Broadcasting Rights, Ranked Choice, And Immigration Crackdowns (Hour 3)

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning on the Civic Media Network.

Hopefully you are having a great Monday, staying safe, staying warm.

About two-thirds of the state still under blizzard warnings as snow continues to fall.

Really the only part of the state that is starting to see some relief is in the very northern part, the north woods up in the Hayward area.

Otherwise, the rest of us, we're still getting the wind.

We're still getting the snow.

And that's going to continue for most of today.

A lot of businesses are closed.

Schools have basically

been canceled.

across the state.

So if you do have somewhere to be today, please call ahead, would be my first piece of advice.

Second of all, if you can stay home, please do, because the roads are not great.

And we want everybody to be safe and warm today, because this is generational snowstorm.

In fact, the governor had to declare basically a state of emergency over the weekend, knowing how bad this storm was going to be coming in.

So.

I know, I know the weather is tricky business and I always make fun of forecasters who, you know, try to alarm.

Oh my God, it's snow but getting this could be the end of the world.

Well, they got it right this time.

They did.

And the governor was right to make that call early.

And whether you're listening to the radio or watching TV, that's how you get the most up to date stuff from your local area.

And that's why you should have the Civic Media

app.

So, you know, you might want to download that

because

there's

Plus, yeah, I was going to say, you're going to have multiple chances to qualify for that $200 in cash and that Verlo, a queen mattress set, over a $1,300 value multi-state break into spring text to win contest is officially what it's called.

And tomorrow morning, we'll give you more chances.

But today, don't miss out.

Be listening all day long because you can qualify and put your name into the drawing as many times as you can possibly use your app to text in to possibly win.

possibly win.

Well, this was another big week for some blowhards from the administration to make empty threats against free speech.

And man, oh man, I get so tired of this FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

You remember Brendan Carr.

He's the one who tried to get Jimmy Kimmel fired.

He's the one who is just basically taking free speech away from broadcasting.

And he

got a lot of attention this weekend because Saturday he threatened the licenses of local broadcasters over news coverage he deemed to be fake.

Now, it was not.

The real reason

is

this is, you know, the president had said something about it earlier.

The president doesn't like how he's being portrayed in the media.

He doesn't like the coverage of the war because we're actually reporting on, you know...

Fatalities we're reporting about what he wants it just to be the glory of the of the US military and listen We're we are I'll speak for myself.

I am fully in support of the military That doesn't mean I support this war or I support this administration two things can be true But when you gaslight people enough, it's if you are critical of the war you're critical of the military No, no, no, I'm critical of the commander-in-chief of the military because he doesn't know what he's doing

So the president doesn't like it.

And Brendan Carr decided he was going to piggyback on these comments and said made the threat.

Now, the bottom line is TV stations are not at serious risk of being banned from the airwaves because of Brendan Carr's crusade.

Yeah, that's just that's just the bottom line.

But again, you keep spreading these rumors, you keep making these threats and

It just gets wilder and wilder.

Well, and I think his comments still carry weight because he represents the U.S.

government and advances the policy of this administration.

continues to take very extraordinary actions and by applying this extreme pressure to crack down on news content and entertainment that the president simply dislikes.

And

if this doesn't scare you more than as much as anything else, I don't know what will actually worry you about this.

Think of think of the only other places you know where the state regulates the news that people receive.

And

Let's be realistic.

If this is that hard for the administration, then maybe they just didn't need to go figure out what rights give Americans the opportunity for free speech and freedom of the press.

This one isn't complicated, but you don't even need to read far.

It's number one.

It's the first amendment to the Constitution.

It makes it really simple for you in this particular case.

So I would suggest that maybe they start there.

They're too thin-skinned for calling everybody else snowflakes and woke.

Right?

the most easily offended and they're so, so much little babies.

Only say nice things to us.

And so on Saturday, if you don't know this full story, Carr was at Mar-a-Lago at the resort where, you know, the Southern White House or whatever we call it.

