Jackie the eagle, P-22, and the allure of celebrity wildlife

I called for an audit of our homelessness programs in Los Angeles and now have been removed as the chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee. I might be getting punished for running against Karen Bass, but Angelinos are the ones who are paying the price for these political games. The mayor has blocked our independently elected city controller from doing an audit of her signature homelessness program Inside Safe, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars of the public's money, and still we've seen homelessness go up citywide. Los Angeles City Council member and mayoral candidate Nithya Raman in a video posted yesterday. Rahman was removed from her position as the chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee on the City Council by Council President Marquis Harris Dawson. Rahman, who's running for mayor, says the move was politically motivated because Harris Dawson is an ally of Mayor Karen Bass. Rahman also pointed to the recent homelessness count, which showed more people living on the streets now. as evidence of Bass's mismanagement. However, new reporting from the Los Angeles Times shows that there was a serious error in that count, and the numbers are not as bad as initially reported. Doug Smith is one of the reporters who broke the story, and he joins me now. Welcome. Hi, Madeline. My pleasure. Well, before we turn to this homelessness count and the issues you've uncovered, let me get your thoughts on Nithya Raman's removal as chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee. What led to her removal from her post and how will that shape the council moving forward? Well, the ostensibly the plan, the Mayor Karen Bass's plan was to divide the committee, which was, as you said, housing and homelessness into two committees, one for housing and one for homelessness. I think people who watch City Hall certainly see politics behind this and it was going to be a really... rough mayoral campaign the um how will affect the the the job being done i don't know homelessness It is really a very different thing from housing. They're related. But there's different sources of money and housing is a very complicated issue. And it goes far beyond homelessness. All right. So let's talk about what you uncovered this data glitch in the latest count by Lhasa. And that, tell us more about what you found. So the homeless count, which is conducted once a year in January, is a massive effort that involves thousands of volunteers who cover essentially every block in the county and count tents and cars that they believe people are living in. And then those are processed through information that's gathered from a large survey into numbers of people. And we've always known that there is error in that there's statistical error in the survey and there's

counting error with people who are driving around in cars or sometimes walking, just counting the things they see. But we always assumed that the number listed as being in shelters was a very solid number because it's drawn from the homeless management information system, which is a big database that records every contact between the system and homeless people living on the street. And shelters collect this information and Lhasa picks it up directly. But it turns out that we learned this year that there are some shelters that don't connect to HMIS to the database. And Lhasa tries to get the data from them. And sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. And this year, that occurred with a fairly large shelter in Skid Row, which houses from 6 to 700 people generally. And it wasn't in the count last year and it was this year. So the difference made it appear that there was an increase of 24% in the sheltered count in Skid Row and that somehow 600 new beds had been added. So if that were the case, that would be a new story and we'd want to report on it. Well, in digging into it, it turned out that they weren't new beds. They just, they were there last year, but they hadn't been counted. Okay, so the initial numbers showed a citywide increase of homelessness of 3.4%. And a lot of that was driven by the downtown numbers, including this. the Union Rescue Missions numbers. Now that they've been revised, what is the overall number? Well, they haven't been revised. Lhasa doesn't revise the numbers. We have only, we've done a simulation and said, in effect, if you took these, if you had counted these beds last year, the number increased this year would have been more like 1.9%. cutting it maybe 40, 45%. Okay, that's a big difference. So why wouldn't Lhasa revise the numbers if indeed there was an error in the count? Well, I think Lassa's point and insuffer point is that this is a large process that attempts to make statistical order out of sort of the messiest element of life in Los Angeles. And It's been reported for years and years that there is error, but it's a methodology that Lhasa has created and has to follow it. It's a HUD requirement of the federal government to conduct this count, and HUD sets general rules, and each area creates their own methodology. And it's a methodology they have to stick with. I think the underlying lesson here is that this is, there is always error in this count, sometimes more, sometimes less. Right. And to that point, you also point out that the decreases that the mayor has heralded over the previous two years were not as great as that were initially reported as well. Explain that. That's right, because these beds, this large shelter is called a union rescue mission.

