This combination of pictures created on March 13, 2018 shows then US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (L) on February 15, 2018 and then US Congressman Mike Pompeo, on January 12, 2017.; Credit: JOSEPH EID/AFP/Getty Images

On Tuesday, President Trump announced via tweet that Rex Tillerson is no longer Secretary of State and that he will be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2018

Pompeo is seen as having a closer relationship with Trump and being more in step with the President’s “America first” rhetoric.

The ousting of Tillerson follows a period of tension between him and the president. It’s been reported that Trump decided to transition ahead of talks with North Korea and trade negotiations. According to reports, Tillerson did not know the reason for his firing.

CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel will take over as the head of the CIA. She has had a long career within the CIA, and will be the first woman to lead the agency. There has been some controversy surrounding her name, regarding her charge of CIA “black site” prisons, where there was use of violent interrogation techniques that some have condemned as torture.

Why did Trump fire Tillerson and what will the State Department look like under Pompeo? Who is Gina Haspel and what does her leadership portend for the CIA?

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Steven Feldstein, former deputy assistant secretary on the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (2014-2017) and an associate professor of public affairs at Boise State University; he tweets @SteveJFeldstein

John Woodward, former Central Intelligence Agency officer (1985-1997, 2006-2015); he has served in the directorate of operations in the CIA; he is a professor of the Practice of International Relations at the Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Drivers fill the 110 freeway during afternoon rush-hour on January 9, 2008 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

It’s no secret that many Californians spend countless hours sitting in traffic every year, and Los Angeles is a city that is constantly balancing its long-standing car culture with the desire of most Angelenos to not have to spend so much time sitting in soul-crushing traffic on Southern California’s massive network of freeways.

Congestion pricing, a system that would require drivers to pay a toll or fee to enter specific areas of a city like downtown with the intent of reducing congestion, is one option that has been tossed around as a way to cut down on congestion in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where California sees some of its worst traffic. Now, there’s movement in Sacramento to look at the feasibility of implementing the system here.

Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) is co-sponsoring a bill with State Senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) that would create pilot programs in Northern and Southern California to assess how congestion pricing, sometimes referred to as “Go Zones.” In addition to creating the programs, it creates a carve out to a state law that allows jurisdictions running the pilot programs to charge the kind of permit fees that would be levied in a congestion pricing system, when state law would otherwise prohibit it. Other major cities like Stockholm, Sweden and London have had varying levels of success with their own congestion pricing programs, but it’s unclear whether and how it would affect the number of cars on the road in California.

So how does congestion pricing actually work when applied? What are the arguments for and against? What have other cities who have implemented similar systems learned? And would it realistically work in a place like Los Angeles or San Francisco?

An earlier version of this article mistakenly stated that Asm. Bloom's office did not respond to our request for comment. We did receive a timely response saying that Asm. Bloom was unable to join the discussion but the email was somehow funneled to an unchecked inbox and our producers did not see it until after the airing of the segment. We have made a correction and regret the error.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Amanda Eaken, director of transportation and climate with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Urban Solutions Program; she tweets @aeaken

Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Hundreds of high school and middle school students from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia staged walkouts and gather in front of the White House in support of gun control in the wake of the Florida shooting February 21, 2018 in Washington, DC.; Credit: OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP/Getty Images

One month after the deadly shooting inside a high school in Parkland, Florida, high school students across the nation are planning to stage walkouts today to protest gun violence.

Organizers say nearly 3,000 walkouts are set in the biggest demonstration yet of the student activism that has emerged following the massacre of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Students from the elementary to college level are taking up the call in a variety of ways. Some planned roadside rallies to honor shooting victims and protest violence. Others were to hold demonstrations in school gyms or on football fields. In Massachusetts and Ohio, students said they'll head to the statehouse to lobby for new gun regulations.

The coordinated walkout was organized by Empower, the youth wing of the Women's March, which brought thousands to Washington, D.C., last year. The group urged students to leave class at 10 a.m. local time for 17 minutes - one minute for each victim in the Florida shooting.