God forbid Nero was in the White House during

the times of war.

Right.

And they were, he was seen talking with the president there, at least according to clubgoers.

And because we have to get all of our factual information from the attendees of parties at Mar-a-Lago because that's how this works now.

But Carr followed up on one of Trump's true social posts complaining about news coverage of the war by posting a warning on X. He said, quote, broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions, also known as the fake news, have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.

The law is clear broadcasters must operate in the public interest and they will lose their licenses if they do not end, quote.

um

that's not how this

works it's it's not how any of this works and

Even by posting something like that, it's a dangerous precedent.

Because if you're threatening a broadcast license because the president just doesn't like coverage, that has nothing to do with protecting the public interest.

It has everything to do with protecting the president's image.

And if the concerns, if that concern is that the president looks bad in the news, then there is a really simple solution, Brian.

Make decisions based on facts and follow the law.

Well

sure and maybe put the the needs of you know you campaigned as America first will put Americans first in your decision-making process right but when it's hard to put other people first when your main goal is to line your pockets with more and more money to enrich yourself it's hard to enrich others when your focus is just making yourself even richer and richer and you know here's the thing they don't

Nobody's long-sighted of.

Brendan Carr shoots his mouth off.

He doesn't think, okay, well, there's a lot of other broadcast networks that are operating.

Still, they will claim in the public interest that half of the public doesn't want to hear either and thinks that their news is fake.

Facts can be easily checked.

You can tell if something is fake if you try to research it in depth and you can't find anything to back it up.

Also, other than major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, nothing on cable is overseen by the FCC.

No.

The cable is still a Wild West.

So you might say, let's get rid of CNN.

Can't, not regulated.

Right.

I might say, hey, you should check out OAN.

Well, they can spout off whatever they want to because they're not regulated by the FCC.

the only time that comes into play is if somebody like disney buys abc right well then disney who is not regulated by the fcc owns abc who is and paramount now with the cbs stuff

that's

why you see paramount acquiescing to trump because they they get in trouble they

They could stand to lose a lot of money if CBS stations, not the network itself.

It's the individual

stations.

That's just the point, too.

And I think that bears pointing out.

Your big affiliate, your big networks are not the ones who license.

You would be literally taking out the local stations.

That is very important.

And I think that's a part of the media that a lot of people overlook.

So Trump has repeatedly conflated that licensing process.

No big surprise.

Well, attacking national networks for airing certain shows and asking in particular questions.

So that that is definitely important to keep in the back of your mind.

The also the other point to that's very important in this argument, the FCC has not denied a license renewal in decades.

Any government action against his licensee would actually cause a protracted legal battle, even more so given the current media bashing climate, because a station would likely cite the

presidents retributive

streak and

mount a first amendment case to which most judges are going to be like, yeah, it's right there in black and white.

Nothing has changed.

And that's going to be the end of it.

Now, I don't want to run out of time.

Yes.

And you know this, this, you know how this kills me when I say I must once again.

Throw a rose to Ron Johnson.

Credit where credit is due for a moment.

Let's, you know, this is going to wilt and die fast, but we're going to give it to him while we can because Ron Johnson actually came out and criticized Brendan Carr and the threats of these broadcast licenses.

And I couldn't believe it.

I saw the headline and I was like, this has to be a misprint.

I'm going to reread it.

And I read the story and no, he did.

And he did it on Fox News.

He did.

Every once in a while, he can hit the hammer on the nail on the head and we have to give him his props.

Now he's probably already done some of that today.

Already, I

haven't

checked the news.

But for right now, let's just live

in

the

moment.

Yes, that's right.

So cup five, please.

Yeah, I'm big supporter of the First Amendment.

I do not like the heavy hand of government, no matter who's wielding it.

So no, I would rather the federal government stay out of the private sector as much as possible.

And really, the federal government's role is to protect our freedoms, protect our constitutional rights.

He's not wrong.

He's absolutely 100% right.

