Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Seventeen: Commissioner Zig

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Seventeen: Commissioner Zig · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and seventeen of the Death
0:03
Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
0:06
Speaker 1: host on today's show. President Elect Trump reacts to his
0:09
Speaker 1: big settlement victory over ABC in absolutely horrible fashion. Drone's
0:16
Speaker 1: sanity reaches a news media nator. I think Luigi Manjumania
0:23
Speaker 1: has proven to be all too real. The most embarrassing
0:27
Speaker 1: media moment of at least the year maybe longer happens
0:31
Speaker 1: on CNN and on the eve of the college football playoff, how.
0:35
Speaker 2: I would fix the badly broken sport.
0:39
Speaker 1: In the last episode of the podcast, I went into
0:42
Speaker 1: my take on the remarkable and surprising settlement between ABC
0:48
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump because of alleged defamation that was committed
0:54
Speaker 1: by George Stephanopflis against Donald Trump when he incorrectly said
0:59
Speaker 1: multiple times times that Donald Trump had been found liable
1:03
Speaker 1: for rape in the Eging Carroll situation that was not
1:07
Speaker 1: actually accurate. It was sexual abuse, and Trump had sued ABC.
1:13
Speaker 1: ABC settled at the very last moment before depositions were
1:18
Speaker 1: set to begin in Discovery was set to start fifteen
1:22
Speaker 1: million dollars for Trump's presidential library plus and I guess
1:27
Speaker 1: you would call it an apology. Online, the left, especially
1:32
Speaker 1: in the media, was incensed by this. I actually went
1:36
Speaker 1: on News Nation on Monday night on Dan Abrams Show,
1:41
Speaker 1: although Dan was off on that particular evening, to discuss
1:45
Speaker 1: this in some detail, and I went off on basically everybody.
1:50
Speaker 1: I really do believe that everybody failed in that situation.
1:55
Speaker 1: I mean, from the very beginning. I think Eging Carroll lied.
1:59
Speaker 1: I think that judging that case screwed up. I think
2:01
Speaker 1: the jury in that case screwed up. I think George
2:04
Speaker 1: Stephanopolis obviously screwed up.
2:07
Speaker 2: Although I believe that.
2:09
Speaker 1: ABC could have and should have one a defamation case
2:14
Speaker 1: in this particular situation. So I think the suits, the
2:17
Speaker 1: corporate suits at ABC, screwed up by caving in the
2:22
Speaker 1: situation where they really didn't have.
2:23
Speaker 2: Much to lose.
2:24
Speaker 1: This is going to be a fifteen million dollars tax
2:27
Speaker 1: right off for them. I'm sure, bottom line, it's not
2:29
Speaker 1: going to cost very much at all.
2:31
Speaker 2: They don't really care.
2:32
Speaker 1: The corporate suits don't about the journalistic implications of this
2:36
Speaker 1: whole situation, so they screwed up. Everybody in this situation
2:41
Speaker 1: screwed up, including in my view, Donald Trump in his
2:45
Speaker 1: reaction to this. Now, it's important to point out that
2:49
Speaker 1: my evaluation of how Donald Trump is reacting is in
2:53
Speaker 1: large part really because he's going to be the president.
2:57
Speaker 2: Of the United States.
2:59
Speaker 1: I think that really changes the equation very significantly if
3:04
Speaker 1: he had lost. By the way, if he had lost,
3:08
Speaker 1: there would be real damages. It's going to be very
3:11
Speaker 1: difficult for Donald Trump to prove. I think it would
3:14
Speaker 1: have been difficult for him improved damages in the ABC
3:17
Speaker 1: case had that gone forward.
3:18
Speaker 2: Because he won.
3:20
Speaker 1: But his reaction to this has been to threaten and
3:23
Speaker 1: apparently already levy multiple lawsuits against other media outlets.
3:28
Speaker 2: So Trump has.
3:29
Speaker 1: Become emboldened by this victory, effectively over ABC. He's already
3:36
Speaker 1: sued apparently the Des Moines Register newspaper and their Polster
3:40
Speaker 1: and Seltzer for that ridiculous pre election poll showing that
3:45
Speaker 1: Harris was winning Iowa by three or four points, and
3:48
Speaker 1: of course Trump ended up winning it by thirteen. I'll
3:52
Speaker 1: get to that in just a second, but it's important
3:54
Speaker 1: to point out that Trump won, so one the damage
3:59
Speaker 1: that any of this did is at best limited. But
4:03
Speaker 1: more importantly than that, when you're going to be the
4:06
Speaker 1: president of.
4:07
Speaker 2: The United States.
4:07
Speaker 1: I think you have an obligation, an obligation in a
4:12
Speaker 1: rational world to be above this kind of stuff philosophically,
4:17
Speaker 1: and also to not be openly attacking the First Amendment
4:23
Speaker 1: of the United States Constitution. And that's what Trump is doing,
4:28
Speaker 1: and he's doing it.
4:29
Speaker 2: Purely out of ego.
4:31
Speaker 1: His fans will rationalize that he's doing this because, you
4:35
Speaker 1: know what, there's no other way to bring the media down.
4:39
Speaker 1: The media is corrupt, and you know, this is the
4:42
Speaker 1: only vehicle that we have to really do damage to them,
4:46
Speaker 1: and he's doing this for the greater good. Well, first
4:50
Speaker 1: of all, obviously, I'm the host of the Death of
4:52
Speaker 1: Journalism podcasts. Nobody has more disdain for the modern news
4:56
Speaker 1: media than I do.
4:58
Speaker 2: All right, but this is not the way you do it.
5:01
Speaker 1: This is certainly not the way you do it if
5:02
Speaker 1: you're remotely conservative, or if you believe in the Constitution,
5:05
Speaker 1: if you believe in our founding principles. For the incoming
5:09
Speaker 1: president of the United States to do a full frontal
5:12
Speaker 1: attack on freedom of speech, the First Amendment, freedom of
5:16
Speaker 1: the press, all because he is emboldened by this victory
5:21
Speaker 1: over ABC, and because he's doing it out of his
5:24
Speaker 1: own ego, he obviously doesn't need the money.
5:27
Speaker 2: I don't, I mean the idea.
5:29
Speaker 1: Look, I'm all for fighting out what happened at the
5:32
Speaker 1: Des Moines Register. I mean the Seltzer has tried to
5:36
Speaker 1: explain it. I've not heard a good explanation. But guess what,
5:40
Speaker 1: People make mistakes. Posters make mistakes.
5:44
Speaker 2: And I'm not me naive.
5:45
Speaker 1: I think it's possible because I've already said this, she's retiring.
5:49
Speaker 1: It's awfully fishy that she knew this would be her
5:52
Speaker 1: last poll. So that means that all bets are off
5:55
Speaker 1: on what her true motivations were. Her reputation as a
5:59
Speaker 1: poster was no longer all that important to her. And
6:03
Speaker 1: so is it possible something out other than a mistake
6:07
Speaker 1: happened here that it was more nefarious than that. Yeah,
6:10
Speaker 1: let's find out. Let's find out what the truth is.
6:13
Speaker 1: And you know, if I believed that Trump was doing
6:18
Speaker 1: a lawsuit justifying the truth, and that once the discovery
6:22
Speaker 1: happened and he felt like he found that what really occurred,
6:26
Speaker 1: and he was doing this for the purposes of the
6:29
Speaker 1: of the record and make sure that.
6:31
Speaker 2: It never happened again, if I believe that.
6:33
Speaker 1: And then at that point he would pull the plug
6:36
Speaker 1: on the lawsuit.
6:38
Speaker 2: I would be okay, fine, if that's.
6:40
Speaker 1: The vehicle through which you're going to find the truth here,
6:43
Speaker 1: put people under oath, Okay, great, But.
6:46
Speaker 2: I don't believe that for a second.
6:49
Speaker 1: I have no trust, I have no reason to believe
6:52
Speaker 1: that that's really what's gonna happen here.
6:54
Speaker 2: Instead, as I said on NewsNation.
6:56
Speaker 1: Although I incorrectly, I hope no one sues me for
6:59
Speaker 1: dem Because the lawsuit hadn't existed yet against the de
7:03
Speaker 1: Boine Register and ann Seltzer.
7:06
Speaker 2: I did not.
7:06
Speaker 1: Realize that this was a lawsuit for election interference. It
7:12
Speaker 1: wasn't some sort of defamation case, you know, or you know,
7:17
Speaker 1: where Trump's reputation or his his you know, standing in
7:22
Speaker 1: the public was somehow degraded because ann Seltzer put out
7:26
Speaker 1: a bogus poll about where things stood in Iowa. Now,
7:29
Speaker 1: this is about election interference, and to me, this is
7:35
Speaker 1: actually even worse than defamation, because what is not election
7:41
Speaker 1: interference under this definition?
7:45
Speaker 2: Is it? This is completely absurd.
7:48
Speaker 1: Especially coming from the president elect of the United States.
7:52
Speaker 1: Is Trump lying about poles election interference?
7:58
Speaker 2: Okay, let's just think about this lot. If desn Moines Register.
8:02
Speaker 1: Putting out a highly inaccurate poll just before an election
8:06
Speaker 1: can be deemed to be election interference to the point
8:10
Speaker 1: where they are held legally responsible in a lawsuit by
8:16
Speaker 1: the incoming president of the United States. If that's election interference,
8:20
Speaker 1: then how is it not election interference When Trump lies
8:24
Speaker 1: about the polling in an election, which he does constantly.