AirTalk checks in with KPCC reporters stationed at two SoCal high schools covering the walkout. We’ll also look at gun legislations that the CA lawmakers are planning to introduce in the state after the Parkland shooting.

With files from Associated Press.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Matt Dangelantonio, AirTalk producer covering the walkouts at Blair Middle School and Blair High School in Pasadena; he tweets @the5tooljourno

Patrick McGreevy, reporter for the Los Angeles Times who covers the California Legislature out of the Sacramento bureau

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Broadcom CEO Hock Tan announces the repatriation of his company headquarters to the United States from Singapore as U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on November 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Pool/Getty Images

President Donald Trump blocked Broadcom's $117 billion bid for Qualcomm on Monday citing national security concerns.

Broadcom said in a statement that it is reviewing the order and that it "strongly disagrees that its proposed acquisition of Qualcomm raises any national security concerns.” In a presidential order, President Trump said “credible evidence” had led him to believe that if Singapore-based Broadcom were to acquire control of Qualcomm, it “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.”

The acquisition, if it had gone through, would have been the largest technology deal in history.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Cecilia Kang, technology reporter based in Washington D.C. for the New York Times who has been following the story; she tweets @ceciliakang

Ed Hammond, senior deals reporter at Bloomberg who has been following the story; he tweets @EdHammondNY

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A girl rides in a truck during a march for peace near the U.S./Mexico border on March 11, 2018 in Tijuana, Mexico.; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit on Friday against federal government agencies over the practice of separating asylum-seeking parents from their young children.

The suit, filed on behalf of two plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is naming multiple government agencies as defendants including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as well as top officials at the agencies. ACLU accuses the government of a “nationwide unlawful practice of separating parents and children absent any showing that the parent presents a danger to the child.”

Reports arose in December that the Trump administration was considering a new policy to separate border-crossing parents from their children as a way to scare others from seeking refuge in the U.S.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Stanley Goldman, professor of law at Loyola Law School specializing in criminal law and procedure; he is also former deputy public defender for Los Angeles County in the Downtown Los Angeles office

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at Center for Immigration Studies

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The sign of The National Geographic Museum & Headquarters is seen December 14, 2017 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

As part of its April issue focusing on race, National Geographic made the bold move to acknowledge past racist coverage.

To explain the magazine’s decision, Editor-in-Chief Susan Goldberg wrote, “we thought we should examine our own history before turning our reportorial gaze to others.” The list of past missteps included a slavery-era slur being used to describe California cotton workers and a 1916 story on Australia with a photo caption that read, “South Australian Blackfellows: These savages rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings.”

While this admittance is unexpected, the content is not surprising given that National Geographic has been around for over 100 years, and they certainly aren’t alone in their offensive past. For instance, the New York Times reported that it retroactively wrote obituaries for women who were initially overlooked, and in 2016, Louisville, Ky.’s The Courier-Journal apologized for continuing to publish Muhammad Ali’s name as Cassius Clay, after the boxer changed his name in 1964.

National Geographic’s move has been trending on social media, and whether or not the response around it has been positive, it’s definitely been a conversation starter. What do you think National Geographic’s acknowledgement of past racist coverage? Do you think it will prompt other media publications to do the same? Are you more apt to read the magazine now, or does this hinder you from supporting it?

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guest:

Hub Brown, associate professor of broadcast and digital journalism and associate dean for Research, Creativity, International Initiatives & Diversity at Syracuse University

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Conor Lamb, Democratic congressional candidate for Pennsylvania's 18th district, greets supporters at an election night rally March 14, 2018 in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.; Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

After a long night of counting ballots in Pennsylvania’s District 18 special House election, Democrat Connor Lamb claimed an upset victory against GOP congressman Rick Saccone.

But the votes were so close on Tuesday night that even the Associated Press decided to sleep on making a final call, with absentee ballots still coming in.

As of Wednesday morning, Lamb holds a lead by 627 votes and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has also declared victory.

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump won the district by double digits. Now, Pennsylvania's results echo Republican Roy Moore’s stunning loss to Democrat Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate special election last December.

