The World and Everything in It: November 3, 2025

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Can you sue the Post Office if Mr. Postman deliberately keeps your mail from being delivered?

ALITO: What will the consequences be if all these suits have to be litigated? Is the cost of a letter going to be $3 now?

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, the Trump-Xi trade truce, did anything really change? We’ll talk with economist David Bahnsen.

And the WORLD History Book:

KDKA: This is KDKA … Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Centuries of American journalism delivered to the public, and not always easily.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 3rd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: SNAP benefits » The Trump administration has been ordered to explain to a federal judge today how it plans to fund food stamp benefits that expired over the weekend.

Judges ruled the White House must use emergency USDA reserve funds to keep SNAP payments flowing to roughly 42 million Americans.

Agriculture Sec. Brooke Rollins said Sunday:

ROLLINS: The president has been very clear. He wants us to do everything we can to make sure that we can keep these benefits going. So that's what we're doing right now

President Trump says he’s waiting for legal clarification before releasing the money—saying he wants to fund the program but needs the court’s direction first.

The administration had argued it could not legally use those funds for this purpose while the government remains shut down.

Food banks nationwide have been bracing for greater demand.

Carla Stokes with New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia said the need right now is greater than ever.

STOKES: We typically serve 1000 families on a Saturday. Uh, we prepared for 2000 and before we ever started, we had well over 2000 families in line. The government is shut down, but God's heaven is open.

Many SNAP recipients are now seeing notices on state apps saying they will receive the benefits, but they’ll be late.

Government shutdown » Meantime, the shutdown is set to roll into its sixth week tomorrow night.

Republicans have a majority in the Senate, but not the 60-vote majority they need to break a Democratic filibuster and pass a funding bill.

President Trump is renewing calls for GOP leaders in the Senate to use the so-called nuclear option, and change the Senate rules. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt:

LEAVITT: Republicans need to get tough. They need to get smart, and they need to use this option to get rid of the filibuster, to reopen the government and do right by the American public.

Senate GOP leaders strongly oppose nuking the filibuster, which Republicans also use when in the minority to block the Democrats’ agenda.

China » President Trump says Chinese leader Xi Jinping has given assurances that Beijing would take no action to seize control of Taiwan while Trump is still in office.

Beijing has long maintained that the autonomous island is Chinese property, and that it will be reassimilated with mainland China by any means necessary.

But Trump told CBS’ “60 Minutes”:

TRUMP: They understand what's gonna happen and uh, he is openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, we would never do anything while President Trump is president because they know the consequences.

Trump said the subject never came up during his meeting last week with the Chinese leader in South Korea.

The president said he will not reveal publicly what his response would be if China were to invade Taiwan, saying only, “You’ll find out if it happens.”

Final hours before Election Day » Campaigns are making their final push ahead of Election Day tomorrow.

Among the high profile races to be decided, the next governor of the states of Virginia and New Jersey. Former President Barack Obama among the big guns out campaigning for Democrats:

OBAMA: I am here today for a very important reason. I am here to ask you to vote for the next governor of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger.

In an average of recent polls, Spanberger is leading Republican Winsome Earle-Sears by about 9 points in Virginia, but Earle-Sears says she remains confident.

SEARS: But of course we're gonna win. We have the common sense ideas. Abigail Pamper, uh, is for nonsense. Look, we're going to win this one. We're looking at the real polls. The polls that really matter.

And the polls are tighter in New Jersey where Democrat Mikie Sherrill leads Republican Jack Ciattarelli by about 3 points.

London stabbing attack » British police are still investigating a weekend knife attack aboard a train en route to London that left 11 people hospitalized.

Authorities initially arrested two men, but later released one of them without charge. They are still holding a 32-year-old British man on suspicion of attempted murder.

One witness described seeing one of the victims aboard the train.

AUDIO: They were extremely bloodied. That person ended up, when we pulled in, they were basically on the floor.

British Transport Police Superintendent John Loveless told reporters Sunday:

LOVELESS: While nine were initially believed to have life-threatening injuries, following assessment and treatment. Four, thankful to say, have been discharged. However, two patients remain in a life-threatening condition.

Passengers across the U.K.’s rail network saw a heightened police presence on Sunday both on trains and at stations.

Russia continues to target Ukrainian power grid » In Ukraine, authorities say at least two people have been killed in a drone attack in the Odesa region.