And there is a bit of a practical reason for this, I think, too.

When I listen to him speak, if the Republicans start using government power to threaten media now, think about a future Democratic administration

they could easily apply the same rules to conservative media outlets down the road.

And maybe, perhaps, maybe this isn't Ron Johnson because this is where it gets hinky for me because it is hard for me to give him credit.

Maybe he's actually not really that great, really not thinking about the First Amendment all that much.

Maybe he's actually thinking about protecting the messaging that his side relies so heavily on.

But even if that's the case, he's still not wrong on this principle, Brian.

Right.

And if he doesn't understand, you know, that Fox News is going to be Fox News, no matter who's in charge, because they're not regulated by the FCC, that's fine.

And if he does understand that, that's fine, too.

In this point, you got to go, all right, he came out on on their airwaves and said this, and it's, it's good.

We got to, you got to let, all right, give the guy.

a little credit, a pinch of credit.

It is hard, but it's gonna be all right.

And we're gonna, you know, this is something that, you know, we are, we do operate under the FCC rules.

That's why

we can't say certain things.

There are rules.

But that's us.

If something were to happen, it would be whatever station you're listening to now.

It wouldn't be civic.

But civic media would be pressured as a whole.

And that's why these companies are doing it.

And it's scary because you heard Pete Hegseth threaten this

the other

day when he was talking to a reporter from CNN.

They want to consolidate ownership of all big media companies.

That's the scary part.

Brendan Carr is just full of bluster.

The scary part is the consolidation of ownership amongst hardcore conservative right wing media companies that is affecting

all sorts of outlets, not just Fox News or OAN or any of those other ones.

This is starting to affect

your local

affiliates.

Yes, and we saw it with the press.

We saw

it.

We're seeing it with broadcasting.

So you got to pay attention.

We need a free and independent press because people across the political spectrum need to be able to hold leaders accountable.

Reporters need to examine facts.

They need to examine the merits of a case and not worry about whether the government is going to punish them for doing their job under the First Amendment.

It is 8.19 right now.

I am Jamie Martenson.

You're listening today, Bray.

And I'm Brian Noonan.

Senator Mark Spreitzer joins us to talk about ranked choice voting after this on The City of Media.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

We do appreciate it.

Hopefully your Monday is off to a great start.

My name is Jamie Martenson.

And good morning.

I'm Brian Noonan.

Recently we had a guest on the program and we talked about ranked choice voting.

Now I'll speak for Jamie.

Both she and I thought this was a good idea and we wondered on the show if this could ever come to Wisconsin.

Well last week we got part of the answer.

State Senator Mark Spreitzer along with State Representative Clinton Anderson introduced LRB 5709 which would implement ranked choice voting for state, local and federal elections here in Wisconsin.

Senator Spreitzer's joint

us now to share the plan.

Senator, thank you for being here.

This is a very coincidental that we've been talking about this.

It sounds like a great idea, but for people who might not be clear on the concept, can you explain ranked choice voting and how it differs from the system that's in place now in Wisconsin?

Absolutely.

In the current system in Wisconsin and in most states in the United States, if there's a race where only one candidate can win, say, state legislator, mayor, governor, president, you only get to vote for one person.

And that often forces you to choose between the two people who have a realistic shot at winning, which are usually the two major party candidates, the Democrat and the Republican.

In a primary, like we have right now in Wisconsin,

for governor on the Democratic side where there might be eight or 10 candidates on the ballot.

You only get to vote for your favorite and you kind of have to figure out does that person have a chance.

In ranked choice voting, it works differently.

you get to rank the candidates.

Your favorite choice gets your first choice, number one, and then your second choice gets number two.

You don't have to rank them all if there's a couple people you just don't like, but you certainly can rank them all so that even if you dislike a couple of candidates, but maybe would prefer one over the other, you can go ahead and rank them that way.

The way that that then works is that in our current system, you don't actually have to get

50% of the vote to win, you just have to get more votes than the next candidate.

