Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Sixty: Louisville Slugger

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Sixty: Louisville Slugger · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and sixty of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show, a truly
0:07
unique interview with Louisville talk radio legend Terry Miners, the man who broke the
0:12
story of Scotti Scheffer's charges being dropped, tells us the real saga behind his
0:17
bogus arrest, and for the first time, we discussed the events of my
0:22
crazy two thousand and five defamation trial where he essentially testified against me, and
0:28
he explains why he is seeing signs that the passion for college sports in the
0:33
NIL era is already fading. Now. Due to scheduling issues, this episode
0:40
of the podcast is going to be a bit abbreviated before we get to my
0:44
interview with Louisville talk radio Legendary Miners, which I think you're going to find
0:48
to be very interesting. I just wanted to briefly mention a few of the
0:52
stories I planned to get into more deeply in the next episode of the podcast,
0:57
which we plan to tape and release on our norm timeline later this week.
1:02
Obviously, the main focus of the news in the last several days has
1:06
been the aftermath of Donald Trump's conviction on thirty four felonyc counts. As of
1:12
this taping, there have been a couple of polls that have come out after
1:19
the conviction. However, I don't consider there to be any huge earthquake shattering
1:26
type news related to these polls. Some people have been trying to find very
1:34
significant trends, but I have not seen anything yet because I'm about the preference
1:40
poll. To me, the underlying stuff is interesting, but in the heat
1:45
of passion, in the midst of chaos, when the dust is still settling,
1:49
that kind of stuff I think can be way, way overestimated. What
1:55
I'm referring to specifically is the idea that a lot of Liberals have latched onto
2:00
that A couple of polls post Trump conviction have shown that a lot of Republicans
2:07
want Trump to drop out, and a lot of Independents want Trump to drop
2:13
out as well. I don't think that that's necessarily that significant. It sounds
2:20
if you're on the Trump train, it sounds a lot worse than it actually
2:24
is, because I think, especially as a Republican, you could want Trump
2:30
to drop out out of fear that him being a convicted felon is going to
2:36
be used as a weapon against him and make it much more difficult for him
2:39
to win and still vote for him. I don't think that those two things
2:45
are incompatible with one another. And as far as independence who say they want
2:51
Trump to drop out, I mean, that's not a great sign, but
2:53
those people may never have been Trump voters to begin with. And so far
2:59
we've not seen anything that shows a dramatic shift in the actual preference between Biden
3:05
and Trump. Now there does seem to be some, but it's minuscule,
3:09
some softening of Trump's support against Biden. But this is I think way too
3:17
soon to be evaluating the real net impact of the conviction on this presidential race.
3:25
In fact, I think this is going to take a very long time
3:29
before it all gets passed through the consciousness of the public and hits into the
3:36
data. And I also think there's going to be a drip, drip drip
3:39
element to this. How this all plays out is going to be very very
3:44
significant to what impact it has on the presidential race. I mean, it's
3:49
obvious that part of why Democrats were so thrilled to be able to label Donald
3:54
Trump a convicted felon is that that's going to be his new first name,
3:58
that's going to be in versus every certainly mainstream and liberal news report about him.
4:04
Joe Biden is going to say it so often during the CNN debate that
4:09
if you're playing a drinking game, you're going to be on the floor halfway
4:12
through, is my prediction. I mean, this is this was all part
4:15
of a strategy because to a lot of people, understandably, that's a deal
4:20
breaker, especially with a lot of people who are on the fence. But
4:26
I am in the camp at least right now that the net impact on this
4:31
as of right now is going to be negligible. Now, it certainly is
4:35
a narrative shaper, and so going forward it could break either way. Interestingly,
4:45
Donald Trump has given an interview to Fox News Channel where he has said
4:48
he's fine with going to jail or prison or house arrested, that he doesn't
4:54
want to beg the judge or have his lawyers begged the judge to keep him
4:59
out of jail. Even though most experts I've seen, at least the objective
5:03
ones have said that for this level of felony and a first time offender,
5:09
it would be highly unusual if if not unprecedented for Trump to be sent to
5:15
jail, And of course that doesn't even account for the whole business of him
5:20
being a former president and being the Republican presidential nominee, and the sentencing happening
5:26
just a few days before the Republican convention, and all the things that an
5:29
irrational world would prevent a judge from making such a politically charged decision. Of
5:35
course, this entire process has been very, very politically charged from the beginning.
5:42
I think it's an interesting strategy, and it does seem to be a
5:45
strategy on the part of Trump and the Trump team to basically say, go
5:50
ahead and make my day. Be the tough guy. I'm not afraid.
5:55
I do think that there's some potential value in that if you're Donald Trump,
5:59
to show that you're the tough guy, that you're not afraid, that you're
6:04
you're doing this for the country in your own mind or in the in you
6:08
know, in the in the narrative that you've chosen to make public that you're
6:12
fighting this for all of us. Of course, that's bullshit, but you
6:15
know, I think from a political standpoint, it's not a bad way to
6:19
go. I mean, turning into the curve of this whole thing and embracing
6:25
the idea that you know what, I might go to jail, this is
6:28
how much they're out to get me. Is probably a pretty good strategy.
6:30
By the way, it might not be a bad strategy psychologically on the judge
6:35
himself if instead of saying no, no, no no, it would be
6:40
outrageous to put me in jail, if you say, go ahead, make
6:43
my day, I think it kind of puts the judge in a little bit
6:46
more precarious situation and he might be less likely to actually send Trump to jail
6:51
or house arrest, or whatever other punishments might restrict Trump's freedom in the middle
6:57
of a presidential campaign. So I kind of like this from a political strategy
7:02
standpoint, even though I fully acknowledge that it's bullshit. Trump does not want
7:05
to go to jail or for prison, but you know, that's apparently the
7:11
current strategy on the part of the Trump team. As far as the jurors,
7:15
a little bit to my surprise, and I did make a prediction in
7:18
the last episode of the podcast about the fact that at least one juror would
7:23
give an interview with a mainstream or left wing media outlet and reveal that they
7:28
are a political partisan hack, that it would be inadvertent that it would just
7:33
come pouring out of them, and that this would be an Aha moment for
7:38
Trump fans to go see, see this is the kind of jurors that were
7:42
deciding Trump's fate. As of this taping, there has not been an interview
7:47
with a juror, and then, as far as I can tell, there's
7:49
no indication that an interview with a juror is imminent, which I find to
7:55
be bizarre. I can't believe that that's going to be the way this turns
8:00
out. That there's just no possible way that you could have this situation and
8:03
not one of the twelve jurors decide to become famous for fifteen minutes or more
8:09
by giving the first interview. I just I find that hard to believe.
8:13
I feel like there must be a big plan in the work. Maybe a
8:16
bunch of them are going to do an interview together. But regardless, I'm
8:20
standing by my prediction that what we're going to find eventually is that at least
8:24
one of these jurors is going to reveal themselves to be a partisan whack job
8:31
and it's going to be a way for people to get an insight as to
8:35
how unfair this process was in the most fundamental way possible. And I have
8:43
been very baffled. I expressed that in great detail in the last episode about
8:48
how it is that this jury has gotten so little attention as far as their
8:54
massive conflict of interest and their perverse incentive structure to be deciding the fate of
9:01
a highly partisan person, a very controversial person who happens to be the Republican
9:09
presidential nominee right in the middle of a presidential election in a jurisdiction that's ninety
9:13
five percent Democrat. I mean, this is the most obvious thing I've ever
9:18
seen in my life, and yet the news media won't even touch this part
9:22
of the story. Even the right wing commentators don't emphasize this enough. They
9:26
get lost in the minutia of why this was a bad verdict. To me,
9:31
this was very simple why this was a bad verdict. The jury was
9:35
hopelessly conflicted, hopelessly, inherently totally conflicted because of their perverse political self interest
9:46
here, and when I look at the history of very high profile cases that
9:52
have had horrible trials, it's always because at least in part, the jury
10:00
was inherently and hopelessly conflicted. We've talked about all of these at certain stages
10:05
of the podcast. The ones that I'm about to mention, there are five
10:09
that come to mind right off the bat. I'm sure there are others,
10:11
but to me, these are the five most prominent that I have a lot
10:16
of interest in and knowledge about, and have discussed on the podcast. The
10:22
Lindberg baby kidnapping, which we talked about a month or two ago in great
10:26
detail. That was a ridiculously bad trial. I don't know whether or not
10:30
they may have gotten the right verdict by accident. I don't think they did.
