Thom Hartmann (b. 1951) sounds like a patient teacher who has the whole afternoon. His voice sits in a warm mid-range, even and unhurried, with little of the bark or the snarl that marks most political talk radio. He rarely raises it. When he wants emphasis he slows down instead of getting louder. The effect calms the listener and signals that the host has thought this through and you can relax into his explanation.
His diction runs plain and concrete. He favors short Anglo-Saxon words and everyday examples over jargon. When he reaches for a bigger word he tends to define it on the spot, which keeps the door open for a listener who tuned in mid-sentence. He likes numbers, dates, and names, and he drops them in to anchor a claim. He cites authors and historians by name and often holds up a book on his video feed. He calls back to his own books and to founding-era figures, Jefferson and Adams and Paine, and treats American history as a stock of usable stories rather than decoration.
The signature move is the explainer. He takes a current fight and walks it back to its roots, sometimes a century or two, then walks it forward again to the present. He builds an argument in steps and tells you he is doing so. He repeats a thesis at the top, develops it through the segment, and restates it at the close. This gives his hours a lecture shape. A caller asks a narrow question and Hartmann answers with a small history lesson.
His rhetoric leans on cause and chain. He likes to show how one policy produced a later result, how a court ruling in one decade set up a crisis in another. He frames issues as systems with a history rather than as the latest outrage. He uses the second person to bring the listener in, “here is what happened to you,” and the first-person plural to mark a shared civic project, “we used to do this, we can do it again.” He scolds power more than he mocks individuals. The tone toward opponents is more sorrow and correction than contempt, though he can turn sharp on corporate and billionaire targets, which he returns to often.
On the air he plays the reasonable elder. He thanks callers, lets them finish, and pushes back without cutting them off. He concedes small points to win the larger one. He flatters the audience as informed citizens who want the real story, and he positions himself as the one willing to do the homework. His humor is dry and light, a brief aside before he returns to the argument. He closes segments and the show with set phrases, a steady benediction about democracy and getting active, which gives regular listeners a rhythm to count on.
The whole package reads as professorial populism. He sells calm authority and historical depth in a format that usually sells heat. Where a Limbaugh-style host wins by performing dominance and grievance, Hartmann wins by performing patience and competence. He wants you to feel smarter and a little hopeful at the end of the hour, and he builds his voice, his pacing, and his structure to land you there.
What they value is democracy as a working machine for the many against the few. They prize the New Deal social contract as the baseline of a decent country. They prize an informed and active citizenry, the labor union, the public commons, and a government strong enough to check private wealth. They distrust concentrated money, the consolidated press, the national security state, and the donor class. Reading and history rank high as civic equipment. A man earns standing by knowing the deeper story and using it.
The hero is the citizen-scholar who does his homework, names the predators, and rouses ordinary people to act. He digs up the buried history, traces a present harm back to a policy choice made decades ago, and hands the listener a usable past. The villains form a fixed cast: Robert Bork and Lewis Powell and the memo that launched the corporate counterrevolution, Ronald Reagan, the Koch brothers and their network, the Federalist Society, the media conglomerates, and the billionaire who buys an election. Heroism means refusing to sell out to that world.
The status games follow from this. Standing comes from longevity in the cause, from having been right early and stayed right, from a track record no corporate parent could buy. The independent footprint counts as a badge. A host who keeps a national audience without a network master can claim a purity the cable star cannot. Booking the right senator or the right author confers rank. So does citation by the movement and a shelf of one’s own books, and Hartmann, a prolific author, scores high there. Reputational risk runs the other way. Hartmann carried his show on RT America for years, and that association became a liability among peers once the network’s Kremlin funding turned toxic, a debt he has had to manage.
Their normative claims are sharp and repeated. Corporations are not persons. Money is not speech, and Citizens United v. FEC stands as the great modern sin. Democracy depends on an informed public, so a captured press is a wound to the republic. Government can be a force for good, and the proof is the New Deal. A nation that produces billionaires while workers fall behind has made a policy error, not encountered a law of nature. Wealth above a certain height is itself a danger to self-rule.
Underneath the policy talk runs a set of claims about what is real and permanent. The set believes in a true American democratic tradition, founded by men who meant the republic for ordinary people, later hijacked by corporate interests who dress their theft in the founders’ language. It believes in an authentic popular will that the system suppresses. It leans toward a picture of human beings as cooperative by nature, turned predatory only by a predatory economy. Hartmann adds his own twist with the hunter-versus-farmer account of attention deficit, which he treats as an evolved human trait rather than a disorder, an instinct that an old way of life rewarded and the modern classroom punishes.
The moral grammar is the grammar of theft and recovery. The country was stolen from the people by men of money, and the work of the good citizen is to take it back. The story moves in three beats: we once had a fair social contract; they took it from us through court rulings, deregulation, and a long campaign of capture; and we can restore it if we wake up and organize. This is restoration, not revolution, a call to return to a remembered better order rather than to build a new one. Sin in this world is complicity, silence, and selling out. Virtue is doing the reading, naming the guilty, staying independent, and getting the audience off the couch. Hartmann’s closing benedictions, the steady sign-off about democracy and getting active, are the liturgy of that grammar, the ritual that ends each service and sends the congregation back out to work.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Thom Hartmann Show
Kevin Walling (b. 1985) works at the meeting point of campaign operations, advocacy, political consulting, and television commentary. He holds no elected office of national weight. Yet he has built a recognizable place in Democratic politics through field organizing, paid media, coalition work, and a steady presence on conservative-leaning news programs. His career traces a larger shift in American public life, one where influence runs through networks of consultants, advocacy groups, and on-air commentators as much as through the formal offices of the party.
Walling grew up in Maryland and studied politics at The Catholic University of America in Washington. He came into public life through advocacy and grassroots organizing rather than through government service. His early work centered on LGBTQ rights and civic engagement, and it gave him an education in the everyday labor of persuasion: voter contact, message discipline, and the slow assembly of legislative majorities. He learned to treat politics as a craft of moving persuadable audiences, not as a contest of pure ideology.
The work that he names as his proudest came at Equality Maryland. As a director there during the 2008 election cycle, he helped elect the first pro-equality majority to the Maryland State Assembly and Senate. That majority set the ground for the marriage equality law the state adopted in 2012 and voters upheld at referendum that November. The campaign taught him how a focused coalition turns public sentiment into legislative votes, and how a disciplined message carries an issue past its activist core into the broader electorate.
From advocacy he moved into the operational side of campaigns. He ran voter contact programs, field operations, and political communications across Democratic races in Maryland and beyond. This grounding in the mechanics of elections shaped everything that followed. Like many strategists of his generation, he came up through the practical end of politics before he built a public profile.
In 2010 he helped launch No Labels, the group formed amid rising concern over partisan gridlock in Washington. He served as its first Political and Field Director and as a national spokesman. The organization then sought to encourage bipartisan cooperation and institutional reform, not to break the two-party system. Its later turn toward a possible third-party presidential run in the 2024 cycle shows how institutions drift from the aims of their founders, and Walling’s early role there fits his longer interest in coalition work and cross-partisan communication.
His standing in Maryland Democratic politics rose with his election in 2014 as a Democratic committeeman in Montgomery County. He served a term as chairman of the county party. Montgomery County ranks among the most affluent, educated, and politically active jurisdictions in the state. A chairman there manages a coalition of progressive activists, labor, minority communities, professional-class voters, and party regulars, and he holds it together through negotiation rather than ideological enforcement. The post sharpened Walling’s conviction that durable political organizations rest on broad alliances among groups whose interests overlap without matching.
Over the same years he built a consulting and public affairs practice. He co-founded Celtic Strategies and became a partner at the Democratic media firm HGCreative. His specialty settled into paid media engagement and targeted voter contact. In 2020 he led the paid media effort that passed Medicaid expansion through ballot measures in Oklahoma and Missouri and helped elect several new Democratic members of Congress. This phase of his career ran alongside the rise of digital campaigning and the splintering of the old mass audience. As campaigns leaned harder on targeted messaging and rapid response, strategists who could work across platforms gained value, and he positioned himself as one of them.
Television gave him his widest reach. Since 2016 he has logged more than five hundred hours of commentary across the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Radio, and Bloomberg. He serves as the lead political contributor and analyst for Fox5 in Washington, writes opinion pieces for Fox News Digital, and once contributed to The Hill. What sets him apart from most Democratic operatives is the room he chose. He made his name as a Democratic voice on conservative-leaning programs, returning almost daily to hosts and audiences that lean against him.
His success in that room rests on a particular method. He frames Democratic positions through themes that travel past the party’s activist base. He leans on economic growth, patriotism, national service, institutional stability, and pragmatic governance. That vocabulary lets him defend his side while sidestepping the cultural language that hardens center-right viewers against it. The approach has made him a fixture of Fox programming, present for election nights in 2020, 2021, and the 2022 midterms, for each of Joe Biden’s (b. 1942) State of the Union addresses, for the 2024 Biden-Trump debate, and for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
The 2020 race raised his profile further. He served as a surrogate for the Biden-Harris campaign and carried its message largely on conservative outlets, speaking daily to a national audience in venues where Republican voices held the numerical edge. The role rested on a clear premise. Persuasion means going where the persuadable audience sits, even when the room is hostile.
Walling holds a pragmatic, institutional place within his party. He pairs progressive social commitments with a focus on coalition building, incremental gains, and steady engagement with opponents. His influence comes not from movement activism and not from formal authority. It comes from his command of narrative, his willingness to argue in front of unfriendly audiences, and his relationships across constituencies. Earlier generations of party operatives worked in the background. The modern strategist often serves as commentator, advisor, and advocate at once, and Walling fills that hybrid figure.
He belongs to the generation of Democratic strategists formed by the early-century forces that reshaped the country: the marriage equality movement, the spread of digital campaigning, deepening polarization, and the rise of cable news as a central arena of political combat. His career shows how influence now gathers at the seam between advocacy, media, consulting, and party. In that sense he stands for the professional communicator of the present era, a man whose task is not to govern but to help rival coalitions explain themselves to the public.
He and his husband, Alex Stroman, divide their time between Washington and Charleston, South Carolina.
The Voice
Kevin Walling talks fast and warm. He keeps a mid-register, even tone, the cadence of a campaign operative who has filled a lot of dead air on cable. He rarely raises his voice. He smiles through disagreement. On a Fox panel he plays a fixed role, the friendly Democrat in a conservative room, and that role shapes everything about how he speaks.
His diction runs plain and colloquial. He leans on filler that signals ease rather than thought: “look,” “I mean,” “you know,” “at the end of the day.” He reaches for “literally” the way many talkers do now, as emphasis rather than fact. He drops campaign shop-talk into general conversation. He says “the reelect” instead of the reelection campaign. He talks about messaging, the base, swing voters, the map. The vocabulary marks him as an operative first and a commentator second.