And it's been in downtown Los Angeles for 135 years serving homeless people. But it's had a fraught relationship with the government because it's a faith-based organization. And so it's kind of gone back and forth as to whether it reports it. It did report in 2022 the number of people living there. And so it didn't report in 2023 and 2024 or in 2025. So there was a part of the decline was that it reported the numbers in 2022, but not in 2023. Okay, so the decline was not as great as the mayor would have wanted. She said it was a 5.5% decrease. Yes, it would have been, again, a marginal worsening of the decline, maybe a percent. All right, so maybe around 4%. So Lhasa has been under a lot of criticism. The county has pulled funding and some people in the city want to pull funding from it. What will this do for losses credibility? I imagine it's not great. We have been reporting for years of problems with the homeless count. And we've also reported on those audits. And losses, losses credibility is, at this point, it didn't have a high level of credibility to be damaged. In fact, I'm covering a case in federal court now in which Lhasa is fighting for its life because the federal government has suspended it as a federal contractor. So this is just one more of a litany of issues that have come up with Lhasa. And what would happen if the city decided to pull its contribution to Lhasa and create its own agency? That would be the end of Lhasa, which was created in 1993 as a part of a settlement between the city and county. which were fighting over how the city accesses services provided by the county. And it would kind of set the region back to pre-1993 when the city and county each did their own thing and there was tension between them. Right. All right. So the stories are revolving. Doug Smith, senior writer for the Los Angeles Times, thank you for joining us. Thank you.

Coming up, how L.A. 28 priced the Olympics tickets. They're the most expensive ever, on average. But they could have been even more so. That's next on press play. There's the story you hear, and then there's the story behind it. Who's telling it? What are their motivations? What's at stake? I'm Brian Reed, and on my show from KCRW, question everything, we tell stories about power and influence and the ways that people are manipulating the truth. And we do that by talking to the people living with the consequences. My feed was flooded without my consent. I was targeted by Instagram. Listen to question everything, wherever you get your podcasts. This is Press Play on 89.9 KCRW. I'm Madeline Brand. Another window to buy 2028 L.A. Olympics tickets opened this week, but you may have noticed they're pretty expensive. Tickets to popular events like gymnastics, basketball, track and field are selling for hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars. The most expensive tickets to the opening ceremony cost more than five grand. The prices are the highest in Olympic history. often twice as expensive as tickets to the Olympics two years ago in Paris. Henry Bushnell is a senior writer for The Athletic, where they did a data analysis of the ticket prices for L.A.'s Olympics. Welcome. Thanks, Mabel. I'm good to be here. Well, somewhat like the World Cup, the organizers of L.A. 28 have not publicly released a full catalog of ticket prices, but there are spreadsheets around, and the athletic independently confirmed prices for a lot of events. What are you seeing? Yeah, so there's a very wide range of ticket prices, I would say. You know, organizers made a big deal about the one million tickets that are priced at $28 a piece, which are often for, you know, lesser profile events. And they're obviously the lesser seats at these venues. But then the prices at the high end go into the thousands of dollars for, you know, dozens of events. These are for the best seats, obviously. So there's a wide range, and that's obviously by design because they want to give, you know, some people a shot at, you know, more affordable tickets, but they also want to make a lot of money and they think they can make a lot of money. Is that how it normally works with the ticket pricing at Olympics? Like in Paris, how did it work? The same way? To some extent, yes, right? Like, you're always going to have some lower-priced tickets. You know, I believe, you know, the way they've done it is for Paris. the cheapest ticket started at 24 euros. You know, it's, it's, you know, they, they do it with some symbolism. The year, because that was Paris 2024. For Los Angeles, 2028, we've got, you know, $28 as the cheapest ticket. And then, yes, in Paris, like the, the top ticket to the more attractive events were costing several hundreds or in some cases, I believe, I don't have it all the top of my head, but I believe, you know, over $1,000. But.

