Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Eighty Three: Martyrdom

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Eighty Three: Martyrdom · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcomed episode two hundred and eighty three of the Death
0:02
Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
0:05
Speaker 1: host in today's show. The United States and Israel attack Iran,
0:10
Speaker 1: sparking war across the Middle East. President Trump shares my
0:14
Speaker 1: review of his State of the Union address on social media.
0:17
Speaker 1: The Netflix Warner Brothers deal falls apart, and now Paramount
0:21
Speaker 1: CBS is about to own nearly everything, including CNN. How
0:26
Speaker 1: the never ending Epstein absurdity is finally taking a real
0:29
Speaker 1: toll on my sanity, and a Gavin Newsom update. Stop
0:35
Speaker 1: me if you've heard this before, but the United States
0:37
Speaker 1: engaged in a major military operation of the past week,
0:41
Speaker 1: this time along with Israel in Iran. Only this time
0:46
Speaker 1: it appears as if it's war for real, and it's
0:49
Speaker 1: not stopping in Iran, it's spreading throughout the entire Middle East. Obviously,
0:55
Speaker 1: this is a very complex issue. The first question a
0:58
Speaker 1: lot of people, including my I've had, is Okay, didn't
1:01
Speaker 1: we just do this a few months ago? Didn't we
1:04
Speaker 1: take out supposedly obliterate Iran's nuclear capabilities? That is at
1:10
Speaker 1: least one of the major justifications for why we went
1:13
Speaker 1: and did this again. We want to make sure that
1:15
Speaker 1: Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, which, by the way,
1:18
Speaker 1: I think is absolutely positively and extremely important, not just
1:24
Speaker 1: a goal, but something that is imperative must be prevented.
1:29
Speaker 1: And people ask, well, okay, what makes Iran different. Well,
1:32
Speaker 1: first of all, they've shown themselves to be a very
1:35
Speaker 1: bad actor for a very long period of time. But
1:38
Speaker 1: also there's the real world, and the real world is
1:41
Speaker 1: that when you have a radical ideology that is prone
1:46
Speaker 1: to terrorism and violence against their own people and against
1:51
Speaker 1: outside elements, and it is of a philosophy where martyrdom
1:58
Speaker 1: is not only it did, it is elevated to the
2:02
Speaker 1: highest levels possible. That means that they don't have the
2:08
Speaker 1: same equation, if you will, in their thinking that most
2:16
Speaker 1: of the rest of the world does. So, if you're
2:19
Speaker 1: a people that believe in martyrdom, then you cannot be
2:24
Speaker 1: allowed to have a nuclear weapon under any circumstances because
2:29
Speaker 1: there's no downside for you using it. The entire nuclear
2:35
Speaker 1: situation is incredibly perilous, but it's based upon the idea
2:41
Speaker 1: of mutually assured destruction. Well, if you don't care about
2:45
Speaker 1: your own destruction, then that means we can't let you
2:49
Speaker 1: have a nuclear weapon period, end of sentence. This is
2:55
Speaker 1: non negotiable, and on that I completely and totally agree
3:00
Speaker 1: with people like Secretary of State Mark Rubio. However, even
3:04
Speaker 1: though Rubio is one of the very few people in
3:06
Speaker 1: this administration I trust, he was the guy that I
3:10
Speaker 1: supported in twenty sixteen for President. His argument for why
3:15
Speaker 1: we did this has been contradicted by President Trump himself.
3:20
Speaker 1: Mark Rubio said that we did this preemptively because they
3:25
Speaker 1: knew or we knew, that Israel was going to attack
3:28
Speaker 1: Iran and that therefore the United States interests were going
3:31
Speaker 1: to be attacked, so we had to attack first. Okay,
3:35
Speaker 1: I'm willing to believe that that's the scenario that's based
3:38
Speaker 1: in reality. However, it's also unbelievably naive to think that
3:46
Speaker 1: with one phone call we couldn't stop Israel from doing
3:49
Speaker 1: this if we really wanted to. Israel is not going
3:52
Speaker 1: to do this without our support. They might be able
3:55
Speaker 1: to do it without our help, but they're not going
3:58
Speaker 1: to do it if we tell them not too. I mean,
4:01
Speaker 1: the history has shown this time and time again, so
4:04
Speaker 1: that explanation really didn't do it for me. So I
4:07
Speaker 1: was concerned about this idea Okay, wait a minute, you
4:10
Speaker 1: told us a few months ago that we had obliterated
4:13
Speaker 1: their nuclear capabilities. I guess that wasn't really true. And
4:17
Speaker 1: now we're hearing different stories about Okay, what was the
4:21
Speaker 1: thinking behind this? And look, there can be multiple reasons
4:26
Speaker 1: why you take a dramatic action like this that is
4:30
Speaker 1: a bit of a of an important issue to raise.
4:34
Speaker 1: Which is just because one of the reasons you give
4:39
Speaker 1: might get contradicted by Donald Trump doesn't mean that the
4:42
Speaker 1: entire process, the entire idea is a bad one. But
4:46
Speaker 1: it's not a good sign. Frankly, if it wasn't for
4:50
Speaker 1: John Fetterman, and I can't even believe I'm saying this.
4:53
Speaker 1: If it wasn't for Democratic Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania
4:56
Speaker 1: being so strongly in favor of this both before an
4:59
Speaker 1: actor he got the intelligence briefing, I might have greater
5:03
Speaker 1: and stronger questions about whether or not this was necessary,
5:07
Speaker 1: or whether or not this was a good idea. It's
5:10
Speaker 1: absolutely remarkable that here we are, four years after John
5:14
Speaker 1: Fetderman could barely speak and was thought to be a
5:18
Speaker 1: puppet for the woke elements of the Democratic Party, that
5:22
Speaker 1: he's the last lone rational Democrat in the Senate. He's
5:25
Speaker 1: actually probably more of a Republican than a Democrat. Now,
5:28
Speaker 1: his approval ratings among Republicans in Pennsylvania seems to be
5:31
Speaker 1: better than far better than they are among Democrats. But
5:35
Speaker 1: he's standing strong. So as long as Rubio and Fetterman
5:40
Speaker 1: are very much in favor of the action, I have
5:42
Speaker 1: to take that very very seriously. And I am prone.
5:46
Speaker 1: I'm one of these people that is prone to believing
5:49
Speaker 1: that a military action like this is in our best
5:53
Speaker 1: interest harshly because I perceive our interest and this is
5:57
Speaker 1: a controversial concept. I don't know that most Americans agree
6:01
Speaker 1: with me on this anymore. But I do believe that
6:04
Speaker 1: we have a role as the world's police officer. Now
6:08
Speaker 1: that only means we're the police officer when it's at
6:11
Speaker 1: least somewhat in our interest to be and there's a
6:15
Speaker 1: risk reward ratio. But I believe in that concept because
6:19
Speaker 1: there has to be somebody that's going to be the police,
6:23
Speaker 1: and we're the only ones in the position to do this. Now,
6:27
Speaker 1: Maga world is having a fit because they don't believe
6:31
Speaker 1: in that idea at all, especially since Trump campaigned on
6:35
Speaker 1: being the Peace President, Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly part
6:39
Speaker 1: of the Alliance of Lunacy that I've talked an awful
6:42
Speaker 1: lot about. They are completely off the reservation on this one,
6:45
Speaker 1: especially Tucker Carlson. They have actually provoked the wrath of
6:50
Speaker 1: President Trump himself that he has specifically and directly attacked
6:54
Speaker 1: both of them for their lack of support for this operation.
6:58
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity has attacked Tucker Carlson, his old colleague at
7:01
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel, saying he's not the same person that
7:04
Speaker 1: he wants to do, which, by the way, I agree.
7:06
Speaker 1: That's something I've been talking about this podcast for years.