His method on air follows the surrogate’s standard sequence. He concedes a small point to look fair. He reframes. He delivers the message he came to deliver. When liberal outlets ran stories about Biden’s 2024 trouble, he waved them off by reaching for history, noting that the same headlines ran in 2012 and 2020, and dismissing the reporters as fairly lazy that want the clicks. The move defangs bad news for his side without attacking anyone in the room. He mocks the press, not the host. Fox News
His rhetoric favors deflection over confrontation. He likes the historical analogy, the pattern that makes today’s problem look ordinary. He repeats phrases for rhythm and sometimes mimics an opponent’s voice to ridicule a narrative. He almost never goes for the throat. He keeps the temperature low because the format rewards it and because his value to the network rests on staying pleasant.
Fox keeps him around as the tame opposition, the Democrat who speaks the audience’s language and poses no danger. He gives the show the look of balance. He hands the hosts a foil who will not embarrass them or himself. He stays on message because comms is his trade, and message discipline is the trade’s first rule. The cost shows in the content. He offers talking points more than argument, fluency more than insight, the practiced reasonableness of a man whose job is to be liked while he loses the segment.
He is good at the job. The job asks for a smooth, agreeable, forgettable Democrat, and he delivers one most nights.
Kevin Walling Through Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) built his sociology on the claim that social life runs in fields, and each field is a structured space of positions with its own stakes and its own currency. A man’s place in a field depends on the capital he holds, and capital comes in forms. Economic capital is the money. Cultural capital is the knowledge, the credentials, the embodied skill. Social capital is the network. Symbolic capital is the recognition others grant him. These forms convert into one another at rates the fields set, and the rates move. A man’s feel for the game, his habitus, grows out of his trajectory and tells him what to do before he reasons it through. Run Walling through this apparatus and the hybrid career stops reading as a string of jobs. It reads as one long act of conversion.
Two fields hold him at once. There is the field of politics, where the stakes are office, influence, and the power to set agendas, and where capital takes the shape of a winning record, donor trust, and party standing. There is the journalistic field, and here Bourdieu sharpens the picture. In On Television he argues that television journalism answers to an economic logic, the ratings, and that this logic pulls the field toward speed, conflict, and the watchable. The TV field rewards the man who can speak fast, land a point inside a segment, and come back tomorrow. Walling does not merely appear in both fields. He earns his living off the gap between them.
Start with what he brought up from the campaign trade. The operative’s craft is embodied cultural capital, the kind Bourdieu calls incorporated, carried in the body and not written down. Walling learned voter contact, message discipline, and the read of a persuadable audience by doing the work across Maryland races and the Equality Maryland fight in the 2008 cycle. This is knowledge you cannot hand someone in a memo. It sits in the hands and the ear. In the campaign field this capital is common. Washington holds thousands of men who can run a field program. There the supply is deep and the price is low.
Add his social capital. The Montgomery County party, where he won a committeeman’s seat in 2014 and chaired the county organization, gave him a working network of activists, labor, and party regulars. No Labels in 2010 gave him a different network, the bipartisan reformers and the donors around them. Celtic Strategies and the partnership at HGCreative gave him the consultant’s web of clients and vendors. Each tie is convertible. Each can be cashed for information, introductions, or contracts.
Now the move that defines him. He carries the operative’s cultural capital across the field boundary into television, where the same skill grows scarce and dear. A Democratic operative is one of a crowd in the political field. A Democratic operative who will sit on Fox five days a week, hold his composure against a hostile host, and not burn out is rare. The journalistic field, hungry for a credible voice from the other side, pays a premium for that scarcity. This is arbitrage. Capital cheap in one field becomes expensive in the next, and Walling lives on the spread.
His tolerance for the crossing is part of the capital. Most Democratic operatives will not enter the conservative subfield of cable. Their habitus recoils from the room, the host, the audience that leans against them. Walling’s habitus does not recoil, and there lies the source of the rent he collects. Bourdieu would not credit this to nerve alone. He would trace it to trajectory. The Catholic University man, the Maryland Democrat formed in a professional-class milieu, the advocate who won marriage equality inside a Catholic setting rather than against it, carries a comportment that reads as reasonable and unthreatening. His hexis, the bearing and the tone of the body, does not perform the affect that sets a conservative audience on edge. He looks and sounds like a Democrat the room can sit through. The body carries the trajectory, and the trajectory sells.
The journalistic field then shapes what he says, and Bourdieu insists on this against any flattering account of personal cleverness. On Television describes the fast-thinker, the guest who must deliver inside the clock and so reaches for the received idea, the commonplace that needs no setup because the audience already holds it. Walling’s themes fit the slot. Economic growth, patriotism, national service, institutional stability. These travel without explanation. They pass the host’s filter and the viewer’s guard. Bourdieu would say the field selects for this repertoire as much as Walling chooses it. The medium rewards the commonplace delivered with conviction, and a man who supplies it on schedule keeps his chair.
His position in the space generates his posture. Bourdieu separates the position a man holds from the position-takings he produces, the actual things he says. Walling occupies a rare slot, the loyal opposition guest inside the rival coalition’s house organ. The slot dictates the bearing. He must defend his party and do it in a register the host’s audience will tolerate, which rules out the cultural language that would mark him as an intruder. The prises de position follow from the place, not from a free hand.
The hours then consecrate him. Five hundred and more since 2016, the lead political contributor seat at Fox5 in Washington, the opinion column at Fox News Digital. Bourdieu treats consecration as the act by which a field certifies a man as legitimate, and symbolic capital as the recognition that certification confers. Recognition on Fox is worth more to Walling than the same recognition on MSNBC would be, because it is scarcer for a Democrat and so signals a rarer competence. The loop closes here. Airtime consecrates him as the strategist who can do the impossible room, which draws clients to the firms, which funds the operation, which keeps him current enough to hold the airtime. Media visibility feeds consulting, consulting funds relevance, relevance buys more visibility. The capital circulates and compounds.
Bourdieu would not leave the account at success, and the critical edge cuts here. The journalistic field is heteronomous. It bends to the economic logic outside it and pulls the fields it covers toward spectacle. To win in the TV field Walling must submit to its terms, the brevity, the conflict frame, the recurring three-minute hit. The deep field knowledge he carried up from campaigns, the part that resists compression, gets pressed into the segment-sized commonplace. The autonomous skill bows to the heteronomous demand. He trades range for the chair. Bourdieu would mark the price and decline to call it free.
The whole career then resolves into a single Bourdieusian figure, distinction through scarcity. In Distinction he shows how men make their standing by occupying positions others cannot or will not take. Walling distinguishes himself from the mass of Democratic operatives by holding the one position they avoid. He builds a brand out of a boundary crossing and collects the rent the crossing earns. No part of him stands outside the fields. His feel for the game, his manner, his themes, his slot, all of it comes from his trajectory through the structure and his nerve at the seam between two of its parts. The man lives on the exchange rate, and the exchange rate is Bourdieu’s whole point.
The setup is a deliberate triangle, and the three men were cast for it.
The show is The Morning Meeting on 2WAY, Mark Halperin’s (b. 1965) interactive video platform. It airs live at nine eastern, then repeats on SiriusXM’s Megyn Kelly Channel an hour later. Halperin built the conceit around the editorial meeting that television networks hold each morning, the gathering where anchors and producers decide what the day’s story is. He invites the audience into that room by Zoom and takes live questions. In May 2026 he added O’Connor and Kevin Walling (b. 1985) as permanent co-hosts, with a rotating bench of contributors split across the aisle, Erick Erickson and Hogan Gidley on the right, Steve Elmendorf and Hyma Moore on the left.
So the arrangement runs left, center, and right by design. Halperin sits at the axis. O’Connor carries the conservative side. Walling carries the Democratic side. Understanding the interplay means understanding what each man wants from the seat.
Halperin is the access journalist. His authority rests on the claim that he knows what the operatives in both parties say in private, the reputation he built at ABC News and through Game Change. He sells process, not ideology. His role on the show is to frame each segment around what the strategists are thinking and to referee the two partisans. His incentives point toward balance and civility for a reason beyond temperament. The platform is his comeback after his career collapsed in 2017, and the brand he is selling is unbiased discourse. He needs the partisans engaged, watchable, and willing to return tomorrow. That gives him a stake in keeping the friction warm rather than hot.
O’Connor brings something Halperin and Walling do not, the trade of a morning-drive radio host. He knows pacing, banter, and how to carry a segment without a script. He came up through Breitbart, so he reads the press as a combatant rather than a referee, which puts him in periodic tension with Halperin’s insider-neutral pose. In this seat, though, he plays a milder hand than he plays alone on WMAL. The format rewards exchange over monologue, and a co-host who only delivers set pieces breaks the show. He supplies the conservative read and the broadcast polish at once.
Walling is the most telling casting choice. He is a Democratic strategist by training, a Biden 2020 surrogate, and for years the in-house Democrat on Fox News and Fox 5 in Washington. He made his name as the lone liberal in a right-leaning room, the man who states the party line without alienating a conservative audience and stays affable while losing the count of who agrees with him. That is the exact skill the 2WAY seat asks for. He is younger than the other two and an operative rather than a broadcaster, so he brings message discipline more than radio instinct.
The show markets itself as neutral ground, and the structure underneath that label is two partisans plus a host with his own history and his own access-based interests. The neutrality is a brand, not a fact. Halperin’s position above ideology is itself a position, the stance of the insider who profits from looking like the only adult in the room. And the left-right span is narrower than it appears. A Biden surrogate and a Breitbart-trained media critic still argue inside a fairly establishment band, both of them Fox-adjacent. The disagreement is real. The rupture risk is low. That tends to produce heat without much breakage, which suits all three men’s incentives.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Kevin Walling: A Democratic Voice in Conservative Rooms
Larry O’Connor (b. 1967) built a career that tracks the conversion of American conservative media from talk radio and opinion magazines into a layered network of podcasts, livestreams, digital publishing, and national broadcasting. He hosts O’Connor & Company on Washington’s WMAL, edits Townhall.com, and since May 2026 anchors a national morning program carried across the Salem Radio Network and the Salem News Channel. He reached that position by an unusual route. He did not start in politics, journalism, or law. He started in the theater.
Born in Detroit on June 23, 1967, O’Connor grew up in Plymouth Township, between Detroit and Ann Arbor. In 1980 his family moved to Newport Beach, California, where he attended Corona del Mar High School. He entered the entertainment industry rather than the political class, and he spent more than a decade inside it. From 1986 to 1999 he worked for the Shubert Organization, first on Broadway in New York, briefly at Lincoln Center Theater, then in Los Angeles. From 1991 to 1999 he served as general manager of the Shubert Theatre in Los Angeles, the 2,100-seat house that the company renovated for the American premiere of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s (b. 1948) Sunset Blvd., starring Glenn Close (b. 1947). He oversaw operations during runs of Ragtime and Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and numerous touring productions.
