The World and Everything in It: September 19, 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.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Good morning!

Today on Culture Friday, the public witness of Charlie Kirk and what his assassination has stirred across the country.

NICK EICHER, HOST: John Stonestreet is standing by.

Also today: a shot at redemption.

MIKE: I never finished my senior year. I got thrown out for fighting. But I still have that year.

COACH: What do you mean?

MIKE: I’m eligible.

COACH: Eligible for what?

MIKE: To play.

A review of the new faith-based film The Senior.

And Word Play with George Grant.

BROWN: It’s Friday, September 19th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: U.K.-U.S. tech agreement » President Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a row of cameras and microphones in London on Thursday as they touted a new technology pact between the U.S. and the U.K.

STARMER:  250 billion pounds flowing both ways across the Atlantic. It is the biggest investment package of its kind in British history.

The deal commits both nations to joint work in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and civil nuclear power, with U.S. firms pledging more than $40 billion dollars in investments across Britain.

President Trump told reporters:

TRUMP:   We've done some things that financially are great for both countries, and we work together and it keeps us together, and I think it's an unbreakable bond we have.

Major players include Microsoft and Nvidia, which plan major AI infrastructure projects.

Despite wide investment promises, some sore spots remain — for example, differences over tariffs and foreign policy — though the two leaders kept those mostly behind closed doors.

Trump: U.S. wants base back in Afghanistan » During that joint press conference, President Trump also suggested he's working to reestablish a U.S. presence at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

TRUMP:  We're trying to get it back, by the way. Okay. That could be a little breaking news. We're trying to get it back because they need things from us. We want that base back.

That comes four years after America’s chaotic withdrawal from the country left the base in the Taliban’s hands. 

TRUMP:  One of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it's an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.

Trump did not reveal whether his administration has done any planning around returning to the sprawling base, just north of Kabul … which was central to America’s longest war.

Israel » Also during that same news conference, the president reaffirmed America’s support for Israel.

When asked if he would pressure Israel to halt its offensive against Hamas in Gaza, he responded:

TRUMP: People forget about October 7th. I can't forget about it. So I want it to end, but I want the hostages back. I don't want the hostages used as human shields, which is what Hamas is threatening to do.

REPORTER: But as soon as they're back, that's the moment you will tell Netanyahu to stop?

TRUMP: Well, it would certainly help!

The president also condemned remarks by Hamas, after the terror group suggested it would begin using surviving hostages as human shields.

Meanwhile…

SOUND: [Fleeing vehicles]

...thousands of Palestinians continue to flee the Gaza Strip.

REFUGEE: [Speaking In Arabic]

One man says death is everywhere and his family has had to flee from one place to another to escape it. He calls their situation indescribable and says it's not a displacement journey, it's a death journey.

Democrats slam Kimmel suspension » Democrats are blasting ABC’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after remarks he made surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it an assault on free speech.

SCHUMER: This is an assault on everything this country has stood for since the Constitution’s been signed. One of the great hallmarks of our country is free speech, whether you agree or disagree.

Democrats say pressure from FCC Chair Brendan Carr led ABC to bench Kimmel.

But ABC says its decision came after affiliate groups like Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would no longer carry Jimmy Kimmel Live.

In a recent monologue, Kimmel said, among other things that—his words—the “MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

And he later likened President Trump’s response to the assassination as “how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

Jobless numbers » The Labor Department says weekly jobless claims fell sharply this past week. WORLD’s Benjamin Eicher has more.

BENJAMIN EICHER: Unemployment claims fell to 231,000 for the week ending September 13.

That beat expectations and reversed a spike to 264,000 the week before. That earlier number marked a nearly four-year high.

And the number of people continuing to receive unemployment benefits dipped a bit.

While layoffs are still modest, the labor market is showing signs of softening with weak August job growth and few job openings.

But, taken as a whole, many analysts say the latest numbers ease fears of a steep downturn.