In ranked choice voting, somebody actually has to clear that 50% threshold.

And if nobody does, when you look at everybody's first choice,

then you eliminate the person who came in last, and you take the balance of the people who that was their first choice, and you say, well, who was their second choice?

And you move those people's votes to their second choice candidate, and you keep doing that until somebody actually clears that 50% threshold.

The value of that is that you actually have a winner that has majority support instead of just plurality support, and also that it encourages more

friendly campaigns because even if somebody's not your first choice, they want to be your second choice or your third choice.

And so some of the negative campaigning that we see can be diminished a

bit.

Senator, this bill would include funding for voter education and election equipment updates.

So how would the state help local clerks and voters adjust to this new system?

Yeah, most of our voting machines would be able to read ballots that worked in this way, but you know, there would certainly have to be a different ballot design.

Clerks would have to understand how to program that.

But most importantly, voters would need to understand, okay, you know, what happens if I rank everybody?

What happens if I only put a first choice and don't rank others?

You know, how do I...

have confidence that I know my vote's getting counted and how it's getting counted.

And I think once people understand that it's just rank your preferences, it's pretty easy, but we're certainly going to need to do a public awareness campaign if we were to implement.

something like this.

And, you know, this system is used in various cities around the country.

It's used in various organizations, including the Oscars.

But most importantly, it is used statewide in Alaska and Maine.

There are slight variations in how each of those states uses rank choice voting, but they both use it in statewide races.

And so we've seen that this can be successfully implemented and that voters can understand how it works.

And the voters in Alaska, you bring them up as an example, they actually voted to keep it.

There was a challenge after the first election, and the voters there said, no, this is a system that we like.

Do you envision the, because one of the biggest problems, Senator, is turnout.

Do

you

think, or is there evidence, or your opinion on will?

Rank choice voting increase voter turnout because it ends the negative advertising or the negative campaigning as you said and it also gets rid of that voting for the lesser of two evils aspect.

I hope that over time it will, you know, I talk to people who wonder, why don't we have more independent candidates or, you know, they want to vote for a third party candidate, but they know that person doesn't have a shot and they don't want to waste their vote.

In this system, you don't have to waste your vote.

And so it may be that at the end of the day, it is still a race between the Democrat and the Republican, but more voters have a chance to express their preferences along the way.

And over time, that may give voters more choices in terms of candidates choosing to actually run.

So I hope it would increase voter turnout.

One of the things we've seen in both Alaska and in Maine.

This did not become law through the legislative process.

It became law because those states have a citizen initiative process and it was actually the voters who advocated for this and essentially forced it on the politicians.

So Wisconsin doesn't have that process.

That's why I'm introducing a bill and this would have to go through the legislature.

But I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how many of my legislative colleagues are open to the idea.

That's actually going to be my next question.

We're talking with Senator Mark Spreitzer from Senate District 15, also the Minority Caucus Chair.

What kind of support, with about a minute and a half left, do you expect for proposal for this to get in the legislature, Senator?

I think there's pretty strong support among legislative Democrats.

You know, we also have a lot of new Democrats, which is part of it's the end of the session.

This is not going to pass this year.

I'm really trying to build momentum for 2027.

But part of that is there are I've introduced this bill in the past, but there are a lot of new Democrats who got elected this last round who haven't seen this bill before.

And so we wanted to restart that conversation ahead of next time.

But I think if Democrats were to be in the majority next session, we'd have a serious conversation

about whether this is something we want to do advance.

Well Senator, I think it's a great idea.

I hope it does gain some more traction.

We appreciate you being here and explaining the bill.

Again, this is Senator Mark Spreitzer.

He represents Senate District 15 from Beloit.

He's a minority caucus chair.

We appreciate your time this morning, Senator.

Thanks a lot.

Thanks so much for having me.

You're very welcome.

You're listening.

All right,

Jamie.

Rank 40, we've been calling for.

Oh, yes.

I'm down.

I know.

I'm all about it.