The work taught him how a large cultural enterprise runs. He handled budgeting, marketing, labor relations, and venue management. He sat on the boards of four union benefit plans and presided over Theatre LA, the city’s league of theaters. He helped create the Ovation Awards, the Los Angeles equivalent of the Tony Awards, and produced the ceremony in 1994 and 1995. After he left Shubert in 1999, he kept producing as an independent general manager. His credits include Sweeney Todd with Kelsey Grammer (b. 1955), A Knight Out with Ian McKellen (b. 1939), and Ten Commandments: The Musical with Val Kilmer (1959–2025) and a then-unknown Adam Lambert (b. 1982). The Shubert came down in 2002, three years after he left it.
That theater background shaped everything he did next. He had spent years inside the entertainment business, not outside it firing rocks at Hollywood. He knew how the industry allocated money, managed talent, negotiated with unions, and courted audiences. When he turned to media criticism, he wrote as a veteran of the trade.
His entry into conservative media came in January 2009, when he began writing for Andrew Breitbart’s (1969–2012) Big Hollywood under the pseudonym “Stage Right.” He presented himself as a closeted conservative working among liberal colleagues on Broadway, and he produced a steady stream of posts, many of them about a National Endowment for the Arts conference-call scandal. His theater résumé gave him standing that few political commentators could claim.
The partnership with Breitbart marked the turn of his life. Breitbart taught him to read media institutions as political actors and to treat the distribution of information as a field of combat. In June 2011 O’Connor became editor-in-chief of Breitbart.tv, an early effort to build a video-driven alternative news operation on the Right. Under his watch the network broke videos that moved national events, including footage that contributed to the ouster of Representative Bob Etheridge (b. 1941) from Congress.
O’Connor stood near the center of the early Tea Party media wars. He helped distribute and amplify the undercover ACORN videos recorded by James O’Keefe (b. 1984) and Hannah Giles in 2009, footage that triggered congressional action and hastened the collapse of ACORN. He defended O’Keefe after O’Keefe’s arrest at Senator Mary Landrieu’s (b. 1955) New Orleans office, and he exposed errors in a Salon article by Max Blumenthal (b. 1977) that led the magazine to issue corrections. He also took part in Breitbart’s coverage of Representative Anthony Weiner (b. 1964) during the 2011 social-media scandal that ended Weiner’s House career.
Not every episode favored him. In July 2011 Shirley Sherrod (b. 1948), a former Agriculture Department official, sued O’Connor, Breitbart, and a third defendant for defamation over a selectively edited video clip. The parties settled out of court in October 2015 for an undisclosed sum. The case sits in his record as a reminder that the methods of digital insurgency carried legal and reputational risk.
Andrew Breitbart died in 2012. O’Connor stayed on for a time, then left the organization in 2013. He moved through a sequence of editorial posts that mapped the growth of conservative digital publishing. In June 2014 he joined Independent Journal Review as editor-at-large, a role he held through April 2016. He then served as editor-at-large at HotAir.com through December 2016. Since 2016 he has written for Townhall and HotAir under Townhall Media, a subsidiary of Salem Media Group.
His broadcasting career began online, not on a local AM dial. In January 2010 he launched a daily program on BlogTalkRadio that mixed monologue, interviews, listener calls, and live chat at a time when internet radio sat at the margins. The show drew an audience and led to guest-hosting slots on syndicated programs. He has filled in for Mark Levin (b. 1957), Dennis Miller (b. 1953), and Hugh Hewitt (b. 1956), among others.
WMAL in Washington gave him a foothold in heritage talk radio in the mid-2010s. By 2016 he held his own afternoon program on the station, and he later moved to the morning drive slot as host of O’Connor & Company, heard from six to nine a.m. Broadcasting from the capital set his show apart. His listeners include congressional staff, administration officials, lobbyists, journalists, and policy hands, and he often serves as a conduit between conservative voters and the people who govern.
Television widened his reach. He appears on Fox News, including Fox & Friends and Greg Gutfeld’s (b. 1965) Red Eye, and on Fox Business, Newsmax, and Sky News Australia, with occasional turns on ABC News, the PBS NewsHour, and MSNBC. He married the journalist Meredith Dake in 2015.
Media criticism runs through all of it. Following Breitbart, O’Connor argues that news organizations are participants in political conflict rather than neutral observers. He made the case at book length in Shameless Liars: How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant (2025), which frames the clash between the press and President Donald Trump (b. 1946) as a crisis of institutional trust. He contends that the decline of confidence in legacy journalism traces less to technological disruption than to perceived bias and lost credibility.
Two promotions in 2026 confirmed his standing. In January, Salem named him editor of Townhall.com, an opinion platform with roots reaching back decades, giving him authority over written journalism, audio, video, and the site’s daily output. He continues to host his noon streaming show, LARRY, on Townhall and YouTube. Then, on April 30, Salem announced that O’Connor & Company would become the company’s flagship national morning program beginning May 4, airing across more than 140 affiliate stations on the Salem Radio Network with a simulcast on the Salem News Channel, while keeping its longtime slot on WMAL. His executive producer, Heather Hunter, stayed with the program through the expansion. O’Connor is a regular morning host for Mark Halperin’s 2Way show along with Democratic strategist Kevin Walling.
O’Connor represents a type that the conservative movement now produces in volume. He rose through entertainment management, internet journalism, and media entrepreneurship rather than through party committees, think tanks, or universities. His path traces how the Right’s media moved from a scattering of radio shows and magazines into a vertically integrated operation that spans radio, television, websites, podcasts, streaming video, and social platforms. His biography links four worlds, the theater, the digital insurgency of the early Breitbart years, talk radio, and national political journalism, and shows how new distribution technologies redrew the map of political influence in the United States.
The Voice
Larry O’Connor carries the theater into the studio. He spent the 1986 to 1999 stretch inside the Shubert Organization and ran the Shubert Theatre in Los Angeles, where he oversaw the renovation of the house to stage the American premiere of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Sunset Blvd. with Glenn Close. A man learns timing in that world. He learns the value of a held beat, a build, a button at the end of a scene. You hear that training in his radio voice. The instincts come from the wings, not from the newsroom.
His own account of how he works tells you most of what you need. On his Townhall video show he aims for about twenty minutes per topic of straight monologue or playing off clips, building the story arc and the narrative without a break. That is the core of his manner. He thinks in long form. He treats a segment as a unit with a beginning, a turn, and a payoff. Most talk hosts chop the hour into reactions. O’Connor wants the slow construction. He says the long-form muscle opened up the way he presents a story on the radio too.
The diction sits in the conversational middle. He came up writing for Breitbart’s web properties and editing video, so his references run through pop culture, sports, and the Catholic and Navy worlds he claims on his own bio. He says Go Blue and Go Navy and means them. The register is a Detroit Catholic who moved to Newport Beach as a boy and then made his living around Broadway and Hollywood theater. That mix gives him a wider cultural vocabulary than the standard movement-conservative host. He can talk Sondheim and he can talk shutdown politics in the same hour.
His rhetoric leans on narrative and grievance against the press. The 2025 book Shameless Liars lays out the thesis: the legacy media lie, and Trump beat them at their own game. On air he works that frame hard. He builds a case the way a producer builds a show, laying clip on clip, then delivering the verdict. The persuasion runs through story rather than through data dumps. He wants you to feel the arc close.
When WMAL stripped the show down to him alone, reviewers turned on the format. One longtime listener calls the solo version boring and monotonous and says the banter with guest hosts made it entertaining. That tells you something true about his instrument. O’Connor is a strong second voice and a fine builder of a planned segment. He sharpens against another person. Alone, across three live hours, the same measured theatrical delivery can flatten into a drone. The skill that serves the twenty-minute video monologue works against him over a full morning drive without a partner to push.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Larry O’Connor Show
Pelley (b. 1957) gives a powerful account from the man who lost. He has every reason to cast himself as the principled holdout and Bari Weiss (b. 1984) as the unqualified political hire. Much of the interview earns that read. Some of it does not.
Start with his language. He calls the firings a massacre, a murder, a vigil. He likens the day to a spouse being killed. He talks about combat, foxholes, war zones, colleagues who walk pregnant into danger. A television network reorganized and fired people. Pelley keeps folding the risk of war reporting into the experience of getting managed out, and the folding works for him. It turns the correspondents into a priesthood and the new owners into killers. The move is effective. It is also rhetoric.
His strongest charge is narrow and serious. He says Weiss emailed after deadline asking that Renee Good be described as driving toward the officer when the video shows her wheels turned away. If true, that is pressure to misdescribe footage to match the president’s version, and that crosses a line. But Pelley admits he paraphrases and lacks the email. He admits he never raised it with her. He admits she may never have noticed he ignored the notes. The most damning claim in the piece rests on the thinnest sourcing in the piece. CBS says the notes carried no political aim. You cannot settle that from this transcript.
Watch where he pivots. Pressed by Garcia-Navarro (b. 1972) on whether this might be the system working, he drops the bias line and reaches for competence. The real trouble, he says, was the broken deadline and the near-miss. That charge is harder to deny, and he half-knows it. It also cuts against the political story he spent the prior stretch building. If the worst outcome was a late, bad note he ignored with no consequence, then the thumb on the scale starts to look like an inexperienced editor’s clumsy edit rather than a covert operation for Trump. Weiss may be in over her head. That differs from running a political shop. The interview asserts the second while mostly showing the first.
Garcia-Navarro does her job. Her three pushback questions, whether Weiss wanted fairness, whether this is the system working, whether inexperience explains everything, are where Pelley’s case shows strain. His answers retreat each time.
The credential resentment runs under all of it. Weiss and Nick Bilton arrive from outside television, imposed from above by David Ellison (b. 1983) after he bought Paramount. The experience gap looks real. So does a guild defending its ground against owners who paid for the right to change it. Both hold at once. Pelley calls the Trump settlement a bribe, which is his word, and the Times notes Paramount denied the link.
The close is his most polished passage. A combat record set against a president who never served. It lands. It also lets him exit on heroism rather than on the harder question of whether a successful old man got caught in a takeover he could not stop.
The last laugh. He jokes that Fox News will run only the parts where he cries.
My one-line read: a moving, self-interested testimony built around one grave but under-documented allegation, sold inside a martyrdom story that inflates a corporate housecleaning into war.
