Solving NEWSOM’s podcast is the problem

By Nanette Star, special for Calmatters

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

The new podcast of California Governor, where he broke with Democrats in the transition, caused a media fiery storm and caused various opinions from the Californians. Below, a longtime voter says that Gavin Newo’s desire to make nuanced conversations is poorly needed. Opposition: The parent of Queer felt it was firing the conservatives through the redeemer of his own voters.

When I saw Titles for the new Gavin Newsom Governor Podgue“It’s Gavin Newsom,” I turned my eyes.

The media buzzed with criticism. He was going to the right, giving platforms to extremists, and abandoning democratic values. With the participation of far-right figures such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk felt a betrayal-not only of progressive ideals, but also of Communities Newsom once fiercely supportedS

As a voter in California, I felt released. I traveled to women’s rights, knocked on the doors for state legislators, and even remained politically engaged while living outside the state. I once believed in Newsom’s vision: a disadvantage, but fearless. But lately his management has been feeling like that rotation to national opticsIt does not need California.

So when I heard about the podcast, I assumed the worst. Before listening, the titles read, “Newsom turns to the translation.” I was furious. This was certainly another calculated move to a greater stage or other politician who trades values ​​for visibility.

Then I listened.

What I found is not a capitulation. It was a conversation. Newsom did not give a position – he was entering the arena, however imperfect. In a strenuous exchange with Kirk, the two saved over transgender athletes in women’s sports.

But when I heard him say, “Some of these things are more nun than we want to admit. I understood why people are concerned about justice. I don’t think it’s transphobic to say it,” I stopped.

It didn’t sound like a betrayal. It sounded like someone trying to hold a place for a heavy conversation.

I’m not saying that people should validate harmful rhetoric. But there is a difference between transmission and digging. Being bent into a nuance and listening to what was said, not just the strongest title.

NEWSOM did not land every stroke, but it appeared in the ring.

The real bowel check came when a friend asked me if I had listened to all the work. I wasn’t. I was from the titles. I always tell others to check their sources, to dig deeper and to avoid outrage as a substitute for understanding. And yet, I did just that.

In today’s media climate, it’s easy to do. Many titles are not intended to inform – they are made to provoke. And in a world of constant signals, who has time?

But this podcast reminded me that the titles are the hook, not the whole battle. We need to stop Shadowboxing. We have to listen.

Ironically, the critics of the podcast only amplify its scope. Right outrage has helped to increase the visibility of Newsom, deliberately or not. This repeated the dynamics of the Trump era as fuel and attention as a currency. This made me think if we were all playing in the same scenario, feeding the spectacle we claim to despise.

But here’s what matters: Newsom engaged. He challenged the binary stories that dominate the political discourse. He didn’t have all the answers, but he asked the questions. This type of engagement does not signal a weakness. It signals a switch to dialogue, not in separation.

In my own political work, I learned that compromise not everyone gets what they want. It is an understanding of what people are willing to give up and why. This requires listening along the surface, asking deeper questions and staying on the table, even when it is uncomfortable.

As sociologist Pierre Burdiev writes, “the political compromise is not the negation of the struggle, but to turn it into a more strategic form.”

I was suing a podcast before I heard it. In this way, I almost missed a model for the type of political discourse that we desperately need – one is based not on performative outrage, but on curiosity, respect and the belief that progress lies, not in extremes, but somewhere in the messy environment.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.