Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Sixty Five: Cheap Fakes

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Sixty Five: Cheap Fakes · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and sixty five of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. The
0:07
Jerry Sandusky travesty of injustice gets some major media coverage. Doctor Fauci finally gets
0:14
properly confronted on COVID school closings, The White House and the news media work
0:19
together on the Biden deep fake video narrative, baseball legend, Willie Mays passes
0:26
away, and I review the hit movie Inside Out two. We begin this
0:32
episode of the podcast with an update on a story that obviously has played a
0:37
major role in my life and career. That is the entire Penn State Joe
0:43
Paterno Jerry Sandusky scandal, which originated waypack in twenty eleven. Now so many
0:49
many years ago, and in the last couple of days, there's been a
0:54
potentially i would call it significant development with regard to media coverage of that case,
0:59
because Jerry Sandusky has done a new prison interview which was the focus of
1:06
a story that was published first in The Daily Mail and then picked up by
1:11
The New York Post and by Fox News Online and a couple of other outlets
1:18
owned by the same company, News Corp. So this is not a huge
1:23
surprise as to how this would evolve when it begins at the Daily Mail,
1:27
which is owned by News Corp, and then it flows over to other News
1:32
Corp outlets. And the way this began was that Frank Parlato of the Frank
1:38
Report, who we've had on this podcast before, because he has taken on
1:42
this crusade that I have failed so miserably at for over a decade to try
1:49
to bring some semblance of justice to this travesty. Frank is a reporter who
1:53
in the last I would say six to eight months or so, has become
2:00
very much involved in trying to expose the ridiculousness of this entire story and the
2:06
reality that Jerry Sandusky is, in fact, despite all public perception created by
2:10
media malpractice, that Jerry Sandusky is in fact innocent and that there was no
2:16
Penn State sex abuse scandal. And what basically happened here, because I spoke
2:22
to Frank after this article appeared, is that Frank had convinced a female reporter
2:29
for The Daily Mail that there was a story here. Together they interviewed Jerry
2:34
Sandusky, and that interview was used as the hook for the Daily Mail to
2:39
do an article on the case itself. It was not a tremendous article.
2:46
There were some things that weren't particularly good about it. But given the standards
2:51
of how the news media has completely ignored the Jerry Sandusky side of this entire
2:57
saga, it certainly is a step in the right direction. And at first
3:01
I thought, well, was this really worth, you know, getting this
3:06
article out there? Was this really worth using up one of the very few
3:08
cards that Jerry Sandusky still has, which is the Jerry Sandusky breaks his silence
3:15
card. Right, He hasn't done a media interview that's been made public since
3:19
the one I did with him way back in twenty thirteen, which resulted in
3:23
an appearance with Matt Lauer on The Today Show by Me, and that included
3:28
audio because I had surreptitiously recorded the interview with Jerry Sandusky in prison against the
3:35
rules of the Pennsylvania prison system, something that they didn't even figure out for
3:38
another year. And that was the whole story of the audio recording pen that
3:46
I brought into the prison and the fiasco that ensued because I superglued the pen
3:52
in order to make sure I wasn't caught, and then I couldn't get the
3:55
audio portion of the pen out and I had to go through all sorts of
4:00
hoops to the salvage the audio before going on the Today Show. Well,
4:03
anyway, Sandusky has done other I guess you would call it interviews, but
4:09
this one is official on the record. I don't know whether or not there
4:14
was audio or not. I assume there must have been, but for some
4:15
reason that hasn't been made public because again, there are rules within at least
4:20
there were within the Pennsylvania state system that you're not allowed to record an interview
4:27
with an inmate. And so at first I thought, was that worth you
4:31
know, giving that up? Not that that's a great card anymore, all
4:34
these years later, but it's still something. And getting an article in the
4:39
Daily Mail and geting it picked up in different versions by the New York Post
4:44
and Fox News, that's that's nice. I don't think it changes anything.
4:46
I have not seen any coverage in Pennsylvania among mainstream news outlets picking this up.
4:54
It's possible that that happened, although I doubted I haven't seen it.
4:58
But according to Frank, this was not a one shot deal. That this
5:02
was and these are my words. This was more of a trial balloon situation
5:08
where the editors were trying to see, Okay, we think there's something there.
5:14
You know, are we going to get major blowback if we do this?
