Note: An earlier upload accidentally contained an unedited audio export. This version contains the finalized episode audio.

🎧 Full episodes available wherever you get podcasts.

From the partisan newspapers of the Founding Era to yellow journalism, wartime propaganda, cable news, and the algorithm-driven chaos of social media, the American media has never been as objective or neutral as many people imagine. In this episode of Past Is Prologue, I trace the long history of misinformation, propaganda, and partisan media in the United States.

We’ll examine how newspapers helped shape the political battles of the early republic, how sensationalist journalism pushed the country toward war in 1898, how the federal government coordinated propaganda during the world wars, and how modern media ecosystems evolved through talk radio, Fox News, social media, and the internet age. The point here is not that journalism is useless or inherently corrupt. Some of the most important reforms in American history happened because journalists exposed abuses of power.

But media systems are always shaped by incentives — political incentives, economic incentives, and technological incentives — and those pressures often reward outrage, simplification, fear, and spectacle over nuance or accuracy. Topics discussed include: Partisan newspapers in the 1790s Andrew Jackson and political media networks Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War The USS Maine World War I propaganda and the Committee on Public Information McCarthyism and television Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine Rush Limbaugh and talk radio Roger Ailes and Fox News Trump, social media, and algorithm-driven information ecosystems The fragmentation of shared reality in modern America This episode is ultimately about the relationship between media, money, power, and democracy — and why the problems Americans associate with “fake news” are much older than Facebook or Twitter.

Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: the myth of “objective media” 02:05 — Welcome + today’s guiding question 03:00 — The partisan press of the Founding Era 05:20 — Newspapers as political weapons in the 1790s 07:35 — Andrew Jackson and mass political media 09:15 — The penny press and sensational journalism 11:20 — Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War 13:50 — “Remember the Maine!” and manufactured outrage 15:40 — World War I propaganda and the CPI 18:20 — Selling war to the public 20:05 — Radio, mass communication, and emotional politics 22:10 — McCarthyism and the power of television 24:15 — Vietnam, credibility collapse, and the Pentagon Papers 26:30 — Watergate and distrust of institutions 27:40 — The Fairness Doctrine and its repeal 29:00 — Rush Limbaugh and partisan talk radio 30:15 — Cable news and the rise of Fox News 31:00 — Roger Ailes and conservative media strategy 33:05 — Fragmentation and separate media realities 34:30 — The internet changes everything 36:20 — Algorithms, outrage, and attention economics 38:00 — Social media and the collapse of shared reality 39:40 — Trump and modern populist media politics 42:00 — Why misinformation thrives 43:30 — Final takeaway: the media was never neutral 44:40 — Closing

📌 Subscribe for long-form historical analysis that connects past and present without the mythology. #USHistory #FakeNews #HistoryPodcast #AmericanHistory #MediaHistory #Politics #Propaganda #FoxNews #Trump #Journalism #PoliticalHistory #PastIsPrologue

If you want to understand what the Market Revolution did to Americans—not just how they worked or what they earned, but how they understood the world—you have to look at religion. In the 1820s and 1830s, Americans weren’t just reacting to capitalism politically. They were reacting to it spiritually.

As markets expanded, communities fractured, and economic life became more unstable and impersonal, millions of Americans turned toward religion to make sense of it. This episode explores the Second Great Awakening not just as a religious movement, but as a response to capitalism—and, ultimately, as something that helped reshape Americans to live within it. Some religious movements resisted the moral logic of the market, emphasizing selflessness, emotional connection, and spiritual transformation. Others aligned more closely with capitalism, translating discipline, self-control, and success into moral virtues. And over time, those strands didn’t just compete—they merged.

Religion didn’t simply oppose the Market Revolution. In many ways, it helped stabilize it.