7:09
Speaker 1: Something has happened to Tucker Carlson. I don't know whether
7:11
Speaker 1: or not it's mental. I don't know whether or not,
7:15
Speaker 1: you know, he's compromised in some way. I don't know
7:18
Speaker 1: whether he lost his mind when he lost his job
7:20
Speaker 1: at Fox News Channel. I don't know. But I've been
7:22
Speaker 1: saying for a very long time he's not the same
7:25
Speaker 1: guy anymore. And I think he's way way off the
7:29
Speaker 1: reservation on this particular issue. I mean, he really does
7:32
Speaker 1: seem to be doing the bidding for Islamic terrorists, and look,
7:39
Speaker 1: he's entitled to his opinion, but I just think he's
7:42
Speaker 1: way too far essentially to the left here. But this
7:48
Speaker 1: Magas split is really interesting from a political perspective. I mean,
7:53
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people who are a lot
7:54
Speaker 1: more rational on the MAGA side, like my good friend
7:57
Speaker 1: Steve Cortez when we're trumpmanministration advisor, who is very much
8:03
Speaker 1: against this interventionist policy. Now, you know, Steve and I
8:07
Speaker 1: disagree on what the role of the United States is
8:11
Speaker 1: in the world. And I think part of why he
8:13
Speaker 1: and I disagree is well, he's, first of all, he's
8:16
Speaker 1: got a young son, so I think that influences his thinking.
8:19
Speaker 1: I think he would admit to that. With regard to
8:22
Speaker 1: potential troops on the ground, and who knows, we get
8:25
Speaker 1: into full scale war and we have to, you know,
8:28
Speaker 1: call people up, we have a draft, whatever. I think
8:30
Speaker 1: we're very very, very very far from that. But see,
8:33
Speaker 1: I think we've we've actually reached a stage in the
8:36
Speaker 1: evolution of war. And this is partially why I'm more
8:40
Speaker 1: supportive of these military actions where yes, we've had casualties
8:45
Speaker 1: in this there's no other way to call it right now,
8:48
Speaker 1: a war. This is a war we've had casualties. As
8:51
Speaker 1: of this taping, has it been at least six American deaths.
8:54
Speaker 1: I'm sure that number will be higher, maybe by the
8:56
Speaker 1: time you actually hear this. And so there are casualties,
9:01
Speaker 1: but essentially, we're now in a world where, because of
9:05
Speaker 1: technology and other factors, it appears as if air war
9:10
Speaker 1: is pretty much the dominant element of this conflict and
9:16
Speaker 1: is going to be, and from the United States perspective,
9:19
Speaker 1: because we have such superiority in that realm, I mean,
9:23
Speaker 1: because of all sorts of reasons. We dominate the sky,
9:28
Speaker 1: and we have technologies that they don't have, and we
9:32
Speaker 1: have a massive advantage and that has already been shown
9:37
Speaker 1: with regard to the results of this bombing campaign. It's
9:41
Speaker 1: not gone perfectly, but it seemingly has gone exceedingly well.
9:44
Speaker 1: Much of the Iranian regime has been taken out, including
9:48
Speaker 1: the Iatola Kamani and his subordinates. I mean, they're in
9:53
Speaker 1: complete disarray. A lot of very bad people have been killed.
9:57
Speaker 1: And to me, this is a little bit like a
10:01
Speaker 1: use it or lose it situation. We currently have massive
10:06
Speaker 1: advantages militarily, and who knows if in an ai world
10:11
Speaker 1: we're going to continue to have those kind of advantages.
10:15
Speaker 1: And so when you have a really bad actor who
10:17
Speaker 1: you think is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon,
10:20
Speaker 1: and philosophically they believe that martyrdom is the ultimate sacrifice
10:27
Speaker 1: to make. They don't even really think of it as
10:29
Speaker 1: a sacrifice. They're actually hoping for it, that's their goal.
10:33
Speaker 1: Then that is an incredibly dangerous situation and for the
10:37
Speaker 1: entire not just the region, but for the entire world.
10:40
Speaker 1: Almost it is in the best interest of everyone that
10:43
Speaker 1: they never get a nuclear weapon. And if this is
10:46
Speaker 1: what is necessary to prevent that, then I think we
10:50
Speaker 1: got to do what we got to do. Now, that
10:51
Speaker 1: doesn't mean there's not ramifications. And this is where I
10:55
Speaker 1: get very nervous about Donald Trump, because Trump, I've said
11:00
Speaker 1: a million times, almost literally, he is not a chess player.
11:05
Speaker 1: He's at best a checkers player. He's incredibly impulsive, and
11:10
Speaker 1: you never know has he thought this through, have the
11:12
Speaker 1: people around him thought this through. This is where Mark
11:15
Speaker 1: or Rubio I think is very important. If it wasn't
11:18
Speaker 1: for Mark or Rubio, I would probably be totally against
11:21
Speaker 1: this because there's nobody else in the decision making process
11:24
Speaker 1: that I can say, Okay, I have trust that they
11:27
Speaker 1: are thinking this through, they know what they're doing, they
11:31
Speaker 1: have the best interests of the United States at heart,
11:34
Speaker 1: and they have the intelligence to understand how this all
11:36
Speaker 1: may go down. But there's no question that this has
11:40
Speaker 1: created a ripple effect of what seemed to be negative
11:44
Speaker 1: impacts Iran has sparked war throughout the region. I don't
11:48
Speaker 1: know whether not this was anticipated or not. Some people
11:51
Speaker 1: think and this is logical and actually maybe gives the
11:54
Speaker 1: Iranians maybe too much credit. I'm not sure, but this
11:58
Speaker 1: would be a logical strateg on their part to escalate
12:02
Speaker 1: this thing as much as possible to causes many issues
12:05
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump as they can under the premise that
12:10
Speaker 1: Trump will get tired or wim bout and move on.
12:14
Speaker 1: His attention span is short, and you know he's he
12:18
Speaker 1: likes to think of himself as a tough guy. But
12:21
Speaker 1: there's a decent chance that if casualties spike, and if
12:25
Speaker 1: international pressure increases and the polling at home is terrible,
12:30
Speaker 1: that he might cry uncle, declare victory, and move on.
12:33
Speaker 1: I don't think that's an irrational strategy by the Iranians.
12:37
Speaker 1: Trump himself has referenced this, denying that this is a
12:42
Speaker 1: strategy that would work against him. But our allies are
12:46
Speaker 1: supposed allies have been incredibly unsupportive. The UK, Canada, and
12:52
Speaker 1: France in particular have all made statements that are best
12:58
Speaker 1: negative towards what the United States and Israel have done here.
13:04
Speaker 1: And so this is not a normal situation. Traditionally, if
13:07
Speaker 1: we're going to go into this level of military conflict,
13:10
Speaker 1: we get a coalition together and we get at least
13:14
Speaker 1: our major allies to not criticize us for what we're doing.
13:19
Speaker 1: That has not been the case here. Now that could
13:21
Speaker 1: be as a result of the fractioned relationships with NATO
13:24
Speaker 1: and everything else that has happened during the Trump two
13:27
Speaker 1: point zero administration, but there's no question that this has
13:30
Speaker 1: sparked a real war and there's going to be real
13:34
Speaker 1: US casualties, hopefully not to an extreme amount, but casualties
13:38
Speaker 1: are casualties. Human beings are human beings, and any casualties
13:43
Speaker 1: like this in a situation where we have elected to
13:47
Speaker 1: go to war has both a human and potentially a
13:51
Speaker 1: political cost. And I get that. And the media coverage
13:56
Speaker 1: is going to be terrible, especially in the legacy media.
