Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Sixty Two: Zig's Internal Clock

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Sixty Two: Zig's Internal Clock · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome episode number one hundred and sixty two of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host. In today's show, the
0:07
right wing media gets duped by an obvious hoax related to the Trump trial jury.
0:12
Liberal comedian Chelsea Handler says, one of the most racist things you could
0:16
possibly imagine. Caitlin Clark gets left off the Olympic basketball team. And it
0:23
has now been thirty years since oj Simpson killed two people and mostly got away
0:28
with it. We begin this episode of the podcast with a housekeeping note.
0:33
We are taping this episode about fourteen fifteen hours earlier than normal, doing it
0:40
to Sunday evening, early Sunday evening here on the West Coast because of logistical
0:46
issues, and so if anything happened late Sunday early Monday, it did not
0:51
make it into this podcast. But there's still plenty to talk about, and
0:55
I want to begin by going back to the D Day commemoration, the eightieth
1:00
anniversary of D Day and President Joe Biden's problems. And there were multiple problems
1:07
with what happened with Joe Biden and the anniversary of D Day. Now there's
1:11
been a lot of speculation online especially on the right, that during one particular
1:18
bizarre episode where Biden started to sit down and then turned around and then had
1:23
to leave early, that he may have crapped his pants. I have absolutely
1:27
no idea if that's what happened. It's certainly consistent with that possibility, but
1:33
I don't know what transpired there. I do know that if it had been
1:37
Trump, the media would be trying to get to the bottom, so to
1:41
speak, of what did or did not happen there, and that's not happening.
1:45
We're never going to know because the media is not going to try to
1:48
find out how strange it was that Biden did what he did During one of
1:53
the ceremonies related to the eightieth anniversary of D Day. He also was accused
1:59
of plagiaring Ronald Reagan from the fortieth anniversary of D Day, and the video,
2:07
which has gone viral online, is pretty compelling that there seems to have
2:12
been some plagiarism, although basically what Biden was doing was describing the events of
2:17
the day, and so inherently you know they're going to sound alike because you're
2:23
telling the same story about the same day. So I wasn't as agitated about
2:29
the alleged plagiarism as some other people were. I thought it was kind of
2:32
interesting as to some of the language that was used, but I wouldn't necessarily
2:36
call it direct plagiarism. Frankly, given the standards of this president, we
2:42
should all be glad that he didn't claim to actually have stormed the beach himself,
2:46
which is certainly not outside the realm of possibility when it comes to Joe
2:51
Biden's memory and his view of what has actually transpired in the history of his
2:57
own life, which is often exaggerated and not completely fabricated. So he did
3:01
not thankfully claim to have storm the beaches of Normandy himself. During his commemoration
3:07
of the eightieth anniversary of D Day, Joe Biden also gave an interview with
3:13
ABC's anchorman David Muir, and to say this was an interview is a bit
3:17
of misnomer. This was really soft. I mean, this was basically a
3:23
commercial for the Biden campaign. David Muir went out of his way to be
3:29
super soft with Joe Biden, and still, despite Muir's best efforts, I
3:35
thought Joe Biden came across as borderline out of it. He looked terrible.
3:42
His eyes were basically closed. I don't know why. It didn't look like
3:46
he was looking into the sun, but his eyes were essentially closed. He
3:50
was whispering the whole time, which then created this weird dynamic where Muir himself
3:57
was who already treating Biden with kid glows us, was lowering his own volume
4:01
level. So I've never heard of an interview with a president and a major
4:06
network anchor person that sounded like they were in a church, even though they
4:11
were not. They were clearly alone and could have been as demonstrative as they
4:15
wanted to be. But Mure, I think, was reacting to the weakness
4:19
of Biden's speech, and so the way Biden looked and the way he sounded.
4:25
Forget about the substance of it, which I had issues with as well,
4:30
But I did not think that Joe Biden looked good at all in that
4:33
particular interview. So in general, I would say that the D Day commemoration
4:40
was a negative for Joe Biden. Of course, the media is not mainstream
4:44
media is not portraying it that way, and I do think that a lot
4:47
of this continues, this narrative of Joe Biden in mental decline, and in
4:54
the last episode of the podcast, we talked about a Wall Street Journal report
4:58
and extensive report that involved numerous unnamed sources, mostly on the Republican side,
5:08
with congressional leaders talking about their experiences with Joe Biden and his diminishing mental capabilities.
5:15
And I told you at that time that I was scheduled to do a
5:17
television appearance that night on News Nation, the television network News Nation, on
5:25
Dan Abrams show on Who on whose show I appear about every other week.