We've talked about it a few times and I think it makes sense for Wisconsin.

You are listening to Daybreak.

I am Jamie Martinson.

And I'm Brian Noonan and this is the Civic Media Network.

Wisconsin Wakes Up Here.

Back to Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

It's 835 right now.

Thank you so much for joining us.

If you're in La Crosse listening on WLCX or in Hayward on WBZH or even in Wausau this morning on WXCO, hopefully you are safe and enjoying a snow day because there's a pretty good chance that

You know, if you live in Wisconsin, you're probably getting a snow day today, or at least a work from home day, which also turns into entertain the kids all day because they don't have school.

Easier said than done.

And if you're listening in Hayward on the buzz, you probably, you know, you're not under the Blizzard warning anymore, which is good.

You're in a severe weather.

outlook so as the storm starts to move to the east everybody else most of the state still under that blizzard warning until four o'clock this afternoon so be careful if you're if you do have to go out just be really careful but if you're in Hayward and some of the other north woods communities you're the the worst of it is past you now you just got to deal with cleaning up

in the

cold and that's fine so

We've been focusing a lot on the Trump administration immigration policy, which to most of us is focused on ICE and the raids and the occupation of Minneapolis and the illegal detentions and the killings of two American citizens.

What we're not paying attention to, and we talked about this last week because news is starting to come out about

detention centers and there being more and more detention centers and the administration trying to buy up warehouses and there's a lot of things happening behind the scenes that we don't really always know about so there was a lot of coverage about this over the weekend we decided we needed to talk about it so there's a dramatic expansion in the works for the immigration system of detaining

whether they're illegals or not.

A lot of times they're not.

But the detention centers are often run by, yes, private prison companies.

So this is a money-making enterprise for people.

And

I wonder who will

get those contracts, Jamie.

But yes, we're really looking at a change in the immigration policy.

And it's moving toward warehousing human beings like they're pallets of

You pick you the product analogy you want to insert there and just getting more and more people stacked up and Certain people making a lot more money

and what I think is most troubling is if you're not troubled by that by that just news alone the fact that when you look at the allegations of the poor conditions the medical neglect that is happening at these warehouses that have already been established you should be

very concerned about what is happening in this country.

The federal government obviously disputes any of those acquisitions and says that they just need more space for the largest deportation effort in American history.

Officials are increasing the number of immigrants in custody and spending billions on this controversial plan to detain more people.

What is it?

Is it the biggest immigration in history or is it

Biden and Obama deported more people.

Which is it?

And yes, there's no denying the Obama administration deported more people.

The Biden administration deported more people.

They didn't do it cruelly and recklessly and again without a plan.

And they didn't try to build alligator alcatraz or buy warehouses to stack people up like cordwood.

You can you can do both you can have deportations you can have mass deportations And you can have a strong immigration policy without cruelty you

can

do both

Yes, and you hit it on the head.

This is about the cruelty of it all This is inhumane what what we're seeing happen across this country.

There are absolutely ways to address immigration in this country because

Clearly, our system needs some sort of overhaul.

We're not sitting here saying that it's perfect, that it was run right by President Obama or by President Biden.

It needs a clear overhaul from start to finish.

But rounding up people and filling detention centers, that's not reform.

That's force.

That's essentially what you're committing is brute force when we're talking about these detention centers.

And it seems like there's been a lot of movement on lots of different fronts as far as ICE detention centers go and why they're becoming significant right now in the news.

First of all, Brian, the number of immigrants detained is really growing.

In fact, about 70,000 detainees in ice custody as of right now.

That's an increase of more than 80% from the total detained when Trump took office just over a year ago, which is mind boggling.

If you think about that number, though, it's actually mind boggling to think about the amount of people being detained right now versus literally just a year ago.

It is startling, in fact, all at the same time.

And that number comes from both by increasing arrests and blocking many people from requesting release on bond.

So obviously the number of people, you know, if you're not giving them bond, they're going to stay in custody, so that number goes up.

