Images of Mass Starvation Shift Gaza Coverage. Plus, the Forgotten History of the First Sitcom.

They're not depicting death or blood or anything that the viewer might go like, oh no, this is too much for me.

No, it's a child looking back at you.

This week, images of starving Palestinian children blanketed the media.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Loewinger.

A New York Times story about starvation in Gaza with a photo of an emaciated child was attacked for failing to say that the child also had a pre-existing condition.

This is one child when hundreds of thousands of children are in different stages of malnutrition.

So you focus on mistakes to blur the main image that you don't want anyone to see.

Plus the all-but-forgotten inventor of the first family sitcom.

Gertrude Berg was the first showrunner.

There was a national survey where she came in the second most respected woman in America after Eleanor Roosevelt.

It's all coming up after this.

On the media is supported by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash?

Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at progressive.com, progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states.

This message is brought to you by Apple Card.

Did you know AppleCard is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions?

And because fees fees don't help you, AppleCard doesn't have any.

So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be.

Subject to credit approval: Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch.

Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness.

Rates as of July 1st, 2025.

Terms and more at Applecard.com.

Los Cambios non cased tienen.

Pero no importa lo que cambien cinco años.

Mayuna cosa que semantendra igual el president of the Internet.

With the 5 años of Guarantizado de Exfinity, you have 5 años of the Wi-Fi mask with the mask.

Con nuestro mejor el qui pu incluido a prescio que semanti en exactamente.

Si applican restriciones solo new vos cleentes residencial es simpuestos y cargos estres esojetos a chambio.

Wi-Fi mascon fiable vasado en Open Signal Awards USA.

Fixed Broadband Experience Report Egosto tos milventicuatro.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Lowinger.

After two years of unrelentingly bad news coming out of Gaza, the coverage has suddenly taken on a new urgency.

A summer storm of hunger has gripped Gaza in what humanitarian groups call, quote, mass starvation.

The World Food Program said this week a third of Gaza's population of 2 million now must live for days without food.

I witnessed the Israeli Defense Forces firing a main gun tank round from the Markava tank into a crowd of people, destroying a car of civilians that were simply driving away from the site.

Former U.S.

Green Beret Anthony Aguilar, speaking with the BBC last Friday about what he calls war crimes perpetrated by the IDF at aid distribution centers run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a newly formed group backed by the U.S.

and Israel.

In my entire career, have I never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population, an unarmed, starving population.

This week, more voices joined the chorus using a word that is still largely taboo in American media and politics.

In a new report published by respected medical journal The Lancet, a group of health professionals said it was time to break the silence on genocide.

Israeli human rights groups also raising alarms.

For the first time, two prominent organizations joined joined international human rights groups in designating Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide.

Marjorie Taylor Greene just became the first Republican lawmaker in Congress to call the crisis in Gaza a genocide.

Mr.

President, Prime Minister Netanyahu said there's no starvation in Gaza.

Do you agree with that assessment?

A reporter addressing Donald Trump on Monday.

I don't know.

I mean, based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry.

Even our president, who's floated the idea of an American occupation of Gaza, apparently can't ignore the grim truth revealed by the footage and stories.

One recent headline in the Associated Press reads, the latest child to starve to death in Gaza weighed less than when she was born.

And news media across the world have run pictures of tiny skeletal bodies.

Some images will leave you breathless and silent because it captured a moment that anybody can see without any language.

Adul Al-Saman is a photo editor based in Cyprus working with the Agence France-Presse, the AFP.

He coordinates with Palestinian photographers documenting the starvation around them and selects their pictures for the wire service.

Ado believes their recent images are responsible for bringing a new wave of attention to the war.

They're not depicting death or blood or anything that the viewer might go like, oh no, this is too much for me.

No, it's a child.

looking back at you.

So you have to react in a different way.

Can you describe some of the photos that you chose and why you decided to use them?

We got a first group of pictures from our photographer, Omar al-Qafta, of a woman and her two-year-old son living in their damaged home in Al-Shakti refugee camp west of Gaza city.

You can see his rib cage, you can see his shoulder blades from the back, you can see his spinal cord.

He looks months old instead of years old.

Does he know life outside of war?

So

it takes from you as well.

But you have to see those images and you have to put these stories out so people across the world know what's happening.

Last week, the AFP released a rare and frankly disturbing statement about the conditions faced by your reporters and photographers living in Gaza.

AFP says its journalists in Gaza are among the people there at risk of starving to death.

The statement quoted a man named Bashar, who's AFP's lead photographer, that quote, I no longer have the strength to work for the media.

My body is thin, and I can't work anymore.

Yes.

Another of your reporters, Alam, has said that every time I leave the tent to cover an event, do an interview, or document a story, I don't know if I'll come back alive.