10:35
But that was a situation where the jury was hopelessly conflicted because they wanted
10:39
vengeance for Lindbergh, an American hero, and whatever Lindberg told them they were
10:45
going to do, and that's what they did. Then there was the OJ
10:48
Simpson case, where that jury was hopelessly conflicted because they wanted revenge for Rodney
10:54
King and they wanted to send a message about the LAPD and so they was
11:01
led a guy who was the whitest black man in America off the hook for
11:07
killing two people but that's why that trial came to the wrong conclusion. The
11:13
jury was not objective, They had a perverse self interest because of the unique
11:18
nature of the case. I would put the Jerry Sandusky case clearly in this
11:24
group as well. By the way, I think the Sandusky jury in a
11:26
weird way was a lot like the Trump jury, because that jury was in
11:33
a situation where they themselves, their entire community, was being accused of helping
11:39
to enable Jerry Sandusky's crimes, which he never actually committed, and they needed
11:45
to show the whole world, on behalf of the state college community, how
11:50
much they hate pedophilia, how much they hate child sex abuse, and how
11:56
much they didn't really enable Jerry Sandusky to get away with the crimes he didn't
12:00
actually commit for several decades. So literally the entire community was on trial because
12:05
of the unique nature of the allegations in the whole connection to Penn State.
12:13
And then you have the fact that the trial took place seven months after this
12:18
massive news story, and even less time than that after Joe Paterno died,
12:24
So you have an inflamed jury. You have a trial taking place in the
12:30
midst of a lot of emotion, and chaos, and it's charged from an
12:37
emotional standpoint. That's not the way you're supposed to have trials in America.
12:41
This is why we have continuances, this is why we have venue changes.
12:46
You can't have a fair trial in the middle of a Salem witch situation,
12:52
and that's what the Jerry Sandusky case was, So the jury was hopelessly and
12:56
inherently conflicted there. I would put George Floyd's trial, or the trial involving
13:01
the murderer or leedged murder of George Floyd in that category as well, because
13:07
that jury wanted to make sure there wasn't civil unrest. It was a little
13:11
bit more like the O. J. Simpson situation, only in reverse.
13:16
They didn't want civil unrest because of what had happened during the immediate aftermath of
13:22
George Floyd's death, not to mention the massive amount of media propaganda that had
13:28
already created the perception that the police officer had somehow murdered George Floyd, when
13:33
I think it's far more complicated than that. And there's some similarities to the
13:39
Sandusky case there with regard to an inflamed community. And then Donald Trump would
13:46
be number five in this list chronologically, where you have a jury who can
13:50
literally impact a presidential election in the direction that they prefer simply by doing what
14:01
the prosecutors told them to do and what the judge basically told them to do
14:05
with those ridiculous jury instructions. So gee, I wonder what a ninety five
14:11
percent, maybe more than that Democrat jury is going to do under those circumstances.
14:16
I don't care about anything else, Nothing else matters if the jury doesn't
14:22
have a situation where they can be calm, cool, collected, and objective.
14:28
You cannot do that when Donald Trump is on trial, probably at any
14:33
time, but certainly not when he's the Republican presidential nominee and the we're basically
14:39
in the middle of the election. It's just not possible to do that.
14:43
And yet this is a narrative that the news media just completely ignores. We're
14:48
just going to pretend that this doesn't actually exist. And you know, it
14:52
might not have been a fair trial from other aspects, but we can't say
14:54
anything bad about the jury. Well, we'll see if that changes at all,
14:58
and when and any of these jurors actually do interviews, which again has
15:01
not happened as of this moment. Now, a lot has been made of
15:05
the fact that Trump has raised a lot of money for his campaign over the
15:11
last several days since being convicted. The last count is about two hundred million
15:18
dollars in fundraising since the conviction. Now a lot of that is in some
15:22
big, big chunks, but a lot of it is from small dollar donors,
15:26
first time donors. It has been a very impressive response, There's no
15:31
question about that, no doubt that this hit a nerve with a lot of
15:35
people. A lot of people like myself who don't like Trump are angered about
15:39
this and want to express that umbrage, and giving money to Trump is probably
15:46
one of the best ways to do that, I guess, if you're so
15:48
inclined, and so I think it's a remarkable development that Trump has raised all
15:54
this money. Of course, a lot of it's going to go to lawyers,
15:58
as has much of what Trump has raised over the last couple of years
16:02
for his campaign has gone to lawyers. So let's not forget that. But
16:06
there's no question this is going to help his campaign with money, which was
16:11
a problem before this, And it's also creating a perception of people fighting back
16:17
against the man and against what they perceived to be this injustice, and so
16:22
I do think that's a very very positive development for Trump. Just to show
16:26
you just how deeply within Republican ranks there is outrage about this verdict. Even
16:34
Mitt Romney, you know, retiring senator from Utah, twenty twelve Republican presidential
16:41
nomine, although it seems like a million years ago now, he came out
16:45
and condemned the prosecutor and said that this case never should have been brought,
16:52
that it was political malpractice to do so. I mean, and this is
16:56
the guy who voted twice to convict Donald Trump in impeachment trials. This is
17:02
a guy who famously is the harshest critic of Donald Trump within the Republican Party.