8:31
Speaker 1: Trump knowingly he has to I mean, unless he's a
8:34
Speaker 1: complete imbecile, he has to know he's lying.
8:37
Speaker 2: He's so reckless with the.
8:39
Speaker 1: Things that he says, and you know, and I go
8:41
Speaker 1: back to the Stephanopfolos situation. I think Stephanopfolis was probably
8:46
Speaker 1: reckless in what he said, or at least you could
8:49
Speaker 1: make an argument in court that he was reckless that
8:52
Speaker 1: he just combined rape.
8:55
Speaker 2: With sexual abuse.
8:56
Speaker 1: By the way, the judge in the case made comments
8:59
Speaker 1: that made that very easily done. I don't agree with
9:05
Speaker 1: what the judge said, but the judge made statements that
9:09
Speaker 1: I think could have been used by ABC to justify
9:12
Speaker 1: why Stephanopholis was not committing defamation, was not liable for
9:17
Speaker 1: what he said regarding the results of the EG and
9:22
Speaker 1: Carrol case. And that's one of the reasons why I
9:24
Speaker 1: think ABC made a huge mistake journalistically in not fighting
9:29
Speaker 1: this because I think they could have won. But you know,
9:33
Speaker 1: if that's the standard for defamation, Trump commits defamation almost
9:39
Speaker 1: every time he speaks because he is so laxed with
9:43
Speaker 1: the facts on a constant basis. But let me just
9:47
Speaker 1: go back to the Des Moines Register thing and try
9:49
Speaker 1: to make this as specific as possible. So if it's
9:53
Speaker 1: if it is somehow election interference to put out an
9:57
Speaker 1: inaccurate poll, then what is not election interference?
10:03
Speaker 2: I mean, by then you could you could argue almost.
10:06
Speaker 1: Everything is election interference if it turns out to be
10:10
Speaker 1: a claim that's not accurate. And then, by the way,
10:13
Speaker 1: how do you determine what's the range of inaccuracy for
10:18
Speaker 1: election interference? So Ann Seltzer was off by like sixteen
10:24
Speaker 1: seventeen points, horrendous, horrible, an explanation is needed for that
10:30
Speaker 1: one hundred percent.
10:32
Speaker 2: But is a twelve.
10:33
Speaker 1: Point differential election interference? Nine points? I mean, this is ridiculous.
10:39
Speaker 1: Not only is it ridiculous from a legal perspective, but
10:44
Speaker 1: think about the chilling effect that that would have on
10:47
Speaker 1: posters everywhere if that was if putting out a really
10:51
Speaker 1: bad poll was somehow election interference to the point where
10:54
Speaker 1: you could get legitimately sued by the incoming president of
10:59
Speaker 1: the United States. It's completely absurd, and it's not an
11:03
Speaker 1: isolated situation for Trump. Trump is still claiming he's gonna
11:08
Speaker 1: sue CBS in sixty minutes over the vary nefarious editing
11:12
Speaker 1: of their interview with Kamala Harris. Again, what CBS did
11:17
Speaker 1: was totally wrong and needs an explanation, but to sue
11:23
Speaker 1: for the incoming president especially, That's why I keep mentioning this.
11:26
Speaker 1: For the incoming president to potentially sue CBS over their editing,
11:33
Speaker 1: that creates a massively troubling and dangerous precedent because.
11:39
Speaker 2: Where do you draw the line on that.
11:43
Speaker 1: Look, I am not defending what CBS did, but you
11:46
Speaker 1: can't make that legally actionable because the slippery slope here
11:51
Speaker 1: ends in an authoritarian state where the First Amendment is gone,
11:57
Speaker 1: where there's no.
11:58
Speaker 2: Freedom of the press.
12:00
Speaker 1: And conservatives ought to be understanding this. Maybe that's the
12:04
Speaker 1: part of this that drives me the craziest is that
12:07
Speaker 1: so many Republicans who are now populous and you know,
12:10
Speaker 1: Trump lovers, Trump cult members would be going bananas, bananas
12:17
Speaker 1: and rightfully so if a democratic president was ever doing
12:21
Speaker 1: anything close was even talking about taking legal action, let
12:25
Speaker 1: me me. Mark Levin is a great example, guy I
12:28
Speaker 1: used to have a lot of respect for radio talk
12:30
Speaker 1: show host conservative. He would be having an anorism if
12:35
Speaker 1: a democratic president ever did this as an incoming president
12:41
Speaker 1: after a presidential election, suing media outlets over the over
12:47
Speaker 1: these specific fact patterns. I mean, people like Mark Levin
12:51
Speaker 1: and people who consider themselves to be constitutionalist, principled conservatives
12:56
Speaker 1: would be rightly going apoplectic over what Trump is doing.
13:01
Speaker 1: And I do not have faith that this is just
13:04
Speaker 1: for a headline, this is just a you know, a
13:08
Speaker 1: fake out, that this is just trolling, that he's not
13:13
Speaker 1: really serious about this. I think he's emboldened by effectively
13:18
Speaker 1: the ABC victory, and it is a very dangerous situation
13:24
Speaker 1: and it's you know, unfortunately, it's not the only data
13:26
Speaker 1: point here that is feeding right in to this very
13:32
Speaker 1: negative narrative that mostly I think to this point has
13:36
Speaker 1: been overblown by the left that somehow Trump's going to
13:39
Speaker 1: be a dictator, that he's he's not going to leave office.
13:43
Speaker 2: And I've already said he shouldn't be joking about that
13:45
Speaker 2: which he did.
13:46
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon was telling a crowd the other day that
13:49
Speaker 1: Trump is entitled to a third term, which is not.
13:52
Speaker 2: Helpful at all obviously.
13:55
Speaker 1: I mean, this is playing right into what they want
13:58
Speaker 1: people to believe about Trump, and it's becoming very difficult
14:01
Speaker 1: at least for people like me to defend him on
14:04
Speaker 1: this when you've got Republicans referring Lynn Cheney for possible
14:09
Speaker 1: criminal charges because of her role in the January sixth investigation.
14:15
Speaker 1: I mean, really, really, I mean, this is all extremely troubling.
14:20
Speaker 2: Again, is it a bluff? Is it real? Or is
14:23
Speaker 2: it a bluff? Is it a troll?
14:26
Speaker 1: Is it just you know, Trump being Trump? I get it,
14:30
Speaker 1: I understand it. I have graded Trump on a curve
14:35
Speaker 1: for basically this entire nine year period of time because
14:39
Speaker 1: I understand who he is. But if it's for real,
14:44
Speaker 1: if it's for real, and we're darned near close to
14:47
Speaker 1: it being for real, there are massive implications to this
14:52
Speaker 1: that are extremely troubling. And I mean already we've seen
14:56
Speaker 1: we saw it with the the Fox News channel deman
15:00
Speaker 1: Onion Voting Systems lawsuit settlement. We're already seeing a watering
15:05
Speaker 1: down of what is legally actionable by the news media.
15:10
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel I think would have easily won that
15:14
Speaker 1: lawsuit had gone to fruition, and they ended up paying
15:16
Speaker 1: well over seven hundred million dollars because they just decided
15:22
Speaker 1: it was better for them to settle. I'm still baffled
15:25
Speaker 1: by why they did and what they were protecting there.
15:28
Speaker 2: But I think.
15:29
Speaker 1: ABC was in a similar situation. And by the way,
15:32
Speaker 1: when Fox News is settling for hundreds of millions of dollars,
15:36
Speaker 1: the ABC suits are thinking, well, fifteen million dollar charitable contribution,
15:40
Speaker 1: that's a tax ran off, big stinking deal.
15:42
Speaker 2: Because these corporate suits don't give.
15:44
Speaker 1: A flying fuck about the the implications journalistically to this,
15:50
Speaker 1: and they're in charge now because the news divisions are
15:53
Speaker 1: not making nearly as much money as.
15:56
Speaker 2: They used to.
15:57
Speaker 1: I mean, within Disney, ABC News is probably now seen
16:01
Speaker 1: as a pain.
16:01
Speaker 2: Of the ass.
16:03
Speaker 1: It's obvious that within Comcast MSNBC is a massive mroid. Similarly,
16:11
Speaker 1: at Warner Discovery, they're now looking at CNN, which used
16:16
Speaker 1: to be, you know, a tremendous property, They're now looking
16:20
Speaker 1: at it as something that they might like to get
16:23
Speaker 1: rid of.
16:25
Speaker 2: So the news.
16:25
Speaker 1: Departments and these news divisions in these massive corporations have
16:31
Speaker 1: no leverage to be able to fight for these journalistic principles,
16:35
Speaker 1: and Trump is taking advantage of it. I mean, let
16:39
Speaker 1: me give you a very small exam incredibly small example,
16:42
Speaker 1: but this will actually work in a couple of different
16:45
Speaker 1: ways because I'll be able to correct something that where
16:47
Speaker 1: I made a mistake in the last episode of the podcast.
16:50
Speaker 1: I have very few notes when I do this podcast.
16:52
Speaker 1: I mean not making excuses, but I'm one guy speaking
16:57
Speaker 1: into a microphone alone, you know, with basically a page
17:01
Speaker 1: of maybe twelve to twenty lines, depending on how many
17:06
Speaker 1: topics I'm going to do in a particular podcast episode,
17:10
Speaker 1: and I had not written down what news outlet it was.