That is correct.

He might become the story, or he might come back to a house that has been bombed.

It's been an uphill struggle to move around, to eat, to get food for their families.

They are tired.

Their equipment is tired.

The people in Gaza are tired of having their pictures taken in their worst moments.

So there's a pushback from there.

And there's always the hope that nobody gets injured as he's out doing what he needs to do.

In May, Reporters Without Borders named Gaza the most dangerous place on earth for journalists, pointing to nearly 200 Palestinian news professionals killed by Israeli forces over the past 21 months.

And then there's the information war waged in the international media.

Take the recent controversy over the viral images of a starving boy named Mohammed al-Mutawak held in his mother's arms.

I look at a child that I can see his skeletal bones screaming.

CNN acknowledged that in addition to severe malnutrition, the child suffered from a preexisting muscular condition.

The New York Times did not and ended up issuing a correction after a pro-Israel journalist kicked up a storm on X.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed this week claimed that this omission from the Times and other outlets was part of a deliberate campaign to lie about starvation in Gaza.

If one case out of ten turns out that he has a medical condition, what about the other nine people are starving?

How does this work affect you?

I mean, what toll does it take looking through these photos every day?

And

immense?

Yeah, I've lost 15, 20 kilos in two years.

Seeing people queuing for soup,

you can't eat them after that.

You cannot eat.

You go like, yeah, but I can order anything I want and I can cook whatever I want.

And they're trying to get flour and soup with some like bits of rice in it.

So it kills your appetite, changes your perspective, your priorities about life become different because you've seen the extremes of the human condition and you go like, nobody's moving, nobody's doing anything.

Now, after two years, children are being seen in this way and the world is waking up again.

But until when?

Now we're going to see more children like this.

And then the world might be like, yeah, all right, we've seen one, we've seen them all, and we will forget it until something worse happened and then we wake up again.

It takes a toll on the editors a lot, but it's nowhere comparable comparable to the toll it takes on the photographers on the ground adele thank you so much for the work that you do and thanks for talking to us

you're welcome thank you so much micah it's been a pleasure adele al-saman is a photo editor at ajence france press covering the middle east

diana butu is another person on the outside looking in she's a human rights lawyer who writes about her experience as a palestinian living in haifa israel in a column for Zetayo, the online independent news outlet.

She speaks frequently with her many friends in Gaza, whom she met while working there as a peace negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, in the early 2000s.

Because of the job that I had many moons ago, I actually lived in Gaza.

And so I'm one of the very few Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship who's had that privilege.

So I've lived in the West Bank, I've lived in Jerusalem, I've lived in Haifa, and I lived in Gaza.

And the time that I lived in Gaza, which was about 20 years ago, I made a lot of friends and I've stayed in touch with all of these friends.

And the tragedy, of course, is that because of Israel's policy of separation, my connection has been primarily via telephone.

The Gaza that I remember when I lived there was beautiful, very vibrant with people who had the best senses of humor, who were very proud of the culture, of history, of Palestinian cuisine and attachment to land and of food.

And there was never a time when I lived in Gaza where I was ever alone.

People went out of their way to make sure that I was always surrounded by love and by them because

I was living in Gaza alone.

I never had a meal alone either because that was so much part of the culture of Palestinians and in particular of Gaza.

This week, Canada, where you grew up, along with Britain and France, all major allies of the U.S., said they would recognize a Palestinian state.

You were a peace negotiator for the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the early 2000s.

Do you think that this has the potential to help end the blockade on aid or bring about a ceasefire or create a new future for Palestinians?

This is a great question.

And I like the way that you premised it because you said, do you see that this is going to lead to an end to the blockade?

And that's the whole issue here in terms of my response.

I would have much rather that Canada, the UK, and France recognize that Israel is committing genocide and put into place measures to end that genocide.

rather than trying to go and do this through a roundabout, circuitous circuitous way, which is what they've done.

I'm curious to hear what you're hearing from other Palestinians living in Israel about this new focus on statehood by Western nations.

Are your peers drawing similar conclusions?

People come at it from different perspectives.

So Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, some of them are happy.

And they're saying, well, at least if the recognition of a state is going to end the genocide, then by all means.

So that's for some people, and including some politicians.

The reason I don't see it this way is because I've had a little bit more experience on the diplomatic front than most people.

And the experience that I had diplomatically was that for as long as I've been alive, and for as long as at least I've been living in Palestine, there has always been a sense on the part of the diplomatic community of effectively do nothing.

They say a lot of things, they express their outrage, but then it's not matched by actual deeds.

So, for me, I would much rather see the deeds being done rather than just the words.

Now, for many who live there, they're happy because they think that this is going to lead to the end of the settlement project and so on.

I just don't see it like that.

