Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Censorship Didn’t Start With Kimmel
Why Independent Media Is Our Biggest Asset
Jimmy Kimmel is off the air. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his monologue criticizing the political reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing. The network, under pressure from conservative outrage, FCC threats, and nervous affiliates, caved. Suddenly, liberal commentators are outraged. Suddenly, people who considered themselves guardians of democracy are crying censorship. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their tears are 700 days too late.
The silencing of voices did not begin with Kimmel. It has been happening all along, in classrooms where burning books was occurring under a democratic leadership, in newsrooms, in publishing houses, in theaters and comedy clubs. It has been happening quietly, steadily, almost imperceptibly—until the silence was too loud to ignore. Karen Attiah, one of the most important voices at The Washington Post, was recently fired. Writers have lost contracts. My own book was shelved by my publisher and literary agents for political reasons. Academics have been dismissed from universities, and journalists pushed out of their jobs. Each case is framed as an exception, but together they reveal a pattern: dissent is increasingly treated as a liability, not a public necessity.
Nothing of this is an isolated punishment of individuals but it is a structural effort to narrow the bounds of what can be said. It is McCarthyism repackaged for a new century, only this time its reach extends beyond the Cold War paranoia of communism into the broader realm of political dissent. What we are witnessing is censorship as part of a larger effort to reshaping of the public sphere itself.
The Illusion of Democratic Protection
Many still cling to the idea that democracy, by its very nature, will protect us. That the courts will intervene, that the institutions will hold, that the First Amendment will somehow enforce itself. But democracy is not self-executing. Rights written on paper mean nothing if the institutions that carry them — universities, newsrooms, publishing houses, even late-night television — are captured or hollowed out.
The so-called “marketplace of ideas” is an economy owned by corporations, hedge funds, and media conglomerates. What we read, what we watch, what we hear is already shaped by the profit motive and the political pressures of advertisers and owners. When Disney owns the network, when billionaires own the newspapers, when Silicon Valley decides who gets amplified and who gets shadow-banned, it is naïve to think the First Amendment alone will safeguard us. Democracy does not protect its people when its most basic infrastructure has already been sold off.
The Long Erosion
What happened to Kimmel is not shocking; it is predictable. The erosion of free expression has been slow, but steady. It shows up in grant applications denied for being “too political.” In canceled contracts and disappearing op-eds and governmental information wiped out of governmental websites. In comedians who decide not to say something, not because they don’t believe it, but because they know the cost of saying it. In students who fear speaking out, lest it follow them for life. In social media platforms quietly throttling reach under vague “community guidelines.”
For over 700 days, genocide has been live-broadcast to the world, and yet the people who speak most clearly about it have been punished — whether by suspension, firing, or erasure. It’s by design, silence is the product of systems working exactly as designed. Even when Arab voices work tirelessly behind the scenes, they are surely to be erased on the world stages. Most convenient to have their message co-opted by palatable influencers or celebrities, who take up space with little critical thinking. This too is a form of censorship.
The Role of Independent Media
This is why independent media is not a luxury. It is a necessity. The survival of democracy depends not on the myth of neutrality in corporate media but on the ability of independent voices to hold power accountable. Independent outlets can say what others cannot, not because they are more radical, but because they are less beholden to greed and power. They exist outside the corridors of corporate profit and political pressure.
Independent media tells the stories that otherwise disappear — the stories of people on the margins, the stories of communities under siege, the stories that advertisers would rather you didn’t hear. Acting both as a living archive and the public’s voice, it does more than just document: it builds the collective resilience we need to withstand propaganda. In a landscape flooded with misinformation, independent outlets give people the tools to see through the fog. They are not divisive; they are connective. They create solidarity across differences, reminding us that liberation is never zero-sum.
The Structure of Suppression
When we talk about censorship, it’s tempting to imagine it as a blunt act: a book banned, a show canceled, a journalist jailed. But most censorship is quieter, structural, and bureaucratic. It looks like funding cuts that suffocate small outlets. It looks like corporate consolidations that shrink the diversity of voices. It looks like algorithms that bury dissent under oceans of entertainment. It looks like lawsuits, defamation threats, and regulatory red tape designed to exhaust those who dare to challenge power.