14:00
Speaker 1: I mean, we already saw that with their coverage of
14:02
Speaker 1: the death of the Iatola Kamene I mean almost to
14:06
Speaker 1: a parody level. I mean the New York Times in
14:10
Speaker 1: their obituary, this got mocked online properly. The New York
14:15
Speaker 1: Times headline for him was Ali Camani, hardline cleric who
14:22
Speaker 1: made Iron a regional power dies at eighty six. I
14:28
Speaker 1: mean really like he died of natural causes and he
14:31
Speaker 1: did nothing to provoke us on death and seems like
14:34
Speaker 1: it actually a pretty good and influential guy. That's the
14:37
Speaker 1: New York Times view. The Washington Post was maybe even worse.
14:40
Speaker 1: They they made him seem like a Santa Claus figure
14:43
Speaker 1: who never misses a book club meeting. I mean, you
14:46
Speaker 1: almost can't make this shit up. But to me, there
14:50
Speaker 1: is a benefit, not just for having the bad guys die.
14:54
Speaker 1: I mean having bad guys die, especially really bad guys die,
14:59
Speaker 1: it is a positive the thing, at least it should be.
15:03
Speaker 1: But it's not just positive because you get rid of them. Yes,
15:06
Speaker 1: they're probably going to be replaced by similar people. Who knows,
15:10
Speaker 1: maybe even worse. I mean Trump was asked who's going
15:13
Speaker 1: to replace the Iotolo Kamani, and he didn't know because
15:17
Speaker 1: the people that they thought might replace him, are now dead.
15:20
Speaker 1: So that's always dangerous that what you might get in
15:23
Speaker 1: response could be at least as bad, if not worse
15:25
Speaker 1: than what you had before. But at the very least
15:29
Speaker 1: there's massive chaos within the power structure in Iran. But
15:32
Speaker 1: I've always believed, and this is my world policeman theory,
15:36
Speaker 1: I've always believed that one of the many residual dividend
15:40
Speaker 1: like benefits to this kind of an action, like with
15:44
Speaker 1: Medoro in Venezuela, is that you send a message to
15:48
Speaker 1: all the other bad guys, not just in the region
15:51
Speaker 1: but around the world. Look what America is willing and
15:55
Speaker 1: able to do to you if you don't behave properly.
16:00
Speaker 1: That has massive impact on the behavior of bad guys
16:06
Speaker 1: throughout the world. And yes, regime change is in a
16:10
Speaker 1: very dangerous endeavor, and you could end up in a
16:14
Speaker 1: bad spot like you know obviously what happened with Rock
16:18
Speaker 1: and we have a terrible history with regime change. But
16:21
Speaker 1: it seems as if we're now going with this philosophy.
16:24
Speaker 1: If you take out the top guy and then you
16:26
Speaker 1: let the people that are left aside, who's going to
16:29
Speaker 1: replace them? You know, So that philosophy of regime change,
16:34
Speaker 1: I guess is a little less risky, although it could
16:37
Speaker 1: you could end up with somebody worse than what you
16:39
Speaker 1: had to begin with. But at the very least that
16:42
Speaker 1: person is going to be looking over their shoulder wondering about, Okay,
16:46
Speaker 1: could I be next if I don't behave So there
16:50
Speaker 1: is a rational philosophy to this. I mean, as someone
16:53
Speaker 1: who lives in California, I do sometimes wish that the
16:57
Speaker 1: United States should consider forcing regime change here, that maybe
17:02
Speaker 1: Governor Newsom is looking over his shoulder, well, that would
17:04
Speaker 1: be a wonderful idea that if he could possibly be
17:07
Speaker 1: concerned about his future as one of what I perceive
17:11
Speaker 1: to be the bad guys surrounding the surrounding the rest
17:14
Speaker 1: of the world. And yes, I do believe that California
17:17
Speaker 1: here is effectively a foreign country and no longer really
17:21
Speaker 1: part of the United States of America. More on Newsome
17:24
Speaker 1: a little bit later on in the podcast. But I
17:27
Speaker 1: do think that there is a benefit to having bad
17:30
Speaker 1: guys looking over their shoulder and maybe being far more
17:34
Speaker 1: careful about how they go about business because they now
17:38
Speaker 1: know that the United States is for real on this,
17:41
Speaker 1: both with regard to intent and capabilities. So I see
17:46
Speaker 1: some benefits here, but there are obviously an awful lot
17:49
Speaker 1: of risks, and there's this is an incredibly complex situation.
17:55
Speaker 1: I mean, you've got the situation of Okay, are be successful.
18:00
Speaker 1: So far we seem to be successful. But what about
18:03
Speaker 1: all of the ramifications of that, what about the domino effect,
18:08
Speaker 1: the ripple effect. You can never be sure how something
18:11
Speaker 1: like this that is so complex is gonna all shake out.
18:14
Speaker 1: You have the political aspects of not just the split
18:17
Speaker 1: with MAGA, but what about what this is going to
18:20
Speaker 1: do to the economy and to the midterm elections. I mean,
18:24
Speaker 1: the price of oil is absolutely at the epicenter of
18:28
Speaker 1: Trump's entire economic philosophy, which by the way, I agree
18:32
Speaker 1: with because with energy costs go down, everything else goes
18:36
Speaker 1: down along with it. Well, oil has understandably spiked. The
18:40
Speaker 1: stock market took a hit on the first part of
18:45
Speaker 1: this week, at least when it came to the reaction
18:48
Speaker 1: to this military strike over the weekend. This is not
18:52
Speaker 1: the way you should be going into the midterm elections
18:55
Speaker 1: if you're a Republican, especially given the fact that you're
18:58
Speaker 1: already in a very compromise position historically as well as politically,
19:03
Speaker 1: and you have a series of potentially bad situation circumstances here.
19:09
Speaker 1: If oil continues to spike, and you know, they're still
19:12
Speaker 1: talk that the tariffs are going to spark more inflation
19:16
Speaker 1: because the Supreme Court decision has kind of provoked Trump
19:19
Speaker 1: into not just maintaining but escalating that the tariff situation.
19:24
Speaker 1: So if inflation is going up and the stock market
19:28
Speaker 1: is going down, and unemployment is being harmed in theory
19:33
Speaker 1: by advances in AI, it is a potentially catastrophic situation
19:39
Speaker 1: for Republicans in the midterms. By the way, with regard
19:41
Speaker 1: to AI, and I have not done a deep dive
19:45
Speaker 1: into this, I don't fully understand it, but I want
19:49
Speaker 1: at least mention that there is a remarkably I think
19:52
Speaker 1: important conflict going on with regard to AI and the
19:56
Speaker 1: Pentagon where ANTHROPIC has refused to essentially give their i
20:04
Speaker 1: don't know what you call it, their algorithm or whatever
20:07
Speaker 1: to the US military for the purposes of obviously helping
20:12
Speaker 1: the United States in war. And I understand why Anthropic
20:16
Speaker 1: did this, but apparently Open AI, and again I don't
20:20
Speaker 1: know all the details here, but it appears as if
20:22
Speaker 1: open AI has agreed to do some things that Anthropic
20:26
Speaker 1: did not. Now I fully understand and respect anthropics view
20:30
Speaker 1: of the dangers of AI and how you have to
20:33
Speaker 1: be really, really, really careful in these kind of situations.
20:36
Speaker 1: This is a very tough call, because you know, where
20:39
Speaker 1: does loyalty to the United States end and where does
20:44
Speaker 1: your concern over the ramifications of providing your AI technology
20:49
Speaker 1: without restrictions to the US military begin. I totally get
20:54
Speaker 1: that that's a very difficult and complex situation. I don't
20:57
Speaker 1: have an answer to that, but I do intend to
20:59
Speaker 1: look into it more deeply, and if I have a
21:02
Speaker 1: strong opinion on it, I will share it in the future.
21:05
Speaker 1: But as far as Trump and his decision to go
21:08
Speaker 1: ahead and do this, this is called Operation Epic Fury.