The top tickets here are even higher than they were four years ago by a wide margin. So to some extent, this is how it always is. But, you know, these games similar to how the World Cup did, as you mentioned, are kind of adapting to the American market in a lot of ways where people are accustomed to paying a lot for sporting events. What are the most expensive events to attend? So the most expensive sports, I would say it's unsurprising, right? The later stage basketball games, the gymnastics finals, the track and field finals, and the swimming finals. Those are probably the, like, if you're looking for the high end, beyond the two ceremonies, the opening and closing ceremony, which are the two highest price events. Overall, yeah, we're looking at basketball, track, gymnastics, swimming. And then you get into, you know, baseball and softball, soccer, the soccer finals are pretty expensive. For sports like basketball and soccer, the group stage is a bit more affordable, you know, these early round games. And, you know, other sports like volleyball where there's a lot of games, handball, again, you see a pretty wide range between the later stages and the beginning stages. But, you know, for an event like gymnastics, right, where there's only one women's all around final, right? And there's only a few event finals. That's where you're seeing the highest ticket prices. And those are in the thousands, right? Yeah, those are over. So for gymnastics and for gymnastics final or for a track and field evening session. So that's when, you know, when there are often multiple metal events. We're talking over $2,000 for the, for the top ticket to those events. And then it progressively, you know, there are the way they do this rather than. by specific you're you're not buying a specific seat in a specific row it's it's priced by category and there are anywhere from four different categories to sometimes like for baseball there's 10 different categories so it progressively gets cheaper and there are you know most of the tickets probably are in the hundreds of dollars but those are also the tickets that get snapped up right away when people get access via these ticket jobs, via these lotteries, right? So oftentimes the ones remaining are the ones that cost thousands of dollars. And is anything put in place to stop like the mass buying up of these tickets for later resale? Yes. So there is a limit of 12 tickets per person, per buyer. Now, I'm sure there are lots of resellers, ticket brokers who are trying to find ways around that. And LA28, I'm sure, has lots of ways that they are trying to limit that, probably with some success, maybe not with 100% success. But yes, they are trying to limit that. And as with the World Cup, it's very difficult to know how successful they've been so far.

Right. And so speaking of the World Cup, there was a lot of angst and complaint about the high ticket prices, but I guess people paid them in the final analysis because a lot of people came here and to other cities and, you know, filled the stadiums for these matches. So is that what's going to happen that people will complain and then just say, okay, I'll put on my credit card and figure it out later? Yeah, I think so. Look, and part of it is, some of it is what you just mentioned. Some of it is, look, it does price a lot of people out. So, you know, there are lots of people will complain. Some of those people will, in fact, not be able to attend the event and otherwise would have because of the ticket prices. But also lots of people will complain. And then, yeah, they'll buy the tickets anyway because it's... Look, it is a once-in-a-generation event in a lot of ways. And for people in the Los Angeles area, it's probably a once-in-a-lifetime event, you know, if they weren't around back in 1984. So... It is a super appealing, attractive, premium event, as the organizers might put it. And so I will think, you know, I would be shocked if there are many empty seats at these Olympic Games. And frankly, some of the prices probably could have even been slightly higher and the venues would still be full. Really? Yeah, I think so. Okay. How do they even come up with it? Do they just think, okay, this is the sweet spot of what people will accept? So they have done... They have done a significant analysis of what the best price point would be. And, you know, I believe Allison Katz-Mayfield, who's running this, you know, the ticketing operation for the organizing committee, has spoken about this, about just like how much market research went into this. And look, it's not solely about maximizing revenue, right? I'm sure they're somewhat sensitive to... the public reaction that this would get. But to some extent, they're trying to make, you know, as much revenue as possible here because this is one of the main revenue streams for the organizing committee. So, like, when you think about it from that perspective, they're trying to... They're trying to get ticketing to help pay for these Olympics so that they don't have to stretch in other areas and ultimately so that taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for the games. So they looked into what people in the U.S. typically pay for other sports, previous Olympics, and probably a lot of other things that I'm not mentioning here that they'll never talk about publicly. And they came up with these numbers that they thought.