Three other people were wounded in the Sunday attack along the Black Sea coast.

And in the Zaporizhzhia region, tens of thousands of homes lost power after an attack by Russian drones and missiles. Rolling blackouts also hit the region due to continued attacks on Ukraine’s power grid.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: can you sue the post office if the mailman intentionally keeps your mail from being delivered? That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Plus… The Monday money beat with economist David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MUSIC: Stop! Whoa, yes, wait a minute, Mr. Postman! Wait! Waaa-a-a-ait, Mr. Postman! 

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for November 3rd. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

MUSIC: Come on deliver the let-tah, the sooner the bet-tah. 

Today, three disputes pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, a fight involving Mr. Postman ,and what he puts or doesn’t put, into the neighborhood mailboxes.

ROBERTS: We'll hear argument next in Case 24-351, United States Postal Service versus Konan.

Lebene Konan. She owns several rental properties in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, including two in Euless, Texas. She rents out rooms and sometimes stays there herself.

EICHER: These are multi-resident homes, so the Postal Service uses centralized mailboxes instead of door to door delivery. Konan would pick up the mail and hand it out to her tenants.

Now, with hundreds of millions of pieces of mail moving into and out of the Postal Service every day, some are bound to go missing.

REICHARD: And when that happens, some may see malice behind a mistake … which may or may not be true.

Here’s what happened to Konan: Five years ago, two postal workers changed the ownership records on one of her properties. They listed her white tenant as the owner instead of Konan, who is black.

She says mail stopped coming for months: No bills, no medication, no tax notices. So she sued the Postal Service under the terms of a 1946 law known as the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Her lawyer, Easha Anand:

ANAND: Think about what Ms. Konan alleged here, right? Two years of non-delivery, not just a one-off package. She's filed administrative complaint after administrative complaint. She can say, look, every single one of my neighbors is getting mail. She says, when you found out I owned this other property, mail stopped getting delivered there. She's got all this other kind of circumstantial evidence that doesn't have to do with the mail delivery.

EICHER: The Post Office tells a different story. It says Konan didn’t keep an up-to-date list of tenants. That’s a requirement for large, multi-unit homes. Once she did, the Post Office says, mail delivery resumed.

But that claim isn’t part of the record yet. For now, the justices have to assume Konan’s story is true.

RIEHCARD: Back to the law at the center of the case, the Federal Tort Claims Act: The FTCA allows citizens to sue the government for negligence. But there’s an exception. It’s literally called the “postal exception.”

It blocks suits for “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail.

The fight is over the meaning of those four words.

Theft or withholding mail are intentional acts, but do they add up to “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission”?

EICHER: Konan says no, the postal exception does not apply here. The exception applies only to negligence, not deliberate wrongdoing.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised that point with Frederick Liu, arguing for the Postal Service.

ROBERTS: Loss doesn’t typically convey, I mean, technically I suppose it can, malfeasance involved. I mean, if I say I lost my car, people aren't going to think somebody stole his (sic) car. They're going to think I forgot where it was or something like --like that…. If somebody said I lost the mail, I --I would not think necessarily -I wouldn't think right away somebody stole it.

REICHARD: Liu argued the postal exception ought to be read broadly—to include intentional acts. Without it, the Postal Service will be flooded with lawsuits.

He also said it’s a big stretch to turn the nouns in the FTCA into verbs to fit Konan’s allegations.

LIU: The words work perfectly well as nouns. They describe the consequences that certain negligent or wrongful acts can have…You can't just convert all these nouns into “did the government X the mail.” It doesn't work with miscarry because miscarry wasn't used in that way. If you said that to a listener in 1946, they wouldn't know what you were talking about.

EICHER: Justice Samuel Alito pressed that point:

ALITO: So I don't get my Christmas cards until three weeks after Christmas, and I can't sue on the ground that it's negligent, but if I say, well, the --the delivery person doesn't like me for one reason or another, it was intentional, and then I'm in --I'm in court.

The post office lawyer ran with that:

LIU: …we're talking about over 300 million pieces of mail delivered a day. We get over 300,000 complaints about the conduct of letter carriers a year. If --if even 1 percent of those complaints results in a lawsuit, the number of suits that the Postal Service faces each year is going to quadruple….things like intent are easy to allege and hard to disprove….