For WORLD, I’m Benjamin Eicher.

China's defense minister renews threats to Taiwan » China’s defense minister is renewing threats against Taiwan.

DONG: [Speaking in Mandarin]

As Dong Jun opened a security forum in Beijing Thursday he declared that the“restoration” of Taiwan to China “is an integral part” of the international order.”

DONG: [Speaking in Mandarin]

And he added that Beijing—his words “will never allow any separatist attempt for 'Taiwan independence' to succeed, and it stands ready to thwart any external military interference."

Beijing claims Taiwan, a self-ruled democracy of 23 million people, as a breakaway province, to be retaken by force if necessary.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Culture Friday with John Stonestreet. Plus, a feel good football movie from Angel Studios.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Friday, September 19th. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s Culture Friday! Joining us is John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center and Host of the Breakpoint Podcast. Good Morning John.

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning.

EICHER: Well, coming up this weekend, John, I can’t believe it’s only been just a little over a week. Tens of thousands of people are expected to show up in Phoenix for Charlie Kirk’s public memorial. A young man is in custody for his killing. The charging documents leave almost no doubt about what the motive was. The shock of this assassination has stirred grief and conspiracy theories and raw political division. John, what do you think the scale of this memorial tells us about the role of Charlie Kirk in American life, particularly among young Christians? And you deal with young Christians all the time. How do you interpret his death in light of the courage that you really try to promote among students like that?

STONESTREET: Yeah, you know, this is going to be an incredibly big event. It’s going to be an event that I think will undermine the negative narrative about this—that he was racist and homophobic and bigoted and stuff like that. I think you’re going to see an amazing diversity in the turnout.

I think that it’s part of a larger story. This was kind of a catalytic part of a story that we have been noting recently, even here and in other places where, you know, a decade ago, you might even say when Charlie Kirk started, the main religion story was the rise of the nones. And this in America was often accompanied with a great bit of baggage against Christianity and against church life. There was an awful lot of deconstruction going on. And not that that doesn’t exist.

But the most important religion news stories of the last three years is the rise of the religious, particularly among the young, particularly young men. Some people are calling this the story of re-enchantment, coming off of the disenchantment of modernism. I think that’s going to be an interesting thing to watch. And certainly Charlie’s influence played a role in that.

I think also the story of the shooter goes beyond our right versus left narrative. And I’m not saying that silly talking point that’s been said over and over, like political violence is the same on both sides—because it’s not. But I do think there is another example here of something that we’ve also talked about, where the theoretical becomes the existential, where the hypothetical—“if you believe this, then fill in the blank.”

All of these things were theoretical observations of the worldview and apologetic theorists of 15–20 years ago. And now we’re seeing a lot of this stuff come to pass. Kind of the same way that Friedrich Nietzsche in the parable The Madmantalked about all the implications of the death of God, and then says, “I’ve come too soon. This is on its way, but it’s not here yet.”

A lot of those things that Nietzsche describes as being on the way are now here. The deep-seated nihilism, the idea that everyone is a law unto themselves, is a category. And we’re now even putting language to it. There’s the “nihilistic, violent extremist,” the NVEs as we’re hearing this language, to categorize people who are now living out this extreme postmodern view.

It is tainted by critical theory: that if someone is part of the oppressor group, they’re irredeemable, and if they reach a certain point, they need to be eliminated. That certainly is reflected in the statements about motive. The deep-seated “I’m going to pursue my own happiness and my own definition of reality and let everything else and any other opinion be considered evil and harmful.”

This stuff is starting to bear fruit now. This is poisonous, extreme fruit. But we’ve also seen examples of people actually trying to live this philosophy out. And that’s what people do with philosophies that they embrace: they try to live them out. I think we’re seeing the really poisonous fruit of nihilism, postmodern despair, a critical theory mood, and several other things at work here.