21:13
Speaker 1: Of course, the conspiracy nuts who are obsessed with Epstein
21:17
Speaker 1: to a degree that is just so unbelievably bizarre to me,
21:21
Speaker 1: renamed it Operation Epstein Fury because in their view, Epstein
21:26
Speaker 1: is the most important thing in the world, and anything
21:28
Speaker 1: that happens must be a distraction from our obsession, our
21:33
Speaker 1: perverted obsession with the way overblown Epstein's story. But these names,
21:39
Speaker 1: these names that the military keeps coming up with for
21:42
Speaker 1: their operations. You just know that this is a huge
21:46
Speaker 1: part of the planning when it comes to pitching an
21:50
Speaker 1: idea to Trump. I mean, Saturday Night Live, if they
21:53
Speaker 1: weren't completely out, the LUOD should totally woke and very
21:57
Speaker 1: anti Trump in the old days. Be an SNL skit
22:01
Speaker 1: that would right itself. I mean, can you imagine the
22:04
Speaker 1: pitch meeting in the Pentagon trying to come up with
22:07
Speaker 1: really good names that are going to appeal enough to
22:10
Speaker 1: Trump where he'll sign off on a proposed military action
22:15
Speaker 1: operation epic theory. It sounds strong and masculine, and I
22:18
Speaker 1: could totally see where that got focus groved and Trump
22:22
Speaker 1: would easily approve that. I'm of the belief that if
22:25
Speaker 1: the Pentagon wanted to take Canada and they called it
22:30
Speaker 1: Operation Raging Erection, that Trump would probably approve that and
22:34
Speaker 1: we'd have a fifty first state within the week. That's
22:37
Speaker 1: only a slight exaggeration. That's the way Trump's mentality is.
22:40
Speaker 1: By the way, speaking of SNL skits, I mean, they
22:43
Speaker 1: really missed the opportunity to show the situation room at
22:47
Speaker 1: mar A Lago. I have a friend, John Halting, a writer,
22:50
Speaker 1: who suggested that maybe you know what were the chances
22:53
Speaker 1: that white trash golfer John Daly, who hangs out in
22:56
Speaker 1: mar A Lago A lot was in the situation room
22:59
Speaker 1: with this decision was made. I mean, kid Rock, John Daily,
23:05
Speaker 1: all sorts of mag of people that could have been
23:08
Speaker 1: a comic genius. But that's not the SNL that exists anymore.
23:12
Speaker 1: But you know, unfortunately, it doesn't take that much to
23:16
Speaker 1: imagine the situation involving Trump where this could actually be
23:20
Speaker 1: somewhat real. You know. Another part of this whole situation
23:25
Speaker 1: I found fascinating is that recently I've talked a lot
23:29
Speaker 1: about what influenced the year nineteen eighty had on my
23:33
Speaker 1: life and life of a lot of people in my
23:35
Speaker 1: age group, and how much I longed for nineteen eighty
23:40
Speaker 1: because I know it's never gonna happen again. You know,
23:42
Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't a perfect year, but for me,
23:44
Speaker 1: it was probably the best year of my life. And
23:47
Speaker 1: here we are in a situation where the United States
23:50
Speaker 1: is at war with Iran, the United States is winning
23:54
Speaker 1: Olympic gold medals and hockey, and Hollywood is still making
23:57
Speaker 1: Star Wars sequels. So I guess there really is nineteen
24:00
Speaker 1: eighty all over again. It's really quite amazing how much
24:05
Speaker 1: things change and sometimes somewhat at least seem to stay
24:09
Speaker 1: the same. Does feel like we're in some ways reliving
24:12
Speaker 1: nineteen to eighty all over again, although this time we're
24:14
Speaker 1: fighting back far more effectively. Unlike in nineteen eighty where
24:18
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter had a very failed military operation try to
24:22
Speaker 1: get the hostages out of Iran, where eight US military
24:25
Speaker 1: members died in that helicopter helicopter accident. Here we are
24:30
Speaker 1: several days into a major war and we still, at
24:35
Speaker 1: least as to my knowledge, have not reached eight casualties
24:39
Speaker 1: for the US military. As far as the US Olympic
24:42
Speaker 1: hockey team situation, I did want to at least address that,
24:46
Speaker 1: and obviously as the weeks go on, we'll continue to
24:49
Speaker 1: cover what's going on with regard to the war between Israel,
24:52
Speaker 1: United States, and Iran and how it's spreading across the
24:56
Speaker 1: Middle East, and beyond that, I do want to little
25:00
Speaker 1: bit of an update on what's been going on with
25:02
Speaker 1: regard to the politicization of the US Olympic hockey team
25:06
Speaker 1: winning the gold medal in the twenty twenty six Winter Olympics. Obviously,
25:10
Speaker 1: the United States beat Canada and in a very dramatic
25:14
Speaker 1: and what I thought was a stupid ending because I
25:15
Speaker 1: hated the overtime rules. But you know, for the first
25:18
Speaker 1: time since nineteen eighty, the United States won the Olympic
25:21
Speaker 1: gold medal. And of course it was very politicized because
25:24
Speaker 1: the United States hockey team, most of them, not all
25:26
Speaker 1: of them, showed up for the State of the Union
25:29
Speaker 1: address and were hailed as the heroes that they are
25:32
Speaker 1: by President Trump, and Cash Battel was in the locker room,
25:36
Speaker 1: which apparently Donald Trump didn't like, which if that's true,
25:39
Speaker 1: I agree with. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. He
25:41
Speaker 1: looked completely unprofessional, and it really, I think played a
25:45
Speaker 1: huge role in creating the narrative, the negative narrative that
25:49
Speaker 1: somehow this United States hockey team was a bunch of
25:53
Speaker 1: maga bros hanging out with the Cash Battel. I mean,
25:56
Speaker 1: they were already vulnerable to that because they're white, male
26:00
Speaker 1: or seemingly all straight, so they're already bad guys in
26:04
Speaker 1: the eyes of the media to begin with. Now you
26:06
Speaker 1: put the Trump stench on them and it's all over.
26:09
Speaker 1: And there's no question that, at least to some degree,
26:14
Speaker 1: the victory has been tarnished in the public perception with
26:18
Speaker 1: regard to it being a unifying event. I mean, and
26:22
Speaker 1: the left has done everything they possibly can. They use
26:24
Speaker 1: the statement that Trump made it as a joke to
26:28
Speaker 1: the men's team that he'd have to invite the women's team.
26:30
Speaker 1: So the women's team went on Saturday Night Live and
26:34
Speaker 1: did anti Trump jokes, and so now everything is divided,
26:38
Speaker 1: I mean nothing. We can't have nice things anymore. That's
26:42
Speaker 1: the saddest part of this whole deal. We can't have
26:44
Speaker 1: nice things. We can't be unified about even our first
26:48
Speaker 1: victory in the United States for a gold medal in
26:51
Speaker 1: hockey in the Olympics in forty six years, even if
26:54
Speaker 1: it happens in dramatic style against our neighbor Canada, which
26:58
Speaker 1: obviously has a history in hockey. But I have to say,
27:03
Speaker 1: as bad as the American left has been with regard
27:06
Speaker 1: to trying to destroy this unifying moment, Canada in some
27:11
Speaker 1: ways has been worse. I mean, I look, I understand
27:16
Speaker 1: I get that as a Canadian you don't like Trump
27:20
Speaker 1: because he's been mocking you with a fifty first state thing.
27:23
Speaker 1: I have been very critical of Trump for that. I
27:27
Speaker 1: believe that. You know, Canada currently has a very very
27:30
Speaker 1: progressive prime minister, almost solely because of Trump and his
27:34
Speaker 1: fifty first state campaign, where there was a legitimate conservative
27:39
Speaker 1: that was on track to win until Trump did that
27:42
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden everything changed and it
27:44
Speaker 1: was because of Trump. And Trump deserves an awful lot
27:47
Speaker 1: of blame for that, and I have blamed him on
27:50
Speaker 1: multiple occasions for doing this. But the reaction to some
27:54
Speaker 1: of the American players, including in Toronto, the Toronto media,
27:58
Speaker 1: the Toronto Mayple Leef fans, who are usually you know,
28:02
Speaker 1: I've always had respect for the Toronto Mayple Leaf fans
28:05
Speaker 1: because their team every single year makes the playoffs and
28:08
Speaker 1: loses in horrendous fashion and they still hang in there.