Deanna, I know you have to go soon.

I have one more question.

Please.

Is there anything your friends in Gaza have told you this week or recently that you think our listeners should know?

My friends in Gaza overwhelmingly are telling me how they've gone for days and days without food.

And I think that what people don't understand is that you don't just sit back when you're being starved.

All of your energy goes into trying to find food because that's what the human spirit is about.

It's about trying to stay alive.

So my friends spend from morning until night doing everything to either find a source of food, to try to get some money so that they can buy what little supplies there are left in Gaza.

Because remember, nothing has come in to Gaza for nearly three months.

And because Gaza is completely blockaded, it's entirely dependent upon food aid coming in.

They're not allowed to go out and fish.

The Israelis have blockaded the seed.

There's no food that's allowed in from Egypt.

That's all entirely controlled by Israel.

So their every waking moment is spent trying to look for food, trying to look for fuel, because that's another item that's been cut off, trying to find what little food supplies are available in the market.

My friends are even debating whether they should be going down to these death trap sites.

These are the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

There's nothing humanitarian about it, but that's the name of it.

These are the food distribution sites.

that the U.S.

and Israel have set up.

There are only four in the Gaza Strip.

And these four distribution sites are entirely linked to where it is that Israel wants Palestinians in Gaza to be.

So it's part of an ethnic cleansing program as well.

And so my friends are even talking about considering going down to these sites, even though they know that these are death traps.

One of my friends, she has a daughter who is 12 years old, and she's such a wonderful young girl.

I've never met her in person, but she tries to practice her English with me.

And in one of our conversations a couple of months ago, she turned to me and she said, My mother is too proud to tell you this, but we're hungry.

We haven't eaten in days.

And then she said, Deanna, what if the death that we're so desperately trying to avoid is better than the life that we're actually living?

And

this is a sentence that no 12-year-old should ever be uttering.

What did you say in response to that?

In response, I spent the next 15 to 20 minutes trying to lift up her spirits, to tell her that things are going to get better, to tell her that the world is outraged, to tell her that her life will get better, to tell her that the war is going to end, that her life will be put back together.

Do you believe those things?

No, I was lying to her, and I know I was.

And I know I was.

And I had to lie to her because what else do you tell a 12-year-old?

I was lying to her because I knew that it's not going to get better, that it might be the case that Gaza's never reconstructed, that nobody seems to be stopping this war.

I knew that I wanted to make things better for her, but at the same time, I genuinely know that I was lying.

So every waking moment for my friends in Gaza Gaza is all about just trying to stay alive.

And for me, it's like receiving messages or speaking to somebody who

has been drowning now for 22 months and they just can't continue to paddle any longer, to stay afloat.

And so, I feel as though I'm watching them drown.

And I feel so helpless in the process.

Thank you so much for making time for us.

We really appreciate it.

My pleasure.

Deanna Bhutu is a human rights lawyer and former Palestinian peace negotiator based in Haifa.

She's also a regular contributor to the online outlet, Zateo.

This is On the Media.

On the Media is supported by hims and hers.

If you are someone who values choice choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional healthcare can be.

One size fits all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now, there's another way, with him's and hers.

HIMS and HERS is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health, because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

No membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self thanks to quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com/slash OTM.

That's HIMS.com/slash OTM to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

This message is brought to you by AppleCard.

Did you know Apple Card is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions?

And because fees don't help you, AppleCard doesn't have any.

So if your credit card isn't AppleCard, maybe it should be.

Subject to credit approval: AppleCard issued by Goldman Sachs Bank, USA, Salt Lake City Branch.

Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness.

Rates as of July 1st, 2025.

Terms and more at applecar.com.

Oh, watch your step.

Wow, your attic is so dark.

Dark.

I know, right?

It's the perfect place to stream horror movies.

What movie is that?

I haven't pressed play yet.

ATNT Fiber with Al-Fi covers your whole house.

Even your really, really creepy attic turned home theater.

Jimmy, what have I told you about scaring your guests?

Get ATNT Fiber with Al-Fi and live like a gagillionaire.

Limited availability coverage may require extenders at additional charge.

Star Trek Con,

the untold story of Star Trek's most legendary villain.

Cuck did us a favor.

From this quintessence of dust, we will rise.

Listen to Star Trek Con, wherever you get your podcasts.

I

am

con!

This is on the media.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Lowinger.

What we know about the events on the ground in Gaza comes to us, for the most part, via the Palestinian journalists who live there.

Access for international journalists has been severely restricted by Israel, and on the rare occasion they are allowed in, they're accompanied by minders.

When airdrops of food for Gaza were scheduled this week, some reporters were invited to ride along if they followed the rules.

Israelis have said we're not allowed to film any shots of Gaza from the air and that if we do, these airdrop flights could either be cancelled or delayed.