Once you're in, you're in.

Right, absolutely.

What I think is also very scary as we talk about this story is the number of children that are currently in custody right now as well, which is becoming more common in the second administration.

Now, the Biden administration actually stopped detaining immigrant families at facilities, which, you know, first started housing families during the Obama administration.

The Trump administration began whole league families again in April of last year.

Recent reports, though, indicate that hundreds of families are being detained at that dilly facility.

During Trump's first administration, two whistleblower doctors told Congress that family detention was harmful to kids and should be stopped, and there are similar concerns being raised by doctors under the second version of the trust.

Activist doctors

no doubt

who are tied

to science.

Of course.

They wouldn't know anything.

Did they talk to RFK?

And

Dr. Oz, did they talk to any of them to find out what was actually going on?

Those are the trusted voices in medicine, obviously.

Yeah.

You mean the guy who's not a doctor?

Yeah, both of them.

Yeah, those two things.

I think what is also, as we look at what is happening in the United States right now under this administration, the amount of people who are dying in ICE detention right now.

At least 31 people in fact have died in ICE detention or did last year.

That's according to reports released by DHS That's the highest

so you know if they're if they're releasing those numbers Could could be Suspect that's all I'll say

it's the highest total since 2004

And just over two months into this calendar year, at least 11 people have died in ICE detention.

That's a trend that sparked concern from those who track these numbers and see them as a troubling indicator of widespread bread problems in our detention center.

That's probably the most obvious statement anybody will ever say or write.

At least three detention deaths have been reported at Camp East Montana.

This is actually, if you're not familiar with it, it's a tent facility in Texas at Fort Bliss where an average of nearly 3,000 detainees are held daily.

That's larger than any other ice detention site in the country.

And one death there bears a notable distinction because a local medical examiner actually ruled it as a homicide,

unfortunately.

Interesting.

Right.

That is just the fact that 3,000 people are being held there.

intense in the West Texas heat.

It seems inhumane and I don't know how did we do it before and not have this issue.

That's the question.

Deportations have been happening and big numbers have been happening.

Why does this administration feel the need to warehouse and show off

and project is it another overcompensation for to try to project strength that look look how many people we can inter and then in the name of immigration when we already have seen there are numerous people who are put in these places they're not allowed to contact attorneys they're not allowed to apply for bond as you said and

They are U.S.

citizens or they are guilty of nothing other than being an illegal immigrant.

Now, is that illegal?

Yes.

Are there different ways to deal with those people?

Yes.

This is not the way.

Here's the other thing too.

And I know we've talked about it on this program, but it bears reminding in the light of all of this new information coming out about how this administration is handling immigration and illegal residents.

They are still afforded some rights under the Constitution.

Yes.

They are still afforded rights as far as what our Constitution lays out.

And here's the other thing that I would say.

If this is an illegal immigrant who has committed some sort of crime, then yes, that needs to be handled, but they are still also offered due process under this Constitution.

So those are very important things to remember when we're talking about the lack of humanity in what is happening right now with this particular administration.

They are not animals.

They are

not.

I know I've been saying illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, I know is the preferred warning.

And Jamie, you may be thinking, well, Brian, where's the oversight?

There's got to be some oversight.

Well, not anymore, really.

There was oversight in the past.

not surprising that because of Doge, the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was slashed going down from 147 employees to less than 40, which is how how DHS is still saying, well, we do have oversight.

Yeah, technically you do, but you have, you know, almost

a third of what you had before, just over a third of what you had before?

What I also love is that DHS is like, you know, when it comes to deaths in these centers, they're like, well, you know, that's not that big of a number.

There's no spike.

Look at the number of people that we're holding and detaining.

So there can't, when you look at that and you ration it out, it's a math thing and you obviously don't understand.

So the rationale, the oversight,

is obviously we're lacking.

We're lacking quite a bit in any sort of sound judgment calls, which, let's be real, with this administration, not surprising.

Once you start saying, well, you know, could be worse.