17:14
Speaker 2: I thought it was.
17:15
Speaker 1: Political because it was actually Pro Publica. So I mean
17:20
Speaker 1: not a real stretch as to why my brain thought
17:23
Speaker 1: Politico instead of pro Publica, which is a similar outlet.
17:27
Speaker 1: But the pub public of people are basically into investigative
17:32
Speaker 1: journalism more exclusively. Politico is more of a news politics
17:38
Speaker 1: based organization out of Washington, DC.
17:41
Speaker 2: So I made a mistake.
17:42
Speaker 1: There is that defamation because effectively, I guess I defeigned
17:46
Speaker 1: Political by criticizing them for a story they had absolutely
17:50
Speaker 1: nothing to do with I mean, it used to be
17:52
Speaker 1: not that long ago that there was an understanding that
17:55
Speaker 1: mistakes are made in the media business. I personally think
18:01
Speaker 1: that in the ABC situation, the way this should have
18:04
Speaker 1: been handled would have been that George Devanopholis would have,
18:08
Speaker 1: you know, on the same show and the same time slot,
18:12
Speaker 1: would have corrected what he said and apologized and made
18:17
Speaker 1: it clear to his audience that there's a distinction between
18:21
Speaker 1: being found liable for rape and being found liable for
18:25
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. And that would have been the end of it,
18:29
Speaker 1: because mistakes happen. Now, I get, I understand that there's
18:33
Speaker 1: a difference between, you know, a purposeful mistake and an
18:38
Speaker 1: accidental mistake.
18:40
Speaker 2: But we've got to have wide latitude.
18:43
Speaker 1: Otherwise the First Amendment is dead, especially by the way
18:48
Speaker 1: I've already mentioned the business model being in peril and
18:54
Speaker 1: how the profit margins have dissipated greatly and maybe not
18:58
Speaker 1: even exist in.
18:59
Speaker 2: Some of these major media outlets.
19:02
Speaker 1: You know what that means when news operations are no
19:07
Speaker 1: longer nearly as profitable, Well, guess what that means? More
19:11
Speaker 1: people get laid off. We've seen that all throughout this year.
19:15
Speaker 1: We're probably gonna see it again in early twenty twenty five,
19:19
Speaker 1: massive major media layoffs. Well, guess what that means. When
19:23
Speaker 1: you lay people off, that means that the layers of
19:27
Speaker 1: protection against mistakes get removed. For instance, using my podcast
19:36
Speaker 1: as an example, I'm one guy doing this, putting out
19:43
Speaker 1: two and a half hours of content twice a week.
19:46
Speaker 2: I'm not perfect.
19:47
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make mistakes occasionally. Our executive prouser, Mike Agavino,
19:51
Speaker 1: will we'll catch a mistake, it will try to correct
19:54
Speaker 1: it if it makes sense to do so. And I
19:58
Speaker 1: try to correct every mistake make eventually on the podcast.
20:02
Speaker 1: But you know, if we had a large staff of producers,
20:05
Speaker 1: there'd be fewer mistakes. Someone would have said to me,
20:09
Speaker 1: it's not Politico, it's pro Publica, and I would oh, yeah,
20:13
Speaker 1: of course, what a stupid thing for me to.
20:15
Speaker 2: Say, and that would have been caught.
20:17
Speaker 1: Well, this is going to happen more and more in
20:20
Speaker 1: the modern media world. And I don't know what went
20:23
Speaker 1: into George STEFANOPTVLA was making that mistake.
20:27
Speaker 2: I don't know how much of it was ignorance health.
20:29
Speaker 1: My guess is he probably knew there was a difference,
20:33
Speaker 1: but because he doesn't like Trump, and he really wanted
20:37
Speaker 1: to stick it to Nancy Mace, who he was interviewing.
20:40
Speaker 1: He decided, you know what, I can get away without
20:43
Speaker 1: making a distinction between rape and sex abuse.
20:46
Speaker 2: Is that good journalism?
20:48
Speaker 3: No?
20:48
Speaker 2: Is that wrong?
20:49
Speaker 1: Yes?
20:49
Speaker 2: Is that something that should be corrected?
20:51
Speaker 1: Yes? But is that something that the you know, the
20:54
Speaker 1: incoming president of the United States should be suing over.
20:57
Speaker 3: No.
20:58
Speaker 2: And I really do ABC could have and would have.
21:02
Speaker 1: Won that case, and they should have fought it, because
21:06
Speaker 1: now the floodgates have opened and Trump is proving that
21:09
Speaker 1: going after the Des Moines Register, going after CBS, going after.
21:14
Speaker 2: The pullet surprises.
21:15
Speaker 1: I mean, he has been emboldened in this whole situation,
21:21
Speaker 1: and it is to me, very very troubling, very troubling. Again,
21:27
Speaker 1: I try to keep an open mind because I understand
21:30
Speaker 1: that Trump operates differently. I understand this could mostly be trolling.
21:35
Speaker 1: I understand that there's a point to be made and
21:37
Speaker 1: this might be the only way to make the point.
21:40
Speaker 2: But to me, he's going too far.
21:42
Speaker 1: And it's playing right into this dictatorial, tyrannical, authoritarian narrative
21:51
Speaker 1: that the left has been creating about him that I
21:53
Speaker 1: don't think is helpful to anybody. I also don't think
21:56
Speaker 1: it's helpful that Trump is already getting distracted by a
22:00
Speaker 1: lot of other topics that are not really all all
22:05
Speaker 1: that important, and certainly we're not talked at all about
22:07
Speaker 1: during the election. I mean, he's got only four years unless,
22:11
Speaker 1: of course, Steve Bannon figures out a way to change
22:14
Speaker 1: the constitution for him able to run for a third term.
22:18
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, you know, I wouldn't put it past Trump
22:21
Speaker 1: to at least continue talking about that and pretending that
22:24
Speaker 1: he's joking about it. But let's be logical for a second.
22:28
Speaker 1: Trump has a very short period of time here. He
22:31
Speaker 1: is at best a couple of years before he's a
22:34
Speaker 1: total lame doc in the next presidential election starts. And
22:40
Speaker 1: he's talking about ending daylight saving time and privatizing the
22:45
Speaker 1: post office.
22:46
Speaker 2: I'm like, are you kidding me?
22:49
Speaker 1: Those are the types of things you do when you
22:51
Speaker 1: have already made America great again, when you've already saved
22:55
Speaker 1: America and you've got nothing else to do, and you
22:58
Speaker 1: want to go after daylight saving time, you want to
23:01
Speaker 1: privatize the post office. Okay, I guess we could have
23:05
Speaker 1: that discussion. By the way, you know, for the record,
23:09
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the only thing worse than daylight
23:12
Speaker 1: savings time is every other alternative. There's no good alternative.
23:17
Speaker 1: I'm always I'm big about Okay, what's your alternative? And
23:21
Speaker 1: the alternative isn't any better, and there's costs to changing
23:25
Speaker 1: the entire system. But I also don't see it as
23:27
Speaker 1: a priority. And as far as privatizing the post office, look,
23:32
Speaker 1: I'm all for the free market, and I think privatization
23:37
Speaker 1: generally works better than the government does by far. But
23:41
Speaker 1: the post office is part of the constitution which causes
23:44
Speaker 1: a massive problem. And frankly, of all of our government institutions, well,
23:49
Speaker 1: the post office is hardly perfect, and it's getting worse
23:53
Speaker 1: in a lot of different ways. I think the post
23:55
Speaker 1: office is one of our best governmental institutions. Actually provides
24:00
Speaker 1: a hell of service for a pretty fair price in
24:04
Speaker 1: comparison to everything else. So this would not be a
24:07
Speaker 1: priority of mine with all the other things we got
24:11
Speaker 1: facing this country, That's not where I would get distracted.
24:15
Speaker 1: But this is typical of Trump. He's easily distracted.
24:19
Speaker 2: By the way.
24:19
Speaker 1: Speaking of distractions, since I want to be an equal
24:22
Speaker 1: opportunity criticizer when it comes to both Trump and his critics.
24:28
Speaker 2: The Senate Democrats.
24:31
Speaker 1: Introduced this week an effort to try to end the
24:35
Speaker 1: electoral college. I mean, and I've talked about this before,
24:40
Speaker 1: and of course the timing of this is just insane.
24:43
Speaker 1: Right after a presidential election. Your team lost and oh,
24:47
Speaker 1: by the way, you not only lost the electoral college,
24:50
Speaker 1: you lost the popular vote as well, by not that much,
24:55
Speaker 1: but you did lose the popular vote. Trump won the
24:58
Speaker 1: popular vote, and he won the elect electoral college. And
25:01
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats didn't just introduce this idea. They went to
25:06
Speaker 1: the mat on this idea. And you know, Kathy Hokel,
25:10
Speaker 1: the governor of New York, chimed in and her address
25:14
Speaker 1: to the state legislature saying that the electoral college ought
25:18
Speaker 1: to be abolished and this is undemocratic.
25:21
Speaker 2: And one of the statements that the Senate Judiciary.