5:30
And I was looking forward to this because I thought I was a good guest
5:34
for this particular topic. One because I'm not a fan of Di Biden and
5:39
I'm not a fan of Trump, and I can be objective, but also
5:43
because I think the media is missing a lot here, and it's not just
5:48
about where Joe Biden is today. It's about where Joe Biden's going to be
5:53
likely in three or four years should he be re elected, which I know
5:57
a lot of Trump fans think is highly unlikely. But I am not in
6:00
that camp. I mean today, we may start this as a new feature.
6:03
I'm thinking about it, maybe ending each episode of the podcast with my
6:08
prediction for the election. Should be should it be held today. But if
6:12
the election we're held today, I think Biden probably wins a very very close
6:15
election. Probably two seventy to two sixty eight is as close as you possibly
6:19
can. But I think Biden is still the favorite. And you know,
6:25
obviously we still have the debates to go, and who knows what's going to
6:27
happen with Trump sentencing and all sorts of other things could theoretically happen. But
6:31
we're also seeing that the electorate is very very divided and very very invested in
6:38
their current choice. And so I think that this is an issue that really
6:44
is very important and needs to be dealt with honestly, especially with Kamala Harris
6:49
waiting in the wings to take over in a second Joe Biden terms. So
6:54
I want to play a clip from the appearance as it did happen that night
6:59
on New Nation. And I'm playing this for a couple of different reasons.
7:01
I fully acknowledge that what I say on New Nation has absolutely no real impact
7:08
in the world as a whole, but I do think one you're going to
7:11
find some of this to be enjoyable, maybe entertaining, but also it'll give
7:15
you a sense as to the making of the sausage when it comes to these
7:19
TV shows and how content actually gets created on the cable news networks. I
7:27
want to set this up by actually acknowledging that I really missed an opportunity here,
7:32
and I had a little bit of an excuses for why I was on
7:38
with Danny Abrams, for whom I used to work at Mediaite as a senior
7:43
columnist for several years, and Colby Hall, who I used to work with
7:47
at Mediaite when he was an editor there. So this is a very incestuous,
7:53
you know, interaction and interview situation where all three of us know each
7:58
other very very well. Colby Hall is a liberal, and Colby was objecting
8:05
to The Wall Street Journal's article not because of the subject matter, which he
8:09
acknowledged was important and legitimate, but because it was almost all based upon Republican
8:16
accounts. And I did not take him on on that issue. And the
8:22
reason I didn't was basically twofold one. I could not hear everything he was
8:28
saying, and we were having a technical problem where I was losing about every
8:33
third or fourth word. And to give you a sense of how this happens,
8:39
so I used to do these TV appearances from my house where they gave
8:45
me an iPad and I click on a link and I set up my own
8:50
studio. They gave me the studio equipment, and that had its pros and
8:54
its cons. You may recall one time it was definitely a con because I
9:00
the iPad up upside down and I was looking in the wrong direction. That
9:03
was terrible. But I guess because I've been on so often, they've decided
9:09
to start sending a studio truck to wherever I am. And the studio truck
9:16
has a lot of advantages. You know, first of all, looks a
9:18
lot better, it sounds a lot better, but it has a couple of
9:24
disadvantages, one of which, by the way, is that it gets my
9:26
neighbor very suspicious. We have a neighbor who's been very good to our kids,
9:31
who's close to my wife, who is looking out for anything that's unusual
9:37
in the neighborhood. And this truck that they said is very large, very
9:41
white, It has no windows, and then they cover up the windows that
9:45
exist for the driver so that there's no light coming into the studio, the
9:48
television studio inside the truck. Well, to's someone who doesn't know what's going
9:52
on. I can surely understand why it seems very very suspicious. So fairly
9:58
our neighbor was texting my wife as to what the hell this very strange,
10:03
suspicious looking van was doing outside of our house. That's just kind of a
10:07
humorous side note to this. The downside to having the truck is that there
10:13
is one a delay, and I don't understand why there's a delay. I
10:20
hate that there's a delay because it always makes it look like I'm not responding
10:24
quickly enough, and it also makes it very very difficult for me to interrupt
10:28
because I'm on like a second second and a half delay, and so that's
10:35
disconcerting. But in this particular situation, the feed that we were getting in
10:41
was breaking up because it's all done via the Internet and instead of satellite.
10:48
So because of that, I wasn't really sure what Colby was saying, And
10:52
if I had heard what he was saying in totality, I would have made
10:58
the point that at so what we're basically doing here is we're setting up a
11:01
situation where unless Democrats admit that their own guy is losing it mentally, we're
11:07
not allowed to report on that. I mean, that's a ridiculous standard,
11:11
and not to mention that the article did indicate that there were some Democrats who
11:18
were also saying this behind the scenes. Now, I said in last week's
11:22
episode, episode one sixty one, that I wish that the Wall Street Journal
11:26
had been more specific about the numbers how many Republicans and how many Democrats.
11:30
But that was a regret I had in this particular television appearance, where I
11:35
should have addressed that with Colby Hall. And I'm not making an excuse.
11:39
I'm just saying that part of what happened here was that I could not hear
11:43
every word that Colby was saying. And then also, I guess, in
11:46
conjunction with that, because I could not hear every word, I decided to
11:50
just go with what I was planning to say from the start because I was
11:54
almost flying blind, and so that's partially why I went in the direction I
12:00
did. So I'm going to play you about a little less than four minute
12:05
clip here where it starts with my first answer, I'm responding to Colby Hall,
12:11
although not in the way that I wish that I would have, And
12:13
then you're gonna hear some interaction between me and Dan and Colby, and then
12:20
they eventually come back to me, and I end it with a bit of
12:24
a joke, a joke that I've used on this podcast before, which really
12:30
kind of almost stopped the entire show and thankfully happened at the exact right time.
12:37
Otherwise it might have been a detriment to the show. And I'm going
12:39
to have some thoughts about how and why that happened the way that it did.
12:43
After you listened to this clip, Jonzi, I disagree that. I
12:48
think this is a very legitimate issue, and I think that the piece was
12:52
sound. I actually would have focused a little bit more on why is it
12:56
that Special Counsel Robert HER's interview is being prevented from being public by this administration?
13:01
To me, that is almost an admission of guilt that there's something amiss
13:05
here. I did find it a bit humorous that we have to look behind
13:07
closed doors to see that Biden's mental acuty may be declining. Has anybody watched
13:13
them in public recently, It's pretty obvious that you don't need behind closed doors
13:16
stories to be able to tell that something is a miss. My biggest issue
13:20
here, Dan, I think this is the part that's being missed. Is
13:22
it's not about Joe Biden in twenty twenty four. He is running for reelection.
13:28
If he is re elected, he will be president in twenty twenty eight,
13:33
four years from now. This mental decline is going to be precipitous.
13:37
Anybody knows anybody, especially men in their eighties, who start this decline,
13:41
it's quite natural. There's no coming back from this. We need to be
13:46
talking about what would Joe Biden be like in twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty
13:50
eight, and it's not a good thing for the country to have somebody in
13:52
that state as president of the United States. Let me play a piece of
13:56
sound. This is from one of the authors of the piece. Chobn Us
14:00
was on CNN earlier today. We heard from administration officials that McCarthy did say
14:07
that the president was sharp in media. Our reporting also suggested that McCarthy was
14:13
doing that tactically because he had to get along with President Biden at a time
14:16
when the country was at really risk of a debt default if there was not
14:20
some type of a deal. So you can take that for what it's worth.
14:22
You can decide McCarthy is not credible or that he is, but that's
14:26
what our reporting showed. And Colby, IM go ahead, Yeah, I
14:30
mean that seems like it's stunning to me that well, first of all,
14:33
she says that Kevin McCarthy said that tactically, Well then why would you say
14:39
it privately? Of course he said it publicly also, but if he was
14:41
saying it privately, that sort of undermines her case that this was a tactic.
14:46
But also he's the only on the record source for this story, and
14:50
she just called to question his own credibility, say take it with a grain
14:54
of salt, which to me, I mean Kevin McCarthy is a political animal,
14:58
so too is everyone. I agree with what John says. I suggest
15:01
he listens instill more what I'm saying. I do think this is a gravely
15:05
serious issue, one that should be reported, you know, fairly, with
15:09
voices on both sides. And when you only put forth the you know,
15:13
sort of the blind quotes from House Republicans, it's not telling the full story.
15:18
I think there's more to it. But I just think that this piece,
15:20
you know, it's a serious issue that deserves better journalism. God John,
15:28
Well, my big thing here is that with Garden McCarthy men in their
15:31
eighties. Some days are fantastic, other days are not. But Joe Biden
15:37
was able to get it together for the State of the Union address. I
15:39
actually think, politically, Dan, this article helps Joe Biden by reducing expectations
15:45
for the debates. It's going to be a huge advantage to him for people
15:48
to be thinking, well, this guy has dementia. Well no he doesn't.
15:50
He looks just fine. Because men can get it together in a big
15:54
event like this, and I think Biden probably will be able to do so.
15:58
But we have a situation where we have a current president with a rotting
16:00
brain, a former president with a broken brain, and a third party candidate
16:04
who has a brain it's been eaten by worms. This is the best we
16:07
can do in America. Congratulations everyone. Legally you planned that line, right,
16:12
Yeah, that didn't just come naturally. Come on, you planned that
16:15
line. It's a good line, John Day, I'm the best man.
16:19
Come on, get in kolbe Hall. You have Tim Ryan laughing here in
16:25
studio. Thank you bout very much for coming on. Appreciate it now.
16:30
I was a little bit surprised how taken aback Dan was at my joke.
16:37
It was fine that everyone thought it was funny that the next guest, Tim
16:41
former Congressman Tim Ryan, thought it was funny. Colby thought it was funny.
16:45
I think it's a good line, one that I've used at least once
16:48
or twice on this podcast. It's one hundred percent accurate. But here's what
16:53
I found to be interesting from a making the sausage element of this whole situation.
17:00
That line would only work if it was the very last moment of that
17:07
portion of the show, at the end of that segment. If I had
17:12
dumped that line in the middle of the segment, as you can tell,
17:18
things would have gone sideways. And you know how it's very difficult to recover
17:22
from that situation. If literally you have a show stopper, that's what that
17:26
line basically was, was a show stopper, then you're actually creating a disruption,
17:33
and that would be negative because then Dan has got to figure out,
17:37
Okay, how do I recover from this? And I've got to also figure
17:40
out my timing because as you heard there, he's referencing Tim Ryan, who's
17:44
in studio with him, who he's going to do an interview with on a
17:48
related but different topic within the same segment. Now, What's interesting to me
17:55
is I did not know that. I did not know that that's what they
17:59
were going to do. In fact, I had never even had a conversation
18:03
with a producer about how long the segment was going to be. This was
18:04
the first segment of the show, which is generally the longest segment by far,
18:10
and so I had every logical reason to think that the segment that we
18:17
were doing was going to continue on for a little bit longer because I knew
18:22
we had more time. I knew in my brain that this was not going
18:27
to be the end of the first segment. Yet, weirdly, I knew
18:33
this was the end of my portion of the show. I don't know why
18:37
I knew that. It was just instinctive. It was, I guess from
18:41
having done this so many times before. I just knew that this was the
18:47
last thing I was going to say in this segment. Now, generally when
18:49
I do these shows, I only get to speak two or three times.
18:55
It's almost always two or three times. But in my brain, the pacing
18:59
of this and the way Dan was handling the segment, I felt like,
19:03
Okay, I can use this line without creating too much of a disruption,
19:08
Because it's going to be an ender. It's going to be the way this
19:12
particular segment ends, and therefore there's no big problem. I'm not creating a
19:18
disruption, and that turned out to be true. Now why I knew that,
19:22
I don't know. You know, when it comes to broadcasting, I
19:26
have a lot of weaknesses. I'm sure you've figured them out for yourselves.
19:30
I have a couple of strengths, one of which, if I have a
19:33
superpower, it's probably my bullshit detector, which is finally tuned at this point,
19:38
and that's probably what I'm most well known for, being able to figure
19:42
out what's true and what's fake. And I'm going to do that again in
19:47
this episode in short order, and my record on that is as good as
19:51
anybody i'm aware of, maybe better than anybody that i'm aware of, mainly
19:55
because of the situations that I've been in and because I have a unique set
20:00
of self interest, because I don't care. I'm not beholden to anybody.
20:04
I'm not part of any cult. I'm not afraid of pissing anybody off,
20:08
so I'm free to come to contrarian conclusions. So that would be my greatest
20:15
strength. If I have a secondary strength. It's probably that I have this
20:19
weird internal clock. And one of the reasons I'm mentioning this is this is
20:25
something that was picked up on by David Foster Wallace, the famous now dead
20:30
and having committed suicide author who did a twenty three page cover story on me
20:34
many years ago for then Atlantic Monthly magazine. This thing is exceedingly well known.
20:41
It's probably in some circles it's the thing I'm most well known for,
20:47
and that is being the subject of this article, this feature called the host
20:52
or I think it may have just been called host by David Foster Wallace,
20:56
who in left wing circles was a deity, you know, in the literary
21:00
world, and then he killed himself not long after having spent quite a few
21:04
months with me to write this article. I don't think that was related to
21:07
his suicide, but I've all often wondered about that, and without getting into
21:12
the whole David Foster, well, is this thing again, which is an
21:17
amazing story. In the twenty three page cover story that he wrote, he
21:22
goes into great detail for at least a page page and a half in my
21:26
recollection about the timing the internal clock, that it takes to be a radio
21:33
talk show host, and how he himself tried to do what he saw me
21:38
do at KFI Radio in Los Angeles, which was basically to start talking about
21:44
a subject and then end in a rational way in an eight eight and a
21:48
half nine minute segment and be able to transition to something else. Now,
21:55
how it is that you know I'm one of the people that can do this,
21:57
I don't know, but I do think that that internal clock played a
22:03
very key role in how that TV segment went because I don't know what was
22:07
telling me that this was the last moment of the segment and it was okay
22:11
for me to drop that joke, which I knew was going to create a
22:15
disruption. But I just knew it. I was very confident of it,
22:19
and that's the way it worked out, and for better or for worse,
22:23
that's what happened. So I've thought a lot about why it is that David
22:27
Foster Wallace found that to be so fascinating, because to me, it's not
22:33
a big deal. But I guess that's why David Foster Wallace found it to
22:37
be of interest because to him it was nearly impossible to do. But to
22:42
me, I mean done it many, many, many times in many different
22:45
ways. Then you know, it's just something that happens, and I have
22:49
no real control over it, and it is kind of a remarkable thing that
22:55
it's almost never wrong. I mean, that's the weirdest part of the whole
22:59
thing. So I don't want to delve into it too deeply. It's a
23:02
sidetrack issue. It sounds like, you know, I'm being egotistical. I'm
23:06
not. It's just a weird phenomenon that occurred in this particular TV situation,
23:14
And thankfully it did, because I do think that if I had done something
23:17
like that and it created a bigger stir than I anticipated, if I had
23:21
done that in the middle of the segment, it probably would have been a
23:23
problem, but at the end it worked out just fine. Now I referenced
23:29
the bullshit detector, and I think we have a classic example of where my
23:34
finely tuned bullshit detector has easily sniffed out yet another situation where the right wing
23:42
pro Trump media has humiliated themselves, humiliated themselves by jumping all over a story
23:52
that is clearly and obviously bullshit. And what I'm referring to is a story
24:00
that broke late on Friday, where the judge in the Trump trial, Judge
24:06
Murshan, sent a letter to the lawyers in the case and made the letter
24:12
public. And the letter started off by saying, dear counsel, today the
24:17
court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System's public
24:23
Facebook page in which I now bring to your attention. In the comment,
24:29
the user quote unquote Michael Anderson states quote my cousin is a juror and says
24:34
Trump is getting convicted. Thank you, folks for all your hard work.
24:40
Four exclamation points and a heart the comment. This is now back to the
24:45
letter from Judge Murshan. The comment, now labeled one week old, responded
24:51
to a routine UCS notice posted on May twenty ninth. Now, and then
24:57
it goes on to basically go nowhere as far as anything sort of relevant content.
25:03
But it's basically the judge informing the lawyers at hey, we found out
25:07
about this Facebook post, and it is what it is. No editorial comment,
25:14
no comment about whether or not we found out whether or not this Anderson
25:18
character really is a cousin of a juror, nothing about any sort of hearing
25:23
to discuss whether or not this will cause a mistrial, purely just Informationally,
25:30
Hey, we found out about this comment and it is what it is,
25:36
and my god, at least on Twitter, the pro Trump MAGA world right
25:41
winger media commentators went bananas, and even some semi credible people people like Klay
25:51
Travis, who I've talked about quite a bit, who frustrates the hell out
25:55
of me, jumped all over this. Even guy Benson, who doesn't even
25:59
like Trump I have respect for, gave some credibility to this idea. And
26:04
so for about twenty four hours in Magaworld, it was a done deal Trump's
26:11
getting a mistrial because the judge would never possibly make this public unless it had
26:15
already been vetted, and we therefore know this guy is the cousin of a
26:21
jur. We therefore know that the jur actually said this, and that because
26:26
of the timing of the post, this proves that the jury was out to
26:30
get Trump, and that therefore there should be a mistrial and the conviction should
26:37
be erased and all will be good in magaworld, and in about three seconds,
26:42
it was obvious that this story is garbage, that there's zero chance,
26:49
zero chance that this post is legitimate that this post was from the quote unquote
26:56
cousin of a jur and a juror actually said this to this particular person,
27:04
And frankly I knew this immediately just from the context of the Facebook post itself.