BROWN: Well, as Nick said, it is hard to believe that we were right here one week ago, trying to gather our thoughts as we were coming to terms with Charlie Kirk’s assassination. One of the things you said, John: civilizations cannot hold without common definitions of life and value and truth. Well, I want to follow up on that, because I heard something that goes right to what you said.

Now, this is someone with very different definitions. Have a listen.

PREACHER: Seeing the flags of the United States of America at half staff calling this nation to honor and venerate a man who was an unapologetic racist and spent all of his life sowing seeds of division and hate into this land {applause} I am sorry, but there’s no where in Bible where we are taught to honor evil. And how you die does not redeem how you lived. You do not become a hero in your death when you were a weapon of the enemy in your life.

Well, I have not been able to identify that man. What I can tell you is he delivered that message from a church pulpit, and 4.9 million people have viewed it on social media.

Now I want you to listen to this message recorded by a random TikTok user.

WOMAN: Anybody, especially black people that are saying Charlie Kirk was racist and was not for black people and did not know black people, I am 100% convinced that you have never sat through a full debate of his or watched any of his debates with a sound understanding. Black people are always so quick to want to be a victim of a situation that they can’t thrive. And this was one of the things Charlie Kirk was exposing to black people. We have such a cap on us because we think we’re limited because we’re black or because we’re women and because we think our ancestors, whatever they went through, it’s still impacting us today. But we are not there anymore.

Well, that video has about 22,000 views. Doing the math on this—actually Nick did the math.

EICHER: So it’s my fault if we’re wrong!

BROWN: That’s less than one-half of 1% of the views. So John, how should we as Christians respond to nonbelievers who may be confused by these two different portrayals of Charlie Kirk, by people who both claim to be offering a Christian view?

STONESTREET: You know, I guess what encourages me is less the comparison between these two videos—although that’s super interesting. But I’m one of the many that have been down this rabbit hole almost nonstop for the last week. I’ve seen far more Charlie Kirk videos after his death than I ever saw before his death, even knowing who he was and appreciating many of the things he was trying to do, most of the things he was trying to do.

And what I am seeing overwhelmingly is a response like, “I went looking for the hate and the bigotry, and I didn’t find it.” But none of this means that we have to say that Charlie Kirk said everything perfectly. And especially when you do the sort of thing he did, you’re going to say things that are going to be easily clippable and at times even just unwise. I think there are some of those things floating around. Everything changes a lot more when they’re put in context.

He was doing something that was really difficult, but there was no other way to do what he was trying to do without doing it this way, if that makes sense. You take that risk. He was no dummy. He calculated that risk.

I was actually just talking about this with a friend I was having lunch with, who knew Charlie personally. He was talking about how he would have never wanted the Plexiglas. He would have never wanted the hyper-editing—that’s another way of saying the physical security is the Plexiglas; the virtual security is the high editing and making sure everything is just perfect—because it would have undermined the sort of thing he was trying to accomplish.

The conversations about security and whether it was wise, and like, well yeah, if he wanted the security they said he should have, then it would have been different, but that would have kept him from having the event he wanted to have and the connection that he wanted to have. So I appreciate that, and I think there needs to be an incredible amount of respect for trying to make that attempt.

Many people have noted—Dr. Mohler noted this, I think many others—that he got a lot better at it as he went along. I think he got a lot better at seeing the person that’s right in front of him. He got a lot better at digging below the idea that the person was espousing, understanding that it came from somewhere.

So I appreciate that. And I guess, honestly, there’s a group of people that are more right now among the most guilty of this kind of narrative imposing and refusal to see other things. And that is center-left Christians who assumed he was wrong going into it, believed the narrative, particularly because of his association with the president.

It’s always amazing to me when you see, like, okay, so he was not allowed to be wrong about that. But then there is a complete dismissal of other believers who somehow it’s okay that they don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or the exclusivity of Christ, or that marriage is between a man and woman. The selective outrage to me is really, really striking.