28:11
Speaker 1: But they have embarrassed themselves with the way that they
28:14
Speaker 1: have attacked their captain, who was a part of the
28:17
Speaker 1: United States hockey team, especially with regard to the issue
28:21
Speaker 1: of visiting with Donald Trump. And this even led to
28:27
Speaker 1: a weird feud online between Linda Cone of ESPN, who's
28:31
Speaker 1: a big hockey person and Keith Oberman, a former ESPN
28:35
Speaker 1: star who's now a left wing lunatic. And good for
28:39
Speaker 1: Linda Cohne I mean, she really blasted Keith Oberman. I
28:43
Speaker 1: had no idea that she might not be liberal. I
28:45
Speaker 1: presume that she was, but that doesn't appear from the
28:48
Speaker 1: feud online between her and Keith Oberman. But I have
28:51
Speaker 1: to say that my patience for Canada has run out. Look,
28:57
Speaker 1: there's a lot of good things about Canada and the
28:59
Speaker 1: Canadian people. I even talked about that with regard to
29:02
Speaker 1: our trip to Portervarta where we barely escape before the
29:06
Speaker 1: war zone erupted there after the killing of a drug kingpin,
29:11
Speaker 1: and how many Canadians there were at the resort we
29:14
Speaker 1: were staying at. But look, here's the bottom line on Canada,
29:17
Speaker 1: and I wish more people would point this out. Yeah,
29:20
Speaker 1: Canada is a nice place to live if you like
29:23
Speaker 1: cold weather. Great. I love the fact that there's a culture,
29:26
Speaker 1: there's a you know, the love of hockey. I get that. Fantastic, wonderful.
29:32
Speaker 1: But the reason why Canada is able to be the
29:36
Speaker 1: way they are is that they have massive advantages because
29:41
Speaker 1: of us. Because of US, they don't need to spend
29:44
Speaker 1: any money really on a military. They don't have to
29:47
Speaker 1: worry about national security. They also don't have to worry
29:51
Speaker 1: about any sort of immigration problem from their southern border.
29:56
Speaker 1: So what a wonderful world it would be. Imagine if
30:00
Speaker 1: the United States had no racial problem because the demographics
30:05
Speaker 1: were all the same essentially, and no immigration problem, didn't
30:10
Speaker 1: have to worry about a military life would be pretty
30:14
Speaker 1: fucking good. Well that's Canada, so shut the fuck up,
30:19
Speaker 1: all right. It was a stupid way to lose the game.
30:21
Speaker 1: I get it. It's heartbreaking. I hated the rules myself,
30:25
Speaker 1: but accept the loss and move on. So I am
30:29
Speaker 1: done with Canada from this particular perspective, and I'm really
30:33
Speaker 1: pissed off that I talk all the time about how
30:37
Speaker 1: few remaining unifying moments we could even theoretically have in
30:41
Speaker 1: the United States, and this was one of them, and
30:44
Speaker 1: the left wing media and populous in this country has
30:48
Speaker 1: done a really good job of trying to destroy that,
30:51
Speaker 1: as have similar forces in Canada now. And I want
30:55
Speaker 1: to provide another update on something I talked extensively about
30:58
Speaker 1: in last week's episode of the PODCAS. I talked about
31:01
Speaker 1: the State of the Union address by President Trump and
31:04
Speaker 1: how it was better than I expected, and that specifically
31:08
Speaker 1: I thought that Donald Trump had laid a really brilliant
31:10
Speaker 1: trap for Democrats in what was clearly, in my mind
31:15
Speaker 1: a scripted situation where he challenged Democrats to stand up
31:21
Speaker 1: if they believed that the United States government's job was
31:26
Speaker 1: to protect American citizens against illegal immigrants. And sure enough,
31:32
Speaker 1: almost no Democrats stood. They all sat on their hands. Republicans,
31:36
Speaker 1: of course, all stood and applauded. Trump then called them
31:40
Speaker 1: a bunch of crazies. And to me, it felt like
31:43
Speaker 1: Trump was filming live on national television multiple midterm campaign commercials.
31:50
Speaker 1: And I wrote about that on Twitter and lo and behold,
31:54
Speaker 1: it turns out that President Trump, apparently because seemingly he
31:58
Speaker 1: does this on his own, I don't know that he
32:00
Speaker 1: has anyone that does it for him. It's possible that
32:03
Speaker 1: someone does it for him, but it's his social media account.
32:06
Speaker 1: On truth Social shared my take on what he did
32:12
Speaker 1: in that situation. Now, from a personal standpoint, I didn't
32:16
Speaker 1: even know about this until someone told me about it
32:18
Speaker 1: because I'm not on truth Social. It didn't do me
32:20
Speaker 1: any good because if he had done it on Twitter,
32:23
Speaker 1: then I probably would have picked up some followers that
32:26
Speaker 1: immediately would have abandoned me once they realized that I'm
32:29
Speaker 1: not a Trump guy. So it didn't really matter at
32:32
Speaker 1: all from the perspective of what it does to my
32:36
Speaker 1: social media accounts. It was just humorous. But also I
32:40
Speaker 1: think it was important because whether it was Trump or
32:43
Speaker 1: whether or not it was someone who got Trump's approval
32:47
Speaker 1: to share that analysis of his State of the Union address,
32:51
Speaker 1: that to me validated that what I had said was accurate,
32:56
Speaker 1: at least as far as intent. Right, It's hard for
32:59
Speaker 1: me tounderstand why Trump's social media post account on true
33:05
Speaker 1: social would share that. I believe that he created these
33:09
Speaker 1: campaign commercials on purpose. Why would he share that if
33:13
Speaker 1: that wasn't at least somewhat true or at least somewhat
33:16
Speaker 1: in the plan. So I thought that was interesting and
33:19
Speaker 1: potentially relevant. I hope it's true, but I also now
33:23
Speaker 1: wonder whether or not it's irrelevant because, frankly, you know,
33:27
Speaker 1: depending on how this war with Iran goes, I'm not
33:30
Speaker 1: sure that we're going to have a normal midterm election. Now.
33:34
Speaker 1: There's a lot of time between now and November, and
33:37
Speaker 1: hopefully this thing will be over with long before then,
33:40
Speaker 1: and you know, hopefully the price of oil will be
33:43
Speaker 1: will be normalized or maybe even go down in the
33:46
Speaker 1: long run. That's all possible, but the world did change,
33:50
Speaker 1: at least in the short run, just a few days
33:53
Speaker 1: after the State of the Union address. So I'm not
33:55
Speaker 1: sure that that strategy is going to be nearly as
33:58
Speaker 1: effective as I thought it might be. And even then
34:01
Speaker 1: I wasn't one hundred percent sure it would carry the day.
34:03
Speaker 1: But at the very least Trump himself or at least
34:06
Speaker 1: his true social account, validated that my theory had a
34:09
Speaker 1: lot of weight to it. Turning now to media issues,
34:13
Speaker 1: I have talked in the past several times about the
34:16
Speaker 1: big Netflix Warner Brothers Discovery sale and whether or not
34:21
Speaker 1: it would go through, whether or not Paramount would be
34:25
Speaker 1: able to pull off a hostile takeover, what the ramifications
34:29
Speaker 1: of all this would be on the media business, on
34:31
Speaker 1: the entertainment business. And there's been a massive development since
34:35
Speaker 1: our last episode of the podcast. Netflix dropped out and
34:40
Speaker 1: essentially handed the deal to Paramount, And this has potentially
34:46
Speaker 1: so many ramifications, and it's exceedingly complex, but let me
34:50
Speaker 1: try to break it down. So it appears to me
34:54
Speaker 1: is if Netflix is for sure a winner in this.