These forms of suppression rarely make headlines, but they are precisely how freedom dies: not with a bang, but with a spreadsheet.
Building Cultural Infrastructure
If we are to survive this moment and outlive fascism, we must recognize independent media as cultural infrastructure. It is as essential to democracy as clean water is to life. Without it, we cannot breathe politically. Without it, we cannot resist.
This requires resources — not just clicks, likes, or shares, but real investment and independent platforms that can survive Silicon Valley’s censorships. Subscriptions and memberships from everyday people matter, but so does the responsibility of philanthropists and foundations. For too long, they have hidden behind the veil of “neutrality,” funding depoliticized projects while democracy itself collapses. To defend free expression requires courage — the courage to support media that tells uncomfortable truths.
Independent media is not disposable content. It is the bedrock of collective survival. And if we allow it to be starved, silenced, or crushed under the weight of corporate monopolies, then we should not be surprised when democracy fails to save us.
The Crossroads
We are at a crossroads. Either we continue to wring our hands as one voice after another is silenced, or we begin to treat the media as the public good it has always been. Either we accept the narrowing of what can be said, or we invest in the broad chorus of voices that democracy requires.
Censorship did not begin with Jimmy Kimmel, and it will not end with him. But it can end with us, if we choose to build and defend the cultural infrastructure that outlasts fascism.
The choice is simple, but urgent: fund the voices that tell the truth — or watch them disappear.
Not tomorrow. Not when it’s convenient. Not when the damage is already done.
Now. Thank you for being a member. Invite your peers.
Write for EIP.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Censorship Didn’t Start With Kimmel: Why Independent Media Is Our Biggest Asset",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/censorship-didnt-start-with-kimmel-why-independent-media-is-our-biggest-asset",
"date" : "2025-09-19 13:55:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_Cover_Independent_Media.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Jimmy Kimmel is off the air. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his monologue criticizing the political reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing. The network, under pressure from conservative outrage, FCC threats, and nervous affiliates, caved. Suddenly, liberal commentators are outraged. Suddenly, people who considered themselves guardians of democracy are crying censorship. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their tears are 700 days too late.",
"content" : "Jimmy Kimmel is off the air. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his monologue criticizing the political reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing. The network, under pressure from conservative outrage, FCC threats, and nervous affiliates, caved. Suddenly, liberal commentators are outraged. Suddenly, people who considered themselves guardians of democracy are crying censorship. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their tears are 700 days too late.The silencing of voices did not begin with Kimmel. It has been happening all along, in classrooms where burning books was occurring under a democratic leadership, in newsrooms, in publishing houses, in theaters and comedy clubs. It has been happening quietly, steadily, almost imperceptibly—until the silence was too loud to ignore. Karen Attiah, one of the most important voices at The Washington Post, was recently fired. Writers have lost contracts. My own book was shelved by my publisher and literary agents for political reasons. Academics have been dismissed from universities, and journalists pushed out of their jobs. Each case is framed as an exception, but together they reveal a pattern: dissent is increasingly treated as a liability, not a public necessity.Nothing of this is an isolated punishment of individuals but it is a structural effort to narrow the bounds of what can be said. It is McCarthyism repackaged for a new century, only this time its reach extends beyond the Cold War paranoia of communism into the broader realm of political dissent. What we are witnessing is censorship as part of a larger effort to reshaping of the public sphere itself.The Illusion of Democratic ProtectionMany still cling to the idea that democracy, by its very nature, will protect us. That the courts will intervene, that the institutions will hold, that the First Amendment will somehow enforce itself. But democracy is not self-executing. Rights written on paper mean nothing if the institutions that carry them — universities, newsrooms, publishing houses, even late-night television — are captured or hollowed out.The so-called “marketplace of ideas” is an economy owned by corporations, hedge funds, and media conglomerates. What we read, what we watch, what we hear is already shaped by the profit motive and the political pressures of