{"id":1215836,"date":"2025-02-23T23:23:48","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T23:23:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/pt\/?p=1215836"},"modified":"2025-02-23T23:23:48","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T23:23:48","slug":"internet-culture-creators-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/pt\/internet-culture-creators-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Internet Culture, Creators & News"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n
\n

This is the script for the \u2018infinite scroll podcast\u2019 episode: \u201cCelebrity Blind Items: The History, Popularity & Ethical Implications of Unverified Claims.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Over the years online, most of us have probably come across a blind item at some point, even if we didn\u2019t realise it. These pieces of gossip about public figures\u2014where everyone involved stays anonymous\u2014have become a big part of celebrity culture. Whether it\u2019s about a pop star\u2019s relationship status or an influencer\u2019s financial struggles, blind items cover it all\u2014and no public figure is off-limits.<\/p>\n

For those who aren\u2019t fully familiar with blind items, it\u2019s just what you\u2019d expect. It\u2019s not your typical gossip or news where we know exactly who or what is being talked about. Instead, it\u2019s more like a riddle or puzzle, dropping hints about a person or situation without revealing all the details. The clues could be something as vague as \u201cA-list YouTuber\u201d or \u201cactor\/writer\/director,\u201d or more specific, like \u201cthe influencer behind a coffee company,\u201d which many of us would instantly link to Emma Chamberlain.<\/p>\n

There are several reasons why someone might choose to leak a story through a blind item instead of using a name. It could be a fear of being sued by a celebrity for defamation, not wanting to be the whistleblower, or simply avoiding the heat that comes with making such a claim. Whatever the reason, these posts have given pop culture enthusiasts unprecedented insights into celebrities and their lives\u2014or perhaps more accurately, the lives we\u2019ve created for them.<\/p>\n

Origins of the Blind Item<\/h4>\n

It\u2019s well-established that the blind item originated in the early 19th century, initially used as a form of blackmail. However, the exact origins of the blind item remain unclear. Some sources suggest it began across the Parisian press. However, a majority credit<\/a> a man named William d\u2019Alton Mann, who published a magazine called Town Topics<\/em> in New York, as the pioneer of the phenomenon. Town Topics<\/em> was probably the equivalent of today\u2019s gossip magazines\u2014think People<\/em> or Page Six<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Town Topics] was a weekly magazine equally loathed, loved, and feared by the moneyed class of the Gilded Age,\u201d Joe Pompeo writes<\/a> for Town & Country Magazine<\/em>. \u201cUnder Mann\u2019s stewardship, Town Topics became both a trenchant chronicler of the one percent and a vehicle for Mann to join its ranks. Members of the elite\u2026 paid sums with the expectation that Mann would keep their peccadilloes out of his publication\u201d<\/p>\n

Since then, blind items have gone through brief periods of revival. In a 1970s edition of Ladies\u2019 Home Journal, American novelist and screenwriter Truman Capote noted that blind items were particularly popular in the 1930s and 1940s, for instance. But the modern obsession with blind items really took off in the 90s, fuelled by the rise of gossip blogs and tabloids.<\/p>\n

The 90s and 2000s were a transformative era for pop culture with the birth of blogging. While not all of the iconic blogs focused solely on celebrities, many became the go-to source for inside scoops about the most popular stars. Blogs like Gawker<\/em>\u2014launched in 2002\u2014and outlets like TMZ<\/em>, Just Jared<\/em>, and Perez Hilton<\/em>, all of which opened in 2005, were relentless in covering celebrity relationships, rumours, and scandals.<\/p>\n