34:58
Speaker 1: In fact, their stock price went up when it was
35:01
Speaker 1: revealed that they were no longer in the bidding for
35:04
Speaker 1: Warner Brothers Discovery, and part of the reason for that
35:08
Speaker 1: is that they're going to get paid a couple of
35:09
Speaker 1: billion dollars essentially as a buyout. In this situation, I
35:14
Speaker 1: can't even imagine how much money some of these lawyers
35:17
Speaker 1: made for something that never even happened. But Netflix, I think,
35:22
Speaker 1: kind of elevated their stature. They didn't get a bad deal.
35:28
Speaker 1: They got paid to get out of a deal that
35:31
Speaker 1: might not have been very good for them, and so
35:35
Speaker 1: there's no harm to Netflix. Now. I'm not a Netflix fan.
35:40
Speaker 1: I think that they do some pretty crappy productions. I
35:45
Speaker 1: don't think they're great storytellers. I've talked before about their
35:48
Speaker 1: documentaries being really good from a technical perspective, but really
35:51
Speaker 1: bad from a story telling standpoint, and from a factual basis.
35:56
Speaker 1: I don't like them production wise. Most of their movies
35:59
Speaker 1: are terrible, some of their series are okay. But I
36:02
Speaker 1: don't think that having them take over Warner Brothers Discovery
36:07
Speaker 1: would have been good for the movie making business. For instance,
36:10
Speaker 1: it would have been good for jobs, but it also
36:13
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been good for product Now, if Netflix had
36:18
Speaker 1: gone through with the deal with Warner Brothers Discovery, that
36:21
Speaker 1: would not have included CNN, which is something I talked
36:25
Speaker 1: about in detail, because almost four years of my life
36:28
Speaker 1: were ruined by me apparently being part of a nonsensical,
36:32
Speaker 1: incredibly detailed scam where a former colleague of mine was
36:37
Speaker 1: trying to convince me that I was up for a
36:39
Speaker 1: job at CNN, something that I will probably never know
36:45
Speaker 1: what the hell really was going on behind the scenes there,
36:48
Speaker 1: but I have for the most part gotten over. I'll
36:51
Speaker 1: always be curious about it and always be frustrated by
36:54
Speaker 1: how much time and aggravation was lost over four years,
36:58
Speaker 1: and how what it did to my site, but by
37:01
Speaker 1: and large I've gotten through that better than I expected
37:04
Speaker 1: that I would. But I was kind of hoping that
37:07
Speaker 1: CNN would not be left out there on its own,
37:10
Speaker 1: because it left open the possibility, the underlying, small possibility
37:16
Speaker 1: that most of what I've been told was true, that
37:19
Speaker 1: somehow CNN would end up in the hands of John Malone,
37:22
Speaker 1: the guy who I was told was behind this effort
37:26
Speaker 1: to hire me at CNN, and he might buy CNN.
37:29
Speaker 1: And I thought, oh, my gosh, if this goes through
37:31
Speaker 1: with Netflix and that ends up transpiring, and somehow I
37:35
Speaker 1: blew this that that's going to really be horrendous from
37:38
Speaker 1: my already fragile psyche. But that's not going to happen
37:42
Speaker 1: because Paramount has taken over the deal and under the
37:47
Speaker 1: Paramount proposal, CNN is included. Now, first of all, it's
37:53
Speaker 1: not one hundred percent sure this is going to go through.
37:55
Speaker 1: In fact, David Zaslop, the chairman of Warner Brothers Discovery,
38:00
Speaker 1: has been caught saying that the deal might not go
38:03
Speaker 1: through and bragging about the fact that they get seven
38:06
Speaker 1: billion dollars if it doesn't. In a rational world, there
38:11
Speaker 1: should be significant anti trust concerns here because if Paramount
38:17
Speaker 1: takes over Warner Brothers Discovery, this is a massive conglomerate
38:23
Speaker 1: controlling an unbelievable amount of media. And yes, most of
38:30
Speaker 1: that is in the entertainment realm, but also it includes
38:34
Speaker 1: CBS News and CNN. Now, with regard to Paramount, I'm
38:40
Speaker 1: not a massive Paramount fan, but I like Paramount from
38:43
Speaker 1: a production standpoint a lot more than Netflix. Paramount at
38:48
Speaker 1: least has what I call institutional memory. I think this
38:53
Speaker 1: is an incredibly underrated element of so much in life,
38:56
Speaker 1: and so much we're losing as the demographics shift is
39:00
Speaker 1: institutional memory of the way things have been, and Paramount
39:04
Speaker 1: is a historic studio, and there's at least some, unlike
39:08
Speaker 1: at Netflix, institutional memory about the fact that, you know,
39:13
Speaker 1: art might actually matter a little bit, that maybe you
39:17
Speaker 1: don't make all your decisions like you're a you know,
39:21
Speaker 1: public equity fund, where the only thing that matters is
39:27
Speaker 1: how the bottom line is going to be impacted in
39:29
Speaker 1: the next quarterly statement. I mean, that is the enemy
39:33
Speaker 1: of art. You cannot do art. It's impossible if it
39:37
Speaker 1: is purely to make profit. It's impossible, especially in this
39:43
Speaker 1: day and age. And so I think that from a
39:47
Speaker 1: production standpoint, movie making an emphasis on putting movies in theaters.
39:53
Speaker 1: Having Paramount win this is probably a net positive in
39:58
Speaker 1: comparison to what it would have been had Netflix won
40:01
Speaker 1: this deal for the movie making business. How much of
40:04
Speaker 1: a net positive I don't know, but it's a net positive. However,
40:09
Speaker 1: there's gonna be if this goes through massive job loss,
40:12
Speaker 1: because that's the only way Paramount can justify this. Paramount
40:17
Speaker 1: paid way, by all accounts, way too much money for this.
40:22
Speaker 1: The way that they are justifying it is if they
40:26
Speaker 1: can consolidate all of this and they can cut the cost,
40:30
Speaker 1: which of course mostly means jobs, especially in an AI world,
40:35
Speaker 1: then you know, maybe they can make this work. But
40:39
Speaker 1: it seems to me is at least part of what's
40:41
Speaker 1: going on here is it's this is an ego move
40:43
Speaker 1: by the Ellison family and maybe a political move, and
40:46
Speaker 1: the fact that the Ellison family has been connected to
40:49
Speaker 1: the Trump administration of the Trump family, I don't think
40:52
Speaker 1: it's coincidental. It seems that's very troubling. It is very
40:56
Speaker 1: very trouble. Like a normal world, I think this would
40:59
Speaker 1: have created outrage, but we don't live in that world anymore.
41:02
Speaker 1: We're so desensitized. I really do believe that what the
41:07
Speaker 1: Trump administration has seemingly fostered here, either directly or indirectly,
41:13
Speaker 1: is incredibly inappropriate. It's a massive conflict of interest on
41:17
Speaker 1: multiple levels. Especially says it's the Trump administration that will
41:22
Speaker 1: be essentially approving this deal from an anti trust perspective,
41:26
Speaker 1: although the State of California is trying to claim that
41:29
Speaker 1: they might put a kebash on it because they don't
41:32
Speaker 1: like the Trump element of the deal, but this is
41:37
Speaker 1: there are mass and by the way, because Trump is
41:41
Speaker 1: who Trump is, the fact that the Trump administration has
41:45
Speaker 1: to approve or will approve, and essentially has signaled that
41:48
Speaker 1: it will already approve at least federally. That this passes
41:53
Speaker 1: anti trust muster is very problematic because in a normal
41:59
Speaker 1: adminishon stration, you might have some firewall between Trump and
42:05
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice making the decision. But that firewall
42:09
Speaker 1: doesn't exist when Donald Trump as president. No one at
42:14
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is going to do something on
42:16
Speaker 1: something this big that Trump doesn't want to have done,
42:20
Speaker 1: and so you're not going to get an objective decision
42:23
Speaker 1: about whether or not this violates anti trust laws. So
42:28
Speaker 1: bottom line here is that I think Netflix probably made
42:33
Speaker 1: out best of anybody here. If this goes through, I
42:36
Speaker 1: think Warner Brothers, Discovery're gonna get more money than they deserved.