I’m not saying that Charlie Kirk was above critique. He wasn’t. He took plenty of it when he was alive. He’s taken more of it now. But I think the good-faith narrative is winning on this, and part of that is because of the strategy that he employed. He put so much of this out there. You don’t have to wonder.

If you’re sitting here wondering, “What did he believe? Did he really have these sorts of views? Was he really hateful?”—the good news is you can go find out everything you need to know right now, all for yourself. And I’d encourage you to do that.

BROWN: But here’s the thing, people: we are a sound bite culture, and we don’t want to do the work of listening to the whole thing. Because I almost fell into that. I almost fell into that. You know, we had some letters to the editor, and there was that one sentence about black women—you know …

STONESTREET: Well, listen, and I get it. Some of those things are really hard to understand out of context. And a few of them—even in context—are hard to understand, right? There’s got to be a good-faith effort, and there’s not.

I appreciate those people who are trying to promote the good-faith effort. And you will influence many, Myrna, in your own willingness and ability to go and check things out for yourself and come up with a conclusion that acknowledges that the guy’s not perfect, and yet he’s certainly not the person he’s being portrayed to be by many who want to see his legacy lost.

EICHER: John, I want to ask you a personal question, because you do appear in public. I know you don’t travel with burly guys with automatic weapons. You ever worry?

STONESTREET: I don’t really worry. I haven’t really worried. I don’t think I’m that big of a deal. I certainly get hate mail and things like that, but that’s all kind of part of the gig.

I tell you, the people who were really scared, and it was almost to a person, it was wives. There were a lot of scared wives this week. There was a lot of heartbreak for Erica. I mean, some of those images in the days after, of Charlie with his little girl—I got three daughters, man, that breaks your heart.

And one in particular—I can’t even explain this—but some of my best memories are when my daughters, when they were really little, they had those infinitely pliable knees that never got tired. They could always crouch down. And when you would tell them something, and they were studied and locked in on it, at two or three, and you just realize their minds are being captivated.

There’s one image in particular of Charlie and his little girl on the beach when she’s crouched down like that. I don’t know—those are my memories with my daughter, and maybe that was the connection. It’s a sense of loss, and I think a lot of wives were fearful. But no, not personally.

EICHER: John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. Thank you, John.John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. Thank you, John.

STONESTREET: Thank you, both.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Friday, September 19th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: Second chances.

It’s not too late to chase long-deferred dreams—or to face the baggage that holds you back. At least in the movies, it’s not. Angel Studios’ latest film titled The Senior follows the true story of Mike Flynt, who returned to college football at age 59! Here’s reviewer Joseph Holmes.

JOSEPH HOLMES: Faith-based films have occupied the “inspirational melodrama” space since the genre’s explosion in the early 2000s. At times, this has served the genre well, giving audiences hits like War Room and I Can Only Imagine. At other times, these types of films have opened faith-based studios to charges of dishonesty. For example, sometimes the pressure to have a feel-good story trumps the need to portray man’s sinfulness accurately. Angel Studios’ latest film The Senior has a foot in both camps. It’s got plenty of inspiration, but parts still feel a little dishonest.

NEWSCASTER #1: Mike Flynt, age 59, age is just a number.

NEWSCASTER #2: Texas grandfather who’s tearing up the competition, and it’s no pickup game. It’s an NCAA football ...

NEWSCASTER #3: Mike Flynt asked himself that question for 36 years and now he’s finally decided to do something about it.

The film very loosely follows the real-life story of Mike Flynt who, at age 59, reenrolls at his alma mater to finish his senior year of college football. This forces Mike to confront longstanding issues he has with his abusive father. And forces him to face the way those issues have damaged his relationship with his son and wife.

MIKE: Coach, you, uh, you wanted to see me?

COACH: Son, you’re not going to be captain of the team this year.

MIKE: Why not?

COACH: In fact you’ve been kicked out of school.

