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.
Hey, good morning.
Welcome back.
Nice to have you here up north on a Friday morning, November 14th, 2025.
I'm Pat Crichtlow here in Chippewa Falls.
Parker Olson producing things down in Madison Studio A2.
Our Week in Review panel is standing by as well.
Our question of the day comes from our Up North News Daily newsletter, our Friday Locals Love section.
Locals love their local ice cream shop.
So
Who do you want to give a shout out to next time folks are in town and saying they'd like a Sunday or a cone?
You can use that Civic Media app to send us a text message.
You can get in the comments sections of YouTube or Facebook.
And of course, you can text us at 855-75-CIVIC, 855-752-4842.
All right, a little shift in things now on Fridays.
By popular demand, the Week in Review panel is starting a few minutes earlier here, so we appreciate coming to the program at this early hour of a Friday morning, former U.S.
Attorney Jim Santel and journalist Mark Jacob and Jennifer Schulze.
And lest I forget, Mark Jacob over at StopThePresses.News has an article on how news coverage eases us into tyranny.
We're going to talk a bit about that.
Jennifer Schulze has indistinct chatter on
Substack search for at news Jennifer and Mr. Santel can be heard Saturday mornings live at 9 a.m.
with amicus a law review Replayed on Sunday mornings across the civic media radio network.
Good morning all good morning.
Good morning.
Good
Nice to have you all here Mark.
We're gonna we're gonna start with
journalism and the way that it used to do.
What's the word?
I'm looking at facts.
Facts were really cool.
Yeah, I know.
So novel and would and would would be merciless on politicians who did not respect the truth.
This is an official post from the White House Twitter account.
It says
tariff revenues smash records slashing the US deficit by over 25% shrinking government spending downsizing bloated bureaucracy and unleashing a wave of American jobs and give Twitter this much credit they now have the you know the the community notes section where people note
the deficit was not slash by 25%.
It was at best 2%.
And then it gives some other fact checking as well.
But you know, this was put up by somebody who
has a little experience in journalism and politics and says, I'm used to spin and rhetorical sleights of hand, but I will never get used to presidents and white houses completely fabricating data that anyone can look up and check.
I'm old enough to remember when policy staff would resign rather than participate in falsifying data.
Weren't those good times, Mark?
I mean, when they realized that their job was to provide information for the American people rather than lie for a would be dictator.
You know, it really does disturb me that the news media in general, mainstream media seems to have really accepted the idea that the president lies all the time.
And that's just not news anymore.
You know, it's just, you know, put them on TV, let them lie, and then go on to something else.
And I would love to see a rule in media organizations that every time they broadcast a lie by somebody, they have to fact check it.
If they're not going to fact check it, they can't broadcast it.
And if that was an internal policy, we would be much better served by the media.
Which Jennifer again was just that's just what you do and now it's just kind of excused by saying Trump says blah blah blah blah blah rather than Trump falsely says or anything like
that You hit on a key point there Pat the rules have changed It's I would say it's the Trump rule as long as it has those two words in front of it Trump says
journalists and their news organizations can sort of back off from more traditional reporting, right?
We've done our job, Trump says.
Now you should know, audience, that that means it might not be true, but we're not going to weigh it in too heavily on that.
We're going to let you figure it out.
Oh, boy.
Right.
But you see this, you know, Jim Santel, even in the courts, we have talked about this when the administration has made claims either before the Supreme Court or at lower court levels.
And they are bringing cases against people like, you know, Jim Comey and others.
And judges are essentially calling them out now and saying that's there's nothing there on which you can base.
a case it's become a regular part of our court system as well.
So many illustrations of that even just yesterday in a district court presided over by a judge named Cameron Curry.
She is brought in in connection with the Comey.
and Latisha James prosecutions, a combined hearing.
The judge is trying to get to the bottom of whether or not the interim US attorney has the authority to bring this case.
And she's asking about what's going on in the grand jury.
There are missing minutes, that sort of thing.
And the judge plainly is heading down the road, probably, stunningly, but appropriately, maybe dismissing these cases.
And along the way, when the judge identifies some of these problems, the attorney for your justice department says to her, well,
All of this was just a paperwork error.
And that doesn't go over well with the judge.
That may not be an out and out lie, but it's awfully darn close.
It's just the latest example.
Once again, in the courts, as you just said, Pat, we are also just making things up, misrepresenting what's going on and not being honest and simply saying, you know what, this was not done well.
But it doesn't rise to the level, for example, of a dismissal status here.
Instead, we just make things up.
But judges are indeed, including the judge yesterday, identifying these problems and saying, not in my courtroom.
Or if instead of a line, we're just lowering the bar.
Yes, you know, and how much lower can we get than Megan Kelly yesterday talking about the Epstein case.
And you know, these these rumors that Donald Trump may have been involved with teenage girls and Megan Kelly's views.
Well, yeah, they're 15.
It's not like they were eight.
I mean, Mark, it's not like they were eight is not a campaign slogan I would want to run on.
what
But she's, I mean, this is a prominent person, Megan Kelly, trying to apologize for Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, in order to somehow help Trump to where his, you know, his best friend
who was raping children isn't so bad because he was only raping 15-year-olds, not five-year-olds.
And she says it really that plainly.
Go back and look at it, audience.
It's insane what she's saying and how she's trying to justify the molestation of
children.
Again, I know we've talked about this before.
We don't know exactly who did what.
And so I'm hesitant to bring up people like Bill Clinton or Bill Gates or anybody else.
But let's just say whoever it is for the record, if it is a Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, we don't care.
They should be prosecuted too.
So why do we have a president who, for somebody who claims he has nothing to hide, working so hard to hide the details?
That's the only takeaway I think by now we can have right?
I mean my understanding of what was released this week We're still not the Epstein files, but emails provided by his estate To the Democrats on the oversight committee.
So we are still minus
you know a lot of information and let's just I think agree that the information that came out this week was pretty gross and I
I can't even imagine what else is hiding in those files.
No.
And so we now have, we saw the release of emails, Jim, but, and again, I know you work mostly with courts rather than Congress, but I'm sure you've been following the note that there are now enough signatures on a discharge petition in the House of Representatives that would force a vote where the House could compel the Department of Justice to release everything that it has after redacting things like victims' names and such.
And stop.
holding them stop covering them up.
Jim, I guess, am I explaining that right?
And even if the House were to vote, I would imagine that Trump's Department of Justice would still have some delay tactics they try to put in place.
Patty, you've got it.
I think you've got it just right.
Again, I'm not a congressional expert.
That's my understanding.
And it once again raises a couple of points.
One is that the Department of Justice has these materials could do it tomorrow, could release it tomorrow.
The positive thing about this is, oh, look, the United States Congress is exercising some oversight.
That's what it's supposed to do.
Wow, isn't that different, right?
Admittedly in this high visibility matter.
And second, the follow-up question, kind of a variation on what you just suggested is, the president gets a directive now, a legal directive from the Congress.
Let's just stop him from simply saying, Pam, don't comply.
Don't do this.
And again, she gets hauled before.
Maybe she gets found and contempt.
Maybe, maybe.
But this is the constitutional crisis we are in when one branch of government says, you've got to do this to another branch.
And the answer is no.
And this could be another one of those situations, if indeed, as both Mark and Jennifer are indicating, those files are so incendiary, it's worth it to suffer contempt rather than to have this released in the public domain for all time.
Who knows what's going to happen, but a lot of lessons coming out of what's happening right now.
So Mark, do you feel like there's momentum that builds for more?
things to be released that we haven't seen yet or are we just due for another round of delays and people will just get throw up their hands and walk away.
Well I guess I'm encouraged by the fact that this is still an issue because in the the whole time Trump has been you know in a politician last decade he
It's done horrible things, you know, the McCain stuff, the making, you know, fun of a, you know, disabled person.
I mean, you just, there's a long line of stuff that he's done that's just been a one day, two day, three day story.
So this is really sticking to him and it should because it's horrible and any decent person would be appalled by this.
And I don't know how much more is going to happen in Congress because, you know, they'll have a vote and they'll say, you know, they should release Epstein files.
Then it'll go to the Senate.
That'll be interesting to make Senator Thune look like the bad guy then because he'll probably try to put a brick on it and make it go nowhere in the Senate.
And if that happens, you know, and Trump could veto it too.