25:25
Speaker 1: Committee put out on Twitter yesterday quoted one of their
25:29
Speaker 1: own senators, Brian Schatz from Hawaii, is saying, quote, this
25:34
Speaker 1: is amazing to me. This is of all the many
25:36
Speaker 1: stupid statements that were made on behalf of this idea
25:39
Speaker 1: of ending the electoral college, this might have been the worst.
25:43
Speaker 1: Senator Shots from Hawaii said quote in an election, the
25:47
Speaker 1: person who gets the most votes should win.
25:51
Speaker 2: It's that simple.
25:53
Speaker 1: No one's vote should count for more based on where
25:58
Speaker 1: they live. The electoral college is outdated and it's undemocratic.
26:04
Speaker 2: It's time to ended unquote.
26:08
Speaker 1: Again, I don't want to rehash old material, but this
26:12
Speaker 1: is a pet peeve of mine because I am a
26:15
Speaker 1: huge proponent of the electoral college from numerous perspectives, one
26:21
Speaker 1: of which is the logistical part of this that nobody
26:24
Speaker 1: wants to talk about, which is that a recount in
26:29
Speaker 1: a close popular vote election.
26:32
Speaker 2: Would be a nightmare of all nightmares.
26:36
Speaker 1: If you lived through, as I did, the two thousand
26:38
Speaker 1: recount in Florida, obviously a very large state, you ain't
26:42
Speaker 1: seen nothing compared to what would happen if we ever
26:47
Speaker 1: had a very.
26:48
Speaker 2: Close election nationally where.
26:51
Speaker 1: It was determined by the popular vote. Not to mention,
26:55
Speaker 1: and this is where the equal protection fourteenth Amendment issue
26:59
Speaker 1: comes in, where this Senator Chat says.
27:02
Speaker 2: No one's vote should count more based on where they live.
27:05
Speaker 1: Well, that's not possible to fix unless you do away
27:10
Speaker 1: with states completely. Because every state has a different set
27:15
Speaker 1: of rules for who's eligible to vote, how their vote
27:20
Speaker 1: is counted. You know how easy it is to vote,
27:23
Speaker 1: how difficult it is to vote, So inherently your each
27:28
Speaker 1: person's vote could be deemed to be valued slightly differently
27:34
Speaker 1: based upon their state because of the.
27:36
Speaker 2: Rules that exist. So you would have an inherent.
27:40
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause problem if all of a
27:44
Speaker 1: sudden you had people who were from states where anybody
27:49
Speaker 1: could vote. Let's see, you know where you have no ID,
27:52
Speaker 1: no nothing. So you know, if you're in a state,
27:56
Speaker 1: let's say a red state where it's very you know,
27:59
Speaker 1: stickt to and you have to have ID and only
28:01
Speaker 1: legal residents and citizens are allowed to vote the way
28:05
Speaker 1: it should be, and then your votes, your votes from
28:09
Speaker 1: your state. You know, it's much more, it's more difficult
28:12
Speaker 1: to vote in your state. And then you go to
28:14
Speaker 1: a state like California, let's say, especially in a popular
28:18
Speaker 1: vote era, they let everybody vote. I mean, this is
28:21
Speaker 1: why Democrats want this right of course, if we had
28:25
Speaker 1: a national popular vote in California, they would let anybody vote.
28:30
Speaker 1: The millions and millions of illegal immigrants, who generally by
28:34
Speaker 1: and large do not vote. The numbers prove it they
28:37
Speaker 1: do not vote currently in California, despite what public perception is.
28:41
Speaker 2: But in a.
28:42
Speaker 1: National popular vote situation, I can guarante MTA that would
28:45
Speaker 1: change and every state would have to be able to
28:48
Speaker 1: make their own rules. Well, that would inherently go against
28:51
Speaker 1: what Senators Chats claims to believe, because my vote in
28:56
Speaker 1: a restrictive state would not be worth nearly as much
28:59
Speaker 1: as the vote in California.
29:01
Speaker 2: In this particular station situation would be.
29:04
Speaker 1: But my biggest problem with this goes beyond the fourteenth Amendment,
29:09
Speaker 1: goes beyond the logistics of the nightmare of a national
29:13
Speaker 1: popular vote election. By the way, you know what we've
29:16
Speaker 1: seen in this last election California. It takes weeks and
29:18
Speaker 1: weeks to vote, so we really don't want to be
29:21
Speaker 1: able to declare a victor for weeks. Boy, that wouldn't
29:24
Speaker 1: cause any problems either. But here's the biggest problem of
29:27
Speaker 1: it all. Shots is wrong on the basics of is
29:32
Speaker 1: a parent understanding of our entire election system. In our
29:38
Speaker 1: current electoral college system, the person who gets the most
29:43
Speaker 1: votes does win every single time. The problem is these
29:50
Speaker 1: morons and I actually think they believe this. I don't
29:55
Speaker 1: think they're lying based upon you know what they were saying.
29:58
Speaker 1: I could be wrong about that. Maybe they're just acting
30:01
Speaker 1: and they think this is a good talking point, but
30:03
Speaker 1: I actually think they believe that we live in a
30:08
Speaker 1: system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't
30:13
Speaker 1: always win.
30:14
Speaker 2: That's not true. And here's why it's not true.
30:18
Speaker 1: We don't have one presidential election in this country, the
30:25
Speaker 1: United States of America. I really don't believe these morons
30:30
Speaker 1: understand why we are called the United States of America.
30:36
Speaker 1: It's literally our name, it's literally and how we were founded,
30:41
Speaker 1: the United States of America. The reason why I keep
30:44
Speaker 1: saying that is we don't have one presidential election. We
30:48
Speaker 1: have fifty one presidential elections, one for each state and
30:54
Speaker 1: one for the District of Columbia, and so the winner
30:58
Speaker 1: of each of those fifty one elections gets all except
31:04
Speaker 1: in Maine Nebraska they've decided to do it slightly differently,
31:07
Speaker 1: but it's still within the same spirit of the electoral
31:10
Speaker 1: college system. They get all of the electoral college votes
31:15
Speaker 1: from that state, they win that state election, and then
31:19
Speaker 1: that state sends the electors to Washington, DC, and then
31:24
Speaker 1: they vote on who the president ought to be. So
31:29
Speaker 1: there are no elections in this country for president where
31:33
Speaker 1: the person who doesn't get the largest number of votes
31:38
Speaker 1: wins because we have fifty one elections, and there are
31:44
Speaker 1: very good reasons for why we have fifty one elections.
31:47
Speaker 1: If we did not, then the states wouldn't even matter,
31:52
Speaker 1: it would not matter. The entire system of federalism would
31:56
Speaker 1: completely collapse. We would no longer be the United States
32:01
Speaker 1: of America.
32:02
Speaker 2: And for the.
32:02
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate to be doing this in an
32:05
Speaker 1: anti constitutional, anti rational, and overtly political fashion when they've
32:10
Speaker 1: just lost the election where Trump won the electoral college
32:14
Speaker 1: and won the popular vote is just astonishingly stupid, astonishingly stupid.
32:20
Speaker 1: And Kathy Holkov in New York, I mean, she may
32:23
Speaker 1: not be quite as bad a governor as Gavendoussam, but
32:25
Speaker 1: she is even dumber than Gavin Usso if you look
32:28
Speaker 1: at what she said on this particular issue, it's absolutely amazing. So,
32:33
Speaker 1: you know, there's a whole bunch of with all the
32:35
Speaker 1: problems we have in this country. We're worried about daylight savings, time,
32:39
Speaker 1: the privatization of the post office, and getting rid of
32:41
Speaker 1: the electoral college.
32:43
Speaker 2: God, we are so broken.
32:45
Speaker 1: Now, speaking of being broken and stupid, I got to
32:48
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about Drone's sanity because there's been
32:52
Speaker 1: some significant developments on that front. As you know, I'm
32:56
Speaker 1: generally skeptical of these kinds of stories, and I'm becoming
33:01
Speaker 1: more and more skeptical. I'm not saying that there's not
33:04
Speaker 1: something going on here. I think there's probably something that's
33:09
Speaker 1: happening that's unusual, but I think it is greatly exaggerated
33:13
Speaker 1: by the social contagion and by social media and by
33:19
Speaker 1: the general stupidity of people. By the way, speaking of
33:22
Speaker 1: the general stupidity of people, the FBI office in Newark,
33:26
Speaker 1: New Jersey, actually had to put out a public warning
33:30
Speaker 1: to the public against pointing lasers at manned aircraft or
33:37
Speaker 1: shooting down suspected uass.
33:43
Speaker 4: They actually had to put out a statement, Hey, people
33:46
Speaker 4: of Newwork, please stop pointing lasers at manned aircraft to
33:50
Speaker 4: try to shoot down suspected uass.
33:56
Speaker 1: You know that movie Idiocracy, It was probably not intended
34:01
Speaker 1: to be a documentary, but it effectively has become a documentary.
34:06
Speaker 2: That's who we are. We are living idiocracy and Donald
34:11
Speaker 2: Trump has not been helpful on this.
