『America at 250: Due Diligence』のカバーアート

America at 250: Due Diligence

America at 250: Due Diligence

著者: Steve Herman & Bill Bernardoni
無料で聴く

The United States turns 250 this year. America at 250: Due Diligence has a simple premise: the anniversary means nothing without a clear-eyed accounting of where the country actually stands. Hosted by nationally syndicated radio host Bill Bernardoni and former Voice of America White House Bureau ChiefSteve Herman, each episode of Due Diligence examines one of the foundational questions that has defined — and divided — American democracy from the beginning: What does government owe its citizens? How has the promise of the Constitution been kept, broken, or rewritten over 250 years? And where does the country stand today? The program brings together leading historians, former lawmakers, policy experts, and advocates who have lived these debates from the inside — in Congress, in city halls, in courtrooms and in communities. The format is rigorous and fair: each episode presents multiple perspectives, from the historical record through to the sharpest contemporary arguments on all sides. America at 250: Due Diligence is a program for listeners who want more than hot takes and name calling — who want to understand how the country arrived at this moment, what the founding generation actually intended and what serious people across the political spectrum believe the next 250 years should look like.2026 世界 政治・政府 政治学
エピソード
  • The Free Press On Trial
    2026/08/01
    America at 250: Due Diligence goes live from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., for a special hour recorded in the Club's First Amendment Room. As the country marks its 250th year, hosts Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman convene a conversation on the state of a free press, introduced by National Press Club president Mark Schoeff Jr. of CQ Roll Call. The episode opens with a statement from Catherine Herridge, the Emmy Award-winning investigative correspondent who has covered national security and intelligence for ABC, Fox, and CBS. Herridge was held in civil contempt in February 2024 for refusing to disclose the confidential sources behind a 2017 series of national security reports for Fox News. The case arises from a Privacy Act lawsuit brought against four federal agencies by Yanping Chen — not a defamation claim against Herridge's reporting — and key evidence in it remains under seal. On July 2, the Supreme Court denied Herridge's request to halt an $800-a-day contempt fine; she describes making her first payment, the toll on her family, and her legal team's plans to petition the Supreme Court for review later this summer. A panel of journalists and First Amendment lawyers then takes up her case and its wider implications. Toni Locy, who spent 25 years reporting for outlets including the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press before joining the Washington and Lee University journalism faculty, was herself held in contempt in 2008 for refusing to name sources behind her USA Today reporting on the FBI's flawed investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks — and describes fighting escalating fines without ever naming a source or spending a day in jail. Laura Handman, a Davis Wright Tremaine partner with four decades representing publishers and broadcasters in First Amendment litigation, and Eric Hageman, a Clare Locke LLP partner who represented Dominion Voting Systems in its case against Fox News, bring opposing vantage points — media defense and plaintiff-side defamation — to the conversation. In this episode: The FBI's pre-dawn search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home and seizure of her devices, and the Privacy Protection Act questions it raisedJustice Department subpoenas served on New York Times reporters, including phone records tied to coverage of the president's return flight from QatarProspects for a federal shield law (the PRESS Act) and Rep. Jamie Raskin's efforts to revive itState anti-SLAPP laws and how they discourage lawsuits designed to shake down news organizationsWhether the Supreme Court should reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and the "actual malice" standardThe Dominion v. Fox News settlement and its influence on defamation doctrineLawsuits brought by President Trump against news organizations, including settlements with ABC and CBS, weighed against Teddy Roosevelt's own defamation suit against a newspaperLegal fights over editorial independence at Voice of America and Stars and StripesAudience questions on shield-law prospects, leak investigations, and public trust in the media Guests Catherine Herridge — Emmy Award-winning investigative correspondent; formerly with ABC, Fox, and CBS; reported from Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Israel, Northern Ireland, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia; graduate of Harvard and the Columbia Journalism School, where she founded a national security reporting scholarship; now an independent journalist on X, YouTube, and via her newsletter. Toni Locy — Journalism faculty, Washington and Lee University; 25-year reporting career at the Pittsburgh Press, Philadelphia Daily News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, and the Associated Press; holds a master's in law studies from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Laura Handman — Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine; executive committee, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; four decades of First Amendment litigation for U.S. and foreign publishers and broadcasters. Eric Hageman — Partner, Clare Locke LLP; represents individuals, corporations, nonprofits, and religious institutions in defamation litigation; author of merits and amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. Credits Hosted by Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni. Executive Producers: Steve Herman and Bill Bernardoni. Audio production by Bill Bernardoni of Bernardoni Media & Marketing. Recorded live at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2026; portions recorded at WUMS Radio, Oxford, Mississippi. Support for the program comes from the Radio Free America™ Project and the Jordan Center for Journalism, Advocacy and Innovation at the University of Mississippi School of Journalism and New Media. More information: newslab.org Comments: RadioFreeAmerica.medi
    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • Making Friends: Benjamin Franklin and America's First Public Diplomacy Campaign
    2026/07/25

    Before the United States could win its independence, it had to convince the world that the American experiment was worth supporting.

    The thirteen colonies had no navy, no national treasury, and little credibility among Europe's great powers. Defeating the British Empire would require more than success on the battlefield. The revolutionaries needed weapons, loans, trade, diplomatic recognition, and powerful foreign allies. They also had to persuade European leaders and ordinary citizens that a collection of rebellious colonies could become a stable and successful nation.