MIKE: Coach, please don’t kick me off the team–

COACH: –You’re not listening. Not just the team. The school. Saul Ross doesn’t want you here anymore. How many fights since you’ve been here, Michael? 10? 20? 30?

A strong premise and solid performances carry this film. The true story of an older man going back to college football is inspirational. It shows that it’s possible to defy the odds, correct mistakes, give back to the younger generation, and, yes, follow your dreams. Likewise, overcoming the toxic behaviors learned from parents and reconciling with family members you’ve hurt brings tears to the eyes. Where the film hits those beats well, it works.

MIKE: I never finished my senior year.

COACH: Darn right. Why not?

MIKE: I got thrown out for fighting. But I still have that year.

COACH: What do you mean? Eligible for what?

MIKE: To play?

Michael Chiklis—whom I still remember fondly from his role as Ben Grimm in 2005’s Fantastic Four—is both effortlessly charming and believably complex as Mike Flynt. Brandon Lynn plays the son Micah, and their portrayal of a broken father-son relationship is effectively uncomfortable. (Perhaps too effectively, as we’ll discuss in a moment.) Mary Stuart Masterson as Mike’s wife Eileen brings a warm and grounded presence to the film, and she and Chiklis click as a lovely but flawed married couple. Flynt’s relationship with his teammates is infectious, and I would have loved to see more of it.

MIKE: Hey, Jamal. Going pro is a long shot for anyone. But nobody knows if you’re going to get out on that field again but you. You work hard, you get out there again.

JAMAL: How do you know that?

MIKE: You ever met a linebacker my age? I’m back on the field. And when you get out of here, I expect you to be out there rooting for me, right? That first tackle? That’s going to be for you.

The main problem with The Senior is that its feel-good premise and execution too often clash with the difficult issues it brings up. The movie wants us to root for Mike as he tries to finish his last season of college football. But to keep the stakes high, the movie frequently has his wife, and especially his son, calling his dream selfish and irresponsible when the risk of injury is so high. Mom and son make strong arguments. Whenever he’s challenged with these things, Mike’s response is largely just, “I have to do this.” A pattern we are told he learned from his father.

MICAH: Dad, this is exactly what I’m talking about.

MIKE: Come on, Micah. Stop being such a worry wart. I’m following the doctor’s orders.

MICAH: Really? Since when do you follow anyone’s orders? Dad, it’s time to let it go. Just stop it already, please.

MIKE: I can’t.

MICAH: So what, me, Lily, Laine, Mom, we don’t matter? I hope you enjoy playing your game, dad.

Eileen’s defense of her husband and justification for supporting him feels weak. She argues that if he can fix this regret he’ll be able to fix all his others, like his failures as a husband and father. But most people with loved ones addicted to self-centered and irresponsible behavior find that having their choices validated merely encourages them to keep making the same kinds of choices. It doesn’t usually end with them finally apologizing and changing their ways. Likewise, Eileen’s logic strikes me as too close to the argument made in the wider culture that we should uncritically support loved ones in whatever lifestyle they choose.

SAUL: Mike, there’s something I’ve wanted to tell you for a long time.

MIKE: Go on.

SAUL: Well, you know it’s been 35 years and I shouldn’t have taken so long to tell you I’m sorry.

MIKE: You’re sorry?

SAUL: I was a juvenile, dumb as a rock. I got you kicked off the football team, out of school, I deserved a broken nose.

MIKE: No… I’ve been consumed… there hasn’t been a day that’s gone by that I haven’t thought about that day that I lost my mind.

SAUL: You’re sorry?

MIKE: Yeah.

(Both laugh)

You can see many such forced character beats throughout the film. When Mike discovers how his own father came to faith before he died, we’re told through Micah’s voiceover that this created a change in his dad. But we don’t see any significant change; we just have to take Micah’s word for it.

The cumulative result is that the emotional rush of inspiration you want in a movie like this falls relatively flat compared to others in the genre.