Blind Items in the Online World\u00a0<\/h4>\n

Dubbed the \u201cTabloid Decade,\u201d the 2000s saw celebrities relying on these outlets for visibility, even as the attention often crossed into invasive and uncomfortable territory. Women, in particular, were frequently trapped in a harsh cycle of public scrutiny.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But by the mid-2000s, as Anne Helen Petersen wrote for BuzzFeed News<\/em><\/a>, celebrities had become \u201clargely beholden\u201d to paparazzi and gossip blogs. And blind items had become a key tool for these outlets to share controversial\u2014or outright unverified\u2014\u201cnews\u201d without risking legal backlash, cementing their place in an increasingly ruthless gossip ecosystem.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the \u201990s, the blind item enjoyed a renaissance in juicy celebrity columns like Page Six and the Village Voice, which published anonymous, unconfirmed bits of gossip concerning the rich and famous that would be sure to get readers talking while the publication itself could steer clear of any potential lawsuits,\u201d <\/em>Rachel Brodsky writes<\/a> for the LA Times<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But in 2006, blind items reached new heights of popularity with the launch of Crazy Days and Nights. <\/em>The blog would cover anything from sexual transgressions to drug addictions to corruption in the industry. Its founder, known as \u201cEnty,\u201d claimed to be an entertainment lawyer but kept his true identity a mystery for nearly two decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a piece for Vulture, <\/em>Lila Shapiro cited<\/a> Enty\u2019s first post to explain why he created Crazy Days and Nights<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn his first post, [Enty] wrote that he\u2019d started the blog because he was in a \u2018unique position of being able to tell you what really goes on behind the scenes and what even the gossip magazines can\u2019t find out\u2019,\u201d Shapiro shares.\u00a0<\/p>\n

His access seemed impressive, and he quickly became an icon in the gossip world. So much so that Vanity Fair<\/em> declared<\/a> Enty \u201cThe King of The Blind Item\u201d in 2016.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Enty has] been a direct source for gossip that evades the normal channels of celebrity news and feeds directly into the Internet\u2019s never-ending appetite for the juice,\u201d <\/em>Mehera Bonner writes for the publication. <\/em>\u201cBut his primacy in the field is largely due to the one feature of his publishing ethos that completely distinguishes him from his rivals: He names names.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Enty managed to stay anonymous for most of his career, it all went awry during a messy legal dispute last year. The story begins with a woman named Cassandra Crose\u2014a fan of Crazy Days and Nights<\/em> and an aspiring podcaster. Enty would eventually go on to work with her, but their professional collaboration soon turned personal. Enty assured Cassandra that he was single, despite actually being married. When Cassandra uncovered the truth and Enty abruptly ended their relationship, she threatened to expose his identity.<\/p>\n

To prevent further fallout, Enty filed for a restraining order against Cassandra\u2014a decision that only escalated the drama. Cassandra retaliated by starting her own podcast, where she detailed their affair and accused Enty of being manipulative and abusive. On her Patreon, she shared explicit messages he had sent, igniting an even bigger scandal that ultimately unmasked the creator to be a man named John Nelson.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cInternet sleuths, and eventually a reporter for the Daily Beast, dug up the court documents he\u2019d filed and confirmed that Nelson was in fact Enty Lawyer. And so the gossip blogger became the gossip,\u201d <\/em>Shapiro continues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Of course, Enty wasn\u2019t the only one capitalising on the growing interest in blind items. Around the same time, Lainey Gossip<\/em> was also making waves. It started as an email among friends in 2003 and gained popularity through word of mouth. Eventually, it launched as a website in 2004 and has maintained popularity ever since.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While magazines and blogs might have been the original homes of the blind item, the format feels perfect for social media. The internet\u2019s love for tea\u2014whether true or not\u2014is no secret, and platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have given blind items a new life. This shift has paved the way for accounts like Deuxmoi to thrive.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Deuxmoi skyrocketed to virality at the beginning of the pandemic. Originally a lifestyle blog created by two friends, the account posted style inspiration and pop culture memes. But this soon changed. After asking her (approximately) 45,000 Instagram followers for celebrity gossip during the early days of COVID-19 lockdowns, Deuxmoi went viral for reposting the responses on her Instagram story.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fast forward to today and Deuxmoi boasts over 2 million Instagram followers with subreddits and Facebook groups that exist to discuss all of her updates.<\/p>\n

Much like a modern-day Gossip Girl, Deuxmoi thrives on follower-submitted tips, with user-submitted \u201cblind items\u201d becoming a favourite among fans. These blinds tap into the thrill of detective work, allowing followers to speculate and engage in fan-level discourse.<\/p>\n