34:13
Speaker 1: I mentioned in the last episode of the podcast that
34:15
Speaker 1: he put out a rather humorous meme where he suggested
34:19
Speaker 1: that the real source of the drones was that Chris Christi,
34:23
Speaker 1: the former governor in New Jersey, was having McDonald's food
34:27
Speaker 1: shipped in to its residence rather than having to go
34:32
Speaker 1: out and get it himself. And not to be indicated
34:35
Speaker 1: that Trump understood that this whole thing was not all
34:38
Speaker 1: that serious, certainly wasn't a national security problem, and that
34:45
Speaker 1: he was willing to joke about it. Well, he held
34:47
Speaker 1: a press conference where he took a very different stance
34:51
Speaker 1: on this, and in my view, he was rather unhelpfully
34:55
Speaker 1: vaguely conspiratorial.
34:57
Speaker 2: This is classic Trump.
34:59
Speaker 1: He's not really making a position, but he's also throwing
35:03
Speaker 1: a bone to the base of his political support, which
35:07
Speaker 1: is very conspiratorial and is very wrapped up in this
35:11
Speaker 1: story and very convinced that the government is hiding something
35:14
Speaker 1: the farious from us. So Trump threw them this bone
35:19
Speaker 1: at this press conference. And I think, I think this
35:23
Speaker 1: is one of the problems with Trump. You're never a
35:24
Speaker 1: hundred percent sure when he's serious and when he's joking.
35:27
Speaker 1: I think he was joking about canceling trips to Bedminster
35:33
Speaker 1: because he's afraid of the drones there. But here's what
35:37
Speaker 1: incoming president Donald Trump said about the situation involving drone's sanity?
35:43
Speaker 2: Can you call me it?
35:44
Speaker 1: All the drones that are flying at reports, it seems
35:47
Speaker 1: like that there people have a big disc the government.
35:50
Speaker 5: The government knows what is happening. Look, our military knows
35:56
Speaker 5: where they took off from. If it's a garage, they
35:59
Speaker 5: can go right into that garage. They know where it
36:02
Speaker 5: came from and where it went. And for some reason
36:05
Speaker 5: they don't want to comment, and I think they'd be
36:08
Speaker 5: better off saying what it is. Our military knows, and
36:10
Speaker 5: our president knows, and for some reason they want to
36:14
Speaker 5: keep people in suspense. I can't imagine it's the enemy,
36:18
Speaker 5: because it was the enemy they'd blasted out, even if
36:20
Speaker 5: they were late, they'd blasted Something strange is going on.
36:25
Speaker 5: For some reason, they don't want to tell the people,
36:27
Speaker 5: and they should because the people are really I mean,
36:30
Speaker 5: they happen to be over Bedminster.
36:32
Speaker 2: We want to know.
36:34
Speaker 5: We are very they're very close to Bedminster. I think
36:36
Speaker 5: maybe I won't spend the weekend in bed Minster. I've
36:39
Speaker 5: decided to cancel my trip.
36:41
Speaker 2: Have you received an intelligence briefing on the drones?
36:44
Speaker 5: I don't want to comment on that.
36:48
Speaker 2: Now.
36:48
Speaker 1: I didn't really like that particular statement coming from the
36:51
Speaker 1: incoming president of the United States, the president elect. I mean,
36:55
Speaker 1: he is clearly privy to more information than we are,
37:00
Speaker 1: and if there really was something horrendous going on here,
37:04
Speaker 1: I think he would know about it. I think he
37:06
Speaker 1: would have a lot more information. For him to make
37:10
Speaker 1: that claim when he's about to become president. I don't
37:13
Speaker 1: think is helpful unless he really does know something that
37:16
Speaker 1: we don't know, and he's not telling us what that is.
37:20
Speaker 2: But people are going to presume.
37:21
Speaker 1: See, people are going to presume that he knows something
37:25
Speaker 1: more than he's letting on, and they will give that
37:28
Speaker 1: statement weight, and it will further the conspiratory, conspiratorial theories,
37:34
Speaker 1: the hysteria, the insanity.
37:37
Speaker 2: It is not helpful at all.
37:40
Speaker 1: This is Trump, in my opinion, not at his very worst,
37:44
Speaker 1: but where his instincts are not helpful. As the incoming president,
37:49
Speaker 1: he should not be saying things like this because it's
37:52
Speaker 1: only going to further facilitate this hysteria. Now again, if
37:58
Speaker 1: there's something to it, I actually think we would know
38:01
Speaker 1: by now. Part of why I'm becoming more and more
38:05
Speaker 1: skeptical of this story is because we've reached the point
38:09
Speaker 1: where this is such a big deal getting so much attention.
38:13
Speaker 2: The government is obviously, at least.
38:17
Speaker 1: Part portions of the government is obviously trying to figure
38:20
Speaker 1: out what's going on. And I get okay, they are
38:22
Speaker 1: those that think this is a massive conspiracy, that all
38:25
Speaker 1: the agencies of the government are all working together to
38:28
Speaker 1: keep this real story under wraps. In this day and age,
38:33
Speaker 1: somebody would have come forward with credible information if that
38:38
Speaker 1: was the case. It's so easy in this day and age,
38:42
Speaker 1: it's so unbelievably easy thanks to social media. See that's
38:45
Speaker 1: the thing that drives me most crazy about conspiracy theories.
38:49
Speaker 1: Social media acts like gasoline on these conspiracy theories, when
38:56
Speaker 1: in fact, because of social media, we should have more
38:59
Speaker 1: confidence that they don't actually exist, because if they did,
39:04
Speaker 1: social media gives everybody the opportunity to tell the story.
39:13
Speaker 1: So if there was a massive conspiracy, and this one
39:15
Speaker 1: would be huge, somebody would break the conspiracy in some
39:20
Speaker 1: way using social media.
39:21
Speaker 2: Before in the olden.
39:23
Speaker 1: Days, when the mainstream news media had a monopoly on
39:27
Speaker 1: the narrative, you could at least argue, well, you know,
39:30
Speaker 1: the networks are all in on it, or they're not
39:33
Speaker 1: willing to give a voice to somebody who is going
39:36
Speaker 1: to to break the conspiracy, because you know that would
39:40
Speaker 1: at least logically possible because the news media did.
39:44
Speaker 2: Have a monopoly on the narrative.
39:46
Speaker 1: Well, now that monopoly is totally gone, and anybody can
39:50
Speaker 1: go viral if their story is popular enough. And that
39:54
Speaker 1: leads me to what I think, I hope is the
39:59
Speaker 1: news media natter when it comes to.
40:02
Speaker 2: This whole drone sanity situation.
40:04
Speaker 1: Because when I say anybody, I mean anybody, and in
40:08
Speaker 1: this case, what I'm referring to is a woman by
40:11
Speaker 1: the name of Bethany Frankel. Now you may know who
40:14
Speaker 1: Bethany Frankel is. You either really know who she is
40:17
Speaker 1: or you've never heard of her. She comes from a
40:20
Speaker 1: Real Housewives fame on Bravo. She's actually a very intelligent woman,
40:25
Speaker 1: very successful business person. My wife likes her a lot,
40:30
Speaker 1: so I'm quite familiar with Bethany Frankel. But she put
40:34
Speaker 1: out a video on social media, and I honestly could
40:38
Speaker 1: not believe, as even as cynical as ayah, I could
40:41
Speaker 1: not believe that this thing went nearly as viral as
40:46
Speaker 1: it did. I mean, this thing was seen by tens
40:49
Speaker 1: and tens of millions of people where she told a
40:52
Speaker 1: story of having an anonymous friend at the Pentagon, and
40:57
Speaker 1: you cannot get more dubious than that. An anonymous friend
41:04
Speaker 1: at the Pentagon. You know how many people live or
41:06
Speaker 1: that live but work at the Pentagon. I mean it's
41:09
Speaker 1: I think, the biggest office building in the world. So
41:12
Speaker 1: having a friend that works at the Pentagon completely meaningless,
41:16
Speaker 1: especially when they're anonymous. And then she decides to tell
41:21
Speaker 1: this this theory about radiation, which other people have also
41:27
Speaker 1: told about their ideas, what's really going on with your
41:30
Speaker 1: own sanity? And somehow because she's semi famous and she's
41:36
Speaker 1: citing an anonymous friend at the Pentagon, you know, tens
41:41
Speaker 1: of millions of people are seeing this and commenting on it.
41:44
Speaker 1: And if it was just contained the social media, I'd
41:48
Speaker 1: be like, Okay, you know, that's part of the price
41:50
Speaker 1: we pay for living in this world now. But it
41:53
Speaker 1: went even beyond that, because on Fox five television in
41:59
Speaker 1: New York, you've ever you know, lived in around New
42:03
Speaker 1: York and when I grew up, I grew up in
42:05
Speaker 1: the suburbs of Philadelphia, and we actually got over the
42:08
Speaker 1: air television slightly better sometimes in New York than we
42:11
Speaker 1: did in Philadelphia. But we watched a lot of the
42:15
Speaker 1: New York stations and Fox five has a tremendous news legacy.
42:20
Speaker 1: Obviously everybody else that's kind of gone by the wayside
42:23
Speaker 1: of modern times, but they're a serious news organization, Fox five.
42:29
Speaker 1: And I want you to listen to this clip. This
42:32
Speaker 1: is unbelievable. This is unbelievable. This is like a parody
42:35
Speaker 1: of where we know the world in which we now live,
42:38
Speaker 1: where a couple of news anchors from Fox five in
42:41
Speaker 1: New York are interviewing the mayor of Belleville. Now, Belleville
42:46
Speaker 1: is a city in New Jersey with thirty seven thousand people.