27:15
Forget about who it is, this Michael Anderson guy who I'll get to
27:18
in a second. Just the content itself makes this story obviously not true,
27:26
because if it was true, that is not the way the person would write
27:33
this post. First of all, they wouldn't even write the post. No,
27:36
no one would do this because they would obviously be in a situation where
27:41
they would be creating a massive problem for the result that they want. So
27:48
the only way this would happen in theory, right is if for some reason
27:55
somebody close to adjuror got this information and they were upset about it, which
28:00
this poster clearly was not, with the exclamation points and the heart, So
28:06
nobody who was excited about this would post it, especially before the actual verdict.
28:12
That's number one. Number two, the use of the word cousin was
28:18
an immediate alarm bell, massive alarm bell to me, because you're unlikely.
28:26
First of all, you're unlikely if you're a jury to tell anybody this.
28:30
I mean, people are stupid, they do dumb things all the time,
28:33
so it's possible. But in the list of people that you're likely to tell,
28:37
a cousin is very unlikely. By the way, this is not in
28:41
the South here, this is a New York City jury. Cousins are different
28:45
in New York City than they might be in the South, So a cousin
28:51
is not near the top of the list to somebody that you're going to tell
28:53
this kind of thing too, even if you have the wherewithal or the inclination
28:59
to do so. So that doesn't disprove it, but that makes me go,
29:03
a cousin really. But here's where cousin is really important and why I
29:10
think it goes to the immediate conclusion that this is bullshit. Because if you
29:15
are creating a prank, if the post is not real, and you are
29:22
looking to create a situation where you are given at least a semblance of credibility
29:26
by whoever's reading this, cousin is exactly what you would use. Cousin is
29:33
perfect for that. It's perfect for a fake post for a prank. Why
29:38
Because cousin, in people's minds gives the poster immediate at least some credibility.
29:48
Oh okay, so you're a relative of the juror, and so that gives
29:53
a reason for why they might tell you such explosive information that they're going to
29:59
convey trump that to people, especially if they want to believe something. Let's
30:04
be clear, when people want to believe something, they're very likely to believe
30:08
it. They're gonna stop using rational thought, and any red flags are gonna
30:14
be ignored. But in this particular situation, cousin gives the post some semblance
30:19
of credibility, and it's impossible to refute. See, that's the beauty of
30:26
the word cousin if you're a prankster, because cousin, at least for in
30:33
the short run, cannot be disproven. Why Well, because, first of
30:40
all, cousin can mean different things to different people. But most importantly,
30:44
there's a very good chance you don't have the same last name as the jur
30:47
Now we don't know the names of the jurors. But which is another reason
30:51
why this It was inherently suspect, right, because this gives the opportunity for
30:57
a prankster to to say anything they want because everything's plausible. But just to
31:04
give themselves extra deniability, or at least you'll make it much more difficult for
31:11
anybody to prove that this post is a prank. If you say cousin,
31:15
then your last name is irrelevant to this. There doesn't have to be a
31:22
juror by the name of Anderson, which is what this guy's name is,
31:26
Michael Anderson, because obviously cousins may or may not have the last name.
31:32
Oftentimes don't, so cousin is the perfect word to use if it's a prank.
31:40
It's perfect. It gives a semblance of credibility while making it impossible to
31:45
disprove, at least in the short run. And in this situation, because
31:51
we don't even know the names of the jurors, it makes it basically impossible
31:55
to disprove. So if you're just looking to create chaos, if you're just
31:59
looking for your fifteen seconds of fame, if you're just looking for people to
32:04
give you some attention, or to create a fake news story, this is
32:08
exactly how you would do it. That's not how you would do it.
32:13
If it was real, you would not be posting. By the way,
32:15
the Facebook page had nothing directly to do with the Trump case and you wouldn't
32:22
do it in such a jovial fashion, especially again if you were somebody who
32:29
wanted that outcome, unless you were a completing potal imbecile, because that would
32:34
create inherent suspicion. Unless the only way you would do this is if you
32:38
were pissed off, and I doubt that that's the way you would do this.
32:43
You wouldn't post on Facebook. You would go to the authorities if you
32:46
were pissed off that you found out that a juror will had it out for
32:52
Trump and that the whole jury was planning on convicting him. But then we
32:57
go to Michael Anderson himself, and that's when this becomes laughable, because Michael
33:05
Anderson, in multiple social media platforms, has referred to himself as effectively a
33:12
professional shit poster. That's a quote, a shit poster. And it appears
33:20
as if Michael Anderson is a Trump fan. Well, there it is game
33:28
set match. This is total bullshit. This guy is a prankster. This
33:34
is guy is a Trump fan. He was trying to create a news story
33:38
for whatever reason. What his anticipation for this was, I have no idea
33:43
what his expectations were. I don't know what you know, but it's obvious
33:47
that this is a Trump fan creating a fake post, using the word cousin
33:54
for some semblance of credibility, and then being all excited like he's a liberal
34:01
that yay, thank you Jerry for getting Donald Trump exclamation point exclamation point exclamation
34:07
point, exclamation point heart emoji. Well, obviously that's not consistent with a
34:15
Trump supporter. And when the person making the post refers to them as a
34:21
shit poster, and has even done so after this became a story, we
34:28
know this is all ridiculous. This is all bullshit, And I would normally
34:34
not even have maybe mention this other than that it's just ridiculous and absurd and
34:40
kind of humorous if not for the fact that so many right wing media MAGA
34:47
influencers bought in, almost in totality on this. Now that a lot of
34:53
them said if true or if verified, this will lead to a mistrial.