They thought that these are the prices that people or enough people will pay for these events. And explain the 24% service fee. What is that? This is confusing. Look, service fees are, it's not unheard of in ticketing, and this is part of the justification that the organizing committee gives. That said, like for the World Cup, they didn't break out the ticket prices into, okay, this portion is a service fee and this portion is taxes, and this other portion is the... The ticket price, you know, it was just one price. So, you know, they say it's for things like, you know, running the ticketing platform and the processing of payments and customer service and things like that. It's, I don't know, it's a bit of a weird distinction. I suppose you could argue it's actually more transparent. And you could say that like part of the, you know, this service fee. proportion of the price is going to all that stuff and the rest is going to the broader Olympics and the entertainment that you're paying for. But I think it would have been totally fine to just like put one number on it and say here's the price you're paying fans. So it's, I don't know, it's, yeah, in some ways it's standard, but it's also a bit of a understandably a shock to people when they go on and see that they're paying hundreds of dollars in service fees. Yeah, because Ticketmaster is what, five or seven percent? Like, it's a lot less. Right. The 24% is certainly eye-opening. It sure is. And as far as we know, this money is not going to be going into anyone's pockets, right? This is all supposed to go into the production of the event. the events. Right, exactly. It's to balance the budget, essentially, right? And that's what makes this such an interesting conversation, I think. You know, for the World Cup, part of FIFA's justification for the World Cup ticket prices was that all this money they were making was going to go, you know, to the development of soccer around the world. But it still felt a bit extractive because they were coming into the U.S. market, making all this money, and then taking the money back and spreading it around the world. Whereas here, like, it's Los Angeles that is on the hook if they don't make a specific amount of money, right? So you're kind of balancing, A, we want tickets to be affordable so that people can attend, but we also want... tickets to make us a bunch of money so that tax so that everybody in the in the area or in the state you know doesn't have to doesn't have to essentially fund these Olympics so yes that that is the that is certainly part of the equation and that's in theory like where all this money is going Henry Bushnell senior writer for the athletic where he examined LA 2028 ticket prices thank you so much thank you thank you

In Iran, the family of a murder victim can demand blood money, that's payment from the murderer, or demand that they be executed. A new documentary examines what happens when a woman who killed her abusive husband has to pay money she doesn't have to her husband's family. Most send, the son says it over and over again. All they see in my father is a bundle of cash. They see this dead man, and instead of thinking... Anything else, they just are like, here's an opportunity to make some money. The director of an eye for an eye is here next on Press Play. This is press play on 89.9 KCRW. I'm Adlon Brand. In Iran, there's a practice called Dia. The family of a murder victim can demand the assailant either be executed or pay them what's called blood money. A new documentary tells the story of a woman who killed her abusive husband. She spent 14 years in prison. And then after she's released, she has to either pay her dead husband's family blood money or... be executed. It is their choice. The movie is called An Eye for an Eye, and it's written by Tanaz Eshagian, and she joins me now. Hi, Tanaz. Hi, Madeline. Nice to be here. Great to have you. All right, so there are questions about exactly how this crime took place, but tell us the story from your main character's perspective, the woman Tahiti. She was in a really abusive marriage. with a opium-addicted man who beat her up, beat up the kids, was threatening to sell one of the daughters for more drugs. I mean, just really, really terrible. And one night he came home unexpectedly when he was supposed to be working out of town for like a few days. A tire that one of her daughters said to her, you know, mom, no one is expecting. our dad to be home right now, this is an opportunity to get rid of him. And so she claims that with the help of her two young daughters at that point, they were teenagers, he was high on opium, half asleep, and they took a scarf, put it under his neck and strangled them and each one pulled from each direction. Wow. The daughters ended up in prison as well for a period of time. She says, you know, as the adult, she's really responsible and all that. But she definitely adds the fact that the daughters helped her, which made, I think, a lot of people feel it's even, like, more disturbing. But whether they did or they did not, I think she claimed they did so as to generate more sympathy to be like, look how horrible it is that, you know, even my daughter is jointed.