42:50
Speaker 1: And he's a good look a guy, well spoken, and
42:54
Speaker 1: you know he's but he's the mayor of Belleville, no
42:59
Speaker 1: inside at all. And I just could not believe that
43:06
Speaker 1: on a major New York television station news program, you
43:10
Speaker 1: have the mayor of Belleville and news anchors sighting and
43:16
Speaker 1: you know, pontificating on a theory put out by Bethany Frankel,
43:22
Speaker 1: all because it went viral on social media.
43:26
Speaker 2: And here's what that sounded like on Fox five in
43:29
Speaker 2: New York.
43:30
Speaker 3: Information has not been forthcoming and it's this lack of transparency.
43:34
Speaker 3: In my opinion, that's doing nothing but fuel and conspiracy
43:36
Speaker 3: theories online.
43:37
Speaker 1: Do you have any idea what it could be or
43:40
Speaker 1: which side it could be, where it's coming from.
43:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can tell you what it's not.
43:43
Speaker 3: We know for a fact it's not Little Green men,
43:45
Speaker 3: and more than likely it's not a foreign adversary because
43:48
Speaker 3: they would be able to figure out how to turn
43:49
Speaker 3: off the blinking lights. These drones are huge. We had
43:53
Speaker 3: a mayor yesterday on the call with the White House
43:55
Speaker 3: telling them that he had six foot drones hovering over
43:58
Speaker 3: his house. Yet they continue to tell us we don't
44:00
Speaker 3: know what we're talking about. It's misidentification. Certainly, there's some
44:03
Speaker 3: misidentification probably going on. But I could assure you that
44:06
Speaker 3: we are seeing drones in New Jersey all over the place.
44:09
Speaker 2: All right.
44:09
Speaker 6: So Bethany Frankel, I know she's not like you know
44:12
Speaker 6: the New York Times, but she says that she has
44:15
Speaker 6: like some kind of contact at the Pentagon and that
44:19
Speaker 6: it has something to do with radioactive material in New Jersey.
44:23
Speaker 2: What do you hear? So here's what I know.
44:25
Speaker 3: I know that we were told by our state police
44:27
Speaker 3: that we have assets over our critical infrastructure. Now, depending
44:31
Speaker 3: on your point of view, that's either concerning or comforting.
44:33
Speaker 3: I think it's comforting because it's probably us listening and watching.
44:36
Speaker 3: We also know that we have drones that are flying
44:38
Speaker 3: in a grid like pattern. In my opinion, they're looking
44:41
Speaker 3: for something. What might they be looking for, Well, potentially
44:44
Speaker 3: we're aware of a threat that came in through Port Nork.
44:47
Speaker 3: Maybe that's radioactive material. There was and there is an
44:50
Speaker 3: alert that's out right now that radioactive material in New
44:53
Speaker 3: Jersey has gone missing on December second. It was a shipment,
44:56
Speaker 3: it arrived at its destination, the container was damaged and
45:01
Speaker 3: was empty, So potent look right.
45:03
Speaker 6: There, mayor because that's very important information and that came
45:07
Speaker 6: from a credible source.
45:09
Speaker 3: That came from the US government.
45:11
Speaker 2: And so it's.
45:12
Speaker 6: Missing, missing, and they think it's in New Jersey or
45:15
Speaker 6: it could be anyway.
45:16
Speaker 3: It was lost in New Jersey in transit. And again,
45:19
Speaker 3: this is just an example of what I think that
45:21
Speaker 3: we're sniffing for. I think we do have the assets
45:24
Speaker 3: that can go up and fly around.
45:25
Speaker 2: Now.
45:26
Speaker 1: When I saw that, I'm like, I don't even need
45:29
Speaker 1: to know the details.
45:29
Speaker 2: I know that's bullshit.
45:31
Speaker 1: And sure enough, thankfully, on the tweet of that video,
45:37
Speaker 1: the post of that video on x X came in
45:41
Speaker 1: and put they slapped on it a community note saying
45:48
Speaker 1: that the whole radiation story is basically bullshit. That first
45:52
Speaker 1: of all, the first thing that I thought about was
45:54
Speaker 1: that the timeline that the mayor of Belleville mentioned doesn't
45:57
Speaker 1: even match up with the beginning of people claiming to
46:01
Speaker 1: see all these drones in New Jersey. Not to mention
46:04
Speaker 1: that the whole thing is way too conspiratorial for my blood.
46:08
Speaker 2: But the community notes on x made it clear.
46:13
Speaker 1: That the radiation story is a very minor deal, that
46:16
Speaker 1: there was no public health concerns, and that this whole
46:20
Speaker 1: theory basically is bullshit. But that's where we are now.
46:24
Speaker 1: Because drone's sanity is a thing. It's got a huge audience,
46:30
Speaker 1: especially in the Northeast. People are very into this, and
46:35
Speaker 1: I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's nothing significant,
46:39
Speaker 1: And I look, I realized that that makes me an
46:42
Speaker 1: establishment cock and naive and believing of the government. I'm
46:47
Speaker 1: not blindly believing the government. I'm telling you that if
46:50
Speaker 1: something really big, really nefarious, way outside of what we're
46:55
Speaker 1: being told was actually happening, we would hear about it
46:58
Speaker 1: from a more reputable source than bat that he fucking
47:01
Speaker 1: frankled I'm telling you. And so my guess is we're
47:07
Speaker 1: never gonna know that something really big was happening. Theyn't
47:12
Speaker 1: come up with something, something will happen because because this
47:16
Speaker 1: is the cycle that now exists in the modern world,
47:19
Speaker 1: especially in the Trump world. So there's a conspiracy theory
47:24
Speaker 1: that gets put out there, it becomes big enough where
47:27
Speaker 1: it creates a market for an explanation that fits with
47:31
Speaker 1: what the conspiracy theorists are telling us, and so eventually
47:36
Speaker 1: they're going to come up with some bullshit story, some
47:38
Speaker 1: shred of truth to Okay, yeah, there really was something
47:43
Speaker 1: going on, and then they'll be able to say, remember
47:45
Speaker 1: when this was called a conspiracy theory a few weeks ago, uha,
47:49
Speaker 1: it was true.
47:50
Speaker 2: Trump was right again.
47:51
Speaker 1: That's exactly we've seen this time and time and time again,
47:55
Speaker 1: this exact same cycle we saw it with the they're
47:58
Speaker 1: eating the cats They're eating the dogs in Springfield, Ohio.
48:02
Speaker 1: By the way, there's a very similar feel to this
48:05
Speaker 1: whole situation. They're eating the cat there, eating the dogs.
48:08
Speaker 1: It feels very similar where maybe there's a grain of
48:11
Speaker 1: truth somewhere, but it's not as we're being told or
48:14
Speaker 1: as it's being theorized about.
48:17
Speaker 2: But I'm very confident that.
48:20
Speaker 1: For one, it's not an Iranian mothership or anything that
48:25
Speaker 1: is creating a national security danger of any significance. But
48:29
Speaker 1: I'm also quite confident that those that are claiming the
48:33
Speaker 1: conspiracies will never admit that they were wrong and that
48:36
Speaker 1: they just got caught up in a hysteria and that
48:39
Speaker 1: nothing really big or significant was happening. Again, just to
48:42
Speaker 1: be clear, I'm not saying that something unusual is not
48:46
Speaker 1: happening that has facilitated this, but it has grown way
48:51
Speaker 1: out of proportion, largely because of this social contagion, where
48:56
Speaker 1: social media is now gasoline on the fire of these
49:02
Speaker 1: very enticing type of conspiracy theories. Now, speaking of hysteria
49:08
Speaker 1: and what's been going on in the New York area,
49:11
Speaker 1: I got to talk about the latest in the Luigi
49:14
Speaker 1: Mangione situation, or Mangi of Mania, as I'm going to
49:18
Speaker 1: refer to it from here on out. I had mentioned
49:22
Speaker 1: on a couple of episodes ago of the podcast that
49:25
Speaker 1: I was kind of shocked that nobody in Mangioni's family
49:30
Speaker 1: had alerted or friend group had alerted authorities in those
49:35
Speaker 1: several days from the time when he assassinated the healthcare
49:39
Speaker 1: CEO Brian Thompson and when he was finally captured in
49:44
Speaker 1: the McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, that you would have thought,
49:49
Speaker 1: with all the pictures of him everywhere, that somebody in
49:53
Speaker 1: his family or a friend group would have said, hey,
49:57
Speaker 1: we could have the guy for you. This could be
49:59
Speaker 1: my my friend, my relative. Well, and we do have
50:04
Speaker 1: now evidence that his mom did exactly what I questioned
50:10
Speaker 1: a couple episodes ago why it didn't happen. It actually
50:14
Speaker 1: had happened, we just didn't know it yet, and that
50:17
Speaker 1: is apparently that his mom did kind of rat him.
50:20
Speaker 2: Out to authorities a day before he was arrested.
50:24
Speaker 1: So I guess it's one an interesting piece of information,
50:27
Speaker 1: and two, I wanted to correct something that I had
50:29
Speaker 1: theorized about previously, because it had seemed at the time
50:33
Speaker 1: that nobody close to Manchioni had ever alerted the authorities,
50:37
Speaker 1: which never made any sense to me, because how could
50:40
Speaker 1: people at a McDonald's recognize them from the photographs but
50:43
Speaker 1: not people who have actually known him in real life, well,
50:46
Speaker 1: at least his mom apparently did recognize him and did
50:51
Speaker 1: alert the authorities, and even indicated that she apparently thought
50:55
Speaker 1: that he may have done the crime because of the
50:59
Speaker 1: way that he had been acting. So that's a part
51:01
Speaker 1: of this whole story that is somewhat intriguing, and I'm
51:05
Speaker 1: sure we're going to hear more about. But there's a
51:08
Speaker 1: poll out about Luigi Mangioni and his assassination of the
51:13
Speaker 1: healthcare CEO that is really incredibly telling and quite distressing.
51:20
Speaker 1: And I don't think that the news coverage of this
51:22
Speaker 1: poll has been hyperbolic. I think it's actually quite warranted.
51:28
Speaker 1: But here's the poll to which I am referring. A
51:31
Speaker 1: poll released by Emerson College in Massachusetts determined that of
51:36
Speaker 1: one thousand registered voters surveyed, forty one percent of them
51:42
Speaker 1: between the ages of eighteen and twenty nine believe that
51:46
Speaker 1: Thompson's murder by Mangioni was acceptable was acceptable acceptable. Forty
51:56
Speaker 1: one percent of.
51:58
Speaker 2: Those eighteen to twenty nine years old believe the murder
52:03
Speaker 2: was acceptable.
52:05
Speaker 1: Of the forty one percent of young voters who agreed
52:10
Speaker 1: that the death of the healthcare CEO is justified, so again,
52:16
Speaker 1: forty one percent of eighteen to twenty nine year olds
52:19
Speaker 1: believe that the assassination was acceptable or justified. Of that group,
52:25
Speaker 1: twenty four percent of them believe the murder was somewhat acceptable. Well,
52:30
Speaker 1: seventeen percent believe it was completely acceptable. By the way,
52:35
Speaker 1: I think that's I'm reading from a Daily Mail article
52:37
Speaker 1: that this happens all the time. People who write articles
52:41
Speaker 1: don't understand percentages. That's actually totally inaccurate. It's not twenty
52:45
Speaker 1: four percent of the group of forty one percent. It's
52:49
Speaker 1: that twenty four percent plus seventeen percent is where you're
52:54
Speaker 1: going to get the forty one percent. So the point
52:58
Speaker 1: of this is twenty four percent and believe that the
53:02
Speaker 1: murder was somewhat acceptable, seventeen percent believe it was completely acceptable.
53:07
Speaker 1: Seventeen percent in that young age group believed completely acceptable.
53:13
Speaker 1: While a large number of young people agreed Thompson's murder
53:17
Speaker 1: was valid, forty percent said it was unacceptable. So again
53:22
Speaker 1: I realized this can get a little confusing, especially with
53:24
Speaker 1: the poor reporting. But by a one point margin, more
53:28
Speaker 1: young people eighteen to twenty nine believe that the assassination
53:34
Speaker 1: of an innocent man and broad daylight shot in the
53:37
Speaker 1: back was acceptable, then said it was unacceptable. Of the
53:43
Speaker 1: forty percent that said it was unacceptable, thirty three percent
53:48
Speaker 1: said that his death was completely unacceptable, while seven percent
53:52
Speaker 1: admitted it.
53:53
Speaker 2: Was somewhat acceptable.
53:56
Speaker 1: So, to me, that's really the key number is what
53:59
Speaker 1: percentage said that the death was completely unacceptable. That's where
54:04
Speaker 1: I am, That's where rational people should be. So what
54:08
Speaker 1: percentage of respondence to this poll by Emerson College said
54:12
Speaker 1: that the murder, the assassination of the healthcare CEO was
54:16
Speaker 1: completely unacceptable? And in the group of eighteen to twenty
54:21
Speaker 1: nine year olds, it was only thirty three percent.
54:26
Speaker 2: Thirty three percent. That means two thirds.
54:30
Speaker 1: Of the people who responded to the survey eighteen to
54:33
Speaker 1: twenty nine are at least somewhat mentally damaged. Because this
54:38
Speaker 1: is not a difficult question. The answer is completely unacceptable.
54:44
Speaker 1: There is no other rational answer here. Okay, there's no
54:48
Speaker 1: ambiguity here, none completely unacceptable.
54:52
Speaker 2: Only thirty three percent of young people.
54:55
Speaker 1: And there is a direct correlation between people's views on
55:00
Speaker 1: whether or not this was completely unacceptable and how old
55:05
Speaker 1: they are. In the thirty to thirty nine year old
55:09
Speaker 1: age group, forty three percent said completely unacceptable. In the
55:14
Speaker 1: forty to forty nine year old age group, it jumps
55:18
Speaker 1: all the way up to sixty one percent saying completely unacceptable.
55:25
Speaker 1: If you're in your fifties, it's up to sixty five percent,
55:29
Speaker 1: If you're in your seventies, actually your sixties, it's seventy
55:35
Speaker 1: four percent, and your seventies drip drops down slightly to
55:40
Speaker 1: sixty nine percent. So bottom line is anybody over the
55:44
Speaker 1: age of forty. It seems like strong majorities understand that
55:49
Speaker 1: this is completely unacceptable. Under the age of forty, majorities
55:54
Speaker 1: do not accept that this assassination was completely unacceptable. And
55:59
Speaker 1: those at the the youngest age group eighteen to twenty nine,
56:03
Speaker 1: only thirty three percent. I cannot say that enough, only
56:06
Speaker 1: thirty three percent. Now, granted, when you break it down
56:10
Speaker 1: with regard to age demographics like this, you're talking about
56:13
Speaker 1: a pretty darn small sample. There were only a thousand respondents,
56:16
Speaker 1: so to be fair, you know that we're talking about
56:19
Speaker 1: a pretty small number of people here to be able
56:22
Speaker 1: to come up with this number. But I'm sorry, thirty
56:25
Speaker 1: three percent saying completely unacceptable in the eighteen to twenty
56:28
Speaker 1: nine age group is unacceptable.
56:32
Speaker 2: That's unacceptable.
56:35
Speaker 1: That's a massive societal problem, huge and this reality because
56:43
Speaker 1: I do think it's a reality.
56:44
Speaker 2: And I told you I did not think that.
56:46
Speaker 1: What was being perceived on social media, which sometimes can
56:50
Speaker 1: be very deceiving, was completely out of line what's with
56:54
Speaker 1: what's happening with the general public. And this poll result
56:57
Speaker 1: will not definitive certainly backs up that theory and the
57:04
Speaker 1: results of this. The ramifications of this I've already told
57:07
Speaker 1: you are that the media is going to cover this
57:13
Speaker 1: as if it's a mini O. J.
57:15
Speaker 2: Simpson case.
57:16
Speaker 1: Why because they already have a built in audience of
57:21
Speaker 1: people who are hooked by the case, who know the
57:25
Speaker 1: name Luigi Mangioni. He's a celebrity now, he has a
57:29
Speaker 1: fan base. And even better than having a fan base,
57:33
Speaker 1: he also has a group of people now who probably
57:37
Speaker 1: hate the guy's guts because of the backlash.
57:40
Speaker 2: Against the support for him.
57:43
Speaker 1: So this has all the makings of a great story
57:46
Speaker 1: for cable news television.
57:48
Speaker 2: They don't have to explain the story.
57:50
Speaker 1: They know they've got good pictures and video, They've got
57:54
Speaker 1: somebody who evokes strong opinions, both positively and negatively. And
58:01
Speaker 1: so even though this is the type of story that
58:04
Speaker 1: should be immediately forgotten. If we lived in a rational world,
58:09
Speaker 1: no one would be elevating or celebrating Luigi Mangioni. There's
58:14
Speaker 1: no question about the nature of his guilt. We have video,
58:19
Speaker 1: the evidence is overwhelming. It's a terrible tragedy. Yeah, okay,
58:25
Speaker 1: his trial is a news story. You know, his conviction
58:29
Speaker 1: and punishment should be a news story. But we're going
58:31
Speaker 1: to get constant, probably daily stories on Luigi Mangioni. Why
58:39
Speaker 1: because it's an instant ratings it. It has everything that
58:44
Speaker 1: modern news media needs. You need a celebrity, you need
58:48
Speaker 1: somebody with an inherent fan base. If people are also
58:52
Speaker 1: on the other side, that's great too. And you know,
58:56
Speaker 1: he's a good looking guy. Women in gay Man love him,
59:01
Speaker 1: so this is perfect. It has no news value really,
59:05
Speaker 1: other than the only news value I see in this
59:07
Speaker 1: story right now is the reaction to Luigi Mangioni itself.
59:11
Speaker 1: And I've seen some coverage of that, and it's a
59:14
Speaker 1: little bit of a cop out way of doing this
59:17
Speaker 1: from a television perspective, because I've seen this on numerous
59:21
Speaker 1: occasions where.
59:23
Speaker 2: A news outlet will do that.
59:24
Speaker 1: Can you believe how much support Luigi Mangioni has and
59:28
Speaker 1: condemn it.
59:28
Speaker 2: Which I'm okay with.
59:29
Speaker 1: I'm fine with it, but there's a certain point beyond
59:33
Speaker 1: which it becomes exploitive.
59:35
Speaker 2: It's just an excuse to be.