Has District 18 really gone blue? Or is it a purple flap? And what does this mean for midterm elections in November? We get the latest from POLITICO reporter Gabriel Debenedetti.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guest:

Gabriel Debenedetti, national political reporter at POLITICO who’s been following the story; he tweets @gdebenedetti

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

(L-R) Jonathan Van Ness, Tan France, Antoni Porowski, Bobby Berk, and Karamo Brown attend the after party for the premiere of Netflix's "Queer Eye" Season 1 at the Pacific Design Center on February 7, 2018 in West Hollywood, California.; Credit: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images

Netflix rebooted Bravo’s hit show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” – but the new season is about more than setting up straight guys for success with women.

The original show premiered in 2003, five years after “Will & Grace” introduced gay leading men to primetime television. And though “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” was inherently significant for starring five openly gay men on cable TV, it focused solely on heterosexual romance and avoided diving into societal tensions surrounding sexuality.

Now titled only “Queer Eye,” the Netflix reboot has broadened its scope to include its first gay contestant, who works with the Fab Five in a heartwarming episode to finally come out to his stepmother after his father passed away. (He’s now engaged to his long-time boyfriend.) Though it’s still a makeover show at its core, the reboot features genuine conversations about masculinity, race and self-acceptance.

If you are a member of the LGBTQ community, what did “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” mean to you when it premiered in 2003? How do you feel about the Netflix reboot? Call us at 866-893-5722. 

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guest:

Julia Himberg, assistant professor of film and media studies at Arizona State University; her new book is “The New Gay For Pay: The Sexual Politics of American Television Production” (University of Texas Press, 2017); she tweets @JHimberg

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The AT&T Communications Inc. corporate headquarters building is seen March 6, 2006 in San Antonio, Texas.; Credit: Toby Jorrin/Getty Images

The trial starts Monday in the case pitting AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner against the U.S. Department of Justice in what many are calling the biggest antitrust showdown since Microsoft in the 1990s and the so-called “browser wars.”

The case is similar to the Microsoft case in the sense that they were both antitrust issues, but it also has wide-reaching implications for how we consume video as the media landscape continues to wrestle with whether content distributors should also be suppliers.

It all started in October of 2016 when AT&T proposed it would purchase Time Warner, Inc., which owns HBO CNN, the various Turner networks like TBS and TNT, Cartoon Network, and Warner Brothers studios, for more than $85 billion. AT&T is the world’s biggest telecom company but makes very little content. Time Warner is one of the biggest content creators in the media space, it doesn’t have a distribution platform that gets content directly to customers like AT&T has with DirecTV.

Following months of review by federal antitrust regulations, the Department of Justice announced it would sue AT&T over the proposed merger, arguing that the country’s largest provider of pay-TV would have a chilling effect on competition, drive up rates for customers, and that its mere size and influence would allow it to push other entities around. AT&T says if it wins, prices should decrease for their services, not increase.

We’ll preview the legal arguments each side will make and the potential impact a decision either way could have on the media landscape.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Meg James, corporate media reporter for The Los Angeles Times

Curt Hessler, lecturer in law at UCLA where he teaches antitrust and information law; he is the former chairman and CEO of 101 Communications

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) offers an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for approval so it can be debated on the floor of the House on July 12, 2017 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Pete Marovich/Getty Images

Ted Cruz’s senate campaign is having a laugh over over Democratic opponent, Beto O’Rourke’s nickname.

O’Rourke goes by Beto, but his birth name is Robert Francis, and he’s of Irish descent. O’Rourke has been going by Beto since he was a kid. As reported by Vox, there’s even a picture of him with the nickname embroidered on a sweater. But Cruz is capitalizing on O’Rourke’s so-called name misrepresentation. Cruz even made a radio ad about it.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MvKElqdUxZg

Cruz has also played the name game. He’s of Cuban descent and was born Rafael, not Ted. But it could be naive to think that a name could sway voters of any ethnicity one way or another in a state that typically votes Republican. So what role do names play in politics?

Guest host Libby Denkmann speaks to a Houston Chronicle reporter and a political science professor to find out what’s in a name, and do voters care?