What truly sets Deuxmoi apart, however, is how the account democratised gossip. By empowering her audience to both submit and interpret information, Deuxmoi has made celebrity news a collective experience. Once a \u201cblind\u201d is posted, fans rush to TikTok and Reddit, dissecting clues and guessing which A-lister might be involved. This not only fuels user engagement but also serves as a \u201cget out of libel free\u201d card for Deuxmoi, shifting the responsibility for speculation onto her followers.<\/p>\n

For a long time, Deuxmoi\u2019s own identity was shrouded in mystery. But in May 2022, the veil was lifted. Internet culture reporter Brian Feldman did some sleuthing of his own, revealing on Substack<\/a> that Deuxmoi was run by two women: Meggie Kempner, a fashion designer and the granddaughter of socialite Nan Kempner, and a woman named Melissa Lovallo.<\/p>\n

In addition to TikTok users discussing blind items from accounts like Deuxmoi, some have seized the opportunity to turn their obsession with blinds into full-fledged influencing careers. A popular example is Shannon McNamara. She rose to fame by relaying blind items and offering timely analysis on pop culture. Her insights into the latest celebrity gossip and theories eventually led her to launch her own podcast, Fluently Forward<\/em>, where she discusses everything from pop culture to conspiracy theories and, of course, more blind items.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n<\/figure>\n

Another example is the TikTok account @celebriteablinds_<\/a>, which posts blind items daily. While this account has less of a \u201cpersonality\u201d or creator presence than Shannon, it still capitalises on the same fascination with celebrity gossip, giving users a steady stream of blind items to dissect and discuss.<\/p>\n

All that is to say, that the blind item has a storied history. While it\u2019s always had a certain intrigue, it\u2019s clear that Gen Z has reignited the obsession with this type of gossip and information-sharing\u2014and we\u2019ve got a few theories as to why.<\/p>\n

The first is the oversaturation of the celebrity brand & the growing transparency of the celebrity PR machine<\/h4>\n

Celebrities have always been treated as businesses, but today it seems to be happening more than ever. Rising consumerism, social media, and a growing hunger for representation have intensified the commodification of celebrity. These days, every aspect of a celebrity\u2019s identity\u2014from their style to their personal life\u2014has become a marketable product. Celebrities, whether they\u2019re singers, actors, or influencers, are increasingly seen as corporations and branding opportunities rather than individuals, shifting their primary role from creating art to generating profit.<\/p>\n

A prime example of this is the rise of the pop star \u201cera\u201d\u2014and no, this is not just limited to Taylor Swift. From the likes of Ariana Grande to Billie Eilish to Sabrina Carpenter, artists differentiate between albums and tours with carefully curated aesthetics. Think of Ariana Grande\u2019s latex bunny ears from her Dangerous Woman<\/em> album or Sabrina Carpenter\u2019s kiss motifs through the Short & Sweet<\/em> tour. These visual markers create instant recognition for an \u201cera.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

As for why these eras are important for the artist, Tyler McCall writes<\/a> for Elle<\/em>, \u201ccreating and revisiting these visually disparate eras isn\u2019t just useful in distinguishing album cycles, it also creates a fuller picture of the artists themselves. Fans feel more connected to a multifaceted musician.\u201d<\/p>\n

Taylor Swift has undoubtedly elevated the concept of the \u201cera\u201d with her Eras Tour<\/em>, turning it into a cornerstone of modern celebrity marketing. With this, art and branding have become inseparable, with a celebrity\u2019s brand becoming the product.<\/p>\n

This phenomenon isn\u2019t limited to the pop music scene, either. More and more, we see actresses method-dressing to align with their roles, transforming press tours into carefully-curated extensions of their on-screen characters. Take the recent Barbie<\/em> and Wicked<\/em> press tours as prime examples. From head-to-toe pink outfits to green-themed looks, these campaigns illustrate just how vital this strategy has become for building hype and keeping audiences engaged.<\/p>\n

\n

However it is important to note, this has always been a thing. But these days we are much more attuned to it than before, and part of this comes down to COVID.\u00a0<\/p>\n