And one of the daughters is out of the country, and so she's not part of the film. But the other daughter is living with her now. And what does she say about the crime? Her kids, the daughter and the son that you meet in the film, really by the time we met them and were filming and they were all in the process of trying to raise blood money to save their mom, they really. felt that the mom was ultimately justified. And they supported her. And all they wanted at this point was to save the mom from hanging. You know, at some point, the son says when he's out trying to raise blood money, he says to a woman at an organization, you know, I hated my mom. Like, how could you do this? But I realized, you know what? She actually sacrificed herself for all of us. This is Mosin, who was six years old at the time. Correct. And ended up in an orphanage. You do raise the issue that there was possibly a man involved in this killing and burial because the husband is buried underneath the floor of their apartment. Right. And so the authorities questioned, well, how could a woman and her two teenage daughters have done that? Right. dug up the concrete, a floor and put the body in there and cover it up. Exactly. You know, you wonder, like, do they have a point or are they just being chauvinists? Right. You know, those moments, which I really appreciate it. And were you ever able to definitively answer that question? No. That's the beauty of it. I mean, I have my, I have my, my, what I feel, but then I'm still not sure. And what do you feel? I'm telling you. Okay. Well, it definitely ends. It definitely does not resolve it. It's ambiguous. I can say that. Yeah, but isn't that kind of great? It's like life. Talk about this practice of DIA and describe what it is in Iran. Basically, if it's a private murder, if it's not, if it's a murder between like two families or it's not a political situation, someone has not done something as offensive to the state or it's not like offensive to the public, it's not like some drug dealer. Those situations where you're held for a crime, there's no negotiating your way out of it. Completely up to the government, they can. throw you in prison for as long as they like, execute, what have you, as you probably have seen in the news, unfortunately. However, if it's a private matter, if it's between two families, like in this case, a husband and wife, or if it's, you know, like a park ranger and someone that mistakenly shot at him thinking it's a bear, like...

Those are things that have nothing to do with politics. They don't harm anybody else. And so there's Sharia law allows for essentially a revenge, redemption, retribution. It's retribution. And it apparently in the Quran, there's a whole section where it says flat out like an ear for an ear, a toe for a toe, an eye for an eye. And that's where that expression comes from. This is law. This is law in Iran. I believe it's also in Saudi Arabia and maybe other countries. What makes it interesting is, as you see in the film and the anti-execution activist actually states, is that it gives people a way out. It's actually an opening. So she comes into this space and stops executions. By getting in the middle of it, trying to convince the family that does want revenge or is very angry, she tries, as you see, to calm them down and say, you know, let's negotiate. Let's get you some money. And then there's a whole economy around it. So the family, Andy Beshear and then later his son, they say that they don't have money and they need a certain amount. And initially they asked for a very large amount, and then this negotiator kind of whittles them down. For a family like Andy Beshear's, because they're not financially well off. and their brother has already passed away. They see at least an opportunity. I mean, Mosen, the son says it over and over again. All they see in my father is a bundle of cash. At the same time, the matriarch of the family, she just wants revenge. She wants... Yeah. Well, it's her son. This woman killed her son. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So no money would satisfy her. Probably, but, I mean, you know, it's a patriarchy. So how much does she ultimately really matter? And what she really wants to do is just get her anger out. But she probably at this point, she's not going to tell her son or her grandson, like, kill her and don't, you know, she's going to do what they want to do. And then Tahare doesn't have any money. And they arrive at a sum of, what, like $45,000? More like 40, but that was interesting because as we're making the film, the real is like dropping and going, I don't know if you know the inflation situation anymore. It was like every day it was a different, it meant a different amount. But essentially, yeah, $40,000. Essentially $40,000, which she doesn't have. She has zero money. Correct. So they're actually negotiating over the price. of a human. I know, well, that's what, that's completely what attracted me to it. I was like, you can't, this is incredible.