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Kevin Diaz, Washington D.C. correspondent for the Houston Chronicle and Hearst newspapers

Louis Desipio, political science and Chicano/Latino studies professor, and director of the Center for Democracy at the UC Irvine

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki speaks during the opening keynote address at the Google I/O 2017 Conference at Shoreline Amphitheater on May 17, 2017 in Mountain View, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting last month, the number one video trending on YouTube was a conspiracy theory accusing a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student survivor appearing in interviews, to only be an actor.

The video reached 200,000 views before YouTube removed it from its site.

But YouTube’s community guidelines on uploading conspiracy theories and misinformation have been murky, along with how it determines which hoaxes to crack down on. This week, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki unexpectedly announced during a SXSW panel with WIRED editor-in-chief Nicholas Thompson that the platform now plans to debunk erroneous content by linking videos to "information cues," such as text-based Wikipedia.

While the video-sharing site has received praise for taking steps to fight fake news, critics say that Wikipedia, which is a battleground of information in and of itself, is just a band aid for the very algorithms that disseminate misinformation on YouTube. We speak with a WIRED reporter who has been following the story as well as a fake news media expert.

We reached out to Google’s Press Team and received this response from a YouTube spokesperson:

We’re always exploring new ways to battle misinformation on YouTube. At SXSW, we announced plans to show additional information cues, including a text box linking to third-party sources around widely accepted events, like the moon landing. These features will be rolling out in the coming months, but beyond that we don’t have any additional information to share at this time.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Louise Matsakis, staff writer for WIRED covering cyber security, internet law and online culture; she has been following the story and tweets @lmatsakis

S. Shyam Sundar, professor of media studies at Penn State and co-director of the university's Media Effects Research Laboratory; Sundar received a grant from the National Science Foundation in 2017 with colleague Dongwon Lee to create machines that can detect fake news

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg speaks during a public conversation on Facebook's work at The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research on June 22, 2016 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Allison Shelley/Getty Images

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg launched a feminist movement in 2013 when she released “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.”

The book dove into the reasons why women were underrepresented in government and industry leadership positions and offered solutions to help them reach their full professional potential. Sandberg discussed work-life balance, mentorship, the wage gap and, most of all, the importance of “leaning in” to actively seek leadership roles at work.

Though a “Lean In” community still exists in “circles” – small groups that meet regularly to support each other in professional goals – the movement has largely faded from prominence and a new one has taken its place. #MeToo has shifted the conversation around female empowerment in the workplace from gaining representation in leadership roles to ensuring basic safety from sexual harassment and assault.

Five years after Sandberg told women to “Lean In,” AirTalk wants to hear from you. What did the book mean to you when it came out? Did you listen and “lean in”? What happened if you did? And do you feel like there has been any movement in your industry to increase the number of women in leadership?

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guests:

Lori Mackenzie, executive director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University, where she is co-founder of the Center for the Advancement of Women's Leadership

Christine Williams, professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin; she has written many books on gender in the workplace, including “Still a Man's World: Men Who Do Women's Work” (University of California Press, 1995)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Closing down signs sit on the window of Toys R Us in New Kent Road on February 19, 2018 in London, England. ; Credit: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

It’s an end of an era for many consumers who grew up going to Toys “R” Us Inc. After operating for six decades, the toy store chain is planning to sell or close all its 800 stores.

Toys “R” Us has been unable to keep up with online competitors, some analysts say. The toy retailer was nearly $8 billion in debt when filed for bankruptcy six months ago. The liquidation of Toys “R” Us has sent the toy industry reeling, leaving preeminent  manufacturers, like Mattel, without a large chain devoted to selling games and dolls and forcing them to scramble to secure other outlets to carry their items, according to the Wall Street Journal. The move will also affect as many as 33,000 jobs. The company told employees closures would likely happen over time and not all at once.