Posted inCBS, Journalism|Comments Off on NYT: Scott Pelley on the Bari Weiss Era and His Last Days at 60 Minutes
Mark Levin (b. 1957) talks like a prosecutor who never left the courtroom. He served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese under Reagan, and the cross-examination habit shaped everything that followed. He builds a case. He lays a foundation, marshals the founding documents, then turns on the witness, who is usually a liberal, a Republican squish, or a member of the press he calls the Praetorian Guard.
The voice itself runs high and nasal, with a New York-Philadelphia edge. He modulates between two registers, and the gap between them carries the show. In one register he reads aloud from John Locke, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, or the Federalist Papers, slow and reverent, the schoolmaster mode. In the other he detonates. The volume spikes without warning. He shouts down a caller, calls him a dummy, a buffoon, an imbecile, and orders him off the phone. “Get off the phone, you big dummy” became a signature. The contrast is the engine. Listeners wait for the explosion the way they wait for a fastball.
His diction leans didactic and coined. He prefers “statism” to liberalism, “the ruling class” to elites, “Democrat Party” as a deliberate jab rather than “Democratic Party.” He minted “Ameritopia” for his book on utopian thinking and uses his own coinages as if they were settled vocabulary. He reaches for the language of the eighteenth century and drops it into a screaming match about cable news. Tyranny, liberty, soft despotism, natural rights. He treats his audience as students who need the syllabus, then as jurors who need the closing argument.
The rhetoric works by accumulation and repetition. He stacks rhetorical questions. He repeats a phrase three or four times, louder each pass, until it lands like a verdict. He addresses absent adversaries in the second person, as if they sat across the table under oath. “You said this. Now you say that. Which is it?” He flatters his own side with the same warmth he denies his targets. A caller who agrees is “a great American.” He name-drops his own bestsellers, his ratings, his audience size, and folds the self-promotion into the argument rather than apologizing for it.
Two softer notes cut the aggression. He loves his rescue dogs and talks about them on air, which humanizes the snarl. And the founding-era reading sessions slow the pace and signal that the anger rests on a body of thought rather than on temper alone. He wants you to believe the screaming is earned, that he has done the reading, that a man who quotes Montesquieu has the right to call a senator a coward.
The persona is the professor who loses his temper because he cares more than you do. Hannity gave him the nickname “the Great One,” and Levin wears it without irony. That absence of irony is the tell. He means all of it. The bombast is sincere, not a bit, and the sincerity is what separates him from hosts who perform outrage as a paycheck.
His books carry the same voice in print: Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia, Men in Black, American Marxism, Unfreedom of the Press. Short declarative hammer blows alternating with long catalog sentences, founding quotations as proof texts, and a closing argument that assumes the reader already agrees and needs only the ammunition.
The Set
Start with the men closest to him, because the set is small at the center and wide at the edges.
Sean Hannity (b. 1961) is the friend and amplifier. He crowned Levin “the Great One,” and the nickname tells you how the inner circle works. They confer titles. Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021) sits above all of them as the founding father of the form, the patriarch every host measures himself against. Levin came up in Limbaugh’s shadow and inherited the slot, the syndication model, the idea that one man at a microphone can move a national audience. Glenn Beck (b. 1964) belongs to the set through business as much as ideology. Levin’s LevinTV lived inside CRTV, the subscription venture backed by Cary Katz, and when CRTV merged with Beck’s TheBlaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media, the two men’s operations fused. Around them stand the rest of the radio fraternity: Michael Savage (b. 1942), Laura Ingraham (b. 1963), Hugh Hewitt (b. 1956), and Dennis Prager (b. 1948). They share guests, plug each other’s books, and police the same boundary against the squish.
The second tributary runs through Reagan-era law. Levin served Edwin Meese (b. 1931) at the Justice Department, and he carries that lineage like a credential. He runs the Landmark Legal Foundation. He keeps one foot in the originalist legal world that overlaps the Federalist Society, though he plays the populist tribune rather than the white-shoe litigator. Daniel Horowitz and the Conservative Review writers fill out the policy bench. Threshold Editions, the conservative imprint Mary Matalin (b. 1953) launched at Simon & Schuster, publishes the books that turn his audience into bestseller lists. His wife, Julie Strauss Levin, anchors the home front and appears in the public persona.
A third ring reaches into electoral politics. Levin championed Ted Cruz (b. 1970) in the 2016 primary, backed the Tea Party insurgents, and pushed the Convention of States movement that grew out of his book The Liberty Amendments, which ties him to Mark Meckler and the state-legislature wing of the right. He came late and hard to Donald Trump, and that conversion reordered loyalties across the whole set.
Now the values. The set worships the American founding as a near-sacred achievement and treats the Constitution as a text to be read aloud, quoted, and defended against desecration. The founders had timeless wisdom. Human nature is fixed, and they grasped it. Against this stands the enemy, the “ruling class,” the “administrative state,” the press he calls the Praetorian Guard, and behind all of it the hidden engine he names Marxism. He wrote American Marxism and Ameritopia to argue that the left is not a set of policy preferences but a totalizing creed with utopian ends and despotic means.
The hero system follows from this. The hero is the lone constitutionalist who has done the reading, who stands athwart the encroaching state, who refuses to be managed and refuses to go along. Heroism gets measured by willingness to fight and by refusal to curry favor in Washington. The villain is the collaborator, the Republican who softens, the man who goes native and trades principle for invitations to the right dinners. The immortality project, the thing that outlives the man, is preservation of the founding and its transmission to the next generation. Levin casts himself as the steward of that inheritance, the schoolmaster passing the syllabus forward before the barbarians close the schools.
The status games run on several currencies at once. Ratings and book sales supply the hard numbers, and Levin recites his own with no shame, because the recitation is part of the contest. Longevity counts, and proximity to Limbaugh as the patriarch counts more. The sharpest game inside the set is the purity contest. Status flows to the man who stays most consistent, who attacks his own side’s weaklings, who never compromises, who names the enemy without flinching. Levin plays a second game the pure entertainers cannot. He claims the seat of the intellectual. He reads Locke and Montesquieu on air, writes books with footnotes, and by doing so marks himself above the hosts who only perform. The scholar’s pose is his bid for rank.
The normative claims are firm and few: fidelity to the Constitution as originally understood; natural rights that precede the state; limited government as a moral imperative, not a mere preference; the illegitimacy of the administrative state; the corruption of the press; and loyalty to the cause above comfort or access.
The essentialist claims sit underneath. There is an essential Americanism, a thing with a fixed nature that can be rediscovered, which is the title and argument of Rediscovering Americanism. The left has an essence too, and that essence is Marxist and totalitarian whatever face it wears in a given decade. The founders form a coherent type with a unified wisdom. The ruling class forms its own coherent type, a class with shared interests and a shared contempt for ordinary citizens.
The moral grammar reduces to a few oppositions that govern every segment: loyalty against betrayal, courage against cowardice, the patriot against the collaborator, and purity against compromise. Sin is selling out, softening, seeking the approval of the media or the establishment. Virtue is standing firm, doing the reading, and calling the traitor by his name. The screaming is the grammar enforced in real time, the verdict delivered against the man who failed the test.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Mark Levin Show
Michael Smerconish (b. 1962) talks like a trial lawyer who learned that the jury hears tone before it hears argument. He trained at Penn Law, practiced, and the courtroom habits never left him. He sets up a question, lays out the evidence on both sides, then turns to the listener and asks for a verdict. The daily poll on his show is the literal form of this. He wants you to decide, and he wants the decision recorded.
His voice sits in the middle register, warm but not soft, with a Philadelphia flatness underneath the polish. He came up in Philly morning drive and CBS, so he can do the fast, percussive radio cadence when he wants ratings, but on POTUS and CNN he slows down. He pauses. He lets a question hang. The pause does work for him. It signals that he takes the matter seriously and that he expects you to as well.
The diction stays plain. He avoids the inflated vocabulary that fills cable news. He says “look” and “here’s the thing” and “let me put it to you this way.” He builds in concrete examples from his own life, the autobiographical vignette being his signature move. He grew up in Doylestown, his kids went to school somewhere, his wife said something at dinner, and the personal anecdote becomes the doorway into the policy question. This is a deliberate technique. It tells the audience he speaks from a life, not from a script, and it lowers the temperature before he raises the stakes.
His rhetoric runs on the structure of the reasonable man cornered by extremes. The title of his column collection says it, Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right. He positions himself as the registered independent who left the Republican Party in 2010, the man with no team to defend, and from that position he claims a kind of authority that partisans cannot claim. He performs balance. He brings on guests who disagree with him and presses them, then turns and presses the other side. The performance is real in the sense that he does book opposing voices, and it is a performance in the sense that the brand depends on it. Independence is his product.
He likes the rhetorical question and the false-naive setup. He will say something like, help me understand this, or, somebody explain to me how this makes sense. He knows the answer. The question is a frame that puts the burden on the other side and lets the listener feel they reasoned their way to his conclusion. Lawyers call this leading the witness while pretending to ask an open question. Smerconish does it on radio for three hours a day.
His pacing on the long-form radio show differs from the CNN show. On SiriusXM he can wander, take calls, follow a tangent, sit with a guest for twenty minutes. The medium rewards patience and he uses it. On CNN he compresses. The Saturday show runs on segments, polls, sharp openings, a written essay he reads to camera. The television Smerconish is tighter and more scripted, the radio Smerconish looser and more conversational. Same man, two cadences, and you can hear him shift gears between them.
Humor sits throughout, dry and self-deprecating. He undercuts his own seriousness before anyone else can. The one-man film he made, Things I Wish I Knew Before I Started Talking, captures the register, a man reflecting on thirty years of talking for a living with some irony about the whole enterprise. The irony protects him. It keeps him from sounding like a scold even when he scolds.
What he avoids tells you as much as what he does. He avoids the shout. He avoids the catchphrase repeated to the point of slogan. He avoids the open contempt for the other side that drives partisan radio. His whole manner argues that the country broke because people stopped listening to each other, and his speaking style enacts the cure he prescribes. He models the civil disagreement he says we lost. Whether that makes him a centrist conscience or a man who profits from standing above a fight he could join, listeners split, and he knows they split, and he runs a poll on it.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Michael Smerconish Show
Olivia Nuzzi (b. 1993) writes about American politics from inside the rooms most reporters watch from the hallway. For seven years she served as Washington correspondent for New York magazine, where she built a reputation on access, scene, and a novelist’s eye for status and self-presentation. Her work belongs to a tradition of literary political reporting that treats the capital as a society to be observed rather than a set of policies to be parsed. That same closeness to her subjects carried her to the top of her field and then ended her tenure there. In September 2024 New York placed her on leave after she disclosed a relationship with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (b. 1954), a presidential candidate she had covered. The episode turned a long-running argument about reporters and their sources into a concrete scandal, and it reframed her career as a study in the rewards and hazards of proximity.