The Senior succeeds in enough ways that die-hard fans of inspirational dramas and faith-based films may rule this a touchdown. But those spoiled by better recent entries may find its fumbles are unrecoverable.

I’m Joseph Holmes.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, September 19th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

You know, words don’t always mean what we think they mean…

INIGO: Inconceivable! / You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

…and sometimes two words we use as synonyms are really worlds apart. Here’s George Grant with Word Play for September.

GEORGE GRANT,: Sympathy is an expression of compassion, kind-heartedness, and benevolence for someone who has suffered difficulty, adversity, or grief. It means to come alongside, to care for, or to console the hurting.

Empathy on the other hand involves actively sharing in someone’s emotional distress. It is to enter into their sorrows and woes, to take up their burdens and affronts, or to identify with their causes and agendas. It is to actually feel the afflictions of others—to make their anguish our own—vicariously experiencing their feelings, thoughts.

Sympathy is the English translation of a Biblical term. The Greek word is sympathizo. The root sym means “with, alongside, or together with.” The root páthos means “experience, misfortune, or emotion.” In the New Testament book of Hebrews we read, “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (4:15).

Empathy is a much more recent term—appearing in English for the first time in the early 20th century. The root em means “feeling-in” or “feeling into.” It is a translation from the German word einfühlung, a neologism created by the Austrian philosopher Robert Vischer. He coined it for his 1873 PhD dissertation on aesthetics to describe how people experience a piece of art, music, or literature so profoundly that they actually feel the emotions the artist intended to represent. The word was later transposed into a kind of interdisciplinary moral value by Theodor Lipps, Sigmund Freud’s philosophical mentor. Thus, in Freudian psychology empathy became an essential ethical virtue.

When Rigney published a book about the necessity of Biblically discerning the strategic differences between empathy and sympathy it led to great social media furor. There was much huffing and puffing, much empathetic kvetching and caviling. Why?

According to author Joe Rigney, “Sympathy willingly joins with sufferers in their pain.” But “Empathy makes their suffering our own in a more universal and totalizing way.” As a result, he says, empathy can all too often become “weaponized pity,” taking up “another’s offense,” and “defaulting to manipulation.” Indeed, it is, he says, the impulse driving much of modern progressivism’s cultural agenda. And that perhaps hit a little too close to home for some.

When Rigney published a book about the necessity of Biblically discerning the strategic differences between empathy and sympathy it led to great social media furorno little social media furor was raised. There was much huffing and puffing, much empathetic kvetching and caviling. The whole episode has been a reminder of J. Gresham Machen’s quip that “The things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”

I sympathize with that. 

I’m George Grant.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to name the crew who put the week’s programs together:

David Bahnsen, Hunter Baker, Janie B. Cheaney, Emma Eicher, Collin Gabarino, George Grant, Kim Henderson, Joseph Holmes, Travis Kircher, Brad Littlejohn, Lindsay Mast, Mary Muncy, Mary Reichard, Jenny Rough, Jenny Lind Schmitt, John Stonestreet, and Cal Thomas

Thanks also to our breaking news crew: Kent Covington, Christina Grube, Steve Kloosterman, and Daniel Devine.

And thanks to the Moonlight Maestros, staying up late so the program’s ready early: Carl Peetz and Benj Eicher …

Paul Butler is executive producer.

Harrison Watters is Washington producer, Kristen Flavin is features editor, and Les Sillars is editor-in-chief. I’m Nick Eicher.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

If you enjoy this podcast, help a friend find it, too. Send a link to a favorite story or the whole podcast right from your app. It’s a simple click that helps the program grow.

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: “Scoffers set a city aflame, but the wise turn away wrath. If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” —Proverbs 29:8, 9

A reminder to worship at a Bible-believing church this weekend. Encourage others, and be encouraged. And Lord willing, we’ll be right back here on Monday.

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.