5:17
Is it going to get traffic if we do this? And according to
5:20
Frank, the trial balloon was a success at least at somewhat of a success
5:27
where they are planning to do at least one, maybe two other articles further
5:33
delving into the entire Sandusky case from the contrarian perspective. At least that's what
5:40
Frank believes, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. So I'm hopeful
5:45
that that does in fact happen, and if it does, that would certainly
5:48
be worth using up this this card of Jerry Sandusky breaks his silence. Of
5:55
course, Jerry being a terrible talker, and you know they're being no real
6:00
strategy behind his defense from the very very beginning. The interview itself didn't really
6:08
move the needle. There were a lot of things that Jerry could have said
6:11
that he didn't and if this had been organized properly, maybe he would have
6:15
said. But that didn't happen. But that's just par for the course when
6:18
it comes to this entire insane story and why it is one of the many,
6:24
many reasons why it has been such an injustice for so many people from
6:29
the very very beginning. So I would say this is a positive development.
6:33
You know, I'm still extremely skeptical that anything real is going to come out
6:39
of this, like, for instance, a new trial or getting Jerry Sandusky
6:43
out of prison. Somehow, I am quite certain that none of that's going
6:46
to happen. None of this fundamentally changes anything. I've said for many,
6:50
many years that nothing could fundamentally change this case. You could have multiple key
6:57
accusers come forward and say that they lied, and it wouldn't matter because us
7:03
the media would ignore it, or they would say, well, what difference
7:06
does it make because we know there were all these other accusers and okay,
7:11
so what if a few of them lied. They're so invested in the dark
7:15
fairy tale of this case that they're never ever going to admit that they were
7:18
wrong. In that way, that's very much like COVID, which you're going
7:23
to get to in a little bit, where getting doctor Fauci to admit that
7:26
he was wrong when he was wrong about virtually everything is next to impossible,
7:30
and this one might even be worse because you know, there's so many ways
7:34
to rationalize reality, and so I don't know what kind of earthquake it could
7:41
take to turn this case around. I have been a bit amused by Frank
7:46
Perlado's efforts. I think it's great that he's trying to do this. I'm
7:49
not at all, you know, envious, jealous. You know, I
7:55
couldn't care less about that bar good luck, But I'm also it's kind of
7:59
like, you know, this entire situation is kind of like trying to watch
8:05
two barren and sterile people try to pro create. No matter how hard you
8:11
try, it's not going to work. And it's very clear that it's not
8:16
gonna work because it can't. And I realize that that's a very pessimistic view,
8:20
but that's based upon over ten years of knocking my head against this wall,
8:24
and I'm fully open to the idea. Okay, you know, I
8:28
wasn't able to do it, so maybe somebody else can. Good luck.
8:31
I wish you all the best. I just also know reality in general,
8:35
and I know this case in particular, and unless something really fundamentally changes,
8:43
which it is not to this point, there's never gonna be a different outcome.
8:48
And it's a travesty, it's a very it's a deep, deep,
8:52
deep injustice. It's a shame. It's a sad and sad story that Jerry
8:56
Sindusky is going to die in prison, and that, you know, there
9:01
were three other men that went to jail for things they didn't do, had
9:03
their lives destroyed, Joe Paterno, had his entire legacy destroyed, ben State
9:09
University had their reputation destroyed, all over nothing but a perfect storm of bullshit
9:16
and a money grab. And we proved it. We proved that beyond any
9:20
shot of it out. And you know, our podcast with the Benefit of
9:22
Hindsight is really the reason why I don't have any concerns at all about,
9:28
you know, my role in this and whether or not I could have done
9:31
more and whether not someone else can do it better, because we laid it
9:35
all out there. We proved the case more clearly and overtly and dramatically than
9:41
anyone could possibly have done so. And it's it's there, hopefully for perpetuity,
9:48
And if you haven't already checked it out, I urge you to do
9:50
so. The podcast with the Benefit of hindsight, because it proves beyond any
9:54
shot of it out that the entire case is bs and the Jerryson dusky is
9:58
now not only innocent, but that it's not even close. And that's the
10:03
most amazing part of this. So, you know, kudos to Frank for
10:07
the effort and whatever he can do as far as getting this story into the
10:11
mainstream news media. I applaud that I look forward to seeing whether or not
10:16
there are in fact future articles that are similarly published on the other side of
10:22
the story. Frank asked me if I'd like to participate in that. I
10:26
said, fine, sure, whatever you need, I'm happy to help.