They're negotiating. And one of the larger aha moments I had was, I'm looking at this footage and I thought to myself, you know, I wonder if the economy in Iran was doing really well and that oil money was really pouring in into the hands of the average person. I wonder if there would be more executions. because people might probably be like, no, I don't forgive you. You did this. Whereas actually a failing economy results in a lot of families choosing blood money because they really need it. Amazing. And so tell us how they think they're going to raise this money. I mean, she very well knows that there is this like, essentially a cottage industry around this. So she goes to the anti-execution activist's office and you see her saying, you know, I can't do anything. I can't raise this. Where am I going to go? And the activist saying, you have to take a few steps. So what's really happening there is her saying, you know you have to raise this money for me and the activist saying lady you got to help a little bit right i mean that's that's basically what's happening and so she she goes where she can But on some level is like hoping, you know, these folks that care are going to come to her rescue. And using this line that, you know what, go ahead and execute me. I don't care is partly might be how she feels, but she's also using that line to sort of get the other side to lower their price. It's like you don't scare me. I'm happy to die. So it's actually saying lower your price. Right. And then on the other side, they're pretty stuck in, too. They say, I'm happy to kill you. The money doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not going to lower my price. That's negotiations, too. Yeah. I think this might be resembling it. This just crossed my mind, the negotiations that the Trump administration is currently having with the Iranians. This is how it's probably going. It's like, yeah, no, we're not opening. We'll take half the street. I'm not kidding. Well, to me, I mean, but that's how Iranians negotiate. It wasn't so serious. It's like, yeah, I don't need it. It feels like negotiating over a rug. I know. I know people say that. But it's, you know, that the truth is, though, I, there is something. About, I have to say, maybe it's stereotypical, but it's true. Iranians are incredible at negotiating. And it doesn't end. Like, they're still negotiating in the courtroom at the last scene. Right. That was an extraordinary scene. It never ends. The negotiation will go until you get to, like, the hanging rope. You know, you know, it's funny because I was watching it and then with...

a family member and they said, look, what's the difference between that and what we do in the United States with executions? And I had to think about it. Well, yeah, I mean, it's more executions, you can say in general. are pretty extreme. I think the part that makes it different here is that there is a system that allows a way out of execution through money. And so at some point, the son, Mosen, is talking to his cousin who's demanding the money and goes, you know, I'd really respect you more if you would like hang my mother. But all you want is money. Like, this is not honorable. It wasn't, as far as I could tell watching the movie, it wasn't just about the money, that they felt deeply wronged. You felt that? Okay. I mean, everyone has their own takeaway. It really depends on where you're coming from. Like, I had an interview two weeks ago with an Iranian radio station, actually, based in L.A. One of the first things he said to me was like, it was so Iranian. He's like, they really milked it. The guy's life isn't worth 1,000. Wow. And I was like, that, and the Iranian audience, everyone's thinking that, you know. So it's really a matter of, if you're on Iranian, you're probably going to watch this and be like, clearly this is all they want is money at this point. It's not like they're happy their brother died or like this is their situation or, but they're wronged and all that is secondary to here as an opportunity. But then you see the mother of the dead man and she is utterly bereaved. Oh, she did, yeah. Does she want any of this to be happening? No. It's not one or the other, you know, but she's not in charge. The men are. Yeah, exactly. But they will use her bereavement to be like, we're not going to cut an easy deal. It's all used for negotiating. You're so not Iranian. It's so sweet. I'm so not Iranian. But I'm fascinated. But it's so fascinating. It's like, think of survival mode. You know, it's like emotions are a luxury. Look, here in the United States, we sue for wrongful death, right? Families can sue. and win money. Okay, there you go. So it's not dissimilar. Right. So it's worth thinking about that in how it's couched and what we find acceptable or not. And I thought that was really fascinating, that it did provoke these questions of, okay, so what's the difference between that and the execution here in the United States? What's the difference between that and suing for wrongful death? Like, it's not dissimilar. Right. Yeah. Yeah.