    In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman present an edited version of a panel recorded at a Public Diplomacy Council of America forum at George Washington University. Cultural critic Martha Bayles, public diplomacy scholar Dr. Caitlin Schindler, and author Eric Weiner examine how Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and other American representatives practiced public diplomacy long before the term existed.

    Bayles explores the sharply different diplomatic styles of Franklin and Adams. Franklin arrived in France already celebrated as a scientist, inventor, and writer. His plain clothing, fur cap, wit, manners, and carefully cultivated public image allowed him to appear both distinctly American and perfectly at home among the French elite. Adams was less comfortable with the customs and excesses of the French court, but his skepticism about power and human nature reflected another important strand of the American political tradition.

    Schindler explains how Franklin and his colleagues used the eighteenth century's most powerful communications technology—the printing press—to combat British propaganda and influence European opinion. They developed relationships with foreign publishers, placed information in European newspapers, and arranged translations of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and state constitutions. Those documents did more than explain the reasons for the Revolution. They helped demonstrate that the emerging country possessed the political institutions and stability necessary to become a credible ally, trading partner, and investment.

    Weiner presents Franklin as America's first international celebrity and one of the Revolution's most effective diplomatic operators. Franklin worked with the limited resources available to him, understood how the French viewed the conflict, built relationships in salons and scientific societies, used humor to disarm opponents, and appealed to the larger ideals behind the American cause. He also knew when not to respond, sometimes waiting 24 hours before sending an angry letter—and frequently deciding not to send it at all.

    The panel considers what Franklin's approach can teach the United States today, particularly his preference for softer language, his ability to maintain relationships across political and religious differences, and his understanding that influence often depends on listening, adapting, and seeing the world through another person's eyes.

    Questions from the audience expand the discussion to the American Revolution's influence on France, the global reach of American popular culture, the founders' possible reaction to modern political discourse, relations with Native American nations, the overlooked roles of women during the Revolution, and the eventual creation of a professional United States Foreign Service.

    It is the story of how a country that did not yet officially exist persuaded the world to take it seriously—and how Benjamin Franklin helped transform a vulnerable rebellion into an international cause.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • The Power of War
    2026/07/17

    Who decides when the United States goes to war?

    The Constitution divides that responsibility between Congress and the president. Congress possesses the power to declare and fund war, while the president serves as commander in chief. But from the earliest years of the republic, the boundary between those powers has been tested, stretched, and frequently blurred.

    In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman trace the evolution of American war powers from Thomas Jefferson's campaign against the Barbary powers to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela.

    Author Joseph Wheelan takes us back to the beginning of the 19th century, when American merchant ships and sailors were being seized by the Barbary corsairs. Jefferson sent the young United States Navy into combat without requesting a formal declaration of war, while Congress financed the operation and allowed it to continue. That early confrontation established a precedent that later presidents would repeatedly invoke.

    Retired Army Brigadier General Ernie Audino argues that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to commit American forces to combat, while Congress retains the power to raise the military and stop financing a conflict. Drawing on nearly three decades of military service, Audino also explains why political leaders must clearly define the objective of a war before asking service members to fight it—and considers the difficult questions created by artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons.

    Former Illinois Congressman and Air Force combat veteran Adam Kinzinger offers a perspective shaped by both the cockpit and Capitol Hill. He argues that presidents sometimes need the flexibility to act quickly, but Congress has too often surrendered its own constitutional authority. A lasting military campaign, Kinzinger says, requires more than presidential orders: Congress must participate, the mission must be clearly explained, and the American people must be brought along.

    From Tripoli to Pearl Harbor, Korea, Vietnam, and the conflicts of the 21st century, The Power of War examines what happens when formal declarations disappear but the consequences of war remain.

    The Constitution did not give the power of war to a single branch. It divided that power so that no one person or institution could own the decision alone. But that system works only when both Congress and the president are willing to accept responsibility.

    About the Guests

    Joseph Wheelan is a journalist, historian, and author who spent 24 years as a reporter and editor for The Associated Press. He is the author of Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801–1805, which examines Thomas Jefferson's confrontation with the Barbary powers and the development of the early United States Navy.

    Brigadier General Ernie Audino, U.S. Army (Ret.), served nearly three decades in the Army, including as executive assistant to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also spent a year embedded as a combat adviser with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in Iraq, becoming widely recognized as the only American general officer to have served in that capacity.

    Adam Kinzinger is a former Republican congressman from Illinois who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, including on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    About the Hosts

    Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and an experienced radio and podcast host, producer, political strategist, and media consultant. His work has included producing national radio programs, developing podcasts and digital media projects, and advising political campaigns and public-policy organizations.

    Steve Herman is an award-winning journalist and former Voice of America White House bureau chief. During his decades-long career in international journalism, he has reported from more than 70 countries and covered the White House, diplomacy, national security, natural disasters, and conflicts around the world.

    Join the Conversation

    When should a president be permitted to order military action without first receiving authorization from Congress—and when should Congress be required to vote?

    Share your thoughts with us at RadioFreeAmerica.media.

    America at 250: Due Diligence is produced with support from the Radio Free America Project and the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation at the University of Mississippi School of Journalism and New Media.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    59 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません