AirTalk explores the possibilities of back-channel diplomacy following news that the U.S. has been secretly in contact with North Korea as tensions continue to rise. We also look at the role of Snapchat in social media as it suffers major losses; review this week's movie releases on FilmWeek; and more.
US and North Korea in secret talks, and how South Korea is viewing the escalating crisis
On Friday, Trump directed a new threat to Kim Jong Un on
Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 11, 2017
, saying the U.S. military solutions are “locked and loaded.”
But despite this public war of words, North Korea and the U.S., the AP reports, have been engaging in private talks even as tensions continue to escalate between the Pyongyang nation and current administration. While it was known that the two countries were in discussion to secure the release of an American university student, it wasn’t publicly shared that back-channel discussions had continued between the two nations.
For several months, diplomats Joseph Yun, the U.S. envoy for North Korea policy, and Pak Song Il, a senior North Korean diplomat at the country's U.N. mission, according to CNBC, had continued discussions over other American detainees in North Korea and on today’s deteriorating relationship between the long-time adversaries.
Share with us, do you think U.S. and North Korea relations will recover after the recent threats given by both countries? How will these back-channel discussions quell current tensions amid public sparrings over nuclear attacks?
Guests:
Mike Dorning, White House editor for Bloomberg news
Sung-Yoon Lee, an expert on the Koreas, and a professor in Korean Studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts
Affordability or altruism? Looking at the endgame of Senate affordable housing bill package
The lack of affordable housing in is maybe one of the biggest crises facing the state of California.
A package of bills making its way through the legislature promises to make it easier for low-income families in California to find and pay for four walls and a roof. But the question remains, with the gap between California’s growing population and the amount of homes being built to accommodate them, will the bills actually make a dent in the deficit?
There are three bills involved -- SB 2, 3 and 35. Senate Bill 2 would slap a $75 fee on real estate transactions to raise money for low-income housing. Senate Bill 3 would put a $3 billion housing bond on the 2018 ballot. Senate Bill 35 would cut regulations for cities who have fallen behind on goals for home building. But in an L.A. Times article looks at analyses from both state and housing groups, which suggest that the package of bills would likely do little to alleviate the problem. Currently, California would have to build 180,000 new homes a year to keep up with population growth. That’s happened just three times since 1989. Overall, the cost of financing homes for the 1.7 million Californians who shell out half of their income or more for rent is estimated to be about $15 billion, nearly equal to the cost of Medi-Cal.
Do you agree with pushing this package of bills if there’s concern about whether it will actually make a meaningful dent in the state’s affordable housing crisis? What do you see as the role of government in making more affordable housing when you’re looking at a gap that can’t really be covered? Will these bills actually help a meaningful number of people?
Guests:
Carol Galante, faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley; she served as Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner at the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban Development under President Obama
Chris Thornberg, founding partner of Beacon Economics; his focus includes economic forecasting, employment and labor markets and economic policy
Snapchat woes: What’s behind the once promising tech company’s user losses?
Snapchat’s latest earnings report doesn’t look good.
According to CNN, Snap Inc., the social media platform’s parent company is steadily losing sales, while it’s user base isn’t where the company had hoped. Snapchat’s most recent quarterly losses reached $443 million, which is four times as much of a loss as this time last year. In the night following news of Snapchat’s loss, the company’s stock fell as much as 25 percent. And with the debate about whether the tech company should have gone public earlier this year, the news leaves many wondering if an IPO was such a good move.
Facebook had previously sought to buy Snapchat, but was turned down by the company in late 2013. Now, some say that may not have been the best choice. Facebook has gone on to make its own version of Snapchat, and passed that on to Instagram, which the social media giant also owns. Instagram Stories, the platform’s version of Snapchat, reached 250 million daily users in June, an increase from April’s reported 200 million.
So what is driving people away from Snapchat? How did going public affect the company? And what does age have to do with how people choose their social media?
Guests:
Josh Constine, editor-at-large for TechCrunch and author of the article, “8 ways to fix Snapchat”; he tweets
Caitlin Plummer, AirTalk apprentice news clerk and resident Snapchat user
FilmWeek: ‘Annabelle: Creation,’ ‘The Glass Castle’ and more
Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Christy Lemire, Peter Rainer and Charles Solomon review this weekend’s new movie releases including:
- "Annabelle: Creation" in wide release
- "The Glass Castle" in wide release
- "The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature" in wide release
- "Good Time" at ArcLight Hollywood and The Landmark
- "Ingrid Goes West" at ArcLight Hollywood
- "The Trip to Spain" at The Landmark
- "Whose Streets?" at Regal L.A. Live Stadium
- "In This Corner of the World" at Laemmle's Monica Film Center and Laemmle's Playhouse
- "Fairy Tail: Dragon Cry" in select theaters including several Regal, Edwards and Laemmle's theaters
Critics' Hits
- Christy: "Annabelle: Creation," "Good Time" & "Ingrid Goes West"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KisPhy7T__Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVyGCxHZ_Ko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP4vD1tWbPU
- Peter: "The Trip to Spain" & "Ingrid Goes West"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTvy8ab1NSo
- Charles: "In This Corner of the World"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDPRMcZs5Lw
Mixed Feelings
- Christy & Peter: "The Glass Castle"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eud7sJehLI
Misses!
- Charles & Christy: "The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2alTj9PCzkA
Guests:
Christy Lemire, film critic for KPCC and RogerEbert.com; co-host of YouTube’s “What the Flick?;”she tweets
Peter Rainer, film critic for KPCC and the Christian Science Monitor
Charles Solomon, film critic for KPCC, Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine
What 70s B-movies teach us about the cynicism of the decade
The term 70s cinema implies true film classics like The Godfather or Taxi Driver. But film critic Charles Taylor believes there’s more to be learned about the decade through its B-movies.
In his new book, “Opening Wednesday at a Theater or Drive-In Near You,” he takes a deeper look at the 70s movies not considered classics, including Prime Cut, Citizens Band, and Eyes of Laura Mars, arguing that each tells a story about the cynicism of America in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam. Today’s movies, he says, are less meaningful, lacking the depth and honesty of these films.
FilmWeek sits down with Taylor to explore the 70s films he deems so significant, and how things have changed since then.
Guest:
Charles Taylor, film critic and author of the book, “Opening Wednesday at a Theater Or Drive-In Near You: The Shadow Cinema of the American '70s” (Bloomsbury USA, 2017)