17:07
He's basically been thrown out of the Republican Party because of his opposition to
17:11
Donald Trump. And even Mitt Romney correctly has condemned this trial, this prosecution,
17:21
these convictions as being illegitimate and a case that never should have been brought.
17:26
And once again, look, I have my problems with Mitt Romney.
17:27
I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he's a good man.
17:30
I think he's a man of character. I think he's an honest person,
17:33
and you know, it's a shame that the left wing doesn't follow the
17:37
rules. They never do like they're supposed to. But when Mitt Romney votes
17:44
twice to convict Donald Trump and impeachment trials, that's supposed to give him credibility
17:48
for moments like these when he comes forward and says, yeah, I don't
17:52
buy this is a legitimate conviction. But of course you know that doesn't count
17:56
anymore. Forget about Romney's credibility because he's not singing the right tune for the
18:03
liberal media at this point. But I did find it to be significant,
18:07
and it further not that I needed any more, but it increased my confidence
18:14
that I was right, and many others who agree with me are right that
18:17
this is an illegitimate conviction. In fact, there's so many reasons why this
18:21
is an illegitimate conviction that it's like a pope parie. You get to pick
18:25
whichever reason you find to be the most ridiculous or the most outrageous as to
18:32
why this is not a legitimate conviction. For me, it's the conflicted jury,
18:37
But there are plenty of other good ones to go around. So that's
18:41
the situation. Involving Trump and the post conviction situation. I'm hoping by the
18:45
next episode of the podcast we'll have some more polling where I'll be able to
18:49
maybe come up with a little bit better sense of where this is heading.
18:53
But right now I'm still in the camp that this is going to be basically
18:57
a wash at least in the short run, maybe hurt Trump a little bit
19:03
with some key voting groups, it's going to help him with some others.
19:07
There's no question about that. There. It's definitely within the polling and indication
19:11
that some people are more likely to vote for him, and there are other
19:15
people who are less likely to vote for him. So we could end up
19:18
seeing the numbers stay basically the same when it comes to preference, but the
19:22
coalition for each candidate might be slightly altered based upon people's reaction to the conviction.
19:30
There's one other thing I wanted to mention about Trump, because it is
19:33
a story that developed just after the conviction, and that is that Donald Trump
19:38
has joined TikTok, which ordinarily wouldn't be that big of a deal except for
19:45
the fact that Trump in the past has been adamant that he would ban TikTok
19:52
he favored the TikTok ban, but now he's literally joined TikTok. And last
20:00
he has three hundred not three hundred, he has three million. That would
20:04
be something to be a three hundred million followers. He has three million followers
20:08
right now on TikTok. I'm sure that'll continue to increase. Liberals are losing
20:12
their minds on TikTok and planning to do all sorts of things and try to
20:17
get him banned or to get his videos taken down from TikTok instead of just
20:22
letting him have his say and ignoring it. No one cares that Joe Biden
20:25
has a TikTok account, then he doesn't get any views either because no one
20:30
cares. But what's significant about this is Trump's flip flop and his hypocrisy,
20:37
and specifically that it seems rather suspicious that his change of view on TikTok happens
20:45
to coincide. I mean that facetiously happens to coincide with a meeting that he
20:51
had with one of the major owners of TikTok, And it certainly appears as
20:56
if Trump has been bought off when it comes to no longer opposing TikTok and
21:03
now actually having an account on TikTok and seemingly being pro TikTok. So that's
21:08
you know, that's one of the things that bothers me most about Trump,
21:14
because you never know really where he's going to stand from day to day,
21:17
because it's all about his own self interest, and as soon as he perceived
21:21
it was in his self interest to switch his position on TikTok, he did
21:26
so. And that has happened many times in the past. I'm sure we'll
21:30
continue to happen in the future. Of course, that kind of relates to
21:34
my biggest problem with Trump, which is his response to the COVID panic and
21:38
how I believe he shited the bed. And there's a bunch of news involving
21:44
the COVID panic and specifically doctor Fauci and his testimony to Congress that has been
21:48