And they see it as an opportunity. It's like it kind of is ridiculous because it's not like the guy, the person's going to come back or what have you, but it does apparently calm you a little bit. Right. So that's that's the idea that it calms you. Like it's something you feel like there was some justice. How much did you know about this whole practice before you started the movie? Not a lot, but it's, I get the thinking. I understand the, like, what people are, you know, haggling over what, like, I, because I'm Iranian and I understand the, like, I get what they want. Like, I see, I understand, you know, and I understand the hierarchies of what matters and what doesn't matter. And, you know, like, for instance, for Tahre was really important to her to not be seen as some adulterer. Yeah. You know, that was terrible. Like, that would be to walk around alive and be labeled as some sort of loose adulterer. She, you know, she'd rather be the murderer. And so that is, that is an avenue we really, I was like, I have to explore this because this is something I understand about this culture and it's absolutely fascinating. And so we really brought that out. You know, we kind of got her to kind of say it. Her lawyer kind of explained the thinking and that sort of thing. So there are, like, I'm not necessarily sitting there reading the law, but I understand the cultural decisions people are making and why. And were you ever able to determine if there was this other guy? Was he there? Or was he in the picture? Was he there that night? I mean, who knows? This is very, very Iranian, very elliptical. Yes. I mean, what do I think? I mean, honestly, though, who knows? Well, it is really a fascinating window into Iranian culture. Thank you. An eye for an eye playing for a week at the Lemley Royal beginning this Friday, or you can stream it after that on jolt.com. Tanaz Eshagian is the director and writer, and thank you for joining us. Thank you.

Lots of people are mourning the death of Jackie, the bald eagle. She had become an internet celebrity. There have been other animal celebrities, P-22, of course, the mountain lion, Neil the seal, Jimothy, the raccoon, why we love them next on press play. This is press play on 89.9 KCRW. I'm Madeline Brand. Jackie, the beloved big bear bald eagle, died yesterday after a mysterious illness. She was a celebrity. A live stream of the nest that Jackie occupied with her mate's shadow had millions of viewers. Fans watched her in shadow incubate eggs, raise eaglets, teach them to fly. But last month, Jackie was rescued in poor condition on the shores of Big Bear Lake after a fight with two younger eagles. She had anemia. She became critically ill. Extended testing at the Ohio Raptor Center could not determine the cause. Many of Jackie's fans here in L.A. are mourning her death like she was, well, a human being. We've been here before. The death of the Mountain Lion P.22 nearly four years ago prompted a similar, perhaps greater outpouring of grief. Why do we connect so strongly with these animals? K-SRW reporter Brandon Reynolds is writing a book about P-22 and the phenomenon of celebrity wildlife. Welcome to press play, Brandon. Hello, Madeline. All right, Celebrity Wildlife. This is not only an L.A. thing, is it? No, there are so many celebrities. I think California does have... Quite a few of them. I mean, we had Humphrey the Whale. No, I don't know. It's pretty, it's pretty, the West Coast has got a lot. There's Fat Bear Week up in Alaska. Oh, yeah. We cover that like it's a major news event. Oh, I know. There's a Discord server where people follow that like it's a soap opera. Who stole? Who's salmon? You know, there's. There's always some drama, and we can pour it into even the most natural events. But, yeah, we had, you know, P-22 was exceptional because there's not a lot of Apex predators that... that found a home in the middle of a major city and stuck around for reasons that continue to be interesting and mysterious. I know. He was there in Griffith Park for, what, 10 years? Yeah, yeah. Amazing. Yeah, first broke on the scene in 2012. And, you know, so it was almost exactly 10 years from when he was, quote, unquote, discovered to when he died in December of 2022. Yeah. And then there was that big memorial service at the Greek theater, like thousands of people turned out. It was sold out. Oh, yeah. It was the event of the season. It certainly was. So, yeah, well, and P22, though, he, I guess I'm going to say it, he was lionized. And, sorry. But also he was turned into, he was anthropomorphized. He was called a lonely bachelor because.