Those people could have died,

you

know, even if they weren't in our unsanitary, no medical access detention centers.

Right.

They probably could have just got hit by a bus or something or choked on a piece of meat.

You never know.

But I think what's most troubling is they don't have any plans to stop either.

Because as we've

talked,

that's right.

There are details that have emerged about these plans to buy warehouses across the country and convert them into massive detention centers.

The plan, by the way, funded by $38 billion from the big, beautiful bill Congress passed last year, calls for the acquisition and renovation of eight facilities that can house between 7,000 and 10,000 detainees for up to 60 days and 16 regional processing sites that can hold as many as

1500 detainees up to, for up to seven days.

Right now, there are warehouses that have been purchased in 10 locations in Michigan, New Jersey, in a couple in Georgia, a couple in Pennsylvania, in Arizona, a couple of locations in Texas and in Maryland.

And by the way, if you're thinking that I didn't say anything about Wisconsin, you would be wrong because there is a processing center that is going up on the north side of Milwaukee is that it is an 18,000 square foot ice processing center.

is essentially what that is.

We are not immune here in Wisconsin.

Somebody's making money and it's going to cost you more money.

Because, oh well, if they privatize it, we don't have to pay for it.

Who's paying them?

The government is going to pay them.

That's our money, again, used for something like this.

Listen.

I've had enough.

Yes.

I've had enough of the news.

Yes.

For now.

Tired of the snow.

I need a seven-minute break from the news and the snow.

I want to talk about all the glamorous Hollywood people.

So can we talk about the Oscars?

Of course.

Of course.

We need to talk about the Oscars.

Who were the big winners?

Who were the losers?

It's 848.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.

Wisconsin Wakes Up Here.

Back to Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

It's 8.52 right now.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

Brian, before we headed to break, you said it, we were going to put away the politics, not talk about this crummy

weather.

Just for a couple minutes.

But we, I mean, it was big news all yesterday.

The Oscars are a big deal.

They're a big deal.

They're a really big deal.

Yes, and it's not, in the whole scheme of the world, is it a big deal?

No.

No.

But it is a big thing in America.

Listen, the United States is is the cultural hub for film.

Yes.

And all these other countries that are now doing great things, all of their filmmakers say they were influenced by US films.

We know the foreign market for our exports are is great for movies.

So it is big news to talk about the movies.

And I watched the entire ceremony for the first time in years last night.

And overall, I came away.

I was

I was entertained.

I

didn't

have to do a lot of thinking,

but I was entertained.

I think one of the things that was most striking to me last night was watching the memorial, right?

Where you look at the amount of huge Hollywood classic

iconic names that we've lost within the last year.

And I think that because life happens and you forget, we talk about them, you talk about them for a day or so, you're sad, you might go through and watch a couple of their films just to kind of remember, but then life moves on.

And then you see them stand up there and you see them being honored in this tribute and you're like, oh my God, that person's gone.

We'll never see

that.

outlaw it.

Oh, I forgot they died here.

And it was it was really touching Rachel McAdams eulogizing.

Well, first Billy Crystal coming

out

and eulogizing

Rob

Reiner and his wife and then having and it was beautiful because Billy Crystal had been and he told the story of how they became friends.

He guest starred on All in the Family and played Rob Reiner's best friend.

Then he gave a very emotional as you can imagine, talk about his best friend and when

The back, the curtain rose, and all of these people who had starred in Rob Reiner's movies came out.

And some were in tears.

Some, you know, some you could tell were just in shock.

So that was the first one.

Then Rachel McAdams eulogizing Diane Keaton and mentioning Catherine O'Hara.

And then Barbara Streisand coming out.

Because I had forgotten that, see, that's a problem.

Robert Redford died so early in the year.

I had forgotten.

Right.

And when Barbara Streisand came out to eulogize Robert Redford, I was like, Oh, my God.

Yeah.

And the only thing I kept thinking was how did they choose those two icons, not that those two are not befitting a eulogy like that.