10:28
So I don't know what exactly will happen, because there's always, you know,
10:33
in this case especially, there's always a situation where promises can be made
10:35
and not kept and things change, usually in a negative direction, very very
10:41
easily. But I will say that overall this, you know, this is
10:45
certainly a better development than anything else that that's happened in the last couple of
10:48
years. But legally, I still have no expectation at all that Jerry's ever
10:54
going to get a fair hearing, even in Pennsylvania, because the entire state
11:00
media, the literally the legal system is deeply, deeply, deeply invested in
11:07
his guilt, and nothing has changed that. I've always felt that this has
11:11
to go to federal court and then lesson. Until Jerry Sandusky has the guts
11:16
to do that, nothing is going to change. And I have no indication
11:20
that that effort is even being instigated at this point, and it would take
11:26
maybe too long even if it was, because Cherry Sandusky is now into his
11:31
eighties. He's just turned eighty years old, and so you know, time
11:35
is a wasting for sure, and who knows how much time is left,
11:39
although his sons have told me that they believe Cherry's going to live to be
11:43
hundred, which you know, I don't know if that's realistic or not,
11:46
but you know, it seems as if Jerry is fighting. And of course
11:52
one of the more amazing things is that not only is he still alive,
11:54
but he's being treated very well and in prison by all accounts, which is
11:58
unheard for a serial pedophile, especially one his famous as Jerry Sandusky. The
12:03
only reason why that's happening is because, based upon people that have come to
12:09
me who have actually served time with Jerry Sandusky, everybody in prison knows he's
12:13
innocent, and therefore they don't screw with him, and you know, otherwise
12:20
he would have harm done to him, as has happened to others in very
12:24
similar, even less high profile situations. So I mean, look, I
12:28
hope Jerry somehow survives long enough to at least get a fair hearing. You
12:33
always hold out hope as long as he's still alive. But I am very,
12:37
very pessimistic and skeptical. But on the other hand, I am more
12:41
than willing to say, you know, you go ahead, Frank, do
12:45
whatever you can, because if you're able to do something I wasn't able to
12:48
do, you know, great godspeed, that would be fantastic. So I
12:54
remain cynical, skeptical, pessimistic, but at least there's a shred of hope.
13:00
And I'll keep you updated to what's going on with Frank Brolado's efforts in
13:03
this area. I want to briefly mention a story that really has nothing directly
13:09
to do with Jerrysindusky, but it does certainly go to the utter injustice and
13:15
insanity that has gripped elements of our judicial system, especially when it comes to
13:20
the issue of false convictions. You know, the pendulum in this country on
13:26
so many different areas and so many different elements of our life, our culture,
13:33
our society tends to swing way too far in one direction and come back
13:37
way too far in the other. And in recent years, one of the
13:41
more frustrating for me angles of the Cheriosondusky case is that we're living in an
13:46
era where routinely, routinely we hear about cases of wrongful convictions and massive injustices.
13:58
And I mean, there's, you know, all these television shows that
14:01
are often devoted to these types of situations, and there's the entire Innocence Project
14:07
that has sprouted up all over the country, claiming that there are thousands and
14:11
thousands of people who have been wrongly convicted and that they're doing the good work
14:18
of getting justice for people who who didn't really commit crimes. And it's always
14:24
been my belief that while some of these stories are based in truth, that
14:28
a lot of them are not. And you know, going back to the
14:31
Sandusky case, that's been exceedingly frustrating to me because Jerry has this amazing case
14:37
of wrongful conviction that goes way beyond just him and all the other people that
14:43
were damaged in this story, and it's fairly easily proven and has been proven
14:48
by me and others who helped in the process. And we get nowhere mainly
14:54
because Jerry's a white, straight male. Ironically, he's straight, because that's
15:00
obviously a huge part of the alleged narrative that he's not straight, But if
15:05
he was. Frankly, if he was gay, he'd probably get a better
15:09
chance of some semblance of justice. But if he was a black man,
15:15
he would clearly have a much better chance of justice, because there's an entire
15:18
industry now of trying to exonerate black men from convicted crimes. I'm sure some
15:26
of which were never committed, but I'm also quite sure some of which,
15:31
maybe a lot of which were committed, and now these are fake exonerations.
15:35
And it's in that context that I found this story to be both amazing and
15:41
telling, because I don't think this is all that unusual, and it's not
15:46
getting nearly enough attention because the news media doesn't want to touch this at all.
15:50
But this was This is a story that I was first made aware of
15:54
through the Twitter account of Annie no who's a conservative activist who does some good
15:58
work work, and he tweeted this week, Wow page. Kannab, a
16:06
radical leftist legal director of the Northern California Innocence Project, helped overturn the conviction
16:12
of a black man who was found guilty of the brutal murder of a woman.
16:18
The nonprofit raised significant funds based upon their victory. California gave the man,
16:25
the black man who was allegedly wrongly convicted, eight million dollars after he
16:30
sued. Now it has emerged the Kanneb's ex whose testimony freed the former convict,
16:40
allegedly was manipulated into lying to the court by Canab. The nonprofit stands
16:48
by her and says she is ethical, even though she didn't disclose to the
16:53
court that as a lawyer, she was in a romantic relationship with a witness.
17:00
Now, this was a story that was in the San Francisco Standard.