She was born in New York City on January 6, 1993, and grew up in the River Plaza section of Middletown Township, New Jersey, a Monmouth County suburb across the Navesink River from Red Bank. Her father, John Nuzzi, worked two decades for the New York City Department of Sanitation and died in 2015. Her mother, Kelly, a former catalog model, died in 2021. She has a brother, Jonathan. She started writing about politics as a teenager, contributing to the conservative Monmouth County blog More Monmouth Musings and to local papers before she finished high school. She enrolled at Fordham University in New York.
Her first taste of national attention came in 2013. As a twenty-year-old Fordham junior, she volunteered on Anthony Weiner’s (b. 1964) New York City mayoral campaign, then unraveling under a second sexting scandal. She wrote about the experience for the website NSFWcorp and, days later, in a July 30 cover story for the New York Daily News. She reported that Weiner called his female interns “Monica,” a nod to Monica Lewinsky, and that many staffers had signed on hoping to reach Hillary Clinton through Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin. Weiner’s communications director answered with a profane, on-the-record tirade against her, which drew more coverage than the original piece. The sequence taught Nuzzi a lesson she carried for the rest of her career: a reporter can become the story, and the story can launch a career.
The Daily Beast hired her in May 2014, and she left Fordham before finishing her degree. There she covered Congress, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, the conservative media, and the early rise of Donald Trump. She broke news and wrote sharp, stylized commentary that set her apart from many conventionally trained Washington reporters. In 2016 Politico named her one of its breakout media stars of that year’s presidential election.
In February 2017 she joined New York magazine as Washington correspondent. She arrived with the Trump presidency and a national appetite for journalism that explained politics as human behavior. Nuzzi made politicians her characters. She wrote about ambition, insecurity, loyalty, resentment, vanity, and the performances people stage to hold power. She treated Washington as a social world with its own pecking order rather than a machine for making policy. Her prose owed something to Tom Wolfe (1930–2018), with his eye for status signals and costume, and something to Joan Didion (1934–2021), with her sense of the disorder under the official story. She wrote for a moment when reporters had become public figures themselves and political coverage competed with entertainment for attention. She courted trouble early. In 2018 she admitted entering the home of former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski without permission and photographing what she found. Lewandowski accused her of also taking a photo album.
Her best-known pieces grew out of the access she cultivated. In 2018 Donald Trump (b. 1946) invited her into the Oval Office without routing the visit through the press office, and her cover story, “My Private Oval Office Interview With Donald Trump,” drew a portrait of a presidency run on improvisation, faction, and personal whim. In 2019 she profiled Rudy Giuliani (b. 1944), following him through hotel lobbies and public spaces and letting his own rambling grievances stand as the indictment. The piece became a defining portrait of Giuliani in the Trump years. In 2024 she reported on private worry among donors and officials about President Joe Biden’s (b. 1942) age and acuity, worry that public statements played down. The piece landed shortly before Biden left the race and stands as a record of that crisis.
One argument followed her across her career. Critics held that her hunger for proximity dulled her edge, and that powerful men granted her access because they expected a sympathetic psychological portrait rather than a hard adversarial one. Defenders held that immersion produced what distance could not, and that her scenes carried truths no briefing could supply. Both readings draw on the same trait. Her gift for winning the confidence of powerful people fed her reporting and seeded the controversy that ended it.
That controversy arrived in the fall of 2024. Nuzzi had profiled Kennedy in 2023 as he ran for president. Over the months that followed, the two carried on a private digital relationship while she kept covering the campaign. When she disclosed it to her editors in September 2024, New York placed her on leave and cited a conflict with its ethics rules. A review reported no sign that her published work had bent to the relationship. The disclosure detonated anyway. One month later, Nuzzi and the magazine parted ways. Kennedy, married to the actress Cheryl Hines, went on to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The fallout spread into her personal life. Her engagement to Ryan Lizza (b. 1974), a political journalist eighteen years her senior whose résumé ran through The New Yorker, CNN, and Politico, collapsed. Nuzzi later sued Lizza. She alleged that after she refused to reconcile, he tried to plant damaging personal material with news outlets, some of it taken from devices he had stolen and hacked, and that he posed as an anonymous campaign operative to hide his hand. Lizza, for his part, accused her of an affair with the former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (b. 1960), which she denied. The feud ran as Washington gossip and as litigation at the same time.
In 2025 she resurfaced as West Coast editor of Vanity Fair, a post she held only briefly. That December, Simon & Schuster published her account of the Kennedy affair, American Canto. The book names Kennedy only as “the politician” and presents itself as a chronicle of a decade in which American reality warped around Trump, with the author pulled into the distortion until it swallowed her. Reviewers savaged it. The New York Times called it self-serious and disappointing. The Atlantic dismissed it as a memoir that tells nothing. Sales matched the reception, with roughly 1,165 copies in the first week. On her book tour she gave a plain verdict on the affair. She said she had fouled up, that the ethics rules existed for good reason, and that she had broken one.
Nuzzi works as an observer of elite behavior rather than a theorist or a partisan. Her strongest reporting reads as social anthropology of the governing class, a record of how political people build identities, chase status, guard reputations, and bend under institutional pressure. She caught the informal truths that sit behind the formal account, and she rendered them in scenes that lodged in memory. Her rise tracks the merger of magazine reporting with celebrity media in the social-media age, when the line between the watcher and the watched thinned to nothing. Her fall tracks the price of that merger. The traits that made her reporting vivid, her intimacy and access and her talent for earning trust, carried her past a boundary the profession still tries to hold. Her career now stands as the textbook case of a question the trade keeps asking: how close can a reporter stand to power before the standing becomes the story.
Posted inJournalism|Comments Off on Olivia Nuzzi and the Cost of Access
Halperin admitted to pursuing relationships with junior colleagues and apologized for inappropriate conduct, but he denied the sexual assault claims. That basic split holds to this day. He concedes the lesser charges and disputes the gravest ones. He has not changed that posture.
The trajectory since then has two clear phases.
The first phase, from 2018 to roughly 2023, was failure. Each comeback attempt drew open mockery and got killed. The 2018 Page Six reports about meetings with CNN and PBS produced ridicule and the “Hairy Lecher” coverage. In 2019, Scarborough and Brzezinski tried to engineer a midterm web show on MSNBC, and the network scrapped it. Halperin reportedly lashed out at MSNBC chief Phil Griffin after Griffin put the kibosh on the comeback attempt. Through this stretch he issued repeated apologies, some prompted by figures like Roland Martin who told him to apologize directly to the women rather than tweet at them. The apologies bought him little.
The second phase, beginning around late 2024, is where the tide turned in his favor. The change came from a route nobody plotted in 2017. He stopped trying to get back into legacy media and built his own platform, 2WAY, launched October 2024. He also leaned right. That decision is the hinge. His revival came largely from his decision to ingratiate himself with the right, and it worked because a series of conservative women welcomed him into the fold.
The defenders now are not Halperin. They are the people who once attacked him. Megyn Kelly, who in 2017 hosted one of his accusers on the Today show and asked aloud where his apology to his victims was, brought him onto her MK Media network in March 2025. Meghan McCain, who trashed him on Twitter and on The View, joined 2WAY and framed it through “the presumption of grace and forgiveness.” The language they use is forgiveness and second chances, and it carries a partisan charge. The defense is no longer “he didn’t do it.” The defense is “people can change and the censorious left got this wrong.” The attacks shifted to match. In 2017 the attack was the conduct itself. By 2025 the attack moved to the rehabilitation and to the enablers. The sharpest recent pieces target Kelly, not Halperin. The Daily Beast ran his accuser Eleanor McManus writing that Kelly went from MeToo ally to business partner with her abuser. Dianna Goldberg May, another woman Halperin harassed at ABC News, called the partnership a shocking abdication of all that Kelly espoused during the MeToo movement. Slate framed the whole thing as a clear formula for rehabilitating certain MeToo men. The accusers still speak, and the recurring point from them is that he never did the direct, personal repair they asked for back in 2019.
So the tide has moved, and in his direction. 2WAY hit nearly 70,000 YouTube subscribers within about seven months of its hard launch, raised $4 million in seed money, and added shows and names. The reputational rehabilitation among conservative media is largely complete. What he has not won is the argument with the women themselves, and he has not tried to on their terms. He found a constituency that does not require him to. Slate reports June 30, 2025:
Halperin, after all, was one of the more prominent media men of #MeToo, accused of various acts of sexual assault and harassment by a dozen women. Three women said he pressed his erect penis against them through his clothes; one said he grabbed her breasts. Another said he masturbated in front of her. Others who worked with him said he propositioned them for sex. One woman, then a White House intern, had lunch with Halperin, and as media journalist Paul Farhi reported in the Washington Post, “as they stood outside the restaurant afterward, Halperin suddenly threw her up against the plate-glass facade and pinned her arms against it. Then he lunged at her, mouth agape, ‘like someone who was going to eat you.’ She said she slipped his grip, wriggled free and got away.” (At the time, Halperin denied many of the specific allegations but issued a statement: “During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me,” and apologizing that his behavior was “inappropriate and caused others pain.” He did not respond to a request for comment on this article.)
After initial reporting from CNN’s Oliver Darcy, tales of Halperin’s bad behavior poured out, as woman after woman related stories of what they said were his creepy propositions and habit of inviting young female journalists to his hotel room. He tried, many women said, to use his position to extract sex from the young, beautiful, and ambitious women with whom he surrounded himself. And that position was a vaunted one. Before these accusations were made publicly, Halperin was among the most powerful men in political journalism, scoring seven-figure salaries and writing the book Game Change and its sequel, for which he reportedly received many millions in the advance alone.
His downfall was also spectacular, coming as it did just as #MeToo felled Harvey Weinstein and gained steam. There were enough women who said Halperin had harassed or assaulted them that they started a support group, which they announced on Megyn Kelly Today, Kelly’s short-lived stint on the Today show, where the commentator lauded their courage.
The core idea of mobbing among animals is that prey species gang up on a predator they could not face alone. The benefit comes from the group, not the individual. An individual bird stands little chance against a hawk, but a flock does, and the risk to each member gets diluted. The mobbing also identifies the predator publicly. It draws attention to him so no stealth attack works. And the behavior teaches the young which threats to recognize.
That is how MeToo functioned against Halperin in 2017. Twelve women came forward. No single one of them could have ended his career. His conduct had been an open secret for years at ABC and Bloomberg, and the open secret protected him because each woman faced him alone and stayed quiet. The CNN report changed the math. Once the first accusers called, others answered, the way a mobbing call summons nearby birds. The group did what no individual could. They marked him as a predator in public, and the marking stuck for years.