What is your memory of Toys “R” Us growing up? How do you feel about your children not having that experience? Call us at 866-893-5722.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guest:

Abha Bhattarai, retail and business reporter for The Washington Post who covered the story; she tweets @abhabhattarai

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin appears before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on March 15, 2018 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

In a week that saw the ouster of Rex Tillerson from the State Department, rumor is now flying  that another high-level official at the Trump administration’s job might be on the line.

David Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, has been embroiled in a bubbling controversy involving a trip he took to Europe with his wife. And President Trump has allegedly told his aides that he might want to replace Shulkin as part of a deeper overhaul of his Cabinet, the Washington Post reports.

Joining AirTalk to discuss the story is Military Times’ congressional reporter, Leo Shane III.

With guest host Libby Denkmann.

Guest:

Leo Shane III, congressional reporter at the Military Times who’s been following the story. He tweets @LeoShane

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Suzane Nazir uses a Princeton Review SAT Preparation book to study for the test on March 6, 2014 in Pembroke Pines, Florida.; Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Some educators continually make claims for what standardized tests can do.

There is a popular assumption about what we can learn about a student from these tests and what the scores mean.

But can these claims be challenged. Two psychology professors from the University of Minnesota published research findings that say SAT and ACT can provide an invaluable measure of how students are likely to perform in college and beyond. The researchers argue that some myths that have developed around these tests stand in the way of a thoughtful discussion of their role and importance.

Meanwhile, standardized tests have come under attack in recent years. More than 1,000 accredited bachelor-degree-granting institutions will make admissions decisions about many applicants without regard to ACT or SAT scores, according to Robert Schaeffer, public education director at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. Schaeffer says that more than 100 schools have dropped admissions exam requirements in the past four years alone.

With more people debating the merits of these tests, we take a deeper look into their value and question how effective they are.

Guests:

Robert Schaeffer, public education director at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a nonprofit based in Massachusetts that advocates to reform testing practices.

Nathan Kuncel, professor of industrial-organizational psychology at the University of Minnesota who published the research

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Buffalo Bulls bench reacts in the second half against the Arizona Wildcats during the first round of the 2018 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament at Taco Bell Arena on March 15, 2018 in Boise, Idaho.; Credit: Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Amid an FBI corruption investigation, a Pac-12 task force has put forth a sweeping set of college basketball recommendations.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the 50-page proposal includes and end to the one-and-done rule, which was implemented by the NBA in 2005. The rule prohibits players from joining the league until the age of 19, or requires them to wait until one year after their high school graduation.

Under the new guidelines, athletes would keep the option to attend college but would not be eligible for another draft until after their third season on campus. This would push the NBA to accept players out of high school, and for those who do choose to attend college, postpone recruitment to enable athletes to invest in school and take classes more seriously.

Last month, Yahoo! Sports reported on a number of NCAA players who allegedly took money from a defunct sports agency and more than 20 of the top basketball programs in the country in violation of NCAA rules.

The NBA and its players haven’t typically been on-board to change the one-and-done rule, but the recent scandals may change that. We get the latest from two reporters following the story.

Guests:

Kyle Bonagura, staff writer for ESPN covering the Pac-12; he tweets @BonaguraESPN

David Wharton, sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times who has been following the story; he tweets @LATimesWharton

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, left, talks with Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, at the Capitol, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2017, in Sacramento, Calif. Wiener, and Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, introduced legislation on Thursday to add a non-binary gender option on state identifying documents including driver's licenses, birth certificates and identity cards.; Credit: Rich Pedroncelli/AP

California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and several other senators and assembly members introduced a comprehensive Net Neutrality bill on Wednesday to prohibit internet access providers from blocking or throttling websites and online services that prioritize access to certain sites over others.

If passed, this could create a regime stricter than the Obama-era rules of discriminating against content.

Wiener’s bill is the latest move by state and local officials to create their own net neutrality rules in the absence of federal regulations. It would ban broadband providers from exempting certain content from data limits, a concept known as “zero rating.” Some companies would no longer be allowed to exempt some of their services from certain customers.