17:04
Here's how they reported on it. In nineteen ninety one, Maurice Caldwell,
17:08
then twenty three, was convicted of a murder for a San Francisco drug deal
17:14
gone bad. Nearly two decades later, a young lawyer at the Northern California
17:19
Innocence Project, Paige Kineb, helped win his release from prison. The victory
17:26
hinged largely on the declarations from Mariette Funchez, Caldwell's friend, who took blame
17:34
for the killing and identified someone else as his accomplice. After Caldwell won his
17:41
freedom, he went on to win an eight million dollar settlement from the city
17:47
for his two decades behind bars, the second largest payout the city has ever
17:52
made in such a case. Now, though, Funchez says he lied about
17:57
Caldwell's innocence. What's more, he says keneb known as known about his lie,
18:06
but continues to represent the case publicly as an example of truth triumphing.
18:12
In the end, the San Francisco Standard went on to quote this person who
18:21
was used to exonerate the guy who got convicted. Quote, she pretended to
18:26
take a personal interest in me. We began a romantic relationship, he wrote
18:33
to the Standard. It was the art of seduction at its finest, all
18:38
to get me to finally help mister Caldwell. Unquote. Now again, is
18:45
it possible that this guy who has confessed to a murder that he apparently didn't
18:49
commit is also lying about this? I guess, But the denials don't seem
18:55
to be particularly strong, and the evidence seems to indicate that there's something to
18:59
this story. But as it now appears, we have this super liberal,
19:06
white female lawyer who was having sex with a guy in order to help exonerate
19:14
another client of hers who was guilty, and everybody made a lot of money
19:18
out of this. She got a lot of prestige for the exoneration, the
19:25
Innocence Project got a lot of donations. The guy who actually committed the original
19:30
murder apparently and then was supposedly exonerated, he got eight million dollars. Everybody
19:36
won, and the guy who was the person who took responsibility, I guess
19:41
he temporarily won. He was having sex with the lawyer but is now saying
19:47
he got used. And this is the kind of situation now that results in
19:52
one of these exonerations quote unquote, that has a huge influence on how the
20:00
EDIO sees our judicial system and how elements of the public sees our judicial system.
20:04
That somehow it's it's dead set against particularly black men, and that they
20:10
can't get a fair shake, and that you can't trust convictions. Well,
20:15
the reality is you can't trust a lot of convictions, Like in a situation
20:18
where you have a media firestorm involving Jerry Sandusky and Penn State and Joe Paterno,
20:23
but you also can't necessarily trust these exonerations because a lot of them are
20:29
politically motivated, in this case, sexually motivated and financially motivated. And the
20:36
media just can't see this. It's just they don't want to. They don't
20:38
want to deal with this kind of situation because it raises too many questions and
20:44
forces them to reconsider a lot of their predisposed notions and conclusions that they've made
20:52
about the systemic racism within our judicial system, and how there are all these
21:00
injustices that are being corrected. And I look at this and I go,
21:04
if this is happening so clearly, so blatantly apparently, and so effectively in
21:11
such a high profile way, how many other situations are happening where there are
21:17
false exonerations, and meanwhile, Jerry Sandusky can't even get a fair hearing.
21:22
It's just unbelievably frustrating. I mean, I have lost so much faith in
21:27
our judicial system in the last certainly decade or so since I've been involved in
21:33
the Sandusky case. And it goes in all sorts of different directions. It's
21:37
almost like a miracle. Now, if there's a high profile case of any
21:41
level and there's not an injustice, it's almost impossible. We saw what happened
21:47
with the Donald Trump convictions. If it's a high profile case, it's now
21:51
seemingly like a deadlock, cinch that there's going to be an injustice. And
21:57
this seems to be, you know, both directions, and this seems to
22:02
be another example of that. I want to move on to maybe the most
22:07
amazing media moment of the week so far, and that is doctor Anthony Fauci
22:14
being confronted on the CBS Morning Show by an anchor by the name of Tony
22:21
the tuke Pill. I think it's how you say his last name. The
22:23
tuke Pill is his last name. He's actually married to Katie Turr, who
22:30
is on MSNBC and NBC. She's pretty decent, decently fair. In fact,
22:34
she gets attacked by liberals on Twitter all the time whenever she's hosting on
22:38
MSNBC, so to be pretty fair, be considered fair by MSNBC standards is
22:44
a little bit like being the admiral of the Swiss Navy. But I'll give
22:49
her some credit. And I'm going to give Tony dukepild some credit here as
22:53
well, because when he interviewed doctor Anthony Fauci on CBS This Morning or The
23:00
Morning Show, and he did a pretty good job. I mean, again,
23:06
the standards are low by the nature of the modern media when it comes
23:08
to the COVID panic. But he took doctor Founci on on school closings in
23:15
a way that I have never heard anyone else do, and I thought it
23:19
was very effective. Again, it wasn't perfect, but by the standard of
23:25
the mainstream news media. And you remember, you know, Tony is a
23:27
white, straight guy on CBS, and he was willing to tell tell doctor
23:33
first of all, in front of him on the issue of school closings.