COVID-19 stifled most of Hollywood\u2019s age-old traditions. With award shows cancelled and red carpet attendance restricted, the business of being a celebrity was effectively shut down. Even as the constraints of the pandemic eased throughout 2021 and 2022, by no means was the world totally back to \u2018normal.\u2019<\/p>\n

This shift brought about two key changes that arguably fuelled the rise of blind items in popular culture.<\/p>\n

First, lockdown expanded the scope of \u201cinteresting\u201d celebrity gossip. With the entertainment world grinding to a halt, so did the salacious <\/em>celebrity gossip that we had become accustomed to. So, celebrity gossip enthusiasts had to adapt to a world, where honestly, not much was happening. And with that, what constituted celebrity news became surprisingly un-newsworthy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Consider Deuxmoi as an example. During COVID, she thrived on reposting celebrity sightings from her followers. Her Instagram highlight was full of tips like, \u201cHailey and Justin Bieber sitting next to us now\u201d or \u201cKim K is at CVS.\u201d Ultimately, celebrity gossip became less about breaking a major story and more about documenting everyday moments \u2013 broadening the scope for blind items.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Secondly, lockdown gave us plenty of time to step back and analyse celebrity culture and its PR machine with some distance. This only intensified with the rise of TikTok and the popularity of PR and marketing-focused creators like GirlBossTown\u2014whose real name is Robyn DelMonte.<\/p>\n

\n

Robyn skyrocketed to virality with her breakdowns of celebrity trends and her marketing advice, giving everyday users a behind-the-scenes look at how celebrity PR works. She helped demystify PR moves, showing how celebrities and brands strategically plant stories or manipulate narratives. This, in turn, has left many TikTok users to become more sceptical of the way celebrities share information, with many of us now aware that a lot of what we see is carefully curated.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That brings us to our second theory, the rise of misinformation and citizen journalism across social media has fuelled interest in blind items.<\/h4>\n

To be clear, misinformation and citizen journalism are two distinct phenomena, but together they\u2019ve played a role in the rise of blind items and our growing tendency to believe them\u2014 no matter how untrue each story might sound.<\/p>\n

It is first worth discussing citizen journalism and its impact. Put simply, citizen journalism refers to everyday people\u2014 a.k.a non-professional journalists\u2014taking on the role of reporting news or sharing first-hand accounts of events. Platforms like TikTok have made this easier than ever, democratising who gets to tell a story and giving the average user a platform to cover news or serve as primary sources. This shift has clear benefits: it brings attention to underreported events and amplifies marginalised voices often ignored by traditional media.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a catch\u2014 or two. First, the rise of citizen journalism has widened the trust gap between audiences and traditional media. When citizen journalists cover stories that mainstream outlets ignore\u2014 or when they frame issues in ways that feel more authentic\u2014 it deepens scepticism toward traditional media and the publication process. This distrust often extends to how mainstream outlets report on celebrity news, also making people more willing to buy into the whispers and speculation of blind items.<\/p>\n

Second, while citizen journalists can offer valuable perspectives, they\u2019re not held to the same standards as established media outlets. This lack of editorial oversight means their reports can sometimes include unverified or incomplete information. While this may be unintentional, the impact can be the same as spreading misinformation or disinformation. That is not to say that these mistakes can\u2019t happen in established newsrooms or within traditional mastheads, but rather that certain guardrails and processes are put in place to limit the spread of inaccurate reporting.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As we move away from these media sources, audiences are seeing more and more content that may not be as<\/em> thoroughly researched, edited or verified. Of course, this isn\u2019t true of all citizen journalists or newsfluencers creators. Many work extremely hard to ensure the information they share is accurate. But the normalisation of this type of content has let audiences grow accustomed to consuming unverified content, which ultimately primes them to accept even more speculative forms of storytelling\u2014 like blind items.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

On top of this, as misinformation and disinformation become increasingly pervasive online\u2014not exclusively among citizen journalists and creators, of course\u2014the line between verified news and rumours keeps getting thinner. The rise of misinformation online has been analysed to death by social media experts and commentators, but many argue that the downfall of Twitter\u2014 now X\u2014 was the final nail in the coffin.<\/p>\n