So I don't think that you're going to get, I don't think you're going to get a bill passed in Congress or a resolution or whatever that says, hey, this has got to happen.
But it's going to, you know, keep on being talked about.
I mean, it's nobody thinks that this is, you know, if you look at the polls, it's 75% or 80% of people say that the Epstein file should be released.
And this and Republicans are saying it too.
So this is not, it's not going to go away and it shouldn't go away.
And it needs to dog him forever until he does this.
Because, I mean, and the other good thing about it is that all the other horrible sexual things that Trump has done, all the predatory behavior, it reminds people of all of that too.
And Jennifer, that becomes part of the focus of journalists' work is not to get caught up in the exes and those of politics, but to keep focus on right versus wrong.
Throughout the coverage of the Epstein files, I mean, it rises to a everybody's covering it in weeks like this.
But there has been steady coverage throughout of this story.
Like Mark said, it's one of those things that thankfully is not a one and done because Trump has successfully manipulated the media to move on to the very next thing and not dig into so many things that he's done.
And this is one of those where there are people that are not going to let it go.
They're just not.
No, and nor should they.
Jennifer Schulze has indistinct chatter on Substack.
Mark Jacob has the Stop the Press's newsletter and Jim Santel is the host of Amicus on the Civic Media Radio Network.
He'll be back at it tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
Reminder, we've got plenty of sports this weekend as well.
You've got the Badger football team playing at Indiana.
Coverage begins tomorrow at 9 a.m.
and the Packers play the New York Giants.
Coverage begins 10 a.m.
on Sunday.
I'm Pat Critelaw from UpNorth News.
This is the Civic Media Radio
Network.
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.
So many questions.
We are so full of questions for you at Up North News.
You can sign up for a daily newsletter, upnorthnewswi.com.
filled with Wisconsin features.
Today is Locals Love, the section that talks about what you like to see in your hometown and what you like to brag about.
This week it is about local ice cream shops.
And then on Sundays, my newsletter with more of a political bent has a question of the week.
And that question this week has been about bipartisan legislation that would legalize marijuana use in Wisconsin.
Do you support that?
Do you feel it should remain mostly illegal?
Do you feel like there's some middle ground for medicinal purposes?
If you want to be among the first to see our question of the week, then sign up for our Sunday morning newsletter.
And you can do all that, by the way, at our new web page, upnorthnewswi.com, slash mornings.
Let me say that again, upnorthnewswi.com slash mornings and you can get to my website stories, you can get links to subscribe to the show on Spotify or Apple or watch us on YouTube, upnorthnewswi.com slash mornings.
All right, let's roll back to our Week in Review panel here with former U.S.
Attorney Jim Santel, as well as Jennifer Scholesi and Mark Jacob.
Jennifer and Mark have covered news in the Chicago area, of course, for a long time.
Other folks who have covered the news in Chicago for a long time and have since retired have penned a letter to the editor.
And Jennifer, this really caught my eye, this letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune signed by, I didn't get the final count, somewhere like a dozen different Chicago journalists who have all said, look, we're retired.
But, you know, you've trusted us before, you should trust us now.
Having the military in the streets is not normal and we should not normalize this.
I worked with most of them and many of them are my friends and former colleagues.
um who um were so motivated by what's going on here in Chicago that they did something I think is really rather unusual um for a group of journalists to come out of retirement and say um you know trust us this is really bad um I've talked to quite a few of them since then and to a person they're just so horrified about what um is happening in Chicago and they love Chicago so much and I will also say many of them if not
all of them are marquee names in Chicago broadcast journalism that have enormous credibility and respect from the community.
And so when they say
you need to pay attention to this.
I think people are already paying attention, but this, I think, just adds to that.
I mean, the names that jumped out for me, Ron Majors, Carol Maureen, Tom Skilling, Chris Bury, who people know from ABC News, Walter Jacobson, Sherman Kaplan.
On and on.
Mark, let me read an excerpt of it and then get your thoughts where they said they write, please trust us now when we say that what is happening in the Chicago area is wrong.
Let us be clear.
We support the lawful apprehension and deportation of undocumented immigrants
with criminal records.
The president says he's after the worst of the worst, but that's not what's happening.
It's gone way beyond that.