59:37
Speaker 1: Talking about Luigi Mangioni because the numbers are good for him. Now,
59:41
Speaker 1: how long this will sustain itself, I don't know. It's
59:44
Speaker 1: certainly not going to be a sustainable as Oj Simpson,
59:47
Speaker 1: nothing will ever be sustainable. But that's why I'm saying
59:51
Speaker 1: this is a very mini version of it, where you
59:54
Speaker 1: have somebody with an inherent audience now a celebrit I mean,
1:00:00
Speaker 1: he's a huge celebrity now with a fan base and
1:00:04
Speaker 1: people who also hate him. So I'm predicting that for
1:00:07
Speaker 1: the extended future, we're going to see way way too
1:00:12
Speaker 1: much coverage of the Luigi Mangione situation. And further proof
1:00:16
Speaker 1: of this is that there was news out this week
1:00:21
Speaker 1: that not one, but two major documentary filmmakers have already
1:00:27
Speaker 1: announced that they are in the process of making films
1:00:31
Speaker 1: about Luigi Mangioni, not one, but two because there's a market,
1:00:37
Speaker 1: there's an audience, and they know that Netflix or whoever
1:00:41
Speaker 1: else is going to be very interested in purchasing this
1:00:44
Speaker 1: because it's a built.
1:00:45
Speaker 2: In easy audience.
1:00:47
Speaker 1: We're not going to learn probably anything important from any
1:00:51
Speaker 1: of these documentaries, never know, but that would be my guest.
1:00:54
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter. I tell you all the time.
1:00:56
Speaker 1: Truth is not the coin of the realm. Regularity is.
1:01:00
Speaker 1: This is a built in, easy deal where you have
1:01:06
Speaker 1: an audience ready made. Just you know, pour in the mix,
1:01:12
Speaker 1: add water.
1:01:13
Speaker 2: Stir and you got it.
1:01:15
Speaker 1: Because of what's already transpired in the news media surrounding
1:01:19
Speaker 1: Luigi Mangioni, which of course, you know, it's very frustrating
1:01:23
Speaker 1: to me as a guy who's done documentaries.
1:01:26
Speaker 2: And I just got asked yesterday on Saint Louis.
1:01:30
Speaker 1: Radio with Mark Redon, a longtime friend of mine, very
1:01:34
Speaker 1: good talk show host in Saint Louis, why don't you
1:01:37
Speaker 1: do a Jerry Sandowski documentary?
1:01:38
Speaker 2: I said, because there's no market for it.
1:01:41
Speaker 1: It's a hell of a story, hell a lot better story,
1:01:44
Speaker 1: especially considering the fact that Sandusky he's innocent than the
1:01:48
Speaker 1: Luigi mangione story.
1:01:49
Speaker 2: But there's no market for it.
1:01:51
Speaker 1: There's it's bizarrely, it's way riskier for a major media
1:01:56
Speaker 1: outlet to take a chance on a documentary out a
1:02:00
Speaker 1: convicted child abuse perpetrator, then somebody who killed and then
1:02:05
Speaker 1: it's a person in cold blood. I mean, that's just
1:02:07
Speaker 1: the fucked up world in which we now live. But
1:02:10
Speaker 1: the core problem is there's no audience. There's no built
1:02:14
Speaker 1: in fan base, and especially you know, once Penn Staters
1:02:18
Speaker 1: decided that it was in their self interest the virtue
1:02:21
Speaker 1: signal by claiming that Jerry was the worst thing that
1:02:24
Speaker 1: ever lived, when it was actually exactly the opposite. But
1:02:28
Speaker 1: there's no built in audience for This is one of
1:02:30
Speaker 1: the many reasons why I find it hilarious when people
1:02:33
Speaker 1: to this day accuse me of grifting from the Saint
1:02:38
Speaker 1: Joe Pertno Jerru Sedusky case when it's exactly the opposite,
1:02:41
Speaker 1: Because there there is no audience except for a very
1:02:46
Speaker 1: very small group of people really really really care about
1:02:48
Speaker 1: the truth and are not influenced by the fact that
1:02:52
Speaker 1: their belief might be highly unpopular in the public sphere.
1:02:57
Speaker 1: That's a very small group of people. Meanwhile, Luigi Mangioni
1:03:02
Speaker 1: is a sex symbol and a celebrity, and two thirds
1:03:07
Speaker 1: of younger people eighteen to twenty nine are not convinced
1:03:12
Speaker 1: that what he did was unacceptable. It's an unbelievable war.
1:03:18
Speaker 1: We're leaving in and I have to play a clip
1:03:21
Speaker 1: from the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams. I'm
1:03:25
Speaker 1: going to play this clip, one because I think I
1:03:28
Speaker 1: agree with what Adams is saying, but two because this
1:03:32
Speaker 1: is part of what I think is a larger and
1:03:34
Speaker 1: maybe more interesting story of Eric Adams, who of course
1:03:38
Speaker 1: is under federal indictment, has been very overtly, very overtly
1:03:45
Speaker 1: and quite i think humorously, trying very hard to get
1:03:49
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's attention for a potential pardon for those charges
1:03:55
Speaker 1: that he's facing federally. And Trump, by the way, said
1:03:58
Speaker 1: in his press conference that he is he is very
1:04:01
Speaker 1: open to giving Eric Adams a pardon.
1:04:05
Speaker 2: So and look, you know, is it good.
1:04:07
Speaker 1: Politics on Trump's part to put a pardon out there
1:04:11
Speaker 1: like a carrot so that Eric Adams, you know, starts
1:04:15
Speaker 1: acting much more like a Republican than a Democrat and
1:04:19
Speaker 1: maybe helps Trump out on some things like, for instance, deportations.
1:04:23
Speaker 2: Of illegal aliens.
1:04:25
Speaker 1: I guess it is, although I'm uncomfortable with using the
1:04:27
Speaker 1: pardon power as a tool of manipulation, but I okay, whatever,
1:04:33
Speaker 1: I guess there are worse things that Trump has done
1:04:35
Speaker 1: and if it's effective. I guess there's some theoretical merit
1:04:38
Speaker 1: to it, but you know, I'm not comfortable with it
1:04:41
Speaker 1: at all. But it's very, very obvious that Adams is
1:04:45
Speaker 1: campaigning for a Trump pardon, and as part of that,
1:04:49
Speaker 1: he made a startling statement essentially blaming the liberal mentality
1:04:55
Speaker 1: on the entire Luigi Mangione phenomenon and Mangioni mania that
1:05:03
Speaker 1: has been created here. And he said some interesting and
1:05:06
Speaker 1: I think important things. So here is the Mayor of
1:05:08
Speaker 1: New York City, Eric Adams, I believe, at least in part,
1:05:13
Speaker 1: trying to become a Republican again so that he might
1:05:18
Speaker 1: get support for a Trump parton talking about the whole
1:05:21
Speaker 1: Luigi Mangione situation.
1:05:24
Speaker 2: Think about the shooter.
1:05:26
Speaker 7: Ivy League grew up in an affluent household. His manifesto
1:05:32
Speaker 7: clearly is showing some signs of hating all children not
1:05:37
Speaker 7: being radicalized. I said this over and over again, and
1:05:39
Speaker 7: everybody's like, you know, what are you talking about?
1:05:41
Speaker 2: Eric?
1:05:42
Speaker 7: You know, our children not being radicalized to hate the America,
1:05:47
Speaker 7: to hate the country that put them with. They are
1:05:50
Speaker 7: This was this.
1:05:51
Speaker 2: This person had all that one wants.
1:05:55
Speaker 7: To have, but he hated everything to the point of
1:05:59
Speaker 7: shooting someone, and we better deal with the radicalization of
1:06:02
Speaker 7: our young people. And you know, people could you know,
1:06:05
Speaker 7: they could complain that I'm saying it, but I'm seeing it.
1:06:08
Speaker 7: I'm seeing our bench is hating the team and we
1:06:13
Speaker 7: better start acknowledging and focusing on that. And so having
1:06:19
Speaker 7: dance parties celebrating the death of someone, I don't support that.
1:06:24
Speaker 1: Again, while I agree with most of, not all, what
1:06:27
Speaker 1: Eric Adams said there, I think the biggest takeaway is.
1:06:31
Speaker 2: May you get something in life.
1:06:36
Speaker 1: That you want as much as Eric Adams desires a
1:06:40
Speaker 1: pardon from Donald Trump, because I mean, he's gonna do
1:06:44
Speaker 1: all sorts of different gymnastics in an effort to try
1:06:48
Speaker 1: to get that pardon. And my guess is he will
1:06:50
Speaker 1: probably get that parton from Donald Trump eventually, especially if
1:06:54
Speaker 1: he keeps talking like that and cooperating on other issues like,
1:06:59
Speaker 1: for instance, illegal immigration.
1:07:01
Speaker 8: Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
1:07:05
Speaker 8: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
1:07:08
Speaker 8: must become a patron. Please go to Patreon That's p
1:07:13
Speaker 8: A t R e O N dot com, Hatreon dot com.
1:07:18
Speaker 8: Slash The Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
1:07:23
Speaker 2: My name is j hh n z I E g
1:07:26
Speaker 2: l e R.
1:07:27
Speaker 1: That's Hatreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with
1:07:33
Speaker 1: John Zigler.
1:07:35
Speaker 2: Good luck to you on that. But that's how you
1:07:38
Speaker 2: can subscribe.