Guests:

Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based non-profit digital rights group; he tweets @EFFFalcon

Steve Effros, former attorney-advisor at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1971 through 1975, and cable industry analyst and lawyer based in Virginia; he was the president of Cable Telecommunications Association, an industry trade association

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson and AT&T Senior Executive Vice President David R McAtee II leave after a news conference in Time Warner headquarters addressing the latest developments in the AT&T and Time Warner merger on November 20, 2017 in New York City. ; Credit: Amir Levy/Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Justice and AT&T are set to face-off in court on Monday at 10 a.m. EST over the company's $85 billion agreement to buy media giant Time Warner Inc.

The Justice Department is seeking to block the transaction, arguing that the combined companies would force rivals to pay more for “must-have” content from the Turner Networks, including TBS, CNN and TNT, and that the result would be higher prices for consumers. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hear the case that may settle one of the biggest antitrust issues of modern times.

The merger trial, dubbed as the trial of the century, could determine whether antitrust enforcers will have real practical authority to challenge so-called vertical mergers involving two complementary companies that operate at different levels of the same industry. Typically, the government challenges unions of direct competitors that sell similar products and services, or horizontal mergers.

The trial may last eight weeks, meanwhile, opening arguments are expected to be put off to Wednesday.

Guests:

Chris Sagers, professor of law at Cleveland State University and an antitrust expert who wrote about how the DOJ could win its case against the AT&T-Time Warner deal

Curt Hessler, lecturer in law at UCLA where he teaches antitrust and information law; he is the former chairman and CEO of 101 Communications, now called 1105 Media, a media services company that publishes technical materials for IT professionals

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

U.S. President Donald J. Trump meets with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar of Ireland at The White House March 15, 2018 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Pool/Getty Images

AirTalk’s weekly political roundtable recaps the weekend headlines in politics and looks ahead to what to watch for this week.

Here’s what we’re following:

• Andrew McCabe's firing, and his notes on convos with Trump to give Mueller

• Continuing fallout from “Rexit”

• Potential confirmation issues for Mike Pompeo as Sec. of State and Gina Haspel as CIA director

• Trump rages against Russia probe

• McMaster saga's latest and who else might be on the outs in the White House

• Larry Kudlow in as White House economic adviser

• Steel and aluminum tariffs take effect this week

• Trump to announce his plan to combat opioid crisis today

• PA 18 election follow-up

• AT&T/DOJ lawsuit trial begins today

• U.S.-N. Korea to meet in Helsinki

Guests:

Ange-Marie Hancock-Alfaro, professor of political science and chair of gender studies at USC; she tweets @AngeMarieH

Jack Pitney, professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College; he tweets @jpitney

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Lactated Ringer's solution and sodium chloride IV bags are seen in the operating room during a kidney transplant at Johns Hopkins Hospital June 26, 2012 in Baltimore, Maryland.; Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

As the opioid crisis grows in prominence both in communities across the U.S. and on the political stage, there’s another opioid issue that’s rising to the forefront: the shortage of strong painkillers in hospitals.

Shortages of opioids and other powerful painkillers, such as injectable Dilaudid, fentanyl and morphine, which are needed for surgeries as well as patients with acute terminal pain, such as in the case of cancer, are becoming a problem in hospitals, including some in California, such as Kaiser Permanente and Dignity Health. This deficit started intensifying last year, caused by obstacles in manufacturing as well as government restrictions which were imposed in efforts to combat the opioid crisis.

Hospitals find themselves triaging and rationing drugs, leaving some lower priority patients with weaker pain meds.

How bad is this shortage and where does it hit hardest? What are the causes? And how are hospitals managing with a limited supply of these painkillers?

Guests:

Pauline Bartolone, reporter covering health policy for California Healthline and Kaiser Health News; her recent story on this is “The Other Opioid Crisis: Hospital Shortages Lead To Patient Pain, Medical Errors”; she tweets @pbartolone

Shalini Shah, M.D., the head of pain medicine at the UC Irvine health system and Chair of the Committee on pain at the California Society of Anesthesiologists, a group of physicians across the state working on managing and responding to the drug shortages

Donald Kaplan, Pharm.D., regional Inpatient pharmacy director for Kaiser Permanente in Southern California

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.