42:40
Speaker 1: Paramount now gets a darn near a monopoly. You know,
42:45
Speaker 1: it's not technically a monopoly, although maybe from an anti
42:47
Speaker 1: trust perspective you could argue it could be. But they
42:50
Speaker 1: get by far the largest media conglomerate in the United States.
42:56
Speaker 1: They get a massive debt problem. By the way, a
42:58
Speaker 1: lot of this is being funded by me at least
43:00
Speaker 1: her money, which is, you know, something that should be
43:03
Speaker 1: problematic considering how much power paramount is gonna theoretically have
43:08
Speaker 1: over not just the entertainment business, but over the news business.
43:12
Speaker 1: And part of that is is CNN. And you know,
43:16
Speaker 1: who knows what they're gonna do with CNN. It's most
43:18
Speaker 1: likely that they're going to lose a lot of jobs.
43:21
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the big fear at CNN. You would
43:23
Speaker 1: think that they would. There's the perception, and I find
43:26
Speaker 1: this perception kind of comical that the head of CBS News,
43:31
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss, who I generally like, but she's not a conservative.
43:36
Speaker 1: I mean, she's let's be married to a woman who
43:40
Speaker 1: doesn't believe in the Second Amendment. That's a conservative. I mean,
43:44
Speaker 1: but she's rational. At least she you know, eventually figured
43:48
Speaker 1: out the COVID scam. She you know, her branding is
43:51
Speaker 1: anti woke. I do believe that she's in over her head.
43:55
Speaker 1: She's not qualified. She wasn't qualified for the job when
43:58
Speaker 1: it was just CBS News News. But now if you
44:01
Speaker 1: put CNN under that umbrella, or vice versa, I mean,
44:07
Speaker 1: that would be basically an unprecedented job in the modern
44:11
Speaker 1: history of television news. And I actually think this is
44:16
Speaker 1: purely my gut instinct that says I have zero inside
44:19
Speaker 1: information or anything like that on this particular situation. But
44:24
Speaker 1: my gut is if this happens, especially given all the
44:27
Speaker 1: turmoil surrounding Barry Weiss, I would be surprised if she
44:32
Speaker 1: got the job of overseeing both CNN and CBS. I
44:36
Speaker 1: think this could be used as an excuse to effectively
44:40
Speaker 1: give her a demotion, because she's kind of shown that
44:43
Speaker 1: she can't handle this now. To be clear, and to
44:46
Speaker 1: be fair, I'm not sure anybody could handle this, because
44:50
Speaker 1: part of her mission has been to move CBS more
44:54
Speaker 1: to the center, and so you have talked about institutional memory.
44:58
Speaker 1: You have an an entire staff that has been exceedingly
45:03
Speaker 1: left wing for a very very long time, and to
45:07
Speaker 1: pull them in another direction is very very difficult, especially
45:10
Speaker 1: when you're a newcomer, especially when you're a young woman
45:14
Speaker 1: and you don't have, you know, the credentials, and you
45:17
Speaker 1: don't have the respect, and you're seen as a stooge
45:20
Speaker 1: for the Paramount Brass, and the Paramount Brass is seen
45:25
Speaker 1: as somehow in cahoots with the Trump administration, which creates
45:29
Speaker 1: even more cynicism among the CBS staff. And so it's
45:34
Speaker 1: a very very very difficult situation for anybody, and then
45:39
Speaker 1: let me prove that to you. So there was a
45:42
Speaker 1: CBS News producer by the name of Mary Walsh who
45:45
Speaker 1: resigned this past week after forty six years. Now, first
45:50
Speaker 1: of all, resigning after forty six years in the news business,
45:53
Speaker 1: that sounds like a retirement, not a resignation. But you know,
45:58
Speaker 1: but she I guess one of them the moral high
46:00
Speaker 1: ground and say that she was resigning because of the
46:06
Speaker 1: philosophical shift at CBS News under Barry Weiss. And she
46:11
Speaker 1: wrote a piece where she said, quote, We've been told
46:17
Speaker 1: to aim our reporting at a particular part of the
46:20
Speaker 1: political spectrum. Honestly, I don't know how to do that now.
46:29
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna for the sake of argument, except that
46:32
Speaker 1: they've been told to aim our report I get a
46:34
Speaker 1: particular part of the political spectrum, which which is probably
46:37
Speaker 1: her interpretation of Barry Weiss saying, hey, guys, we got
46:40
Speaker 1: to be more fair to the other side. We need
46:44
Speaker 1: to be somewhat more in the middle than what we've been.
46:47
Speaker 1: I have no problem believing that Barry Weiss has said that.
46:50
Speaker 1: But for someone who has been at CBS News for
46:53
Speaker 1: forty six years to say honestly, I don't know how
46:56
Speaker 1: to do. That is both laughable as well as an
47:00
Speaker 1: indication of what the problem was to begin with. If
47:03
Speaker 1: someone online road this is like a fish not realizing
47:06
Speaker 1: they've been swimming in water for forty six years. I mean,
47:10
Speaker 1: they're so desensitized to it. It's so part of who
47:13
Speaker 1: they are that they don't even realize how far to
47:17
Speaker 1: the left that they are. And so that to me
47:20
Speaker 1: was a really telling example of the problem at CBS.
47:24
Speaker 1: And I know it'll be fascinating to see if this
47:27
Speaker 1: goes through what transpires at CBS CNN. I actually think
47:32
Speaker 1: it could be the best thing that ever happened to CNN,
47:35
Speaker 1: because CNN has no audience anymore, but it still has
47:40
Speaker 1: a branding. And if you took that branding and you
47:45
Speaker 1: got rid of some of the fat and got rid
47:47
Speaker 1: of some of the worst elements of the left wing
47:50
Speaker 1: and some of the older people, and you revitalized it,
47:54
Speaker 1: and you combined it with CBS, you would have the
47:57
Speaker 1: perception of having more impacts. I think that's the big
48:01
Speaker 1: There's two problems CNN has right now. The left wing
48:04
Speaker 1: bias perception, which is real, and the perception that no
48:09
Speaker 1: one's really watching CNN anymore. So what difference does it
48:12
Speaker 1: make what is said on CNN or what is reported
48:15
Speaker 1: on CNN, except maybe in times of war. CNN still
48:19
Speaker 1: seems to be the place that people will go to
48:22
Speaker 1: in the time of war, although not nearly as much
48:24
Speaker 1: as the used to be the case in their heyday.
48:27
Speaker 1: But if you combine it with CBS and you know
48:30
Speaker 1: it's on Paramount Plus. By the way, the Paramount Plus
48:33
Speaker 1: streaming service is going to be basically, you know, a
48:36
Speaker 1: must for anybody that cares about entertainment, just one of them.
48:40
Speaker 1: We don't have Paramount Plus right now, we don't have
48:42
Speaker 1: HBO Max right now, but if this goes through, I'm
48:45
Speaker 1: sure our family will absolutely subscribe to Paramount Plus. But
48:49
Speaker 1: if you combine you know, Paramount Plus with the CBS
48:53
Speaker 1: networks and over the air and CNN cable networks and
49:00
Speaker 1: and you know, all sorts of possibilities with regard to streaming,
49:03
Speaker 1: that has a lot of reach and at least in perception,
49:06
Speaker 1: that gives you impact, that gives you credibility, and if
49:11
Speaker 1: done properly, I actually think it could save CNNCBS or
49:16
Speaker 1: whatever they ended up calling it. But let's not get ourselves.