People are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
That's not law enforcement.
It's terror.
This dragnet seems to be based on racism and is snaring citizens of color, documented immigrants and people who have committed no serious crimes.
Your neighbor, friend, coworker, babysitter and landscaper, people whose work ethic and honesty have contributed to the city for years.
And Mark, I know
that there's still plenty of President Trump supporters in Chicago, but I dare say, I think these people are speaking for the vast majority of Chicagoland residents.
And the thing, this whole terrorizing people in Chicago by the masked armed thugs of Homeland Security has, I think, unified Chicago in a lot of ways.
Granted, I'm sure there are some people who are cheering this on.
Not the people I'm talking to and not people, not my neighbors.
I mean, people are more angry at the Trump regime than ever before about this.
And you're seeing, Pat, you see these journalists, by the way, this is not the kind of thing they do.
And they treasure being objective about things.
So them coming out with an opinion is just, it goes against their nature, but they felt compelled to do it because of the horrors they're seeing.
you know, tear-gassing people dragging a daycare worker out of school and stuff like that.
I mean, there's just been so many horrible incidents that they just were appalled.
And in Chicago, you're seeing a lot of civic groups, civic leaders who normally wouldn't get involved in anything that looked like politics coming out and stating that they just cannot stand this.
So the only good thing about this is that it's been a unifying
moment for Chicago.
Jim there's so much legally we could talk about this about you know whether the president has the power to do this and so forth.
What I'm especially interested though in is the folks who are documented and or are citizens who have been arrested and detained.
Are we going to see it might be post-Trump but are we going to see years of litigation where these folks can sue for some kind of damages or is any citizen who's like rounded up by these folks
Are they going to have no legal recourse?
And this is just where we are right now.
And yes, they should be pursuing these kinds of claims.
There is a thing still in America called false arrest.
If you're out there making an arrest based upon a lack of probable cause.
other bases for doing those kinds of things that difficulty, of course, is you need to go into a federal court, maybe a state court to get those interests vindicated.
Beyond that, we know that there are broader issues here.
And again, the Supreme Court making decisions like this stunning decision coming out of Los Angeles when there's a judge named Mame Frimpong who says, you got to have a reasonable suspicion before you can arrest people, can't just detain people because of the color of their skin.
And what does our Supreme Court say?
Supreme Court says we're reversing that.
We're pulling that back.
We don't know exactly what the new standard is, but some real mixed messages candidly from the Supreme Court, not from other courts, not from the district court judges right there in Chicago, but the Supreme Court telling people, well, maybe in fact, some of this law enforcement stuff and the outrageous that we're seeing.
maybe just maybe it's okay.
That has a chilling effect on people would otherwise go into court and say, I want to push back on this.
And let's be clear, the mixed message is coming from the Constitution versus what these justices are saying.
Okay, there's no mixed message from the Constitution, but other people who are mixing it up.
And it's a conversation we are going to continue with Jennifer Sholesley, Mark Jacob and Jim Santel, coming up on the other side of the Midwest Farm Report here and more.
I'm Pat Krightler from Up North News.
Again,
up for our newsletters at UpNorthNewsWI.com.
Follow us on social media at UpNorth NewsWI.
We'll be back here up north.
Nice to have you back here at 735 on this Friday morning.
Our weekend review panel is here.
Jennifer Sholesy, Mark Jacob and Jim Santel, a former U.S.
attorney.
And let's let's talk about name changes.
Some name changes, you know, they're they're rather benign.
You've got up north news radio that becomes mornings with Pat Krightlow.
All right, vanity project.
You've also got you've got the
Then you've got the ones that are kind of useless.
Is anybody next week going to be referring to watching a program on MS now?
No.
Because tomorrow it won't be MSNBC anymore.
And again, personal opinion only.
One of the dumbest name changes that I've seen in the media in the recent past.
Why
Pat?
Because the MS in MSNBC stood for Microsoft.
It was originally a partnership between Microsoft and NBC.
Microsoft has long since left the partnership.
Why leave the MS in there and why now?
Now is one of those cliche things.
Jennifer, back me up on this broadcast cliches.
You know, the news now, everything is now.
news.
Live.
Future is now.
Yes.
that's just my two cents.