REICHARD: Going on to say that even if the Postal Service could later prove misconduct was just a mistake …

LIU: We've defeated the purpose of having an immunity from suit, which was to relieve the Postal Service of the burden of having to take postal --postal workers away from their day-to-day jobs and force them to become witnesses in court.

Justice Alito saw all sorts of mischief rooted in human nature if the landlady’s theory were to win:

ALITO: I mean, a lot of people may think that it's --that what's happening is intentional. I don't get my mail because I didn't give the mail carrier a tip at Christmas, or I have a big dog that ran up to the door and scared the mail carrier on one point, or I complained to the mail carrier that he or she…was putting my neighbor's mail in my mailbox or putting my mail in the mailbox of my neighbors or… he looked askance at my holiday decorations, or there's some characteristic about me that the mail carrier doesn't like. Is that going to be hard? And what will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated? Is the cost of a first class letter going to be $3 now?

The landlady’s side dismissed that as unlikely. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with that in this exchange with the Postal Service lawyer:

JACKSON: I can’t imagine that the postal workers are actually actively intentionally withholding people’s mail on a regular basis. 

LIU: As a matter of routine, the Postal Service intentionally --withholds people's mail for all sorts of legitimate reasons.

JACKSON: Well, that's an easy defense then. I mean, there it is. And it's not intentional in the sense of a harm.

LIU: It's an easy defense -once we've had discovery. It's not an easy defense when we're trying to fight off a complaint because, from the outside, that intentional withholding can easily be mistaken…

EICHER: Well, that’s the thing: discovery hasn’t happened yet … meaning the lawyers have yet to exchange evidence or take testimony. So the court is first having to decide a threshold question: That is, can Konan sue under this law, with these facts?

If she can … the case moves forward in the lower courts. If not, she’ll have to pursue another remedy.

Next, two disputes that involve robbery, each raising different legal questions.

REICHARD: Michael Bowe pleaded guilty to several crimes, earning 24 years in federal prison … 10 of those years for using a gun in what the law calls a “crime of violence.”

But later court decisions changed the way that term is defined. Bowe says his crimes no longer fit … so his sentence should be reduced.

He’s tried to make that argument before, but lower courts have rejected it—saying they’ve already heard the claim. So now the question is whether the rule against repeat habeas petitions for state inmates also applies to federal inmates. (Reminder that a habeas petition simply means asking a court to review the legality of one’s imprisonment.)

EICHER: Justice Alito’s prosecutorial edge came through in this exchange with the lawyer for the convicted criminal:

ALITO: But you applied for authorization, right?

ADLER: Correct.

ALITO: To file a second or successive?

ADLER: That’s correct.

ALITO: And is that still on the docket of the court of appeals?

ADLER: No, it is not.

ALITO: So it was denied, right?

ADLER: No, Your Honor. There’s a distinction between a dismissal and a denial in the statute.

ALITO: Well, it was effectively denied. What you’re saying is it was denied on an improper ground.

EICHER: It’s that familiar tug between fairness and procedure that often plays out at the Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett picked up that theme:

BARRETT: So Congress… can really never deprive this Court of certiorari to resolve questions of federal law because that would deprive us of our ability to ensure the uniformity of federal law?

ADLER: I think there’s at least a serious question about that, and that’s because, whenever lower courts are deciding issues of federal law and this Court cannot step in, then this Court ceases to be the Supreme Court. The courts of appeals then become their own mini Supreme Courts. Thank you.

REICHARD: Final case today goes back thirty years. A man named Holsey Ellingburg Junior robbed a bank. He was caught and prosecuted. Part of the sentence required him to repay seventy-five hundred dollars in restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act.

Years later — after serving his term and paying about a quarter of that debt — Ellingburg argued the payment period had expired. Enforcing it now, he said, would amount to retroactive punishment.

EICHER: The government disagreed. Timing isn’t the issue, it said. The point is to restore victims, not to punish offenders.

That’s what the argument mostly came down to.

Listen to this exchange between Justice Alito and the lawyer for the bank robber:

ALITO: Doesn’t the fact that victims can enforce the restitution order themselves cut strongly against your argument that restitution is penal rather than remedial?

She went on to concede the point that if victims can enforce restitution themselves, sure, that’s more of a civil action. But if not paying can land you back in prison, then it starts to look more like punishment.

REICHARD: Then came the question of timing—and whether applying a newer, longer enforcement period would violate the Constitution’s ban on what’s called ex-post facto punishment? 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out to the government lawyer that retroactive laws raise serious concerns about fair notice, civil or criminal.