But then it's like, Well, how did they not pick Robert De Niro?

Right.

You know, so and that doesn't take away from what they did.

And

Barbara Streisand, I will say Debbie was like, Oh, she doesn't look that great.

but man, she could still hit those notes.

When

she sang the way we were, I was like, all right, Barbara, you still got it.

And I love that Barbara Streisand is, she's a little bit of an enigma, right?

Like we know that she's been a little harder in Hollywood to get along with, but then for her to sit there and refer to herself as Babs, which is what Robert Redford

called her,

I was like, that's like an actual human moment with this person, right?

Who seems to be on this pedestal that we put her on because she's Barbara's.

Freakin right

that she didn't like being

called

Babs and he was the only one

that would

call her Babs and he never stopped

until I love that So

the whole in memoriam was very moving last

night

and I'm sure today.

There's well, they forgot so it's a well But now they put up a QR code at the bottom and a link to

say

for everybody in case There's a full list here.

Yeah, so they did that.

I thought Conan did a really nice

guy Conan was great.

He was

he had some great

One that we can't really talk about here.

But if

you go back and watch, he slammed

Trump

with a couple.

The Epstein one got some moans.

It was great.

But there were still those awkward moments between Sigourney Weaver.

And

was

she with Pedro Pascal?

Yeah.

Who shaved his mustache

and was

dressed like a waiter at a Spanish steakhouse.

He looked like he was either going to be in a tango contest or he was working at Fogo de Chao, bringing you skewers of meat.

I'm like...

What is happening?

What is happening?

I don't know.

Put the

big, crazy, boot near satellite deal that was on his shirt.

I was like, all right.

And he shaved his mustache.

He did.

And that mustache distinguishes him, right?

So at first he came out.

If they wouldn't have said it was Pedro Pascale, it would have been like, wait, who is that for a second?

But he looked very

young.

He did.

That

happened to me with Ewan McGregor, who came

out with

Nicole Kidman

to present

Best Picture.

And I was like, is that you?

First of all, Ewan McGregor, get a soapbox to stand

out next to Nicole Kidman.

Right, next to Nicole Kidman,

yes.

You are we.

Were there

any big winners that surprised you or any moments that surprised you last night?

I loved Amy Madigan's speech

when

she won for

Best

Supporting Actress because this is a woman who's been in the industry

forever.

She's done tons of work.

I forgot she was married to Ed Harris, another fantastic journeyman actor.

And so she got up there and she gave a Francis McDormand style accepted speech where she was just sassy and fun and real.

And it was like, oh, this is what Amy Madigan would be like sitting at a bar to her.

So that was a that was a great one.

I was surprised not that sinners

didn't win them all but there was that one battle after another yeah one more than they thought they would and it deserved it I thought one battle after another was great Paul Thomas Anderson is terrific but I was glad to see Ryan Coogler get

the original

screenplay and Michael B Jordan

gave a wonderful acceptance.

Yes, I agree.

And he did a great job playing two characters and sinners.

So

yeah, and I know there's been some talk about Sean Penn, he won Best Supporting Actor.

It

wasn't be, you know why?

because he was actually traveling to the Ukraine.

He's in Europe for a planned visit to the country, prioritizing that over the ceremony.

He also skipped other awards like the BAFTAs

and the

actor awards this year as well, but he'll be doing some humanitarian work in Ukraine.

So he wasn't just boycotting.

He actually had a legitimate reason for being there in case.

Boy, and that Delroy Lindo was not happy.

the rest of the night.

Delroy,

you could see it on his face.

He wanted to win, but overall a good Oscar experience.

We're done.

We got to go shovel out.

We do.

We do.

Absolutely.

We do.

Thank you for joining us today.

It is 8.59 right now.

You're listening to Daybreak.

I'm Jamie Martin.

And I'm Brian Noonan.

Have a great day.

We'll talk to you tomorrow on the Civic Media

Network.

The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.

Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.

With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.

Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.