How ‘Surrounded' Memeifies Politics
But the author of a book titled Win Every Argument has also spoken about when not to take part in a debate. 'There are certain people who there is no point arguing with,' he said in 2023, pointing specifically to those who operate in bad faith. 'It's pointless. It doesn't go anywhere.'
The one-versus-many debate web series has repeatedly gone viral since its premiere in September, featuring episodes from 'Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?' to 'Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?' and 'Can 1 Cop Defend Himself Against 20 Criminals?'
Hasan appeared as the titular progressive in the 100-minute '1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives,' which has garnered more than 3.5 million views and counting on YouTube since it was posted on Sunday and millions more views of clips shared on social media.
But Hasan was the first to admit that he didn't expect what he would encounter.
'You can see my shock when they start expressing their views openly,' Hasan posted on X in response to a critic who suggested he eagerly signed up to debate 'a bunch of nazis.'
According to Zeteo, Jubilee Media 'chose the participants, with Mehdi meeting them for the first time in the studio itself.'
Hasan, whose supporters have showered him with praise for his performance, claimed in the final minutes of the program, during which participants assessed the debate, that he was both taken aback but also unsurprised by the extreme views he met: 'I thought it would be an interesting exercise in trying to understand what genuine far-right conservative folks think. And it was kind of disturbing to see that they think what I thought they think, and they were happy to say it out loud. I am disappointed that I had to sit across from people who believe in white genocide, who believe I'm not a citizen. … The people here today were way beyond conservative.'
While Hasan admitted he likes to debate 'even people I disagree with,' he reiterated that he tries to 'avoid bad faith folks' and said, 'I think some of the folks today were bad faith.' He also seemed to criticize Jubilee's airing of such extreme views, adding: 'Free speech doesn't mean you need to give credibility or oxygen or a platform to people who don't agree in human equality.'
'This is open authoritarianism, and this is what is being normalized and mainstreamed in our country, by people in power, by the media, by people who don't know any better,' Hasan said.
But some observers online have suggested that Hasan himself should have known better about what he signed up for. 'The fix is in'
Jubilee Media says its mission is to 'provoke understanding' and 'create human connection.' And, according to its website, 'We believe discomfort and conflict are pivotal forces in creating human connection.' The company has since 2017 produced a number of web series on dating, identity, politics, and more.
'We want to show what discourse can and should look like. Sometimes it can be unproductive but other times it can be quite productive and empathetic,' founder Jason Y. Lee told Variety in late 2024 for an article about Surrounded , which according to the article has a goal to 'promote open dialogue,' for which Jubilee sees itself as a neutral host. 'We try our best to be as unbiased as possible when it comes to the political sphere,' said Lee.
For the most part, Jubilee's debate series appears to be unmoderated, governed primarily by the participants themselves, with occasional on-screen fact-checks provided by billionaire Joe Ricketts' media startup Straight Arrow News.
But critics have questioned the company's supposedly noble aspirations. 'Jubilee Media mines the nation's deepest disagreements for rowdy viral videos. But is all the arguing changing anyone's mind?' the Atlantic asked in January.
Media reporter Julia Alexander suggested on X that the program's producers are the ones operating in bad faith. 'Jubilee Media's done it again: taking 20 people with extremist views and putting them into a 90 minute video knowing that they'll say extreme things and get an extreme amount of attention,' she posted on Sunday after the Hasan episode. They've figured out, Alexander added, 'how to monetize the very essence of the internet.'
Filmmaker and entrepreneur Minh Do posted that Jubilee's producers 'are mainly interested in clickbait views and incendiary clips that don't lead anyone to think any deeper about these topics' rather than any sense of responsibility to the public. 'Senseless conversation purely for views.'
'It only takes watching a couple clips of these to see that the fix is in,' posted podcaster Alex Goldman.
Writer and disability rights advocate Imani Barbarin, who shared in March that she turned down an invitation from Jubilee to appear in a Surrounded episode about feminism, posted a video Monday in which she decried how she believed the debate-style program was made for viral moments, not serious engagement.