advertisers and owners. When Disney owns the network, when billionaires own the newspapers, when Silicon Valley decides who gets amplified and who gets shadow-banned, it is naïve to think the First Amendment alone will safeguard us. Democracy does not protect its people when its most basic infrastructure has already been sold off.The Long ErosionWhat happened to Kimmel is not shocking; it is predictable. The erosion of free expression has been slow, but steady. It shows up in grant applications denied for being “too political.” In canceled contracts and disappearing op-eds and governmental information wiped out of governmental websites. In comedians who decide not to say something, not because they don’t believe it, but because they know the cost of saying it. In students who fear speaking out, lest it follow them for life. In social media platforms quietly throttling reach under vague “community guidelines.”For over 700 days, genocide has been live-broadcast to the world, and yet the people who speak most clearly about it have been punished — whether by suspension, firing, or erasure. It’s by design, silence is the product of systems working exactly as designed. Even when Arab voices work tirelessly behind the scenes, they are surely to be erased on the world stages. Most convenient to have their message co-opted by palatable influencers or celebrities, who take up space with little critical thinking. This too is a form of censorship.The Role of Independent MediaThis is why independent media is not a luxury. It is a necessity. The survival of democracy depends not on the myth of neutrality in corporate media but on the ability of independent voices to hold power accountable. Independent outlets can say what others cannot, not because they are more radical, but because they are less beholden to greed and power. They exist outside the corridors of corporate profit and political pressure.Independent media tells the stories that otherwise disappear — the stories of people on the margins, the stories of communities under siege, the stories that advertisers would rather you didn’t hear. Acting both as a living archive and the public’s voice, it does more than just document: it builds the collective resilience we need to withstand propaganda. In a landscape flooded with misinformation, independent outlets give people the tools to see through the fog. They are not divisive; they are connective. They create solidarity across differences, reminding us that liberation is never zero-sum.The Structure of SuppressionWhen we talk about censorship, it’s tempting to imagine it as a blunt act: a book banned, a show canceled, a journalist jailed. But most censorship is quieter, structural, and bureaucratic. It looks like funding cuts that suffocate small outlets. It looks like corporate consolidations that shrink the diversity of voices. It looks like algorithms that bury dissent under oceans of entertainment. It looks like lawsuits, defamation threats, and regulatory red tape designed to exhaust those who dare to challenge power.These forms of suppression rarely make headlines, but they are precisely how freedom dies: not with a bang, but with a spreadsheet.Building Cultural InfrastructureIf we are to survive this moment and outlive fascism, we must recognize independent media as cultural infrastructure. It is as essential to democracy as clean water is to life. Without it, we cannot breathe politically. Without it, we cannot resist.This requires resources — not just clicks, likes, or shares, but real investment and independent platforms that can survive Silicon Valley’s censorships. Subscriptions and memberships from everyday people matter, but so does the responsibility of philanthropists and foundations. For too long, they have hidden behind the veil of “neutrality,” funding depoliticized projects while democracy itself collapses. To defend free expression requires courage — the courage to support media that tells uncomfortable truths.Independent media is not disposable content. It is the bedrock of collective survival. And if we allow it to be starved, silenced, or crushed under the weight of corporate monopolies, then we should not be surprised when democracy fails to save us.The CrossroadsWe are at a crossroads. Either we continue to wring our hands as one voice after another is silenced, or we begin to treat the media as the public good it has always been. Either we accept the narrowing of what can be said, or we invest in the broad chorus of voices that democracy requires.Censorship did not begin with Jimmy Kimmel, and it will not end with him. But it can end with us, if we choose to build and defend the cultural infrastructure that outlasts fascism.The choice is simple, but urgent: fund the voices that tell the truth — or watch them disappear.Not tomorrow. Not when it’s convenient. Not when the damage is already done.Now. Thank you for being a member. Invite your peers.Write for EIP."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Black Liberation Views on Palestine",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/black-liberation-on-palestine",
