and you have such a great sense of humor and a way to look and turn things over without being making it a reality. And that's what I'm trying to do. I think you were, without being making it the other and you started about not making it the other and I think you did that about the big picture but it's also about us intimately about how do we make a difference? And we need to build a movement that has the, I mean, for me it has the love, not the hate has peace, not the war. And that starts with how we communicate too. So, again, being able to be local, share the truth, find the truth and share it and in essence be the media ourselves but not needing to be right and be in a fight with each other. So, absolutely, you wanna say about that because I think that is, I know that we get angry and we get frustrated and people are dying and we're watching the lying and we're watching what's being used with our tax dollars and it frustrates the heck out of us but what you're saying is so important. I'm not not angry. I mean, I don't wanna confuse anybody about that. I'm angry as shit, you know, like and I'm also not about conceding anything to other people and saying, let's go along to get along. It's really not that at all. I really am about what's effective, you know and what's not effective at making me feel better for 10 minutes but what is might have an effect of impacting a broader circle and of making real change in the world. You know, so I'm all for not holding back for expressing what you genuinely feel but I do think that at a certain point, well, I do think that doing that can wear some of us down to a nub frankly and you feel that you've been fighting all day and you don't even know what you have to show for it. So I do think that there is, it's very much worth trying to figure out where are people coming from? A lot of it is fear, a lot of it is fear and can we get above that level of conversation and try to offer something different, try to offer a different narrative, a different storyline, a different way of seeing the world that has something that can engage people. And I don't think of that because it's not out of weakness, it's out of strength and it's out of a genuine desire to make a better vision because we can do better. We can do better. And one of the things that makes me maddest about corporate media is the way they lie to us about us and what we believe and what we're capable of. So what I want is for folks to talk around to one another around media so that we can find a new place of conversation and that's not easy, it's not easy. It means talking to people you don't agree with, it means talking to people longer than you might want to but there isn't another way. And I think all of us who are feeling frustrated and sad, we recognize we need to find a different way forward and the different way forward is community. Well, and I think that answers a lot of the questions that we've seen about how do we be different than the right in calling this out? And that is exactly to answer all of those questions in the chat, the way to be different is not to be the slogans, is not to be hate, is to be in the conversation. We don't have to try to be different from the right. The right, I mean, it's not complicated to be different from the right. If you're having a hard time figuring out how to be different from homophobes and racists and what can we do? You are different, right? You're in this call, you're different from the right. The question is how do you build with other folks like you to get our voices out there and to make a difference in the world? Don't get too lost in trying to figure out, you are not doing the same thing as somebody who thinks queer people should die. You don't need to have that in your brain as a, that's not your competition. We're just trying to figure out how to make a better world, how to use the resources that we have and how to support one another. All right, so all those questions that you've had about getting attacked because you're being like the right, she gave you the perfect response. And just before we finish, there's just tons of questions about where do you go? Where would you recommend going? We say fair, but are there other places that you find really reliable that you go to often for the truth that you need to share? I always wish I had a better answer for this. And I always kind of go to the somewhat lazy one, which is you have to do it yourself. I do go to common dreams, I go to truth out, I go to lots of sort of resources that can bind, you know, lots of outlets. But I honestly, I read the New York Times, I read the Washington Post, I read all kinds of outlets. But what I do, and I will say this, I don't try to read a newspaper and learn everything that happened today. You know, what I do is I genuinely, I generally start with a story. And then I have questions about that story and I wormhole that story. I pursue that story. And that I might wind up on an Indonesian website, for example, as I have recently. I might wind up, you know, on a Filipino website that I wasn't aware of until yesterday, but I'm following a story and I'm trying to get different views on that story. So there isn't a single outlet. I do, you know, I like lots of them, you know. But you have to make a book list, a list of lots of different ones. And then also follow stories, follow your questions rather than imagining that there is a single source that can provide you all of the answers. Thank you so much for being with us today and for sharing your wisdom and your heart on all you do every day. You're inspiring. And we rely on you a lot at Code Pink as we have for the last 20 years where we can go. And so just a reminder to everyone, we'll send you a note after this with a way that you could just write a letter to the editor, the good first start in your local paper and talk about what you wanna see, that you wanna see plans for peace and the weapons don't, when war is nothing, when's a war and whatever else you wanna share, keep sharing places to find news in the chat and to name deepest gratitude and to all of you who joined today for trying to find the truth and share the truth and lead us to a more peaceful and loving world. From now, one of the really important things right now is that we be visible because that's one of the things the media covers what's visible and we haven't seen a lot of visibility of peace activists in the last couple of years, we haven't been able to disrupt a single congressional hearing for two and a half years. So we clearly haven't been covered because the only way peace gets covered is if you disrupt the war narrative. And so there's an opportunity for everyone to join us in DC on June 18th with the Poor People's Campaign to bring up, how do we end militarism, poverty and racism? And let's be in the streets together, it's time to be visible, to be bold and to stand up and be seen. So you can join us at Code Pink together and we put it in the chat for you. Please sign up and join us because we are the media. And I think that's, you know, Ginny basically said to us, we need to do our own research. We need to, you know, be intelligent ourselves and then we can share it. So deep gratitude everyone. Onward, note to peace. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Ginny, for all you do.