made public. I just want to briefly mention this because this is this is
21:52
too good to pass up for even a couple of more days. This is
21:56
how the Blaze reported on this particular ste Fauci admits there was no scientific evidence
22:03
for six foot social distancing or masking children. Concedes lab Leak was quote unquote
22:11
possible. Doctor Anthony Fauci admitted that there was no scientific evidence behind the six
22:15
foot social Distancing Protocol or the guidelines for masking children. According to Bombshell congressional
22:22
testimony, Fauci also conceded that the lab leak theory is a quote unquote possible
22:29
explanation for the origins of COVID nineteen. On Friday, the Select Subcommittee on
22:34
the Coronavirus Pandemic released five hundred pages of transcripts of the congressional interview with Fauci
22:41
that was conducted in January of twenty twenty four. During the interview, Fauci
22:47
was asked if there were any scientific studies showing that the six foot social distancing
22:52
guidelines were an effect of deterrent to suppread to spreading the coronavirus. Fauci was
23:00
the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for nearly four decades,
23:04
responded, quote, I was not aware of studies that. In fact,
23:10
that would be a very difficult study to do. Also, during the
23:15
congressional interview, Fauci was asked if he recalled quote reviewing any studies or data
23:19
supporting masking for children. He replied that he quote might have, but added
23:26
I don't recall specifically that I did. Oh my god. Fauci was then
23:33
questioned if he had seen any scientific studies showing children wearing masks suffered learning loss
23:37
as well as speech and development issues. Fauci answered no, but I believe
23:44
that there are a lot of conflicting studies too, that there are those that
23:48
say, yes, there is an impact and there are those that say there's
23:52
not. I still think that's up in the air. What a load of
23:56
crap. That is a basic common sense. I'll tell you that's absurd.
24:00
During the interview, Fauci was asked if he believed that the coronavirus had the
24:04
origin of a quote unquote laboratory accident or if the lab league was a conspiracy
24:11
theory, and he gave a Mellie mouth mouth answer where he basically said that
24:15
the lab league theory is in fact possible. I want to give this specific
24:19
testimony with regard to the six foot social distancing, especially with regard to school
24:26
because this was the other stuff. It's accurate what the Blaze reported, and
24:32
it's outrageous, and of course the media, the mainstream media is going to
24:36
ignore this. They're going to pretend that that's not really what Fauci said.
24:40
No, it is actually what Fauci said. But this, to me was
24:44
more clear cut that a huge policy where we were told follow the science and
24:49
I am the science, as doctor Fauci said, was based on absolute,
24:55
fusolutely nothing, and this had a massive impact on the lives of kids for
25:00
an extended period of time, especially in blue states like here in California.
25:04
Here was a question that Fauci was asked, do you recall when discussions regarding
25:08
kind of the at least six foot threshold began? Answer the six foot in
25:15
the school question? Six foot overall? I mean six foot was applied at
25:21
businesses. Answer, yeah, question, it was applied in schools. It
25:26
was applied here at least how the messaging was applied was that six foot distancing
25:32
was the distance that needed to be answer from Fauci, You know, I
25:37
don't recall. It sort of just appeared. I don't recall like a discussion
25:44
of whether it should be five or six or whatever. It was just that
25:48
six foot is question. Did you see any studies that supported six feet?
25:53
Answer? I was not aware of studies that, in fact that would be
25:59
very a very difficult study to do. So the reality is no, there
26:04
were no studies. They wouldn't have been that difficult to do. It was
26:07
just made up. But why was it made up? And this is something
26:11
I haven't even seen in the right wing media in the discussions of this.
26:15
The reason why six feet was used in schools was because it made it impossible
26:22
to open schools because classrooms were not designed for students to have six feet between
26:30
them and all other students at all times. Otherwise you'd only be able to
26:34
fit ten kids in a classroom that the entire system would break down. So
26:41
the teachers' unions knew this, so they embraced this because as long as you
26:47
have six foot social distancing, then you can't have school for all intents and
26:52
purposes. And so therefore this was to the benefit of the teachers union.