"date" : "2025-10-17 09:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/mandela-keffiyeh.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In understanding global politics, it is important to look at Black liberation struggles as one important source of moral perspective. So, when looking at Palestine, we look to Black leaders to see how they perceived the Palestinian struggle in relation to theirs, from the 1960’s to today.Why must we understand where the injustice lies? Because, as Desmond Tutu famously said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”{% for person in site.data.quotes-black-liberation-palestine %}{{ person.name }}{% for quote in person.quotes %}“{{ quote.text }}”{% if quote.source %}— {{ quote.source }}{% endif %}{% endfor %}{% endfor %}"
}
,
{
"title" : "First Anniversary Celebration of EIP",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "events",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/1st-anniversary-of-eip",
"date" : "2025-10-14 18:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/WSA_EIP_Launch_Cover.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Celebrating One Year of Independent Publishing",
"content" : "Celebrating One Year of Independent PublishingJoin Everything is Political on November 21st for the launch of our End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine.This members-only evening will feature a benefit dinner, cocktails, and live performances in celebration of a year of independent media, critical voices, and collective resistance.The EventNovember 21, 2025, 7-11pmLower Manhattan, New YorkLaunching our End-of-Year Special Edition MagazineSpecial appearances and performancesFood & Drink includedTickets are extremely limited, reserve yours now!Become an annual print member: get x back issues of EIP, receive the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine, and come to the Anniversary Celebration.$470Already a member? Sign in to get your special offer. Buy Ticket $150 Just $50 ! and get the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine Buy ticket $150 and get the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine "
}
,
{
"title" : "Miu Miu Transforms the Apron From Trad Wife to Boss Lady: The sexiest thing in Paris was a work garment",
"author" : "Khaoula Ghanem",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/miu-miu-transforms-the-apron-from-trad-wife-to-boss-lady",
"date" : "2025-10-14 13:05:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_MiuMiu_Apron.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Miuccia Prada has a habit of taking the least “fashion” thing in the room and making it the argument. For Spring 2026 at Miu Miu, the argument is the apron; staged not as a coy retro flourish but as a total system. The show’s mise-en-scène read like a canteen or factory floor with melamine-like tables, rationalist severity, a whiff of cleaning fluid. In other words, a runway designed to force a conversation about labor before any sparkle could distract us.",
"content" : "Miuccia Prada has a habit of taking the least “fashion” thing in the room and making it the argument. For Spring 2026 at Miu Miu, the argument is the apron; staged not as a coy retro flourish but as a total system. The show’s mise-en-scène read like a canteen or factory floor with melamine-like tables, rationalist severity, a whiff of cleaning fluid. In other words, a runway designed to force a conversation about labor before any sparkle could distract us.From the opening look—German actress Sandra Hüller in a utilitarian deep-blue apron layered over a barn jacket and neat blue shirting—the thesis was loud: the “cover” becomes the thing itself. As silhouettes marched on, aprons multiplied and mutated—industrial drill cotton with front pockets, raw canvas, taffeta and cloqué silk, lace-edged versions that flirted with lingerie, even black leather and crystal-studded incarnations that reframed function as ornament. What the apron traditionally shields (clothes, bodies, “the good dress”) was inverted; the protection became the prized surface. Prada herself spelled it out: “The apron is my favorite piece of clothing… it symbolizes women, from factories through to serving to the home.”Miu Miu Spring 2026 Ready-to-Wear. SuppliedThis inversion matters historically. The apron’s earliest fashion-adjacent life was industrial. It served as a barrier against grease, heat, stain. It was a token of paid and unpaid care. Miu Miu tapped that lineage directly (canvas, work belts, D-ring hardware), then sliced it against domestic codes (florals, ruffles, crochet), and finally pushed into nightlife with bejeweled and leather bibs. The garment’s migration across materials made its social migrations visible. It is a kitchen apron, yes, but also one for labs, hospitals, and factories; the set and styling insisted on that plurality.What makes the apron such a loaded emblem is not just what it covers, but what it reveals about who has always been working. Before industrialization formalized labor into factory shifts and wages, women were already performing invisible labour, the kind that doesn’t exist on payrolls but sits at the foundation of every functioning society. They were