Elon Musk\u2019s takeover of Twitter has drastically altered the platform, and not for the better. From enabling anyone to purchase verification to allowing bots to flood timelines, these changes have supercharged the spread of misinformation. This marked a major loss for online news culture, as Twitter had once been the go-to platform for breaking news in real-time.<\/p>\n

\n See Also<\/span><\/p>\n
\n \"\"<\/a>
\n <\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

While Community Notes have provided a small buffer against false claims, their impact is limited. They can flag misinformation, but they can\u2019t reverse the deeper issue: a platform once synonymous with news credibility is now seen as chaotic and unreliable. For better or worse, the cracks in X\u2019s foundation have reshaped how we consume and trust information online.<\/p>\n

All that being said, in a world where misinformation is thriving and journalistic boundaries have blurred, it\u2019s no surprise that blind items have found fertile ground. Whether we\u2019re aware of it or not, the line between verified news and rumours keeps getting thinner.<\/p>\n

The normalisation of conspiratorial thinking in the digital world has intensified this even more \u2014 bringing us to our third theory behind the rise of blind items.\u00a0<\/h4>\n

Over the past few years, we\u2019ve witnessed conspiracy theories shift from fringe spaces to mainstream politics and pop culture. This shift didn\u2019t happen in a vacuum; it resulted from several factors. One of the most frequently cited reasons is the rise of populist leaders like Donald Trump. His anti-elitist rhetoric and style have redefined how many people view authority, fostering an environment of deep scepticism toward established institutions and expertise. Combine this with the endless flow of misinformation online, and you have social media users who question just about everything they encounter.<\/p>\n

Conspiracy theories, which once existed on the periphery of common discourse, are now firmly planted in the mainstream. Take Pizzagate<\/em> as an example. This conspiracy theory exploded in the 2016 US election, claiming that members of the Democratic Party were involved in a child-trafficking ring. Although it has since morphed into the broader QAnon movement, it was originally amplified through platforms like 4chan, Reddit, and Twitter. While sites like 4chan remain niche, platforms like Reddit and Twitter have made conspiracy theories more accessible to the general public, pulling them into the mainstream.<\/p>\n

Adding fuel to the fire is the role of influencers, some of whom actively promote conspiracy theories. While many of these influencers cater to niche audiences, there\u2019s a more subtle, pervasive danger when mainstream creators dabble in this content. Consider Shane Dawson, who really<\/em> solidified his online presence through the mid to late 2010s, with a mix of conspiracy theories videos and documentary-style videos. Shane\u2019s content ranged from lighthearted speculation\u2014 like questioning whether Chuck E. Cheese reuses uneaten pizza slices\u2014 to more serious ideas.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

While Shane\u2019s videos were often framed as entertainment, they inadvertently normalise a conspiratorial mindset. By encouraging audiences to question everything, this type of content lays the groundwork for broader distrust of institutions and verified narratives. Even seemingly harmless conspiracies can push people down a slippery slope, priming them to believe unverified or blatantly false information.<\/p>\n

But creators like Shane, who blatantly cover conspiracy theories for entertainment, are not always the most harmful. We tend to see more damage done by influencers who covertly support conspiracy theories and push that support to their audiences. Influencers in the health and wellness space are arguably some of the biggest culprits here and have long been criticised for spreading mis- and disinformation, encouraging their audiences to \u201cdo their own research,\u201d ignoring advice from experts and professionals, and ultimately, introducing their followers to the well-established wellness-to-alt-right pipeline.<\/p>\n

That being said, this cultural shift toward speculation and distrust has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of blind items. Much like conspiracy theories, blind items thrive on the idea of uncovering hidden realities, making them a natural fit for an increasingly sceptical and investigative audience.<\/p>\n

And this growing scepticism amongst audiences leads us to the final reason we suspect that there\u2019s such an interest in celebrity blind items\u2013 they feed into our negativity bias.<\/h4>\n