Keeping tight control of the narrative is a priority of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appeared on the American right-wing podcast hosted by the Nelk Boys, where he spoke unchallenged for over an hour.

This is so crazy.

We are are so not qualified to do this.

The Israeli prime minister was pretty open about what he wanted to get out of the conversation.

I'm concerned that

the young people in America, some of them, are getting the wrong picture of Israel, vilification, demonization.

I'm doing this podcast, among other things, to reach young people.

Of course.

But it wasn't the only podcast the Israeli PM wanted to appear on.

Now, thanks to Benjamin Netanyahu's eldest son, we've learned that Rogan allegedly refused to have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his podcast.

Joe Rogan, America's most listened to podcaster, who's called Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide.

And while Israeli officials struggle to shape perception in the U.S., they're fighting and mostly winning an information war at home.

I mean, on the far right, the Channel 14, which is the second most watched channel in Israel, there still is no hunger in Gaza.

There is no real famine.

It's just Hamas propaganda machine.

Oren Persiko is a media critic and staff writer for the Israeli outlet The Seventh Eye.

I asked him if he thought that any of this new coverage was changing anything.

In mainstream Israeli media, you started to hear about, yeah, there's actually people going hungry in Gaza.

And they were starting to show reports about people just explaining the prices have gone so much up, the distribution is a catastrophe, and we can't manage to find enough food to feed ourselves and our children.

And after one of those segments, Yonit Levy, the main presenter of Israeli Channel 12 TV news show, which is the most watched TV news program in Israel, said 11 words,

perhaps we have a moral problem with what's going on in the Gaza Strip.

And she moved on, but that was enough.

Tell me about what the reaction was to that clip.

She is considered now by the fans of Prime Minister Netanyahu as a traitor, as someone who cooperates with the false narrative that Hamas pushes around the world in order to put pressure on Israel not to force it out of its control of what's left of Gaza.

She is now cooperating with the enemy.

When you saw Yonit Levy make this comment, what did it mean for you?

I thought it was very much too little too late.

I thought the bigger problem is the professional problem of Channel 12 and Yonit Levy, not a moral problem of the state of Israel.

I mean, first of all, look at what you have been showing and what you have not been showing for almost two years now, right?

If you have done your job, if you have showed the Israeli public what's going on in Gaza, perhaps we wouldn't have reached this low moral ground where we stand right now.

There was actually another incident on Channel 12, a leaked chat in an inside WhatsApp group.

A few journalists said, listen, even if we don't feel empathy for the people of Gaza, we have to show what's going on.

We're journalists.

And then other people said, why should we care?

And a commentator called Mohammed Majadla, which you can understand from his name, is Israeli Palestinian.

He hasn't appeared that much on Channel 12 since the war began, but they still haven't kicked him out of the WhatsApp group.

He said, listen, I have a cousin in Gaza, and why don't you allow me to connect you with her and she'll tell you how difficult it is to just supply yourself and your family with enough food to survive.

And then Amit Sega, the most influential journalist on Channel 12 and probably in Israel, said, no, it's just like Dresden.

It's just like Tehran, meaning they are all Nazis, they are all complete evil, and we have no place connecting with them or thinking about them.

And from my opinion, they should all, you know, either die or get out of Gaza.

Amit Segel, he recently wrote a piece in the free press, the American outlet, with the headline, The Price of Flour Shows the Hunger Crisis in Gaza, and attempted, I think, to walk a kind of strange line where he said that there have been lies about the war and how the IDF has conducted itself, but that that doesn't mean the threat of starvation isn't real.

So, is he just telling different stories to different audiences?

I don't really understand.

I don't know what Amit Segal was trying to do in that specific column that he wrote.

Most of the time, in Hebrew and in English, he looks for lies about what Israel has been doing in Gaza or mistakes in order to concentrate on the very insignificant incidents where there have been mistakes or lies, so you won't see the main picture.

For example, just this last couple of days with the picture of the Palestinian child on the front page of the New York Times, it was later revealed that he is not only very much malnutritioned, but also suffered from a previous medical condition.

So, this really got huge headlines in Israel by Amit Segel and others, claiming, you see, this is just part of the Hamas propaganda lying machine.

Now, you know, apparently he did have a medical condition, and it was not clear when it was first published by the New York Times, but this is one child.

We're talking about a war where dozens of thousands of children have died, and a situation right now when hundreds of thousands of children are in different stages of malnutrition.

So you focus on specific mistakes in order to blur the main image that you don't want anyone to see.

Two Israeli human rights groups recently called Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide this week.

How has that been reported?

How has it been received?

Is there any evidence that this has maybe shifted public opinion or sort of changed a media narrative within Israeli news?

No, not at all.