23:37
Second of all, be very clear that he didn't believe and I think he's
23:41
one hundred percent right about this that school closing saved any lives. And I
23:48
think that's true. We know that because when school's open, nobody died.
23:52
So he's one hundred percent right, and he had the guts to say that.
23:56
He also didn't let Fauci compleat wetly get away with the lies that ensued.
24:02
Now again, you gotta Remember, he's in a very Tony is in
24:06
a very difficult the anchor, not Tony Fauci. Tony the anchor is in
24:10
a very difficult spot. Here. One. He's on CBS, and I'm
24:14
sure everyone around him in that room is a liberal, and he's also got
24:18
a time constraint, and Fauci is there promoting a book, and so you
24:22
know he's gonna he doesn't have the time to confront Fauci on every little lie
24:27
that he tells. I will do so after you hear this clip. But
24:33
in the end, he does force Fauci to essentially acknowledge that closing schools was
24:38
a mistake and that it will never happen again. And so I thought,
24:44
this is deserving of kudos by the very low standards of the modern media,
24:48
this era in which we have a podcast called the Death of Journalism. And
24:52
here's what it sounded like when Fauci was confronted on school closings on CBS this
24:57
morning. School closures, right, which did enormous harm to kids on multiple
25:03
levels and didn't seem to save lives. And I wonder, can we say
25:07
today that that is a mistakeclosures? I think what was not a mistake was
25:11
the actual closure because when we had a shut down that fifteen day to flatten
25:17
the curve, we were in a tsunami of cases. Right here in New
25:22
York. You had freezer trucks in front of Elmhurst Hospital. Oh I remember,
25:26
but outside my house. But I'm not talking about the initial No,
25:30
no, I'm not. I'm talking about that debt. I'm going to get
25:33
to Okay, And the issue is shutting down everything immediately, and we didn't
25:37
shut it down completely, but essentially major social distancing and even schools was the
25:42
right thing. How long you kept it was the problem because there was a
25:48
disparity throughout the country some I mean, if you go back and look at
25:52
the YouTube. I kept on saying, closed the balls, opened, the
25:57
schools, opened the schools as quickly and as safely as you possibly can.
26:02
But initially to close it down was correct, I'm not talking about it.
26:06
For a year was not a good idea. So that was a mistake.
26:08
In retrospect, we will not repeat it. Yeah, absolutely, Yeah.
26:12
So the football moved there. That's moving the football. I mean, that's
26:18
Fauci saying okay, yeah, we're never going to do that again. Now,
26:23
I Fauci isn't going to be the person in charge in all likelihood given
26:29
his age, should we ever be in this situation again, But that at
26:33
least has some significance. There's at least a shred of accountability there now.
26:40
Unfortunately, Fauci was allowed to essentially create a false narrative and you know,
26:47
you might even call it a lie when he claimed that he was saying close
26:52
the bars open the schools. Fauci did say that, however, he said
26:59
that in two different points. He said that in August of twenty twenty,
27:07
when it's too late. At that point, it's too late, decisions have
27:11
already been made. And he also had all sorts of caveats. There were
27:17
all sorts of it was all mealymouth. It wasn't declarative, and he certainly
27:25
wasn't as strong about it in the media as he was in November, late
27:30
November of twenty twenty, when he was more emphatic about it and less obfuscating
27:40
and having less caveats. And so he's not lying when he says he said
27:45
that, but he's creating a false impression. Of course. In late November
27:51
of twenty twenty, what's happened Joe Biden has been elected President of the United
27:56
States. Donald Trump has lost, so Fauci has a lot more freedom in
28:02
late November of twenty twenty to all of a sudden say open the schools,
28:07
and you know, we keep the bars closed because his guy has just won
28:12
the presidency, so it's now time to change the tune. There's also not
28:18
nearly the same kind of political imperative in keeping the schools closed, because there's
28:25
absolutely positively a clear cut agenda, whether it was conscious or subconscious when it
28:33
came to keeping the schools closed in much of the country and what impact that
28:37
was going to have on the twenty twenty presidential election. I have said this
28:41
many times, but it gets lost. It's one of those things that I
28:45
don't know how many people in America are even aware of it. It's probably
28:48
way less than ten percent. But in the early summer or early midsummer of
28:55
twenty twenty, the Pediatric Association or organization whatever, and Pediatric Association came out
29:03
declaratively saying that schools need to reopen in the fall. They were unambiguous about
29:10
it, and Donald Trump used that and said, absolutely we need to reopen
29:17
schools and immediately the pediatric organization caved and reverse course because they were so terrified
29:26
of being seen as a right wing political organization that was somehow helping the campaign
29:33
of Donald Trump. Right there, we knew this was no longer about science,
29:37
This was no longer about the health of kids, This was no longer
29:41
about education. This was about politics, pure and simple and clear. And
29:47
Fauci waiting until after the election to get very dramatic and clear cut about the
29:52
fact that schools ought to open is also evidence that it was all about politics.