Yeah.
But I bring up the name changes because of the metaphor of the week is the way social media has jumped all over Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, because it's still the Department of Defense, but having a big ceremony as he put the screws into a sign that changes the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
And Mark, the metaphors were wonderful.
Just the uselessness of, or really,
metaphor for the Trump administration, changing the name on something, changing the sign out front, but everything else is still the same.
I actually feel I'm going to be contrarian today.
I actually feel like it makes a difference that they call it the War Department because it because defense means that you actually are only going to fight somebody if you're protecting yourself.
And the War Department really makes it
is more on brand if you're going to blow up, you know, fishermen in the Caribbean or you're going to like, you're going to attack Nigeria over, you know, over attacks against Christians there.
And so I think, I mean, the weird thing is that Trump like campaigned on the fact that he didn't want, he didn't want to go into wars.
But since he's been president, he seems to be really into war.
I mean, he's been threatening everyone.
He wants to attack Greenland.
I mean, you name it, he wants to attack
it.
Well, Jennifer, that takes us right into a headline in this morning's New York Times.
I wanted to ask you about the headline.
This is so classic times.
America first.
Some Trump supporters worry that's no longer the case.
President Trump has been dining with billionaires and has taken a keen interest in crises overseas, leading to fears that he is drifting away from his more populous stances.
I'm shocked, Jennifer.
Shocked.
There's
Shocked.
There's billionaires and he's looking up for them in foreign crises and is not living up to the guy who originally promised in 2015 that only he could tame Wall Street and make it work for the American people.
I'm not asking this from a Trump standpoint.
I'm asking from a New York Times standpoint, are they ever going to get tired of looking like they've been bamboozled?
What's funny to me about it is that the Trump administration, part two, began with him surrounded by billionaires.
And almost 11 months later, the New York Times is saying, oh, people are noticing?
I'm sorry, what?
The billionaires have been there from the start.
They're a critical role.
I'm not sure I agree with the framing about that story.
I would just say, here's more of the same.
You know, it was always a scam.
You know, he always was going to hang with the rich guys.
Well, Jim Santel, give him this much credit.
The one thing where he has stood up for what he promised was when he said, I will be your vindication.
And he has most assuredly weaponized the Justice Department to its utmost at this point.
We know about these other investigations, presumably heading toward prosecutions, maybe by another U.S.
attorney that could or could not have the authority to do this, but we've seen that again from Capitol Hill, obviously the Comey and the Leticia James, and frankly, even the John Bolton prosecutions, muddied by this notion that again, there may in fact be a crime there, but the difficulty is when you end up on the president's enemies list,
How do you know if it's selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, or if there's something legitimate?
And that's the big takeaway in all this retribution stuff, which is he is undermined now the whole concept of the grand jury.
What do we know about whether or not these are real cases?
We don't.
And again, times of Trump, justice slips away.
So there's never been a more important time for storytelling and journalism that is, you know, that is unbowed and does its work without fear or favor.
And yet, Mark, you've got a picture of a boiling frog on the article.
How news coverage eases us into tyranny.
You can get Mark's column at stopthepresses.news.
Tell us more about it.
Yeah, I mean, I was just thinking about how slowly but surely we're being eased into this, you know,
Fraternity or dictatorship and the news media are helping us along to this horrible path by Getting by normalizing things by deciding that you know that some crypto billionaire giving a ton of money to the Trump family and then getting a pardon is the normal thing that might you know happen in any normal times when it's just not you know a video an AI video of Trump dropping feces on a crowd of Americans
well you know that's just a one-day story these days and and the media are normalizing and things and not and not they're easing us into it and this made me think about the metaphor about the frog and that old metaphor goes that if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water he'll jump out if you put a frog into a
regular white water that's not boiling and slowly raise it to boiling, he'll be boiled to death and he won't jump out.
Well, the thing about that is experts have said that's not true at all.
You know, the frogs will jump out.
I mean, it's just, come on, the frogs are, and my question in the, my newsletter is, are the news media as smart as frogs are not
quite?
That is definitely one way of putting it because you've got newsrooms that, again, they have
free will as journalists, but also as let's face it, a business model and maybe even an ideology.