The international courts have said that we're approaching genocide.

Amnesty, the UN said this looks like genocide.

You know, it doesn't matter.

It always ends up with a big headline in Ha'aretz and complete denial or just looking away in other news outlets in Israel.

It hasn't changed anything at all, I'm afraid.

Between March and May, Israel blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza.

After international pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to allow some aid in, saying, quote, we must not reach a point of starvation, both as a matter of fact, but also as a diplomatic issue.

Meanwhile, far-right ministers within the government have repeatedly advocated for no aid at all.

How has Israeli media covered the question of allowing aid in?

Well, again, you have the far-right media which is simply against letting any humanitarian aid into Gaza, because, in their opinion, it will postpone the end of the war, it will postpone the complete surrender of Hamas and Palestinians in Gaza.

And then you have the mainstream media, which has become much more right-wing since the beginning of the war and is afraid of losing viewers to the right-wing media and really has forgotten basic rules of what journalism is.

So you see a lot of discussion inside mainstream Israeli media about

what does it mean for the image of Israel abroad, what will it mean for the soldiers inside Gaza, our troops, right?

You don't see a lot of discussion on humanitarian aid regarding those who actually need it in Gaza.

They are not part of the equation usually.

It's more how people will see us and how it will affect us.

Do you think the Israeli public is aware of a change in how Americans perceive Israel right now?

Yes, I think they do, because that's a way that the Israeli media is able to present to the Israeli public the reality in Gaza.

We won't tell you that people are starving to death, but we'll show you headlines from the world about how they perceive the situation in Gaza.

Now, it comes to some absurdities sometimes.

For example, on channel 13, they showed the Daily Express front page with a very skinny child all over the front page, but they blurred the picture.

And they said, this is the front page that shocked the world, but the viewers couldn't see it, okay?

Because they, I guess, didn't want to hurt the feelings of the viewers.

And that's just absurd.

Or if you look at the right-wing channel, Channel 14, they showed an image from a CNN report about a mother and a child.

The child, four years old, died of hunger.

And they said, look at the mother.

She doesn't look skinny.

Actually, she looks obese.

And they started joking about the situation, saying maybe the mother ate all of her child's food.

That would explain why she's so obese.

By the way, she wasn't obese.

and her child died of hunger.

Maybe she just ate a complete goat.

And then one of the pundits said, maybe she ate her daughter.

I know these kinds of awful rhetorics,

you can imagine hearing them in a beer cellar between drunken troops after they came back from the front lines.

But you hear it

on a television studio, on the second most watched commercial channel in Israel.

You understand this is the atmosphere in which a lot of Israelis now pass their lives.

It's complete denial and even a celebration of the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

As a critic of the government, as someone I would imagine is at odds politically with many of your neighbors, How do you find the motivation to keep doing this work?

Well, I find it very fulfilling.

I feel like I really make a difference.

I am in the front lines of fighting this information and, you know, seeing all the horrible stuff that's going on in Israeli media, but I feel like, you know, it matters.

So that makes me keep going.

Oren Persico is a media critic and staff writer for the Israeli outlet, The Seventh Eye.

Oren, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mike.

This is On the Media.

Oh, watch your step.

Wow, your attic is so dark.

Dark?

I know, right?

It's the perfect place to stream horror movies.

What movie is that?

I haven't pressed play yet.

AT ⁇ T fiber with all-fi covers your whole house.

even your really, really creepy attic turned home theater.

Jimmy, what have I told you about scaring our guests?

Get AT ⁇ T Fiber with Al-Fi and live like a gagillionaire.

Limited availability coverage may require extenders at additional charge.

Star Trek Con.

The untold story of Star Trek's most legendary villain.

Cuck did us a favor.

From this quintessence of dust, we will rise.

Listen to Star Trek Con, wherever you get your podcasts.

I

am

confused.

This is on the media.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

Over the past few weeks or months, the news runneth over with reports of media moguls reduced to squirming in their seats.

Take Sherry Redstone, who, among other things, is the non-executive chairwoman of Paramount Global and therefore owner of its $16 million settlement with President Trump over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview, which Paramount followed up later this month with canceling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

CBS, part of Paramount, said it was a budget call.

Meanwhile, amidst these and likewise stories of media capitulation, New Yorker staff writer Emily Nussbaum was digging into a story about a monumental figure in the early development of television who's almost entirely forgotten, the inventor of the family sitcom.

Now, that twisty tale occurred in a time of similar precarity for our media, mid-20th century America.

Emily, welcome back.

Thank you for having me.

It's great to be here.

So you opened the article by taking us to May 9th, 1954 on the set of the CVS game show, What's My Line?

Time now for everybody's favorite guessing game, What's My Line?

Brought to you by News.