cooking, cleaning, raising children, nursing the ill. These tasks were foundational to every economy and yet absent from every ledger. Even when women entered the industrial workforce, from textile plants to wartime assembly lines, their domestic responsibilities did not disappear, they doubled. In that context, the apron here is a quiet manifesto for the strength that goes unrecorded, unthanked, and yet keeps civilization running.The algorithmic rise of the “tradwife,” the influencer economy that packages domesticity as soft power, is the contemporary cultural shadow here. Miu Miu’s apron refuses that rehearsal. In fact, it’s intentionally awkward—oversized, undone, worn over bikinis or with sturdy shoes—so the viewer can’t flatten it into Pinterest-ready nostalgia. Critics noted the collection as a reclamation, a rebuttal to the flattening forces of the feed: the apron as a uniform for endurance rather than submission. The show notes framed it simply as “a consideration of the work of women,” a reminder that the invisible economies of effort—paid, unpaid, emotional—still structure daily life.If that sounds unusually explicit for a luxury runway, consider the designer. Prada trained as a mime at Milan’s Piccolo Teatro, earned a PhD in political science, joined the Italian Communist Party, and was active in the women’s rights movement in 1970s Milan. Those facts are not trivia; they are the grammar of her clothes. Decades of “ugly chic” were, essentially, a slow campaign against easy consumption and default beauty. In 2026, the apron becomes the newest dialect. An emblem drawn from leftist feminist history, recoded into a product that still has to sell. That tension—belief versus business—is the Miuccia paradox, and it’s precisely why these aprons read as statements, not trends.The runway narrative traced a journey from function to fetish. Early looks were squarely utilitarian—thick cottons, pocketed bibs—before migrating toward fragility and sparkle. Lace aprons laid transparently over swimmers; crystal-studded aprons slipped across cocktail territory; leather apron-dresses stiffened posture into armor. The sequencing proposed the same silhouette can encode labor, intimacy, and spectacle depending on fabrication. If most brands smuggle “workwear” in as set dressing, Miu Miu forced it onto the body as the central garment and an unmissable reminder that the feminine is often asked to be both shield and display at once.It’s instructive to read this collection against the house’s last mega-viral object: the micro-mini of Spring 2022, a pleated, raw-hem wafer that colonized timelines and magazine covers. That skirt’s thesis was exposure—hip bones and hemlines as post-lockdown spectacle, Y2K nostalgia framed as liberation-lite. The apron, ironically, covers. Where the micro-mini trafficked in the optics of freedom (and the speed of virality), the apron asks about the conditions that make freedom possible: who launders, who cooks, who cares? To move from “look at me” to “who is working here?” is a pivot from optics to ethics, without abandoning desire. (The aprons are, after all, deeply covetable.) In a platform economy that still rewards the shortest hemline with the biggest click-through, this is a sophisticated counter-program.Yet the designer is not romanticizing toil. There’s wit in the ruffles and perversity in the crystals; neither negate labor, they metabolize it. The most striking image is the apron treated as couture-adjacent. Traditionally, an apron protects the precious thing beneath; here, the apron is the precious thing. You could call that hypocrisy—luxurizing the uniform of workers. Or, strategy, insisting that the symbols of care and effort deserve visibility and investment.Of course, none of this exists in a vacuum. The “tradwife” script thrives because it is aesthetically legible and commercially scalable. It packages gender ideology as moodboard. Miu Miu counters with garments whose legibility flickers. The collection’s best looks ask viewers to reconcile tenderness with toughness, convenience with care, which is exactly the mental choreography demanded of women in every context from office to home to online.If you wanted a season-defining “It” item, you’ll still find it. The apron is poised to proliferate across fast-fashion and luxury alike. But the deeper success is structural: Miu Miu re-centered labor as an aesthetic category. That’s rarer than a viral skirt. It’s a reminder that clothes don’t merely decorate life, they describe and negotiate it. In making the apron the subject rather than the prop, Prada turned a garment of service into a platform for agency. It’s precisely the kind of cultural recursion you’d expect from a designer shaped by feminist politics, who never stopped treating fashion as an instrument of thought as much as style.The last image to hold onto is deceptively simple: a woman in an apron, neither fetishized nor infantilized, striding, hands free. Not a costume for nostalgia, not a meme for the feed, but a working uniform reframed, respected, and suddenly, undeniably beautiful. That is Miu Miu’s provocation for Spring 2026: the work behind the work, made visible at last."
}
]
}