KAVANAUGH: Even if this were civil, civil retroactivity is not something that we countenance without a clear statement, right?

ROBERTSON: The Court has been clear that the Ex Post Facto Clause itself only applies to criminal punishment.

KAVANAUGH: But Landgraf and other cases, civil retroactivity is something that’s antithetical to basic rule-of-law notions….

Round and round they went, trying to decide what’s criminal, what’s civil, what violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, and what’s fair.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, President Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping met last week and struck what they’re calling the third trade truce in a year. The Wall Street Journal calling it more cease-fire than breakthrough. Tariffs down a little bit, soybeans flowing again, and China lifting rare-earth export controls for a year. So what do you think—was this a genuine turning point this time, or just sort of letting off steam to calm things down?

BAHNSEN: Turning point back to 2019. I mean, it’s literally almost a cut and paste of what they called back then, pre-COVID, the phase-one trade deal. And it was basically China’s gonna buy more soybeans, but also liquefied natural gas—LNG—those are two things China needs and two things the U.S. has that are export-friendly. And that we will, in fact, buy more rare-earth minerals from China, and that we will be nice to them by selling them semiconductors. I mean, that’s literally the scope of the deal, and it’s more or less what was there in 2019.

So I think a lot of people can be forgiven for kind of wondering what all the hubbub was about. Now, I don’t say this critically. I’m saying it as a good thing. I don’t believe that elevated tariffs that decrease the level of trade would be a good thing. But I do think it’s interesting that we were a lot more punitive with allies than we ended up being with an adversary.

EICHER: So how do you read the China-U.S. situation? Do you think that we, the U.S., have leverage with the Chinese, or do you think the Chinese are more self-sufficient now and not as dependent on U.S. markets as they have been?

BAHNSEN: Oh, they’re definitely not as dependent. Their total exports are up, and the percentage of their exports going to the U.S. are down. But we still have plenty of leverage. It would be brutal for their already weak economy to lose some degree of market share with a customer like the world’s biggest economic power. But that doesn’t mean that we have leverage and they don’t, and that’s the hard part, Nick, about economic leverage.

I’m a little hesitant to use this analogy, because I do think that things like nuclear war and military action are categorically different for all the obvious reasons, but it is very similar to mutually assured destruction. Who had leverage with two countries pointing nuclear weapons at each other? The answer is both.

And the United States economically would hurt a great deal if the things that were threatened four, five, six months ago went through—and China would suffer a great deal. I’ve always argued that at that point—like they talk in baseball about a tie goes to the runner—the tie goes to China because of their political system. The United States, we just don’t have a lot of tolerance politically for weak economic times. I think that’s a good thing. And in China, they’re very used to having prolonged periods of economic distress, and with their form of government, it wouldn’t really matter. So in that sense, they have a little bit more leverage.

But the whole thing isn’t over. There’s still more that will kind of shake out. And I do believe that China is and will do more to try to curb the amount of fentanyl coming into the country. So perhaps the president, you know, could feel good about getting some progress in that regard. But no, I think that those who were to go back and look at what was being said in March, April, May of this year, about what we were going to try to accomplish versus what the final result is—I think they would be very, very confused.

The notion that what we’re doing is going to lower trade with China so that we increase manufacturing in the United States—there’s absolutely nothing happening that’s going to do that.

EICHER: Let’s jump over to the Federal Reserve. Chairman Jay Powell announced another quarter-point rate cut, and then he warned not to expect another one in December. And the comment that showed up in a lot of reports—Chairman Powell’s statement that the Fed is “driving in a fog.” And I’m curious what you think about that. But I looked at the Fed funds futures market and saw that the probability of that second rate cut—or that last rate cut for December—went from 90 percent likelihood to about 60 percent after those comments. So do you think the Fed is showing some prudence here, or driving in a fog? Do you think they’re confused?

BAHSNEN: No, neither. I think that it was Chairman Powell poking the bear at President Trump to some degree, but I also believe he was saying what you’re supposed to say—which is, if you want credibility for your central bank, to say, “We have made our mind up two months before the next meeting on what we’re going to do in two months,” that’s what you do in a banana republic. That’s what you do when you’re not even pretending to be data-driven.