Where judges are supposed to guess the identity of guests, the well-known ones are often mystery guests, where the judges are blindfolded.

Ma'am, are they all in place, panel?

Yes, yes.

Good, will you come in, Mystery Challenger, and sign in, please?

She wrote her name as Gertrude Gertrude Berg, but underneath it, it said Molly Goldberg, which was the name that she was known by.

She used a funny voice.

Yes, you know, because she's in disguise, she spoke in this kind of high-flown, fancy pants accent.

Kind of like the queen.

Yes, exactly.

What's My Line ran from 1950 to 1967, and among its guests were virtually all the leading lights of the mid-century.

Elizabeth Taylor, Lucille Ball, Betty Davis, Lena Horne, Walt Disney, Jackie Robinson, Alfred Hitchcock, Salvador Dolly, Yves Saint-Laurent, Wilt Chamberlain, Judy Garland, Edward R.

Murrow, Eleanor Roosevelt.

I mean, every field, everywhere.

Depending on how old you are, you're likely to know at least some, if not all, of those names, but it's even likelier that you wouldn't recall the name of Gertrude Berg.

Gertrude Berg was, for one thing, pretty much the first showrunner in the modern sense.

She created a radio show called The Rise of the Goldbergs that ran for decades, and then she created the very first sitcom and very first family sitcom on television starting in 1949, also called The Goldbergs.

She created the show, she wrote the show, she directed a lot of the episodes, and and she starred in the show as this character Molly Goldberg, who was hugely beloved, this larger-than-life Jewish mother, on a show that was about a working-class immigrant family living in the Bronx.

Did she have a working-class background?

Her family was from an economically complex background.

Her father owned a rundown hotel in the Catskills.

And actually, her whole career began at the hotel because she would come out there as a teenager, and she was running kind of the theater program during the summer.

So she was pretty different than the character she played, Molly Goldberg.

But the thing they had in common was that they were both forces of nature who were at the center of the story.

You wrote, from the start, the character of Molly Goldberg made some listeners nervous.

Was the portrayal a form of minstrelsy, like the crude blackface dialect humor of Amos and Andy, the only radio show that had higher ratings?

But if she was a trope, she was also a corrective to an earlier stereotype, that of the mournful, self-abnegating Yiddish Imama or the saintly shtetl survivor in the 1927 talkie, The Jazz Singer.

The stereotype of the mother before Molly Goldberg was the idea of the traumatized, humble, self-sacrificing mother.

Yeah, sitting in the rain is nice.

Yes, exactly.

But Molly Goldberg was nothing like that.

She was from the same background and she cooks and she cleans and all of this kind of stuff.

But the show is about her.

She is the source of the humor.

It's a kind of dialect humor where she gets English wrong, but despite the fact that she doesn't seem sophisticated, she's actually incredibly canny and clever.

She's kind of a trickster.

She's always setting people up in romances.

She's solving problems.

And interestingly, she was implicitly political.

Well, she became more political as time went on.

I mean, this show ran from 1929, pretty quickly became a hit and got a big sponsor, all the way through 1945.

During the Depression, a lot of it was actually simply the portrayal of unemployed and poor people within this immigrant community in New York struggling to make a living.

People found that incredibly moving and poignant.

You know, the portrait of the plight of renters, the idea of unions, certainly New Deal stuff was in it.

She talked about civil rights.

She broke the color line in a way that other shows didn't.

It wasn't didactic or explicit.

It was woven into the fabric of the show.

But she also did really bold gestures, specifically about the Jewishness part.

She had a Seder episode.

She had a Yom Kippur episode.

That was in 1933.

In 1939, they had an episode explicitly about Kristallnacht.

In that episode, while they're doing the Seder, a thug throws a rock through the window.

Molly delivers a speech to her family about the power of ideas and how they can blast through fascism.

It's really stirring.

But also, you know, honestly, just having like actual rabbi and Cantor performing a satyr during that period.

And on the show, the characters talking about cousins of theirs in Europe trying to get out during the rise of Hitler.

Her sponsor, Pepsodent, agreed to air that particular show without ads.

One telegram that she got read, quote, just as Pepsodin acts as a disinfectant, so does your broadcasting to dispel hatred and bring humanity closer together.

Yeah, I do think that people understood that this was a bold thing to do on radio.

You have to understand during that period, radio was the mass medium.

Everybody listened.

And this show, because it was so highly rated and so accessible, was an incredible platform.

And even though Hitler's war hadn't yet begun in Europe, there was a kind of war at home.

This was also a time when on the all-important radio, you had the demagogue anti-Semite Father Coughlin, the so-called radio priest, flooding the airwaves with hate speech.

We are Christian insofar as we believe in Christ's principle of love your neighbor as yourself, and with that principle, I challenge every Jew in this nation to tell me that he does not believe in it.