29:57
It was not about science or medicine, or health or kids. And
30:03
that was the smoking gun. That was the smoking gun that this was all
30:07
political. That they reversed themselves, the pediatric physicians reversed themselves simply because they
30:15
were afraid of being seen as on team Trump. There were two smoking guns
30:22
at least, but the two biggest in the summer of twenty twenty were what
30:26
happened there with the doctors completely reversing course and school closings and openings, and
30:33
obviously what happened with protesting involving George Floyd. The fact that the same people
30:37
were saying go ahead and protest, because that's more important than public safety or
30:42
health. Were the ones that were telling us that we had to keep social
30:45
distancing. We couldn't go to funerals and went and couldn't have weddings, and
30:51
couldn't go to outside sporting events, couldn't have graduations, and we couldn't have
30:56
school. Same people go ahead and protest the George Floyd. Those were massive
31:03
smoking guns that the media completely and totally ignored because it went directly against their
31:10
narrative. And so you know, I will never let go of this issue.
31:17
This said obviously a major impact on my family's life with two young children
31:22
at the time. Specifically, my older daughter, Grace, was in second
31:26
grade at the time, and it was a very very critical moment for her,
31:30
especially considering the fact that at the time she had a very significant learning
31:33
disability that we didn't even know about, and she missed a very critical period
31:38
of schooling and her development will probably never ever recover from that. And not
31:45
to mention the social elements of it. And I mean, there's a hundred
31:48
different ramifications of all of this, and we're seeing today to this day the
31:56
behavior in schools that they recitizen rate, the truancy rate, all I mean,
32:05
everything is out of sorts still now a few years after the COVID panic
32:09
in schools, there was a massive cracks in the foundation of our entire education
32:15
system that were created by this. The ramifications of this are enormous. And
32:20
you can tell that the CBS anchor Tony Ducafootpill, I'll get his right,
32:24
his name right eventually if I just keep saying in different ways. But you
32:29
know, Doca Pill, you know, is clearly angry about this. And
32:32
that didn't really surprise me that Doca Pill would go after Fauci on this because
32:39
I've had an experience with Doca Pill, and that is that during the COVID
32:45
panic, CBS Mornings asked for kids to ask questions about the schools in the
32:55
fall of twenty twenty, and I had my own daughter, Grace submit,
33:02
and I guess you would call it an interview for CBS Morning Show to use
33:09
on air, and they decided to do it. And they not only used
33:14
Grace in the story itself, they used her in the teaser for the story,
33:21
so they actually used her twice. And here is a clip. It's
33:24
off of my television, So the audio isn't that great, but here's the
33:29
same anchor who just confronted Anthony Fauci on school closings. I think now,
33:37
in retrospect especially I felt this might be the case of the time, But
33:40
now I'm sure he was signaling that he was on team contrarian at least when
33:47
it came to school closings, because he amplified my daughter Grace's questions about why
33:55
we're doing all this and said on the CBS Morning Show show, why Why
34:00
Why? And here's what that sounded like just before the school year was supposed
34:07
to start in twenty twenty but did not. For news that had children heading
34:13
back to school are Field with questions about changes during the pandemic. Why can't
34:19
we go and sere friend, why can't we go to school? Why do
34:22
we have to do this armund morning stuff? And the house is going to
34:30
help us? Why Why? Why? Coming up, we continue our school
34:34
Matter series with answers from students for students from psychologists. Lisa de Moore,
34:39
you're watching CBS this morning, Why Why Why? So when I put those
34:45
two clips together, it's pretty clear that that the anchor from the CBS Morning
34:51
Show is on the side of good here. It's you know, it's easy
34:54
to now reinterpret what he was doing with my daughter Grace's clip and realizing that
35:00
he understood that way back in the midst of the panic, that this was
35:05
the best he could do was to use this young child asking these questions and
35:10
then amplify them by saying why, why why? And now we know,
35:15
now we know why he did that because he was on the side of good.