Mobbing among animals is seasonal. Attacks fall off sharply between nesting seasons, because the behavior exists to protect the young, not to punish the predator. The hawk is not killed. It is driven off the territory, and when the chicks are grown the pressure relaxes. The kittiwake does not mob at all, because it nests on cliffs where no predator reaches the young, so there is nothing to defend.
From this view, the mob never aimed to destroy Halperin. It aimed to protect the nesting ground, which in 2017 was legacy newsrooms, the workplaces where the harassment happened and where junior women were at risk. He got driven out of that territory. NBC, Showtime, the book deals, all gone. Then he moved. He built 2WAY on YouTube and joined a conservative network. That is new ground, off the colony, where the original mob has no nest to defend and no standing. The pressure relaxed not because he changed but because he left the territory the mobbing existed to protect. The season ended.
The frame also explains the defectors. Megyn Kelly and Meghan McCain both joined the 2017 mob and both now sit beside him. The signaling-theory reading in the article covers this. A bird that mobs displays its own fitness and status to potential partners. The risky attack is partly a performance for an audience. In 2017 the audience rewarded the display, so Kelly hosted his accusers and asked where his apology was. By 2025 her audience changed. She runs a conservative network now, and that audience rewards the opposite display, the grace-and-forgiveness posture. The behavior tracked the payoff, not the predator.
Prey sometimes call in a stronger predator to handle the first one. Halperin did the inverse. He attached himself to a mightier protector, the conservative media ecosystem and its grievance against the censorious left, and that protector now shields him from the original mob. His defenders do not argue he is innocent. They argue the people who mobbed him were the real threat. He recruited a bigger bird.
Mark Halperin rebuilt a career after 2017 from the wreckage of NBC, Showtime, Bloomberg, HBO, and Penguin Random House, all of which cut him loose after multiple harassment allegations. The rebuild reveals the coalition he now serves.
Who does Halperin rely on for status, income, and protection?
The old answer is gone. None of the legacy institutions will have him back. His current supply chain runs through three channels. First, subscribers to 2WAY, the interactive video platform he founded in 2024, where community members join daily live video conferences. Second, Megyn Kelly, who brought him onto MK Media in March 2025 to host Next Up with Mark Halperin and who gives him SiriusXM distribution for The Morning Meeting on her channel. Third, the WSJ, Daily Mail, Newsmax and Fox News, which feature him. His protection comes from the right-leaning independent media ecosystem that treats his 2017 fall as an MSM excess rather than a disqualifying record.
A secondary layer of protection runs through his pedigree. His father Morton Halperin worked for Henry Kissinger on the Nixon National Security Council Wikipedia and spent decades as a civil liberties figure at the ACLU and Open Society Institute. That Democratic establishment lineage gives Halperin a residual permission slip on the center-left that a pure Newsmax host lacks. He can still book Steve Elmendorf, Jim Kessler, Third Way types. The father’s reputation does work the son can no longer do on his own.
Who does he need to attract or retain as allies?
Four groups. The 2WAY subscriber base, which has to keep paying. Right-wing guests who confer legitimacy on that side: Jack Posobiec, Robby Starbuck, Mary Margaret Olohan of The Daily Wire, Jonathan Turley, Elise Stefanik, and Stephen Moore all appear on his shows. Center-left operatives who let him project a bipartisan frame rather than a partisan one: Elmendorf, Kessler, Melissa DeRosa, and Tim Rice among them. And the tight Kelly-Spicer-Turrentine independent media clique, where reputation travels fast and poaching runs both ways. When Sean Spicer and Dan Turrentine launched a competing show after appearing on 2WAY, sources described Halperin as viewing it as theft of his format and audience after the investment he put into the platform. The fight exposed how narrow the ecosystem runs and how much each host depends on the others for guest flow and cross-promotion.
What beliefs and signals mark membership in his coalition?
Hostility to legacy media gatekeeping, signaled through framing rather than through direct attack. Respect for Trump as a political force to analyze rather than a pathology to denounce. Horse-race reporting treated as a serious craft. A cultivated neutral register that lets guests from The Daily Wire and from Third Way sit in the same hour without the show reading as partisan. Pro-Israel foreign policy framing. Faith in direct-to-audience subscriber economics and interactivity as the next model of news.
Membership also shows in what coalition members do not say. You do not denounce Trump in MSNBC tones. You do not join pile-ons against cancelled men, since the coalition rests on the premise that cancellation went too far. You do not treat the January 6 narrative as settled. You do not mock populist voters. You do not bring up Halperin’s past.
What might he have to give up if he changed his public position?
If he pivoted back toward the MSNBC register, he loses everything he rebuilt. The legacy outlets are not coming back for him. Kelly drops him. Newsmax drops him. Right-wing guests stop answering the phone. Subscribers churn. The center-left bookings he still lands depend on his right-flank access, not on his liberal credentials, so those dry up too.
If he went full MAGA, he loses the bipartisan frame that distinguishes 2WAY from a generic right-wing show. The Elmendorf and Kessler bookings vanish. His father’s residual cover stops working. He becomes a commentator rather than a reporter, and the Game Change brand he still trades on requires the reporter pose.
If he addressed the 2017 allegations honestly and at length, he reopens a file the coalition has agreed to leave closed. The people who might reward candor are not his customers.
Each piece of his current product holds the others in place: the polished reportorial tone, the mixed guest list, the silence on 2017, the Kelly alliance, the WSJ, Fox News and Newsmax appearances, the father’s name traveling quietly behind him. Remove any one and the structure weakens.
Posted inMark Halperin|Comments Off on The Mark Halperin Trajectory
Matti Friedman (b. 1977) is a Canadian-Israeli journalist, author, and essayist who writes about war, memory, identity, and the construction of public narrative in the modern Middle East. He works at the meeting point of foreign correspondence, literary nonfiction, and archival history, and he has become an influential English-language interpreter of Israel and the region. A single concern runs through his reporting and his books. He asks how societies settle on the stories they tell, why some accounts come to dominate, and what parts of a complex reality fall out of view once events pass through an ideological frame. He now writes a column for The Free Press, after years as an essayist for the opinion section of the New York Times and a monthly contributor to Tablet.
Friedman grew up in Toronto in a Jewish family that attended an Orthodox synagogue. In 1995, at seventeen, he immigrated to Israel and settled at Ma’ale Gilboa, a religious kibbutz in the country’s north. His parents and sister followed a year later. The military conscripted him into the Nahal Brigade, and he served in the Israeli security zone in southern Lebanon during the late 1990s, much of it at a hilltop position called Outpost Pumpkin. That service left a deep mark on his sense of war and national belonging, and it later supplied the subject of his memoir. After his discharge he studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
His career in journalism led to the Jerusalem bureau of the Associated Press, where he worked as a reporter and editor between 2006 and 2011. Assignments carried him across Israel and the Palestinian territories and out to Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, and the Caucasus. The years inside one of the world’s largest news organizations gave him a close view of how Western institutions assemble their accounts of the Middle East, and that view became the raw material for much of his later criticism.
His first book, The Aleppo Codex (2012), investigated the fate of one of Judaism’s most important medieval manuscripts after its passage from Syria to Israel. On its surface the book reads as a historical mystery. Underneath, it traces the friction between Middle Eastern Jewish communities and the largely European establishment that governed Israel’s first decades. The book won the Sami Rohr Prize, the American Library Association’s Sophie Brody Medal, and the Canadian Jewish Book Award, and it set a pattern he would follow afterward: a narrow story opened up to reach a larger argument about memory and power.
His memoir Pumpkinflowers (2016) carried that approach into military history. Drawing on his service at the Pumpkin, Friedman argued that Hezbollah had pioneered an asymmetric war that later shaped much of twenty-first-century conflict. Years before Iraq and Afghanistan, he wrote, Hezbollah learned to turn small tactical clashes into strategic gains through media operations, psychological pressure, and symbolic imagery. By his reading, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 marked not a conventional defeat but the success of an information-driven war in which perception counted for more than ground. The book became a New York Times Notable Book and one of Amazon’s ten best of its year.
In Spies of No Country (2019), Friedman reconstructed the lives of four Arabic-speaking Jewish operatives from the Palmach’s Arab Section in the final years of the British Mandate. These were Jews from Syria and Yemen whose fluency in Arabic and in the customs of the region let them pass in Beirut and across the Arab world. Friedman used their stories to press against the Ashkenazi-centered account of Zionism, arguing that the state took shape not only through European ideological pioneers but also through Jews rooted in Middle Eastern societies. The book belongs to a wider effort across his work to recover the experience of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews, who hold a secondary place in both Western and Israeli memory. It won the Natan Prize and a Canadian Jewish Book Award.
This emphasis on Israel’s Middle Eastern character marks much of his thinking. He argues that many Western observers still read Israel through a European colonial frame, and that the frame hides a basic fact: roughly half of Israel’s Jewish population traces its origins to Arab and Muslim lands. To understand the country, in his account, a reader has to see it less as a Western outpost and more as a Middle Eastern society shaped by the region’s languages, migrations, and wars.
Alongside the books, Friedman became known for a pair of essays in 2014 that criticized international coverage of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Writing from his time inside the Associated Press, he argued that the conflict draws coverage out of all proportion to its scale because it serves as a symbolic arena where Western societies argue about their own moral concerns. Reporters, he wrote, often arrive with ready narrative templates that flatten a regional struggle into a familiar tale of oppressors and victims. Those templates erase the broader context, including the history of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, the reach of Iran, the force of Islamism, and the internal politics of Arab societies. His later commentary widened the critique past journalism to take in universities, cultural institutions, and elite intellectual life. He returns often to a single claim: that Israel works as a screen onto which Western societies project anxieties about colonialism, race, nationalism, religion, and power. Against those abstractions he sets local languages, archival evidence, historical particulars, and lived experience.
Who by Fire (2022) examined Leonard Cohen’s (1934-2016) journey to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Cohen played concerts for soldiers at the front and emerged from a personal and creative crisis. As in his earlier books, Friedman used a small and specific story to reach questions of identity, belonging, and collective memory, and Cohen became a way to think about the bond between Jewish history, artistic purpose, and national crisis.
His most recent book, Out of the Sky (2026), recovers one of the strangest episodes of the Second World War. In 1944 a group of young Jewish women and men who had escaped the Holocaust chose to parachute back into Nazi-occupied Europe under a British military operation. The mission saved no Jews and harmed no Nazis, and many of the volunteers died, yet some of their names became legend, above all that of the twenty-three-year-old poet Hannah Senesh (1921-1944), author of the Hebrew song “Eli, Eli.” Working from thousands of once-secret files, manuscripts, memoirs, and unpublished letters, Friedman follows four of the parachutists from the spring of 1944 to the operation’s end that winter. The book sits squarely inside his lasting preoccupation, since it studies how a failed mission hardened into a founding myth and argues that storytelling can hold a power greater than the fighting it describes.