This show,

because of a positive, layered, humane portrait of a Jewish working-class New York family, was by nature counter-programming people's attachment to these characters.

To Molly, to Molly's husband Jake, and to their two teenage children who sort of grew up on the show made Jews feel like full Americans, which wasn't necessarily the way that people were thinking of them.

The radio show was canceled in 1945.

CBS's public reason was low ratings, but you say Berg's family thought politics were at play, and that sounds a little familiar, right?

You know, the show had been on for several decades.

It was still a successful show.

Whether it was because they did not love that Gertrude Berg was a prominent New Dealer, or whether it was because she was getting older, the show was getting older.

I mean, it's complicated.

So then after four years in the wilderness, she got a TV show.

It's interesting because when television first started, it was done live.

It was in New York.

It was a new medium, exciting and had potential, but it was also really chaotic and experimental.

It had a kind of anything goes feeling.

The show, as soon as it went on TV in 1949, was a tremendous hit.

And that first year, it got very high ratings.

In the first Emmys, she was the first winner of of the Best Actress Award.

And from being a melodrama, she turned it into more of a sitcom, which would become the bedrock of television.

She had single-handedly created many of the central things about what a sitcom is.

She opened each episode by leaning out the window, looking at us and delivering a message about Sanka.

One, two, three, with a little boiling water, you have a delicious cup of Sankh.

Without any extra trouble, you have two cups instant sank.

Oh, yeah, and I want to tell you that if you're a person, you know, who shouldn't drink coffee with caffeine in it, you can still drink as much instant as you like and sleep.

That was the important job that you could do.

So when you watched it on TV, you were one of her neighbors.

She was looking right out the window at you, welcoming you, being funny, and then when the ad ended, you would sort of come into her living room.

And so this intimate thing where you're suddenly in somebody's family living room that everybody knows from having watched any sitcom came really from the Goldbergs.

You were startled when you watched because the Goldbergs, though a foundational show in its day, stood apart from what we now think of as quintessential 50s TV.

The model of the 50s sitcom that it really differed from were things like Ozzie and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, the sort of growing move toward waspiness, a super white suburban family with a father wearing a suit reading his newspaper commuting to work and this particular image of a mother as thin wearing pearls and a shirt waist a loving sort of bland mom who vacuums the carpet wearing heels and all of that kind of thing and the episode that i talk about in this essay from september 49 you mean the one about the neglectful landlord yes i knew that she'd put political stuff on her show woven in but I was really startled by the episode because they get a new landlord and he hasn't been fixing up the apartment building.

So the whole family falls into a debate.

What is the technique that the renters should use to fight this neglectful landlord?

And the entire episode plays out as a political debate about radicalism versus moderates.

I'm not saying every episode was like this, but that was definitely the vibe of the show.

It very much came from the community in New York that show was part of, which was socialist, left-wing, union, pro-civil rights.

Jewish.

Yes, importantly, Jewish creatives.

That lasted for a year.

The show lasted for longer than that, but for a year, she had free reign where the show was a huge hit and was able to express all of these new ideas and create the ideas of the sitcom.

You point out that Philip Loeb, who played Berg's husband on the TV show, their on-screen marriage was beloved by viewers.

He was even voted best television father by the Boy Scouts.

He also was, critically, the engine for the show's activism off-camera, right?

He was a central organizer involved in creating SAG AFTRA.

But because of that,

he was an easy target for Joe McCarthy, who used the Red Scare to ride to power.

Yes, there were many people in their circle who had strong left-wing politics, but he had devoted his life to better conditions for working stage actors, including getting paid for rehearsal time, reasonable hours.

But he was also, I have to say, a tremendous performer.

He was a really, you know, sexy, charismatic guy.

And he and Gertrude Berg on that show had wonderful chemistry.

There are many things that are tragic about what ended up happening, but one of them is the loss.

of this very powerful dynamic between them as a Jewish married couple on television, something something that didn't appear for many, many, many years after that.

But yes, the Red Scare.

I mean, there are many different stages of the Red Scare.

And in 1947, there had been the part that a lot of people know about, having to do with the movies and the Hollywood 10 and the protests where people refused to name names in front of Congress.

But because television was a little bit more off the radar, it hadn't really been attacked.

So even though the show went on the air in 1949, they hadn't gotten a lot of pushback to Philip Loeb's politics until the summer of 1950, this document came out, a book called Red Channels.

It was this kind of amateurish, hand-done thing that didn't come from the government.

It was a group of ex-FBI agents and a bunch of passionate, demented anti-communists.

And it was just a list of everybody in radio and TV that they were accusing of being a subversive.

Not just communists, it was anybody involved with union organizing who'd supported civil rights.