35:00
This is huge, and I'm like, oh my god. First of all,
35:04
by the way, let's pretend for a second that you're a moron and
35:08
you just accept that this post is true and that the person posting it really
35:14
is the cousin of a jur and they really were told this by a jury
35:19
member themselves. Even if all that's true, which it was obvious to me
35:22
it was not. Even if all that's true, that doesn't get you to
35:28
a mistrial. You would still have a huge bridge to cross, which was
35:34
to prove that this person was actually told this by the juror, and that
35:40
evidence would have to be clear cut and dramatic to no and void the entire
35:47
verdict, especially with this judge, Judge Marshawan, who you know, Maga
35:52
world has hated for months. That's maybe the most hilarious part of this whole
35:59
situation is all of a sudden, Megaworld, who's hated Judge Marchon because Trump
36:05
has been all over him, and not without some good reasons. All of
36:08
a sudden was putting all the credibility on this story on the idea that Judgemarshon
36:15
would not have made this public unless it was vetted and real. What you
36:21
people are such fucking hympocrats? Are you listening to yourselves? You already believe
36:27
that Judge Murshon is not a credible person. So how is it that him
36:30
writing a very short letter that's obviously a butt covering maneuver? That's clearly what
36:36
this is. This is obviously a situation where the judge found out about this
36:43
and he wants to make it public because if it comes out through right wing
36:47
media somehow, it's gonna make it look like they're hiding something. It's gonna
36:52
make it look like this is a cover up. So he's actually probably doing
36:59
the right thing, being proactive about this and saying, hey, look,
37:02
this was found. You know, he doesn't say this is nothing, but
37:06
he's just he's making a record of it, covering his own ass. And
37:10
maybe, by the way, who knows. I don't know whether or not
37:15
this judge thinks this way, but it wouldn't be a stretch for this judge
37:17
to also think, boy, the right wing media is gonna go bananas with
37:22
this bullshit and they're gonna look like idiots. Who knows, but that's effectively
37:25
what has happened. So and it wasn't just one or two, it was
37:30
dozens and dozens. I mean, everybody, even tangentially related to Magaworld jumped
37:37
all over this. And to my knowledge, I was one of the few
37:42
conservatives to stand up and go immediately, guys, this is bullshit. There
37:46
is no chance that this is real There is no chance this is going to
37:52
lead to a Trump mistrial zero, nor should it, because it's obviously not
38:00
a real thing. And I guess one of the reasons I'm so passionate about
38:07
this is that of all the many impacts that Donald Trump has had on the
38:13
Republican Party or the conservative movement or whatever the hell you want to call it
38:16
these days, I think that the one that probably upsets me the most is
38:22
the whole notion of buying into conspiracy theories constantly, even when they're obviously wrong.