For anyone that regularly consumes blind items, you\u2019ll be well aware that they often lean negative, focusing on upsetting or damaging information that can harm a celebrity\u2019s career. People naturally gravitate toward negative news, as it tends to leave a stronger impact.<\/p>\n

Negativity bias refers to our natural tendency to focus on \u201cbad news.\u201d It stems partly from our survival instinct to stay alert to potential threats and partly from a morbid curiosity about just how chaotic things can get.<\/p>\n

Back in 2014, researchers Marc Trussler and Stuart Soroka at McGill University in Montreal ran a study that showed we\u2019re more drawn to bad news than good. The reason being that deep down, it\u2019s part of human nature to think our own lives are better than most.<\/p>\n

BBC\u2019s Tom Stafford, covering this research, explained<\/a> it like this: \u201cWhen it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we\u2019re better than average, and that, like the clich\u00e9s, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted. So our attraction to bad news may be more complex than just journalistic cynicism or a hunger springing from the darkness within.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, our fascination with bad news isn\u2019t just about media spin or some inner darkness\u2014it\u2019s more nuanced than that.<\/p>\n

This belief that we\u2019re \u201cbetter than average\u201d is known as illusory superiority. Several theories try to explain why we see ourselves this way, but a big one is egocentrism. That\u2019s where we focus more on our own skills, traits, choices, and actions than on anyone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n

When we consider the rising interest in blind items within that context, it becomes clear that negativity bias plays a role in this morbid fascination. Hearing gossip, drama, and bad news about celebrities feeds our ego, as these are people who are supposed to \u201chave it all.\u201d Western society has largely put the status of celebrity above all else \u2013 so hearing about how these people that we idolise don\u2019t have perfect lives\u2026 that humanises celebrities and confirms our illusory superiority, making us feel like we actually might measure up to these people if it weren\u2019t for different circumstances.<\/p>\n

And the rise of TikTok over these last few years amplifies the interest in blind items, as content on TikTok is driven by high engagement rates which accounts can often achieve by sharing drama, gossip, or negative news.<\/p>\n

The ethical implications of blind items<\/h4>\n

While there are surely other reasons for the rise of celebrity blind items that haven\u2019t been covered here, there\u2019s no doubt that this phenomenon\u2013 though admittedly very fun to engage with\u2013 comes with a host of ethical implications that we cannot ignore.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Aside from the obvious concerns around normalising information that is completely unvetted, the core ethical dilemma of blind items revolves around balancing the public\u2019s right to information with an individual\u2019s right to privacy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This friction is even more amplified when we consider that the majority of blind items don\u2019t necessarily fall under the category of public interest information, nor are the subjects of these blind items often granted the right to reply\u2013 which is a core journalistic principle\u2013\u00a0 given names are usually kept anonymous. This lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to blind items adds to the public\u2019s rejection of mainstream media and helps normalise the acceptance of unverified claims.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And of course, we couldn\u2019t talk about the harm that blind items cause without considering how this type of content impacts the subject of these tips and rumours.<\/p>\n

Though there is ongoing speculation that publicists and talent managers now submit tips about their clients to these accounts as part of a wider media strategy, the harm to the celebrity\u2019s public image and their mental health no doubt cancels out any benefits of these accounts.<\/p>\n

Given what we\u2019ve explored, it\u2019s clear that the ethical implications of blind item culture clearly represent a symptom of larger culture and social changes, and have, at least in some small way, contributed to the normalisation and acceptance of these changes.<\/p>\n

As of today, there\u2019s extreme distrust in mainstream media and those in positions of power. While a healthy scepticism of power structures is positive, trusting the claims of the online rumour mill can harm a media landscape that depends on trust to function. Being bombarded with unverified claims\u2014 many of which may be false\u2014 undermines fact-checked reporting and ultimately, can cause harm to those on the receiving end of these claims.<\/p>\n

Listen to the full episode via the \u2018infinite scroll podcast\u2019 on\u00a0<\/em>Spotify<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0Apple Podcasts<\/a>, and\u00a0<\/em>YouTube<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u2018 The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties \u2019 <\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018 Some details of this article were extracted from the following source centennialworld.com \u2019 <\/em><\/p>\n