And where I'm going with this, Jennifer, is the fact that you've got right wing media that are very selectively covering things or not covering things.
The the Epstein, the latest Epstein files, you know, have been on plenty of other channels, but you won't see it on right wing cable.
myth it's
CBS
And that right-wing media is overwhelmingly almost a thousand percent in Trump's camp and will do, they all follow the same storyline.
And they did that this week with Epstein, but they'll do it on everything.
to Mark's point about the boiling frog, there just aren't that many regular newsrooms left.
The billionaires have captured most of the mainstream media in America.
And then this week, Rupert Murdoch's reporting that he's going to open a newspaper in California.
Like the New York Post, they're going to have the California Post.
So they are increasing their footprint across the country.
And it's so worrisome.
And we can already see, obviously, the damage from it.
And it doesn't even stop at our borders, Mark.
We've got now Trump threatening the BBC, which did bend a little, but is certainly far from breaking in Trump's favor.
so it's not like they're blameless, but it it shouldn't I mean this kind of thing this kind of sloppy editing of somebody in the news has happened forever, you know and and usually the Newsmaker will just kind of laugh it off and just move on you know Trump doesn't do that because he wants the news media to be very scared of him and in this case the BBC has issued an apology, but they've refused to
Pay him any money and he's threatening to sue them because you know because he he really wants the news media to pay him money both because he's a he's greedy
and
And Jim, Jim Sam tells a former US attorney, you know, there was an interview with Attorney General Pam Bondi and a quote that really stuck out was something like, well, yes, we've been dealt a lot of setbacks in the court, but eventually it'll all get to the Supreme Court and everything will be all right.
Is essentially her way of saying the Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.
And that just has to, I mean, it
it's an intentional chilling effect for anybody that still is an independent voice in the judiciary.
It sure is, and she's announcing what John Roberts has basically accomplished in the past 10 months.
We know that on this emergency shadow docket, 23, 24 cases,
where Donald Trump runs to the Supreme Court and says, stop those lower courts from doing that crazy stuff that they're doing.
In fact, it's upholding the Constitution.
For the most part, the Supreme Court has said, yeah, we'll do just that.
I'm loath to agree with the Attorney General, but factually, there is a basis for saying that.
We see that again just this past week, Donald Trump running back to the Supreme Court.
The case being represented again by the Department of Justice.
This is the Eugene Carroll thing, right?
That's back in the news.
He is appealing the $5 million judgment.
There's another case involving tens more millions of dollars out there.
And this is the defamation lawsuit.
And he's hoping that the same Supreme Court that Pam Bondi talked about just this past week will also look at that, which is basically a private civil matter.
And we'll say, yes, it's Donald Trump.
So we're going to overturn that too.
I don't think they're going to take the case.
I don't think they're going to do that.
But the faculty goes there, supports this notion that you've got a safe haven at the highest court in our land.
let's wrap up with the government shutdown coming to an end and Mark and Jennifer you've got of course Dick Durbin the senator from Illinois who is central to this deal and so I could ask this many different ways but looking at the standalone vote that'll come on the Affordable Care Act premium supports and things like that whatever happened this week from a democratic point of view is this going to be a case of losing the battle but winning the war mark
I'm sorry, Jennifer, you were ready to go.
Go ahead, Jennifer.
You
I think the mistake was actually the not amplifying loudly enough the political reality that the Republicans had already voted to do this and they were loath to undo the subsidy cuts and to, I think, leaving the country
and leaving Democrats and their supporters with the the mistaken notion that it was fixable was political malpractice.
Donald Trump has made it one of his singular goals since he first came on the scene to get rid of Obamacare.
The idea that that any Republicans were going to jump across the aisle and support we're bringing back those subsidies I think was they just sort of
they should have done a better job of talking to the country about
it.
Okay, and Mark?
And I've been disappointed in Durbin that way.
I think Durbin acts like he's a senator in the 1990s, when there actually was such a thing as bipartisanship and collegiality.
Right now, we've got a very dangerous criminal element in the White House and in Congress.
I mean, Mike Johnson does whatever Trump says.
I think that the goal of Democrats needs to be obstruction, needs to stop them from doing terrible things.
Yeah.
Mark Jacob, author of Stop the Press' newsletter, stopthepresses.news.