26:57
Now I'm not saying that's the only reason it happened. Somebody just came up
27:02
with it and they decided, okay, that's you know, people might be
27:04
able to put up with that. That's really the essence of this. But
27:07
there was from a school perspective, there was absolutely a political and a union
27:14
element of it because if you have six foot social distance, sing, you
27:18
can't have school. Even if you had had three feet, if you had
27:22
reduced it from six to three, you could have had school because classrooms would
27:26
still be large enough to be designed to have the right number of kids in
27:30
class. But you can't do that at six feet. So this is not
27:34
this is worse than just eh, we made it up. No, it's
27:37
actually we made it up for political reasons, and we're not going to tell
27:41
you that. I mean, it's just absolutely unbelievable. And I'll have some
27:45
more thoughts on this in the next episode of the podcast. I did want
27:49
to also mention that there's a story that's certainly related to Fauci and the money
27:56
that was involved in all of this, specifically when it came to the pharmaceutical
28:00
companies and the vaccines. The New York Post out with a story that's gone
28:04
viral headline. NIH scientists, including Fauci, made seven hundred and ten million
28:11
dollars in royalties from drug makers, a fact they tried to hide. Gee.
28:18
I wonder if that had anything to do with why it is that the
28:23
vaccines were pushed as hard as they were and why we had to wait to
28:27
get on with our lives to have a vaccine and why the vaccines at times
28:32
were mandated and lied about. And I mean this is all always follow the
28:37
money, folks, and this is a perfect example of that. A couple
28:41
other stories before I get to my interview with the Terry miners, I did
28:44
want to at least mention, if you haven't seen it yet, fine for
28:47
yourself online the video of what happened in Philadelphia over the weekend where there were
28:52
conflicting protests and marches, where you had a pro Palestinian group trying to shut
29:00
down a Pride Month march in Philadelphia. So you have two very liberal groups,
29:07
the pro Palestinians basically Prohamas anti Israel crowd. Of course they have all
29:14
sorts of problems with the LBGTQ community, even though politically somehow they're aligned.
29:21
And the Pride march got stopped by the pro Palestinian group and hilarity in stued.
29:26
And so I can't possibly do it justice on an audio podcast, but
29:30
if you get a chance, search that up on Twitter or online and you'll
29:36
definitely get a few chuckles out of that, because that was just gold.
29:40
We talk a lot about Caitlin Clark on this podcast, so I feel obligated
29:44
to at least mention the very strange situation that occurred this past weekend where Clark
29:49
was knocked to the ground by a female player on an opposing team who had
29:56
called her a bitch in the process of knocking her down for a apparently no
30:00
reason. This got a ton of attention, and understandably so, because of
30:06
the fact that Clark has been the focus of so much criticism and seemingly so
30:11
much jealousy on the part of WNBA players. This player happened to be black,
30:18
and there was video of Angel Reese, who was Caitlin Clark's rival from
30:25
college, who also happens to be black, cheering Clark being knocked down for
30:30
no apparent reason. I do believe that this is significant. I do believe
30:34
that this is the moment that people go, Okay, wait a minute,
30:37
hold on what's really going on here with the WNBA players and their treatment of
30:42
Kaitlyn Clark. Don't they realize she's their cash cow and yet they're being very
30:48
jealous of her and now physically going after her. We'll see whether or not
30:52
this continues. My sense is and I could be being naive here. I
30:56
sense this has gotten so much negative attention that we may see this stop,
31:00
at least not to this kind of dramatic level where it's so obvious now.
31:07
Of course, if everything had been reversed and Caitlyn Clark was black and uh
31:12
and the player went after was white and you know, and she was the
31:18
prima donna as a as a black player, the superstar that everyone's talking about,
31:22
this would have been a much bigger deal and there would have been an
31:26
obvious racial component to it. But that's not the world we live in.
31:30
But we'll see what happens here with the Caitlin Clark situation. I may have
31:33
some more thoughts on that in the next episode of the podcast. Thanks for
31:37
listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
31:42
to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon.
31:48
That's p A T R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com
31:53
slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j H N
32:00
z I E G L e R. That's patreon dot com. Slash the
32:07
Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that, but
32:14
that's how you can subscribe