In this episode, we cover:

• Why religion expanded alongside capitalism—not despite it • Charles Sellers’ argument about the Market Revolution and spiritual life • Unitarianism and the moral language of capitalist success • The New Light tradition and its critique of self-interest • Jonathan Edwards and post-millennial belief • The role of women in sustaining religious communities • How revivalism was reshaped and institutionalized • Lyman Beecher, Timothy Dwight, and the “moderate light” shift • Temperance, moral reform, and behavioral discipline • Evangelical businessmen and the rise of organized religious networks • Print culture and the mass distribution of religious ideas • The “burned-over district” and the chaos of frontier religion • Joseph Smith, folk religion, and the rise of Mormonism • Charles Grandison Finney and the transformation of revivalism • The Benevolent Empire and the fusion of religion and capitalism • Slavery as the breaking point in the system • How religion helped create the American middle class mindset

Guiding question: In what ways did religion help Americans cope with the Market Revolution—and in what ways did it reshape their behavior to make capitalism function more effectively?

📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1

🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522

⏱️ Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: why religion matters to understanding capitalism 02:05 — Welcome + sources + guiding question 04:01 — Sellers’ argument: capitalism didn’t weaken religion 05:27 — Unitarianism and elite alignment with the market 06:44 — Moralizing success: discipline as virtue 07:40 — The limits of rational religion 08:08 — The New Light tradition and emotional faith 09:16 — Jonathan Edwards and post-millennialism 10:29 — Disinterested benevolence vs self-interest 11:32 — Religion as community resistance 12:04 — Religion doing two things at once 12:14 — From resistance to absorption 12:49 — Beecher, Dwight, and moderating revivalism 14:04 — Moral reform and behavioral discipline 15:00 — Why alcohol became a target 17:30 — Voluntary associations and social control 18:31 — Evangelical businessmen and scaling religion 19:12 — Print culture and mass religious distribution 20:35 — Religion and capitalism converge 22:05 — Reform movements and moral responsibility 23:00 — The burned-over district 24:00 — Joseph Smith and folk religion 26:20 — Mormonism as structured response to instability 29:00 — Conflict, migration, and western settlement 30:56 — Charles Finney and market-compatible revivalism 32:00 — Conversion as decision and action 33:10 — Finney vs traditional clergy 34:05 — Religion as discipline for capitalism 35:10 — Slavery and the breaking point 36:30 — Oberlin and radical reform 37:20 — The emerging middle-class mindset 38:20 — Closing: living with contradiction

#ushistory #americanhistory #marketrevolution #secondgreatawakening #religionandcapitalism #charlessellers #finney #josephsmith #mormonhistory #temperancemovement #antebellumamerica #earlyrepublic #historypodcast #education

If you’ve ever heard someone say “the Founding Fathers would have…” — there’s a good chance what follows is wrong. The Founders didn’t agree with each other. Not even close. This isn’t a typical scripted episode. It’s something a little different—and something I plan to do more often. If you’ve spent any time in American political discourse, you’ve heard some version of this argument: “The Founding Fathers would have wanted this.” “The Founders would have opposed that.” There’s just one problem: that idea makes no sense. The men we call the Founding Fathers were not a monolith. They weren’t unified in their beliefs, their priorities, or even their vision for what the United States should become. They argued constantly—about the structure of government, the balance of power, the role of the states, and the future of the republic itself. In this episode, I break down why invoking “the Founders” as a single, unified authority is historically inaccurate—and why understanding their disagreements matters far more than pretending they spoke with one voice. We look at: The deep divisions at the Constitutional Convention The messy and uncertain ratification process The split between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans The intellectual and political conflict between figures like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton This isn’t about dismissing the Founders. It’s about taking them seriously—on their own terms. Guiding idea: Why is it historically inaccurate to treat the Founding Fathers as a unified voice—and what do their disagreements reveal about the origins of American political conflict?

📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1 🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522

00:00 — This isn’t a typical episode 00:45 — Why I’m doing this kind of content 02:00 — The problem with “the Founders would have…” 03:15 — The Founders were not a monolith 04:30 — Disagreements at the Constitutional Convention 06:00 — Ratification: messy, contested, uncertain 07:30 — Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans 08:45 — Jefferson vs Hamilton 10:00 — Why this misunderstanding matters 11:00 — Closing

#ushistory #americanhistory #foundingfathers #constitution #civics #politics #historypodcast #education #earlyrepublic #federalists