He had left his original habitat. He was called, you know, Brave for crossing two freeways. People thought of him in human terms. Yeah, yeah, definitely. It was easy to do in the sense that people could recognize, here's somebody who came from some other town, just trying to make his name, and he was isolated, he couldn't get a date, and lived his whole life, just kind of doing his own thing. And then being strangely, you know, for a mountain lion, and they're famously shy of people. The kind of mysterious thing about him was that he... Was interested in people, or at least tolerated them enough to, you know, cruise through their neighborhoods at night. And that's fairly unusual. And I don't, you know, the... Researchers I've talked to have been like, I don't know that we'll ever see another one like that. But it's one of those things that distinguishes a specific animal, specific individual, from the whole species, right? It's like, oh, they do have personalities. They have preferences. And his story fits so neatly into the kind of L.A. beauty, celebrity thing that, you know. Well, he was quite handsome. He was very handsome. The Brad Pitt of Mountain Lines. Those golden eyes. And also, he was captured on camera. So he was also an on-camera celebrity. Ring cameras would find him in people's garages or driveways. And then also with Jackie and Sparrow, there was a live stream of them. So how much of this is the technology that's turning these animals into something more than just animals? Oh, I think 100%. I mean, I think with P22, you know, he came on the scene right at the sort of early days of ring. His first. Big appearance outside of the LA Times was in National Geographic when Steve Winter captured, you know, which is now the famous picture of him in front of the Hollywood sign, and that sort of told the whole story. But, you know, after that, right, it was like him showing up on ring camera or maybe a trail camera or the sort of infamous one when he had gotten Mange and it sort of looks like a DUI picture of a celebrity that has been pulled over after a very serious. night. But then with the bald eagles, you know, that was any time you wanted, you could tune in and see what they were doing or not. So that access, I think, is a big part of why we identify with these animals if we can feel some sense of connection, but also kind of ownership. Like I can tuck into these.

friends stories whenever they want to see if the ravens got to their eggs um you know see if they're squabbling about something you know there's there's all these ways in which we can sort of possess and and spend time with them and that also of course extends to like making merch you know if you talk to anybody in seattle right now they're driven insane by the abundance of jimithy paraphernalia songs and t-shirts and oh yeah i have uh been toying with getting a Jimethe shirt. They're very cute. We got one in our household. You know, I really have a soft spot for him, even though in general, I'm a little leery of raccoons. But so are there any downsides to anthropomorphizing these animals, or is it just kind of fun and actually good for them because we take care of them? It's, it is the question for wildlife biologists, for conservation. Historically, we have always. kept them separate. You know, these are animals. They're lesser than us. They have these things that they do. And, you know, so we observe them dispassionately. Otherwise, we'll inflict our biases on them. But, you know, things have changed in the last 10, 15, 20 years. There's a lot of research about how animals, more animals than we ever thought, use language. They use tools. Bees, play. You know, I mean, it's the kind of knowledge on the natural world that's opening up is really. fascinating. And so I think there is a shift toward a kind of tentative acceptance of anthropomorphizing. It's a double-edged sword, really. On the one hand, you know, you get people are more likely to donate. They're more likely to take an interest in the individual story rather than like the whole species. But on the other, we're humans. And so we'll. pour all kinds of human qualities into animals that don't necessarily apply. So figuring out how to balance that, I think is the kind of trick for, you know, for nature communicators like myself. Yeah. Well, also negative associations, especially when it comes to coyotes. They're called Wiley and... In general, I think people, maybe they appreciate that we have coyotes on our streets but don't really like them because of the threat they pose to our pets. Yeah. Yeah, it depends on how we like to have them, but there's also a sense of control, right? We like having them in our space as long as, you know, this old narrative of like, well, we control nature, right? L.A. is... has been carved out of nature when, in fact, of course, it's always still working on us. And so I think as long as they live conveniently, and, you know, P-22 was very convenient for most of his life. He was only eating deer. And... Madeline raccoons. And a koala. And he ate part of a koala and decided that was not to his taste. But yeah. So, you know, once they sort of step out of line and intrude on our way of life, eat our pets, you know, cause some problems, then all of a sudden people start to renegotiate that relationship. Yeah.

Right. So how do you feel about them yourself? How do you feel about Jackie passing? I'll give you a moment. I think that, you know, it's pretty funny because like with P-22, I've spent a lot of time with his story trying to like negotiate my own feelings about it because, you know, he never cared about us. Like he's a cat. He's doing his thing. The Eagles obviously didn't know we were there. And, you know, I think that. The takeaway is that if it helps people learn to love nature more, then I am all for it. So keep it up. Okay. Okay. Sir will be your reporter. Brandon Reynolds writing a book about P-22 and the phenomenon of celebrity wildlife. Thank you. Thank you, Madeline. Thanks for listening. I'm Madeline Brand. And I'll be back with you again tomorrow.