35:22
He was on team Contrarian, and he deserves a lot of credit for
35:27
what he did with Anthony Fauci. Again, not perfect, and certainly Fauci's
35:30
answer wasn't anywhere near perfect, but it was the best that we have gotten
35:36
so far, and it's better than nothing. Now Fauci is doing the media
35:39
rounds because he has a new book out, and of course, you know,
35:44
most of the media outlets are not going to confront him like he was
35:46
confronted in that particular situation with the CBS Morning Show. He got the softball
35:52
more than the softball treatment. On MSNBC on Morning Joe from former Republican can
36:00
servantive Congressman Joe Scarborough, who's maybe the worst sellout in the entire media world
36:06
now that he's had to pretend to be a liberal. On MSNBC for all
36:10
of these years, and he had Fauci on and he effectively went out of
36:16
his way to try to make Fauci into the victim. That's right, Fauci's
36:22
the real victim here, folks, Joe Scarborough, you know, this wasn't
36:29
really even a question. This was essentially him laying the foundation for Fauci to
36:35
be able to be absolved from all of this criticism that he's getting, essentially
36:39
in right wing circles for having been wrong about everything, all under the premise
36:46
that we just didn't know. We just didn't know at the time, and
36:52
you know, and Fauci tried to do the same thing in the CBS Morning
36:57
Show interview, which I should have addressed previously, where he claiming that we
37:00
were in and dated with a tsunami of cases and you know, we just
37:04
we had to panic and just do everything we possibly could. Well, I'm
37:07
going to address that more fully in response to this clip of MSNBC Morning show
37:15
host Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough basically giving fallatio to doctor Fauci and trying to
37:22
promote this narrative of we just didn't know, we did the best we could,
37:27
and the real victim. Here is doctor Fauci, and here's what that
37:30
sounded like. We're talking about the first pandemic since nineteen eighteen, nineteen nineteen.
37:37
And you know we often talked, doctor about the fog of four.
37:40
Well, this pandemic was a war of its own kind, with over a
37:45
million people dying. And I'm just curious how frustrating it is to you that
37:51
people will go back and pick up something that you may have said in March
37:54
of twenty twenty, or something that another health official or a politician may have
37:59
said lay in that year, whether it's about masks or vaccines. We didn't
38:02
know. None of us knew where this was going. None of us knew,
38:07
like, for instance, how long would the vaccine work? Would we
38:09
need one booster every five years? We didn't want every five months. How
38:15
frustrating is it to you that people look back with twenty twenty hindsight and judge
38:17
you when you and the rest of the world was in the fog of war.
38:22
You know, it is quite frustrating, Joe. And that relates exactly
38:25
to the answer to the question. Just a moment ago or I was saying
38:30
that people really don't appreciate I don't blame them for that, but they don't
38:35
appreciate that we were dealing with a moving target and when we were saying things
38:38
in the beginning, wear a mask or not. How the virus is spread.
38:44
I mean, originally it was felt understandably but incorrectly by the CDC that
38:50
it is spread by the same way that fluid spread, namely, mostly by
38:53
droplets, when in fact, most of the transmission is not only by not
38:59
droplets, it's by aerosol, but also fifty to sixty percent of the people
39:04
who transmitted have no symptoms at all. We didn't know that in the beginning.
39:08
It was a changing moving target. You're absolutely right. Was it frustrating?
39:14
It was terribly frustrating because people like to take things out of context and
39:19
do a gotcha. That's part of the reporting process, and I accept that
39:22
it's the world we live in, but it certainly is frustrating. I asked,
39:29
well, we greatly appreciate you being here. We appreciate your service through
39:32
the years so much. The new book is that's right, folks, The
39:37
real victim here is doctor Fauci, not the millions of school kids that had
39:44
their entire academic careers derailed. Not the entire country that had our educational system
39:50
fractured, not all the people that lost their jobs, not all the businesses
39:55
that are no longer standing, not all the other things that happened during the
40:04
COVID panic that were completely insane and based upon nothing but the edicts of people
40:10
who didn't know what the hell they were talking about. And let me address
40:15
this issue of we didn't know more directly. We absolutely did know. We
40:20
absolutely did know, And there's a lot of reasons why we knew very very
40:25
soon that we were overreacting and doing things that made no sense to COVID.
40:30
But the one that I like to point to because it's so clear cut,
40:36
is what happened on the two cruise ships that had COVID, a COVID outbreak
40:44
before we had any idea what we were dealing with, where there was no
40:47
preparation whatsoever, where there was a spread of the virus throughout the cruise ship.
40:55
So a cruise ship is like the worst scenario you could possibly imagine to
41:00
be getting hit with a surprise virus, because if you've ever been on a
41:06
cruise ship with it, cruise ships work, I mean, things like this
41:09
spread very very easily. And we had two cruise ships that were hit with
41:15
COVID at the very beginning of this whole thing, So we had I don't
41:19
know exactly how many people. I've never been able to figure out exactly how
41:22
many people were on these two cruise ships, but it has to be well
41:24
over one thousand people in totality, well over a thousand. I don't know
41:30
the exact number. But and most of these people, using basic logic,
41:35
are way older than average because their cruise ships. The average agent a cruise
41:39
ship generally is very old. So you've got a perfect storm situation, total
41:47
surprise, no preparation, no precautions, and a cruise ship situation where we
41:53
got a bunch of older people. And what was the result of that situation.