Across all of it, Friedman operates as a journalist and as a critic of journalism at once. His central subject is the gap between reality and narrative, the distance between events as they happen and the accounts institutions build around them. Whether he writes about an ancient manuscript, four forgotten spies, a hilltop in Lebanon, Leonard Cohen, parachutists over Hungary, or the daily output of the Western press, he keeps asking the same question. How do societies decide which stories matter, and what truths drop away when reality gets forced into a settled moral frame? That question has made him a distinctive voice on Israel, the Middle East, and the politics of modern storytelling. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife and children.
The Voice
Matti Friedman talks the way he writes. He speaks in finished sentences. He builds a case slowly, one concrete fact at a time, and he trusts the facts to do the work rather than raising his voice or sharpening his adjectives. The manner stays calm and level even when the subject turns to war and dead children. That evenness is itself a tactic. He sounds reasonable, and he wants you to notice that he sounds reasonable, because his argument depends on the contrast between his composure and the activism he describes in others.
His strongest move is the disproportion argument carried by numbers. He tells Russ Roberts the AP kept about forty staffers on Israel and the Palestinian territories, then he lines that figure up against India, China, and all of sub-Saharan Africa, and notes Israel had more than all of those combined. He does not editorialize on top of the comparison. He lets the gap speak. He returns to the death toll the same way, setting the Israeli-Palestinian figure beside the homicide rate in Indianapolis. The quantities carry the point, and he steps back so they can. He thinks in frames and he names them out loud. He calls the standard story a fairytale and says you need a princess and a dragon to make a good news story. He borrows Arnold Kling’s oppressor-and-oppressed lens and applies it to the coverage. Naming the frame is a rhetorical act. Once he hands you the shape of the story, every example he gives afterward snaps into it, and the reader feels he has been handed a key rather than an opinion.
He concedes early and often, and the concessions are real, not decorative. He places himself in the liberal camp before he criticizes liberal reporters. He says of Hamas that their aim to replace Israel might be what he would want in their place. He says of the Western pressure strategy, twice, that he is not sure they are wrong. This preemptive surrender of ground disarms the listener. By the time he reaches his harder claims, he has already shown he can see the other side, so the hard claims read as conclusions rather than as grievance.
His diction stays plain and physical. He likes Anglo-Saxon words over Latinate ones. He says “planet earth” again and again, almost as a tic, to keep the discussion grounded in actual events rather than abstraction. He pulls in the trade jargon of the newsroom, “boilerplate,” “Is/Pals,” the daily Israeli-and-Palestinian story, and he translates each term as he goes. Naming the insider vocabulary establishes that he was inside. The authority of the eyewitness runs under everything he says. He saw it. He counted the critical stories himself. He sat on the desk in late 2008 when the detail about Hamas fighters in civilian clothes got pulled.
He repeats short declaratives for weight. On Gaza he says, “This is what it looks like. This is what it looks like.” On the Olmert offer that went unreported he says, “And it was. It was.” The repetition lands like a man setting something down twice to be sure it holds. He also uses the rhetorical question he answers himself. What is the Gaza Health Ministry? An office of Hamas that puts out the casualty numbers. The question pulls the listener forward, the flat answer closes it.
He works in anecdotes built for a single point. The cameraman outside Shifa Hospital who films civilian casualties and turns the camera off at a Hamas minder’s hand signal. The reporter who phones back hours later to say a true detail must come out of the story. He tells these cleanly, with a beginning and an end, the way a writer of nonfiction books tells them, and he uses them as proof of a pattern rather than as color.
His humor is dry and self-deprecating. Saying “mainstream media” makes him feel like Rush Limbaugh, he notes, and the joke buys him room to use the phrase anyway. He swears only when quoting others, the reporter getting “shit from all sides,” and the borrowed profanity keeps his own register clean.
The deepest pattern in his rhetoric is the split he draws between accuracy and politics. He keeps insisting the question is not whose side a story helps but whether a reader in St. Louis or Denver can use it as a map. He grants that activism matters and politicians matter, then argues that a reporter who becomes an activist stops being usable. That distinction is the spine of his public speaking. Everything else, the numbers, the frames, the anecdotes, the concessions, serves to make a listener feel the distinction is obvious and that only a corrupted profession could have lost it.
What he avoids is as telling as what he does. He does not raise his voice. He does not pile on adjectives. He rarely makes the personal attack, and when he criticizes the Netanyahu government or the far right he does it in a sentence and moves on. He resists the easy symmetry that reporters offer in their own defense, the line that both sides hate the coverage, and he answers it with a question about whether the coverage is true. He prefers understatement to outrage, and the restraint reads as confidence. A man this calm, the manner suggests, has the facts on his side.
Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill is an American historian of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the Second World War. He pursues his doctorate in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where his research treats the relation among ideology, strategy, and state policy in the Third Reich. He belongs to a younger cohort of scholars who return to the archive to test claims that earlier work advanced on thin evidence. His governing commitment separates ideological aspiration from documented policy. That commitment places him inside current arguments about the geographic reach of the Final Solution and the global scope of Nazi racial ambition.
Cockerill drew scholarly notice with a 2024 article in the journal Holocaust Studies, titled “Did the Nazis plan to extend the final solution beyond Europe? Assessing the evidence.” The article asks whether Nazi Germany held a plan to carry extermination to the Near East, to Shanghai, and past the borders of Europe. He argues for a strict pan-European reading of the Final Solution as the policy unfolded in history. He grants that the Nazi Weltanschauung carried implications for Jews anywhere who might fall under German occupation. He holds the line between what the regime imagined and what it organized. Against a growing literature that globalizes the Holocaust by treating German plans for the Middle East and North Africa as concrete extensions of the killing, he maintains that the implemented policy stayed European.
The article shows his method at work. He examines the meeting between Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini (1897-1974), and he weighs accounts that turn that meeting into evidence of a planned extermination of the Jews of Palestine and Egypt. He flags inconsistencies in how the meeting was recorded. He translates a portion of al-Husseini’s memoirs, and he concedes what the documents show about the Mufti’s awareness of the killing in Europe, a concession that sets him apart from many writers sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, among them Ilan Pappe (b. 1948) and Rashid Khalidi (b. 1948), who tend to avoid the subject. He reads the work of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, who treat the planned Einsatzgruppe Egypt as proof of a Middle Eastern extermination program, and he sets it against Dan Michman (b. 1947), former chief historian at Yad Vashem, who finds no concrete German plan of that kind. Cockerill sides with the cautious reading.
This habit runs through his scholarship. He asks what historians can demonstrate from the record, not what the Nazis might have done under other geopolitical conditions. He keeps rhetoric, aspiration, planning, and implementation in separate columns. The approach descends from a tradition of archival reconstruction associated with Christopher Browning (b. 1944), Raul Hilberg (1926-2007), and Gerhard Weinberg (b. 1928), each of whom built his account of German decisions from internal memoranda, directives, meeting records, and administrative correspondence rather than from theory.
On the old quarrel between intentionalist and functionalist readings of the Third Reich, Cockerill occupies the middle ground mapped by Ian Kershaw (b. 1943). He rejects pure ideological determinism, and he rejects the picture of policy as mere bureaucratic improvisation. He shows how racial doctrine, military circumstance, administrative capacity, and political opportunity work on one another inside the German state. Officials adapt to changing conditions, but their adaptations move along the path that racial doctrine sets. The regime evolves by opportunism while staying anchored in its aims.
His work also enters the argument over Nazism and European colonialism. Many historians now stress the colonial sources of Nazi expansionism and draw lines from German racial policy to earlier imperial projects. Cockerill does not deny the colonial inheritance. He argues that Nazi racial policy carries features that the framework of imperial governance cannot capture. Colonial empires sought labor, taxation, resources, and control. The Nazi regime pursued racial restructuring and mass murder even when those aims cut against military efficiency and economic sense. He places the regime within European traditions of conquest while marking the radicalism that those traditions do not explain.
Cockerill argues against revisionism that drains the ideological content from Nazi expansion. In commentary on Sean McMeekin (b. 1974) and the book Stalin’s War, he holds that an account weighted toward Soviet ambition obscures the part Nazi racial doctrine played in German conduct. The war in the East was a contest among states. It was also a project of racial transformation through ethnic cleansing, population engineering, and systematic murder. His method works as a corrective inside a field drawn toward global frameworks, memory studies, and counterfactual speculation. He turns attention back to the limits that evidence imposes, and he separates fantasies voiced in ideological rhetoric from plans backed by administrative preparation.
Cockerill works outside the seminar room as much as inside it. He runs a platform called History Speaks across YouTube, Substack, and X, where he writes under that name and argues in a combative register. He has built much of his public profile by debating Holocaust deniers, among them the pseudonymous author Thomas Dalton and the white-nationalist broadcaster Mike Peinovich (b. 1977). In those exchanges he presses the standard challenge that denial cannot account for the disappearance of millions of Jews in German custody, and he defends the documentary basis for gassing and mass shooting. His public essays, such as a piece laying out the evidence for the Holocaust, gather the statements of figures like Hans Frank (1900-1946) and read them against the denialist claim that such language was empty venting.
He defends the documentary record of the Holocaust against deniers, and he is at the same time an outspoken advocate for the Palestinian cause and a sharp critic of Israel and its conduct in the war with Hamas. His feed mixes archival argument with polemic against Israeli policy and against Western media coverage of the conflict. The combination draws him both readers and adversaries, and it complicates any attempt to file him under a single political heading.
A clear-eyed estimate of his standing has to keep the scale in view. He is a doctoral candidate, not a tenured authority with a body of monographs behind him. His reputation rests on one substantial peer-reviewed article, on review essays and public scholarship, and on a large online presence built through argument and debate. His significance, so far, lies less in a new grand theory than in a defense of the standards of proof. He returns again and again to a plain and demanding question: what can historians show from the surviving record? By holding claims about Nazi intent to documentary evidence rather than to ideological possibility, he argues for archival discipline in a field that has grown expansive in its interpretation. His work reminds readers that understanding the Third Reich asks for attention to the breadth of Nazi ambition and for steady recognition of the limits of what the record can establish.
His handle is @History__Speaks, and the bio reads only “I’m historian Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill,” with links to his YouTube and Substack and his LSE email for media inquiries. He joined in June 2021, follows around 517 accounts, and has built a following near 23,000. The name is a brand, not a mask. He has said outright that he is not anonymous, that his name is Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill, that he is a PhD student at LSE, and that “History Speaks” is a handle for fun.