'That very same debate where Mehdi Hasan was standing up to 20 fascists or whatever, where you all think he won, is being cut up and chopped up across the internet to present it as though he lost,' Barbarin said. Indeed, one only needs to scroll through the social media pages of some of the participants to see them taking victory laps and their supporters praising their performances.
'This,' Barbarin emphasized, 'is what the memeification of politics looks like in practice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump to meet Putin in coming days, Kremlin says
Advertisement Support for continuing the fight wanes in Ukraine The enthusiasm for a negotiated deal is a sharp reversal from 2022 — the year the war began — when Gallup found that about three-quarters of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until victory. Now only about one-quarter hold that view, with support for continuing the war declining steadily across all regions and demographic groups. The findings were based on samples of 1,000 or more respondents ages 15 and older living in Ukraine. Some territories under entrenched Russian control, representing about 10% of the population, were excluded from surveys conducted after 2022 due to lack of access. Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. On the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line snaking from northeast to southeast Ukraine, where tens of thousands of troops on both sides have died, Russia's bigger army is slowly capturing more land. Advertisement The poll came out on the eve of U.S. President Donald Trump's Friday deadline for Russia to stop the killing or face heavy economic sanctions. In the new Gallup survey, conducted in early July, about 7 in 10 Ukrainians say their country should seek to negotiate a settlement as soon as possible. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last month renewed his offer to meet with Russia's Vladimir Putin, but his overture was rebuffed asRussia sticks to its demands, and the sides remain far apart. Most Ukrainians do not expect a lasting peace anytime soon, the poll found. Only about one-quarter say it's 'very' or 'somewhat' likely that active fighting will end within the next 12 months, while about 7 in 10 think it's 'somewhat' or 'very' unlikely that active fighting will be over in the next year. Approval of US falls, approval of Germany rises Ukrainian views of the American government have cratered over the past few years, while positive views of Germany's leadership have risen, according to Gallup. Three years ago, about two-thirds of Ukrainians approved of U.S. leadership. That's since fallen to 16% in the latest poll, reflecting new tensions between the two countries since Trump took office in January. But although the dip from last year was substantial — approval of U.S. leadership was 40% in 2024 — positive views of U.S. leadership were already dropping before Trump took office, perhaps related to the antipathy that prominent Republican politicians showed toward billions of dollars in U.S. support for Ukraine. Germany has grown more popular among Ukrainians over the past few years, rising to 63% approval in the new poll. Advertisement Hope for NATO, EU acceptance has fallen Ukrainians are much less optimistic that their country will be accepted into NATO or the European Union in the next decade than they were just a few years ago. In the new poll, about one-third of Ukrainians expect that Ukraine will be accepted into NATO within the next 10 years, while about one-quarter think it will take at least 10 years, and one-third believe it will never happen. That's down from 2022, when about two-thirds of Ukrainians thought acceptance into NATO would happen in the coming decade and only about 1 in 10 thought it would never happen. Hope for acceptance into the EU is higher but has also fallen. About half, 52%, of Ukrainians now expect to be part of the EU within the next decade, down from 73% in 2022. Hatton reported from Lisbon, Portugal.
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps. Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation. Why It Matters The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress. The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. What To Know The Supreme Court's Role In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that "such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court's refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." Kagan argued that the court's withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around. The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was "incompatible with democratic principles," he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, Is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party. Here's how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party's voters are grouped together ("packing") or split apart across multiple districts ("cracking"). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes. For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don't reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes. In the long run, it can lock in one party's power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box. Recent Reaction in Texas On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat's role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, "There must be consequences." Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters. What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: "I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements. "Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans." State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: "Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office." He added: "History will judge this moment." Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: "We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce." What Happens Next With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas' redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts. While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies. As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
Kremlin says Putin-Trump meeting agreed, will happen in 'coming days'
The Kremlin said Thursday that a meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been agreed in principle and will happen in the 'coming days.' Trump revealed a day before that he was hopeful of a meeting with his Russian counterpart in an attempt to end the war in Ukraine. It would be his first in-person discussion with Putin during his second term. 'At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement in principle was made to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days,' Putin's longtime foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, said in a statement.