And I do think they’re going to cut in December. As we sit here talking right now, the futures are at a 63 percent chance. And you’re right, they were at about 90 before that meeting. They got as low as, I think, 55 after his comments. But let’s be clear—he didn’t say, “Don’t expect it,” meaning expect we won’t. He said, “We just are far from having reached a decision.”

And I do believe that that is a case of him saying what he should say. But they’re going to cut. Now, you get a couple months’ reports indicating that, wow, this economy is looking really strong, job markets are better than we expected—perhaps they will go forward with not cutting. But I think that the weight of his comments is that they see greater risk of a weakening economy than they do upward price pressure.

I think that those comments he’s making are accurate, and I think that they should be getting to a more neutral rate. I think they’re still in a net-tightening position. And so ultimately, I think that what you’re going to see is a cut in December. But Powell definitely surprised markets this week with his posturing.

EICHER: What is the fog about—what’s the metaphor there?

BAHNSEN: It’s a reference to the dual mandate—that there is a need for price stability, and there’s a risk of inflationary price pressures. He’s talking about tariffs in that case. And then there’s a risk of a weakening economy—their dual mandate for full employment. So there’s a fog between these push-pull factors of what they consider to be a tension between employment and prices.

And that—he’s saying the fog is which risk is bigger right now. And it’s an odd way to do monetary policy, because if you think about two risks—you know, for us, like, let’s say we were driving down a road and you go, if I turn left, there’s a hurricane, and if I turn right, there’s an earthquake—most of us just don’t turn either way.

But he’s painting it as if we’re gonna invite one risk by avoiding the other, and that is a fog. I don’t think it’s quite so binary, but that’s sort of the language that he’s using.

EICHER: David, I want to bring up the government shutdown again, because there was something of a change—the president urging Senate Republicans to scrap the filibuster to get the government reopened. We also have the development of a couple of federal judges ordering the administration to tap into something like six billion dollars in emergency funds to keep the food assistance program, SNAP, to keep that going for those 42 million Americans. So how do you see things here? Are we in a pressure situation where something really will start to give now?

BAHNSEN: Well, I mean, at some point something’s going to give. There was never, ever, ever a time this thing was going to be perpetual. But I don’t think that the filibuster comments from the president are helpful here at all.

So let’s be really clear: if one is a conservative Republican who believes in separation of powers, who has appreciated the long tradition of the filibuster, of constraining the ability of one party with 50 or 51 votes to do what they want—the last thing you want is to get rid of the filibuster.

And the Democrats, to their credit—despite the fact the president’s right that there were some Democrats who said they wanted to do it—they didn’t do it. And there were Democrats who kept them from doing it.

I’m afraid, Nick, of the Republicans making the mistake that Harry Reid made, where he went to the nuclear option on approving federal judges, where they didn’t have the 60-vote requirement—they used a 50-vote threshold to get federal judges in. And Mitch McConnell warned him not to do it. They did it. And then now the Republicans said, “Okay, we’re going to do it,” and then that’s how you got Amy Coney Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and so forth.

And I’m telling you, if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster, we will rue the day when the Democrats are back in power. So this is not necessary to end the shutdown, and I also don’t believe it’s going to be useful for any key elements of the president’s agenda.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner and Chief Investment Officer at The Bahnsen Group. He writes regularly for WORLD Opinions, and at dividend-cafe.com. David, thanks so much. We’ll talk to you next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, November 3rd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book.

From printing presses to podcasts , the methods of news dissemination have changed dramatically. But how did we get here? Today, we consider the moments that shaped modern news ,from the early fight for press freedom to the first crackle of radio.

Here’s WORLD’s Paul Butler with the story.

PAUL BUTLER: John Peter Zenger is one of America’s first newspapermen. And on November 23rd, 1734, he stands in a New York courtroom awaiting a jury’s verdict, wondering whether he will be charged with the crime of libel.

But colonial libel laws are not on Zenger’s side.

Audio here from Annenberg Classroom. Burt Neuborne is professor at the New York University of Law.

BURT NEUBORNE: They tend to favor established people with strong reputations and strong presence in the society. So, the King. The King’s justices. The richest guy in the country.

In 1733, Zenger prints editorials criticizing the colonial governor, William Cosby. So Cosby takes Zenger to court, accusing him of printing lies about his governance. Eric Foner is a history professor at Columbia University. Audio here from an interview with NBC News Learn.

ERIC FONER: Zenger insulted the governor, no question about it. He called him a thief, a crook, a criminal.