49:20
Speaker 1: The news business is in grave, grave, grave peril. That's
49:24
Speaker 1: partially why we do a podcast called The Death of Journalism.
49:28
Speaker 1: And there was another example of that on the local
49:31
Speaker 1: level in the past week. Next Star, which is a
49:34
Speaker 1: major media company that owns, among other things, News Nation,
49:38
Speaker 1: they had massive layoffs at their two largest local affiliates
49:43
Speaker 1: in New York and in Los Angeles. And I was
49:46
Speaker 1: very familiar with what was going on in Los Angeles,
49:49
Speaker 1: obviously because I live in the Los Angeles television market
49:52
Speaker 1: and I actually have a friend that was one of
49:54
Speaker 1: those that was laid off at KTLA, which is really
50:00
Speaker 1: probably the most prominent, least in the mornings, prominent news
50:05
Speaker 1: TV station in the Los Angeles market. It has a
50:08
Speaker 1: very storied past. Their whole you know, their whole branding
50:13
Speaker 1: is their family. You know, they've had people there for many,
50:17
Speaker 1: many years, and you know, again they have the institutional
50:21
Speaker 1: memory of Los Angeles and its history. Well, they cleaned house,
50:26
Speaker 1: and they seemingly cleaned house with a lot of people
50:29
Speaker 1: that didn't have a lot of pigmentation in their skin.
50:33
Speaker 1: I although that was anything more than a coincidence. My
50:36
Speaker 1: suspicion is that it was not a coincidence that it's
50:40
Speaker 1: a lot easier to get rid of non minorities who
50:44
Speaker 1: are on air, especially in the market like Los Angeles,
50:47
Speaker 1: than it would be in the other direction, where you're
50:49
Speaker 1: gonna have a lawsuit on your hands of some sort.
50:53
Speaker 1: And one of those that was laid off was a
50:56
Speaker 1: friend of mine by the name of Glenn Walker, who
50:58
Speaker 1: I know is a closet conservative who has been biting
51:01
Speaker 1: his tongue for years dealing with all the bs that
51:05
Speaker 1: you have to report in a very very woke environment.
51:10
Speaker 1: But one of the people that was fired was a
51:13
Speaker 1: weather guy, a beloved weather guy who's been there for
51:16
Speaker 1: over thirty years, just recovered from a stroke and they
51:21
Speaker 1: got rid of him. My wife really liked the guy
51:23
Speaker 1: because he would very subtly give the record low and
51:28
Speaker 1: high temperatures on a daily basis for what year they occurred,
51:33
Speaker 1: in which my wife I think understandably interpreted as kind
51:36
Speaker 1: of a shot at the global warming narrative because invariably
51:39
Speaker 1: it was, you know this, the high temperature of this
51:42
Speaker 1: date was nineteen thirteen or something like that, and you know,
51:46
Speaker 1: a beloved guy and just gone gone after thirty some years.
51:52
Speaker 1: They didn't even say his name, because there were so
51:55
Speaker 1: many people that got laid off or fired they didn't
51:58
Speaker 1: say their name. And this was particularly absurd given the
52:03
Speaker 1: fact that this very same station KTLA and Los Angeles
52:07
Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen when they had a guy who
52:12
Speaker 1: very few people had ever heard of. You know, he
52:16
Speaker 1: was only in LA for a few years. He died
52:20
Speaker 1: a younger guy. He died in a CD hotel room
52:25
Speaker 1: in Glendale where he apparently died of a drug overdose
52:30
Speaker 1: while having some sort of bizarre gay sex. And he
52:35
Speaker 1: wasn't even out as a gay man, and they had
52:40
Speaker 1: to dance around that reality, which they basically pretended didn't exist.
52:44
Speaker 1: But you know, it was almost like it was a
52:48
Speaker 1: presidential death. I mean, for two or three days, KTLA
52:52
Speaker 1: was non stop honoring this guy who died of a
52:56
Speaker 1: drug overdose while engaged in some bizarre gay sex act.
53:01
Speaker 1: And I'm just like, you gotta be kidding me. So
53:03
Speaker 1: that guy gets an amazing send off, and your thirty
53:09
Speaker 1: some year whether just recover stroke, doesn't even say goodbye,
53:12
Speaker 1: You don't even say his name. I mean that to
53:15
Speaker 1: me is how unbelievably messed up The news business, especially
53:21
Speaker 1: on the local level, has become. I mean, it's totally broken.
53:26
Speaker 1: The business model is busted. That's why there's layoffs. These
53:30
Speaker 1: jobs that used to be incredibly powerful have no power
53:34
Speaker 1: at all. Now their salaries are being cut, jobs are
53:38
Speaker 1: being cut all because the audience is shrinking almost on
53:42
Speaker 1: a daily basis, and local news is probably in more
53:47
Speaker 1: crisis than national news. I talked about this occasionally on
53:51
Speaker 1: the podcast, but probably not enough. The reality is I
53:55
Speaker 1: mean in local news, I mean newspapers are disappearing, literally
54:00
Speaker 1: and figuratively. Local TV news is disappearing, radio news is disappearing.
54:06
Speaker 1: My old station KFI in Los Angeles a couple of
54:10
Speaker 1: years ago had massive cutbacks just before the wildfires took
54:14
Speaker 1: over Los Angeles. You know what used to be a
54:17
Speaker 1: really significant news department. There is no local news anymore,
54:22
Speaker 1: and that has massive ramifications. The amount of corruption that
54:27
Speaker 1: can occur on a local level because there are no
54:31
Speaker 1: news watchdogs anymore, even in major markets is astonishing and
54:37
Speaker 1: it boggles the mind the impact that that's already I'm
54:42
Speaker 1: sure having and will have for decades to come. Because
54:46
Speaker 1: if you're in a situation where let's say you know
54:49
Speaker 1: you're this whatever scam you're pulling, off or whether you're
54:52
Speaker 1: in politics or in business or whatever, is not large
54:56
Speaker 1: enough to get national attention. There's not a manpower to
55:01
Speaker 1: find out about it and expose it, and there's not
55:04
Speaker 1: the audience level to have the impact. I mean it
55:07
Speaker 1: used to be if you were exposed on any local
55:11
Speaker 1: television news channel back in the heyday, you were toast.
55:15
Speaker 1: Now it could happen and maybe no one even notices
55:18
Speaker 1: because there's so much fragmentation, the audiences are so small.
55:23
Speaker 1: And also there's so many conflicts of interest. I mean,
55:26
Speaker 1: you could have corruption and this is not an exaggeration.
55:29
Speaker 1: You could be of a corrupt business in a local market,
55:34
Speaker 1: and let's say, you know, the local news station actually
55:37
Speaker 1: does find out about it and tries to do something
55:39
Speaker 1: about it. If the ownership doesn't want that business to
55:43
Speaker 1: be harmed, the reporter isn't going to do anything because
55:46
Speaker 1: they have no leverage. And because I've said a million
55:49
Speaker 1: times before, corporate bigwigs like they don't give a shit
55:54
Speaker 1: about journalism. Journalism is a pain in their asshole. They
55:57
Speaker 1: really don't care about it. It is a problem for them.
56:02
Speaker 1: It doesn't make nearly as much money as it used to,
56:06
Speaker 1: and it can cause them headaches, and this is a
56:10
Speaker 1: huge part of the reason why journalism is dead, especially
56:13
Speaker 1: on the local level. Thanks for listening to today's free
56:17
Speaker 1: drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
56:20
Speaker 1: to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please
56:24
Speaker 1: go to Patreon. That's p A T R E O
56:28
Speaker 1: N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of
56:34
Speaker 1: Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j hn z
56:38
Speaker 1: I E G L e R. That's patreon dot com
56:43
Speaker 1: slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck
56:49
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.