He posts daily, often in long numbered threads. The dominant subject is the Israel-Hamas war, and he argues the Palestinian side with force. He sits in the anti-Israel camp, spars with people who defend Israel and its conduct, and earns a reputation for being more than combative, attacking figures by name and calling them frauds. Around that core he runs a steady line of media criticism. He has gone after NPR coverage of Iranian opinion as resting on an unrepresentative sample, and he has flagged footage circulated with English subtitles as propaganda aimed at the West rather than at a local audience. The posture is corrective. He treats much of what crosses his feed as misinformation to be answered.
He grounds his authority in biography when challenged. He has told critics that he grew up in a home of Egyptian immigrants on his mother’s side, that he lived in the Arab world for a few years, and that he knows Arabic. The account also shows him correcting himself. In one exchange he admitted he had retweeted a video and then issued a correction once its framing turned out to be wrong, while holding his ground on the underlying event.
The feed feeds the rest of his work. The Comedy Cellar’s podcast brought him in for a two-hour Israel-Hamas debate built around his X presence, billed under the handle, covering whether the war counts as genocide and whether civility is possible on the subject at all.
Even a reviewer who respects his historical knowledge sees a split between the careful archival historian and the online combatant. That reviewer calls his daily posting a clear window into his bias, credits him for arguing loudly under his own name rather than from behind anonymity, and in the same breath calls the conduct reckless given how often he reaches for words like fraud and how much it might cost his professional standing. The comparison drawn there is to Darryl Cooper, another figure whose public persona pulls against his stated craft.
So the account works as advocacy first and scholarship second. The discipline that marks his journal article, the separation of what can be shown from what can be asserted, loosens on X, where he argues to win and names his targets. Anyone reading him on the platform meets the polemicist before the historian.
No public sign yet that he has paid a formal price for his social media posts. He remains a doctoral candidate in international history at LSE, and nothing in the record points to disciplinary action, a withdrawn position, or a blocked degree. He still carries the LSE affiliation, holds a law degree from the University of Chicago, and continues to publish, with his recent Gaza casualty work appearing through the British NGO Action on Armed Violence.
What does the posting do to a career he might want as a historian?
Start with the dangers.
The history job market barely exists. Tenure-track openings in twentieth-century European history come a handful at a time, and search committees read everything a candidate has ever posted. A combative feed on the single most radioactive subject in the modern university gives a risk-averse committee an easy reason to move to the next file. Departments do not need a reason to reject; they need a reason to fight for you, and a candidate who calls opponents frauds in public supplies the opposite.
The content raises the stakes further. Critics describe tweets that sort Jews into good and bad, and read the persona as toxic. In the present climate, with American and British universities under congressional and government scrutiny over campus antisemitism, that framing is the kind of thing an administration treats as a liability rather than a debate. He may intend a political argument about Israel. A hiring committee or a dean reads exposure.
His scholarly base is thin, and the posting is part of why. A third-year PhD student with one peer-reviewed article draws notice, since the market rewards publications, not follower counts. Hours on X and on advocacy research are hours not spent on the dissertation and on refereed work. The Gaza casualty material runs through an NGO, which a committee can discount as advocacy rather than scholarship. Twenty-three thousand followers move no needle in a tenure file.
Many Holocaust historians argue you should not debate deniers at all, since the debate format grants the denier standing. He has debated Thomas Dalton and Mike Peinovich, and even if he wins on the merits, senior figures in the field may read the choice as a lapse rather than a service. Academia runs on a small set of gatekeepers, mentors, recommenders, journal editors, and conference hosts, and a polarizing persona can cost him their patronage long before any formal process begins.
Now the rewards, because they are real and pull the other way.
The platform builds a public career that the academy cannot offer most of its graduates. He has name recognition, a podcast circuit that includes the Comedy Cellar, and a Substack and YouTube channel that reach an audience no junior scholar commands. For a path through journalism, commentary, NGO and think-tank work, or the independent Substack economy, the audience is the asset and the credential is the supporting act. He holds a Chicago law degree and historical training, which widens that path considerably. If he plans to write for the public rather than for tenure committees, the posting is the work, not a threat to it.
There is also a reputational upside among those who share his politics. The same reviewer who calls him reckless also credits him for arguing loudly under his own name rather than from behind anonymity, and treats that willingness to take the risk as admirable. In the subfields sympathetic to his position, the visibility may help. Courage reads as authenticity to an aligned audience.
If he wants a conventional tenure-track post in Holocaust or Second World War history, the feed is mostly a liability, and it grows more dangerous the more senior the job he seeks. If he wants a public-facing career as a historian-commentator, the feed is the foundation. He has not wrecked anything yet. He has narrowed his options toward the second path and away from the first, and given how few first-path jobs exist at all, that might be a rational bet rather than a mistake. The danger is that he keeps both doors open in his own mind while the posting quietly closes one of them.
It runs as a long-form annex to the X account, and it carries the same two registers that split the rest of his work. He launched it about three years ago, and Substack’s own card describes it as a publication with hundreds of subscribers. Hold that number against the roughly 23,000 who follow him on X. The gap tells you most of his audience comes for the fights, not for the reading. The Substack is where he does the work that a feed cannot hold, and where fewer people follow him to do it.
The masthead states the mission plainly: exposing muddle-headed, politically motivated history. The content splits along the line you would expect.
The strongest material is the anti-denial work. He hosted a two-month debate with the denier Thomas Dalton in 2023 and posted it in seven segments on the Substack. That is a real piece of argument, sustained and demanding, and it shows him at his best, marshaling the documentary record against people who reject it. The choice to host it on his own platform cuts both ways. It gave a denier a stage, which many historians warn against. It also produced a body of writing that few graduate students would attempt.
The other half is present-day polemic on Gaza and Israel-Palestine. He has worked on civilian-casualty analysis, peer-reviewed the Airwars report, and argued the numbers in public against people like Eli Lake. This is where the Substack turns from history into advocacy. A critic reading the site concludes that he argues Israel holds all the agency in the war and Hamas and the Palestinians hold none, and that he refuses to concede points less from evidence than from stubbornness. Take that as a hostile read, but the structure it describes is visible.
The single-mindedness that makes him effective against deniers, the refusal to give an inch, becomes his weakness on Gaza. Against a denier, conceding nothing is correct, because the denier is wrong about the record. On a live moral and political question, conceding nothing reads as motivated reasoning. The same trait switches from strength to liability depending on the subject, and the Substack puts both on the same shelf under one banner. A reader who trusts the Holocaust work may carry that trust over to the Gaza polemic without noticing the genre has changed from documented history to argument with a thesis fixed in advance.
The platform’s function, then, is to lend the authority of archival history to contemporary advocacy. That is the source of its power and the reason to read it with care. The Dalton debate earns trust. The Gaza writing spends it.
Set them side by side and the surface rhymes. Two young academics at elite British institutions, one a doctoral candidate in history at LSE, the other a philosopher who held a Cambridge fellowship. Both run Substacks. Both fight on the most radioactive ground their fields offer. Both write with more restraint in peer review than they show online, and both have built audiences off that gap. Each casts himself as a truth-teller against a comfortable orthodoxy, and each refuses to concede a point once he has planted his flag. The resemblance is real. It is also where the resemblance stops.
Start with the disciplines, because they shape everything else. Cockerill is a historian who works from the archive. His method rests on documents, directives, and what the record can be made to prove. Cofnas is a philosopher of biology and ethics whose work centers on evolution-informed social science, with peer-reviewed papers defending hereditarianism about racial and ethnic differences in IQ. One man reconstructs what happened. The other argues about what causes what, and stakes his name on a causal claim about genes and intelligence.
Now the deeper split, which is their relationship to consensus. Cockerill mostly defends the scholarly mainstream. Against Holocaust deniers he argues the settled position, that the extermination happened, and he marshals the evidence the field already accepts. His heterodoxy lives elsewhere, in his Gaza advocacy, where he pushes a contested political line. Cofnas does the opposite. He attacks the mainstream head-on. He claims the IQ gap between racial groups in the United States has largely genetic rather than environmental causes, and he says the same of the higher scores of East Asians and Jews. In his February 2024 blog post he argued that conservatives can defeat what he calls wokeism only if elites adopt race realism, and he offered the figure that under colorblind academic admissions Black students would make up under one percent of Harvard. Cockerill defends a sacred fact and fights about a live political question. Cofnas assaults a sacred value and fights about an empirical one.
Their politics run to the right, which makes the parallel stranger. Cofnas sits on the anti-woke right and treats DEI as the enemy. Cockerill is conservative, but sits with the pro-Palestinian left and treats Israel as the enemy. Yet the deniers Cockerill battles are figures of the far right, so the two men cross swords with overlapping casts of characters.
Cofnas has paid for his social media posts, and paid heavily. A petition for his dismissal drew more than a thousand signatures, protesters chanted for his firing, he was relieved of teaching in March 2024, and Emmanuel College severed his affiliation. He left Cambridge when his fellowship ended and sued the college, and his appointment at Ghent University in Belgium drew a fresh campaign against him. Cockerill, by every public sign, has paid nothing. He keeps his LSE standing and posts daily without visible penalty.
The reason for that asymmetry matters more than either man. The same brave-heretic posture yields opposite outcomes depending on which orthodoxy you transgress. In British humanities faculties, pro-Palestinian advocacy runs near the median view, so Cockerill’s combativeness costs him little inside the institution even as it might cost him later on a hiring committee. Hereditarianism on race is the live wire of the present academy, and touching it brought Cofnas a year and a half of investigation and a court case. One man chose the safer transgression. The other chose the one that ends careers.
The legal aftermath. Cofnas became a free-speech cause. Cambridge later dismissed all 58 student complaints, citing its free-speech obligations, and a county court, while rejecting his claim, held that both his hereditarianism and his anti-woke belief count as protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act. His ordeal set precedent. Cockerill generates no such case, because nobody is trying to remove him, so there is nothing for a court or a free-speech union to defend.
A few words on craft and standing. Cofnas is further along and better credentialed, with a record in respected journals built before the firestorm. Cockerill, as a third-year doctoral student with a single peer-reviewed article, has more to lose and less behind him. Both men, though, share one habit that defines the type. Cofnas is far less measured on his Substack than in his published work, and his way of putting the Harvard point reads as deliberately incendiary. Cockerill shows the same fracture, careful in the journal and slashing on the feed. The incendiary line is the cost of the audience. It is also the thing most likely to follow each of them into a room where their future is decided.
They are mirror images more than twins. Same arena, same tools, same temperament, opposite politics, opposite stances toward consensus, and opposite verdicts from their institutions. Cofnas is the heretic the academy tried to expel and the courts partly vindicated. Cockerill is the partisan the academy has so far left alone, because the line he crosses is not the line that gets a British academic fired.
Posted inHolocaust|Comments Off on The Pan-European Holocaust: The Scholarship of Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