The trial drags on for almost a year. It’s a contentious proceeding, resulting in two disbarred attorneys and a reshuffling of several juries. Finally, on August 4th, 1735, Zenger awaits the final charge.

But after just a half hour, the jury comes back with a verdict of ‘not guilty,’ laying the foundations for freedom of the press in America.

FONER: His trial is important because his lawyer convinced the jury that Zenger was right. That the governor was a lowlife.

Next, on November 2nd, 1920. About 1,000 people tune in to the first commercial radio broadcast. KDKA recreated that moment in this 2012 recording.

KDKA: This is KDKA of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania …

It’s presidential election night, and KDKA teams up with the local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post, to get the latest updates for listeners. Through a private phone line, they get the results every hour.

KDKA: We’d appreciate it if anyone hearing this broadcast would communicate with us, as we are very anxious to know how far the broadcast is reaching, and how it is being received.

105 years ago, radio was primarily used for ships and navigation. But there are still a number of radio stations in use, mainly to play music.

AUDIO: [The 1920s Channel, Radio music]

Then, the Westinghouse Company decides to harness the airwaves for other means of communication.

On election night, four men pack into a tiny makeshift studio in a shack to get the broadcast going. Leo Rosenberg is among them—America’s first radio announcer. According to him, he was chosen because he had the best voice of the four.

KDKA: Some 30 million Americans are electing a president of the United States … Republican: Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. Democratic: James M. Cox …

KDKA eventually starts regular and varied programs, from inviting politicians as guests to commentating on sports. They also regularly air local sermons on their Sunday evening program. And from there, the lure of radio captivates America.

By 1922, more than 500 radio stations fill the airwaves. That eventually leads newspapers to worry about their dominance in the news market, and they start jockeying for position against radio shows.

Eventually broadcasters look for ways to put pictures with sound, and it doesn’t take long before radio evolves to broadcast television. And a whole new generation of journalists emerge.

Here’s newscaster Walter Cronkite from 1962.

WALTER CRONKITE: Good evening from our CBS Newsroom in New York, on this, the first broadcast of network television’s first daily half hour news program.

About 80 years after the broadcast radio boom, the news medium changes once again in the internet age.

ROBIN WILLIAMS: It’s basically, it’s downloadable sound, okay? And also they have things like books on tape, New York Times, Wall Street Journal …

That’s Robin Williams on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, describing the very beginnings of podcasting.

WILLIAMS: It’s basically radio.

JAY LENO: Radio! Now I understand!

WILLIAMS: Now you understand, it’s radio.

LENO: So I can listen to that in the car.

WILLIAMS: Yes!

Journalist Ben Hammersley coined the term “podcast” in a 2004 article for The Guardian. It’s a combination of the words “iPod” and “broadcast.”

And that year proved to be a springboard for podcasting, when USA Today told its readers about these so-called “free amateur chatfests.” Millions started asking Google what a podcast was, and how to listen.

By November of 2004, the British Broadcasting Corporation converted one of its radio shows, called In Our Time, into their first podcast. Each one was available on the internet for a week after publication. But in 2010, the BBC started keeping them up on the website for good.

MELVYN BRAGG: Thanks for downloading the In Our Time podcast.

In 2005, Apple added podcasts to iTunes. News outlets like the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal transformed their radio programs into news podcasts. On the homefront, WORLD Magazine did the same in 2011.

NICK EICHER: From WORLD Magazine, this is the debut of the World and Everything In It, where we take time to explore stories and issues and tell you important things you probably won’t hear about anywhere else. I’m Nick Eicher.

JOSEPH SLIFE: And I’m Joseph Slife.

Today there are more than 4.5 million podcasts globally, with big shows still revolutionizing the medium. Like the Joe Rogan Experience. And NPR’s most popular programs.

AUDIO: [THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE INTRO]

Some experts are predicting a future with more video podcasting, increased use of AI, and highly customizable programming. But no matter how the medium changes, the news will also adapt. For in the words of Walter Cronkite:

CRONKITE: Old anchormen, you see, don’t fade away, they just keep coming back for more. And that’s the way it is.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler. Reporting by Emma Eicher.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: midterm elections, the politics of shutdowns, and how one homeschooling family emphasizes responsibility in everyday life. That and more tomorrow. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says about lawsuits against believers, “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” —1st Corinthians 6:4-6

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.