I compare it in the piece to Libs of TikTok, and I actually think that's true.

It was all dependent upon gossip and rumor.

The minute it came out, everything changed in television.

And this is the part that's very unfortunate about my piece.

I'd been working on it for a while.

By the time I wrote it, it seemed unusually timely, because this is really a piece about the fact that when...

politics changes and people are accused of being dangerous subversives, institutions fold.

And that's what happened when Red Channels came out.

Her previously amenable sponsor, General Foods and CBS, went to Gertrude Berg and they said, you have to fire him.

And if you don't, the show will go off the air.

But she fought back.

She even threatened to lobby her fans to boycott General Foods.

And it worked for a while.

Loeb did not want to be paid off.

He wanted to fight back on principle.

And she did back him up.

She basically said to CBS and General Foods, I will tell everybody to boycott your product.

If you do not, let me keep Loeb and keep the Goldbergs going.

Ultimately, they dropped the Goldbergs.

Replaced with I Love Lucy.

Originally, it was going to be the first powerhouse block, the Goldbergs and I Love Lucy.

I Love Lucy came out and obviously became a spectacular hit.

And when you look at the history of television, most people remember that as the beginning of the family sitcom and Lucille Ball as the first lady of television.

At that point, the show moved to NBC, but no sponsor would sign up with Loeb in the cast.

So in 1952, she gave Loeb a deal, 90% of his salary for the run of the show.

But what happened to him?

It was a tragedy.

It was a very hard period.

I mean, this isn't only about Loeb.

I became, while I was researching this, just really fascinated by the TV blacklist and the victimization of so many brave, talented people.

He was one of them.

It basically became impossible to get a job.

He really, really needed the money because he was the single father of a son who was very ill, mentally disabled, or possibly had schizophrenia and was institutionalized.

So he needed to pay for his son's care.

But in the aftermath, he, who had for years been part of that great artistic world downtown, this incredibly sparky, argumentative, funny social guy became bleakly depressed.

And a few years later in 1955, he checked into a hotel, took an overdose of pills, and he committed suicide.

This is a terrible tragedy of the blacklist and also, for obvious reasons, cast an enormous shadow over the show that he had been part of.

And over Berg.

To survive, she, in the end, shifted.

The show stayed on the air until 1956, but it became watered down.

She did an interview that year in commentary saying, you see, darling, I don't bring up anything that will bother people.

That's very important.

Unions, politics, fundraising, Zionism, socialism, intergroup relations, I don't stress them.

And after all, aren't all such things secondary to daily family living?

In the wake of all the damage done by the Red Scare, yes, the way she talks is pretty striking.

Clearly, the show was political.

There's something very sad about that quote.

On the other hand, I understand where it was coming from.

Anybody who spoke out was in danger.

She ended up dying 10 years later, and she did some cool stuff in the interim.

She actually ended up winning a Tony on Broadway.

But the Goldbergs was her life's work, and the fact that it was blotted out of history is a sad thing.

But I also think it's understandable when people think about the blacklist and when they think about early television, they want to remember that as a period of cozy innocence, sweet experimentation, lovely little sitcoms, or they want to think about people as heroes: Murrow fighting against McCarthy, people refusing to name names.

But the truth is, when you look at that period, you see entire institutions dropping to their knees, flipping and firing people because of the slightest hint of rumor.

When you started working on this piece months ago, did you find

your approach changing as the news changed?

Honestly, when I started it, I'm generally interested in the history of television and feminist TV creators, Jewish art, and sitcoms.

And I was interested in the whole debate about representation, about like, should Jews play Jews?

There was a whole conversation going on about that.

By the time I actually started writing, I wasn't interested in that at all.

And I was interested much more in the politics of it and how right now, how prescient her story is, how meaningful it is, what a warning it is.

But I have to say, now in the aftermath of the piece coming out, CBS's recent

levels of cowardice.

I was working on this piece when the head of 60 Minutes quit because they weren't able to do any more investigations of Trump.

That was so alarming.

And then obviously Colbert's show was just canceled.

You know, they cut this deal with Trump.

And it's such a cliche to say this sort of obey in advance thing, but this is terrifying stuff happening.

So it doesn't fix the problem to learn from history, but it is a meaningful thing.

Emily, thank you so much.

Thank you so much for having me.

Emily Nussbaum is staff writer at the New Yorker and author of the recent piece, The Forgotten Inventor of the sitcom.

My Yiddish

mama.

I need her more than ever now.

My Yiddish mama.

I'd love to kiss that wrinkled brown.

That's it for this week's show.

On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, and Candace Wong.

Our technical director is Jennifer Munson, with engineering from Jared Paul.

Eloise Blondio is our senior producer, and our executive producer is Katya Rogers.

On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Loewinger.