Jennifer Schulze, look for her on sub-stack at News Jennifer, Jim Santel, host Amicus.
You can hear it tomorrow on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Thanks to all of you.
Have a great weekend.
You
All right.
Dr. Kristen Lyrely is joining us coming up and Mike Clemens with Sports.
I'm Pat Krightlow.
This is the Civic Media Radio Network.
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.
eight five five seven five civic is the phone number eight five five seven five two four eight four two we have our locals love section in the up north news daily newsletter on fridays and so that becomes our question here as well where's your favorite local ice cream joint next time you're passing through someplace you might get a new idea of where to get a sundae or a cone so put that in the comment sections of youtube or um
Facebook where you can watch us or use that Civic Media app to call or text or leave a voice note for the show as well.
Dr. Kristen Lierly here joins us along with our new executive producer, Frank Gargano.
Thank you very much for all being here.
Kristen, do you have a favorite ice cream place you like to
go
to?
Ferris, Artisan, Gelato.
Ah, yes, we have mentioned that before.
So good.
Have a favorite flavor.
All
of
them.
All of them?
That's a fair question.
I'm that person who is like, I'm looking at the list and I'm like, that one, that one.
I know because I want something.
I want them all.
The heart wants what it wants.
So does the mouth and the tummy and everything else.
Frank, your connections are more toward what?
Chicagoland or if you're going to ask you a favorite local ice cream spot.
this
And, uh, Parker, uh, doesn't get the answer because we already know that he's just a few doors down from kill wins.
They're on state street in Madison, which
you've never
wins.
Oh my God.
Parker.
Good Lord.
Does he live in a hole in the ground there?
Could you, could anybody check on Parker's home where it is?
Because look how defensive he is.
He's just backed out like Homer into the bushes over here.
All right, so here's your assignment today.
Mr. Olson is to go down State Street.
There are just a few doors to Kill Winds where they have ice cream, but they also make fudge.
They make all kinds of candy there.
I'm a big fudge guy.
I mean, you, you
You'll know it when you smell it.
You go past it.
They're making, you know, kettle corn and all kinds of stuff there.
All right.
Check out kill ones.
By the way, another one up in Monacoa and I know I'm missing in another location or two.
Anyway, I'm eating up all of Frank's time when he would normally give us some kind of a quiz.
Did you bring one along today, Frank?
It's another week and review quiz.
So for everyone that didn't hear it last week, we're going to do a quiz based off of pop culture news that happened throughout the week.
So it's going to be Pat versus Parker versus Dr. Kristen Lierly.
As last, like last week, your name is your buzzer.
So if you want to answer Pat, you would have to say Pat.
Correct.
OK, instead of just shouting out the answer or else you'll be disqualified and then Parker will message me later and
last week is still under protest.
Yes, it is.
check Black and his normal.
Yeah,
that's a normal.
He's not even playing around with that.
All right.
I
the Lions.
Oh, of course.
It is the Lions.
Who
on the board.
All right.
album?
Pat, Annie Williams.
No, okay.
and
Andy
Williams.
No, I'm wrong because I jumped ahead of the game and I really thought you were going to go with most Grammy nominations and it was going to be Kendrick Lamar.
right.
No.
helps.
Oh, Sabrina,
name,
Kristen?
Correct.
Mm-hmm.
I like the assist, the audio assist.
That's great.
That was awful.
Yeah, I
like that song because it makes me it validates my life.
No, she's fine.
No, I don't
mind her.
You know, you're not going to remember a name in five years, but you know, make make.
Oh, my God, that's not that's a
Oh, yeah, there's never been one hit wonders.
I'm sorry.
She
She has multiple.
There's been plenty of people who've been on the scene for like two, three years, and then suddenly it's like, well, whatever happened to them.
Don't pretend that's not true.
That's coming
Pat, Dancing with the Stars.
Pat is on board.
Yes.
No, I've never seen it.
I scrolled past the news story about 4.30 this morning, and it takes a while for those neurons to fire up and remember that.
So, all right, well, we need one quick tiebreaker here.
Kristen
seven something something Parker
You're welcome Parker We
Back
with more with Dr. Liarley after the news, I'm Pat Crite Low.
This is the Civic Media Radio 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.