38:30
And now, unfortunately, and this is the media's own damn fault,
38:35
because so many of these so called conspiracy theories have turned out to be at
38:39
least partially true, if not completely true, and because you know, Russia
38:44
Gate totally blew up in their faces. And I get it that there are
38:49
a lot of people now that are much more skeptical and understandably so rationally so
38:54
of any narrative that the media jumps all over that's anti Trump. I guess
39:00
that one hundred percent. And I've attacked the media for blowing their own credibility
39:05
on this. But then within the Trump world, within the Trump cult members,
39:09
there's this very illogical reaction to that, and that is that we go
39:15
from well, because some conspiracy theories are things that were labeled conspiracy theories have
39:20
turned out to be true, that means all conspiracy theories are now inherently true
39:27
unless proven wrong. And that is not a stretch. That is really what
39:30
the base Trump cult member believes. And the reaction to this story proved it
39:37
yet again, because I can't tell you it had to be at least dozens
39:43
and dozens and dozens of times I had people calling me the idiot, calling
39:51
me the person who was being duped, because I was telling people this story
39:55
is not true and it is not going to result in a mistrial. These
40:00
Trump cult members are so positive that they're right even when they are completely and
40:06
totally wrong. These people are fucking morons and they drive me crazy. And
40:13
the idea that this is the base of the Republican Party now is just so
40:17
sad and so aggravated. These are just dumb people. You have to be
40:23
an imbecile to buy into this story and then to pretend that somehow, people
40:30
like me, we're the dumb ones, We're the people that are being the
40:36
useful idiots that it's obvious that this is going to lead to a mistrial,
40:42
especially given what they believe about Judge Marshawn is just it's just flat out hilarious
40:47
if it wasn't so sad too, because it's totally sad. These are just
40:52
incredibly dumb people. The average Trump cult member on social media and Twitter are
41:00
among the dumbest people I have ever come across. And this whole situation was
41:07
yet another great example of that. And you know, we talk a lot
41:12
about how broken the left wing media is, but the right wing media is
41:15
broken just as badly, but in different ways, largely because their base of
41:22
support are a bunch of fucking morons, and because the people who are running
41:27
the right wing media aren't very bright themselves. And we know I've already stated
41:32
I cannot believe I honestly was shocked. I shouldn't have been. How many
41:37
semi credible media commentators we're giving any kind of credibility to this BS report about
41:46
a self professed shit poster that's never going to result in anything close to a
41:52
mistrial. And you know, there's been a lot of problems in the right
41:55
wing media. NBC News actually just did a whole expo about all the things
42:00
that have happened in the right wing media in recent weeks that are showing just
42:06
how fundamentally broken and in crisis the right wing media is. Here's a partial
42:13
list of what they went through. Gateway Pundit a guy I met many many
42:16
years ago, these nuts. He's completely insane, and somehow he became very
42:22
successful, largely because he got some credibility from Andrew Breitbart and from Matt Drudge,
42:29
and he's super conspiracy oriented. Well, he's just declared bankruptcy. You
42:34
have the one American news network settling with Smart Mattic. This wasn't mentioned directly,
42:39
but you have a Newsmax still dealing with the Dominion voting system's lawsuit situation,
42:46
where they clearly know they are very vulnerable after what happened with the settlement
42:52
between Dominion and Fox NewsChannel. You have Salem, which I've dealt with extensively
42:57
and have no respect for whatsoever, retracting Densh Desuza's two thousand mules for fear
43:04
of lawsuits. You have Alex Jones, the conspiracy pro Trump nutjob, agreeing
43:08
to sell off assets because of the verdict and the Sandy Hook case. You've
43:15
got the FEDS alleging a top Epic Times executive laundered sixty seven million dollars using
43:23
the Epic Times as the base of operations there. So you have a fundamentally
43:30
broken right wing media. The right wing media started as a reaction to the
43:37
left wing or the mainstream media, the mainstream meda becoming more and more openly
43:42
left wing. And so it started off with the best of intentions, and
43:45
it started off being about the truth. And now here we are a couple
43:50
decades later and basically three decades later, and it's completely corrupted. And part
43:59
of that's because of Trump. Part of that's a reaction to Trump. Part
44:02
of that's Trump realizing that there was a vulnerability within the right wing media and
44:07
taking advantage of it brilliantly in twenty sixteen and then now taking it over and
44:13
essentially running the right wing media. But it's not about truth. And unfortunately
44:17
it has given the mainstream laft wing media, which is in huge financial crisis,
44:22
it has given them a massive break because the right wing has no credibility
44:29
with average voters none, and understandably so, largely because of many of the
44:35
things I just told you, and because of the pension for grabbing on to
44:38
bullshit conspiracy theories like this idea that somehow the Trump trial is going to be
44:44
declared a mistrial because of this shit poster named Michael Anderson. By the way,
44:50
one of the reasons why you know that story was bullshit is because Trump
44:52
himself never really responded to it. He put out on Trump on truth social
44:59
trump social whatever you would have called untrue social. He put out the word
45:02
mistrial, exclamation point, that was it, which was classic and perfect Trump
45:08
because his fans are thinking he's reacting to the same story that they're obsessing about.
45:15
But he has total plausible deniability because he never mentions the story specifically because
45:20
he himself knows it's bullshit, because if it wasn't bullshit, he'd be talking
45:23
about twenty four to seven, but he's not. Just drives me crazy.
45:30
Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested
45:34
in listening to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please go
45:38
to Patreon that's p A t R e O N dot com, Patreon dot
45:45
com. Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is jhn
45:53
Z i e G l R. That's Patreon dot com slash the Death of
46:00
Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that, But that's how
46:06
you can subscribe