41:59
By the way, not only did we have these cruise ships, we
42:02
had these people quarantined on the cruise ship, so the people that had the
42:07
virus were able to continue to spread it. So this wasn't like a situation
42:10
where we found out that there was COVID and they immediately were able to get
42:15
everybody off the ship and separate them. No, that was this is again,
42:17
this was almost like the worst possible scenario. Could you could even imagine.
42:23
And in the end, we had a situation where one hundred and sixty
42:29
eight people tested positive for the COVID virus, one hundred and sixty eight,
42:36
and seven of those people died either with or of COVID seven. Now,
42:42
that's a very problematic situation. That is problematic, that is bad, that
42:47
is not catastrophic. Is that is not a situation where you shut down the
42:53
world, and right then and there, if these experts really cared about science,
42:59
if they really cared about the truth, they would have been re examining
43:04
their initial projections that were based in total falsehoods and based in projections and extrapolation
43:15
and exponential growth that were always fantasy. And I have a lot of credibility
43:21
on this issue because, as I mentioned many times before, when Governor Newsom
43:25
shut down California, which then led to the shutdown of the entire country,
43:30
because you know, once California does it, once New York does it,
43:34
it's a domino effect. You're done. You can't keep going from that.
43:39
And when Newsom did that, he claimed, he claimed that twenty six million
43:45
plus Californians were going to get COVID in eight weeks twenty six million, and
43:50
I wrote an article for media and immediately saying that's bullshit. There's no possible
43:54
way we're going to get an end close to that number. We did never
43:57
get close to that number three years later in totality, and he was claiming
44:01
it in eight weeks. That was bullshit. That didn't happen, and it
44:07
was never going to happen. It was based in politics because Newsom wanted to
44:12
create as much panic and chaos and you know, make it clear that he's
44:19
making this dramatic action because we're facing an unprecedented situation that's going to be catastrophic
44:23
if we don't do everything we possibly can. So he's you know, I'm
44:28
actually giving him credit saying that he consciously overestimated the numbers, exaggerated the situation
44:35
for political purposes. But they were wrong. They were totally wrong. They
44:39
were obviously wrong. And when we got the cruise ship data, there should
44:44
have been a reevaluation. And it's my belief looking at the data very closely
44:50
over years that initially the COVID virus while it was at its strongest, and
44:54
that's important to point out with this cruise data, this is when the COVID
44:59
virus was at its strongest. We had seven deaths on two cruise ships with
45:05
a bunch of old people. But at the time, while it was at
45:08
its strongest, I actually think the cruise ship showed it wasn't that transmissible.
45:14
It wasn't that easily transmitted. Certainly not nearly as easy as was perceived.
45:21
And if this was really about science and if these people really know what the
45:24
fuck they were doing, that would have changed almost everything we did in response
45:30
to this, and with regard to we just didn't know, all right,
45:37
Okay, I get I get that in a panic situation, especially allegedly unprecedented
45:42
situation, mistakes are going to be made. I understand that. But what
45:45
did they get right? What did Fauci get right? Can someone please tell
45:51
me what Fauci got right? I mean, they got the death rate completely
45:55
wrong, They got the transmissible rate completely wrong. They were obsessed with washing
46:01
your hands. Remember that for the first two months of this chaos, it
46:07
was all about your hand washing. That was completely irrelevant. The social distancing
46:13
six feet thing Fauci is essentially admitted was completely made up. They completely reversed
46:19
themselves on masks, going from mocking masks on sixty minutes, as Fauci did
46:24
to two months later, saying that we ought to mandate masks, even though
46:29
Fauci, behind the scenes and even in public, was doing things that made
46:31
it clear he dn'believe in masks. His masks obviously don't work. The lab
46:37
league theory was a conspiracy, an a racist conspiracy theory. Now it appears
46:43
that that's the most likely scenario how this whole thing started. We've got Fauci
46:47
now finally sort of admitting that school closings was a mistake, while while lying
46:54
about the timing of when he reversed. Course, we didn't really reverse let
47:00
me say it again, until after the election. Georgia and Florida reopened their
47:05
schools in the spring of twenty twenty, and nothing happened, Nothing bad happened.
47:13
And then, of course you get into the issue of vaccine mandates.
47:15
They were totally wrong about the vaccine stopping transmission and the efficacy of the vaccines,
47:23
and the fact that they should be mandated. They were wrong about everything.
47:28
So I get we didn't know fully what we were dealing with. That
47:31
might get you off the hook on a few things, but we were told
47:35
and Fauci certainly promoted this narrative that Fauci was God, that the word from
47:43
him were like edicts on Moses's tablets, and that's the way the media treated
47:50
this, and he was wrong about everything. And while there's a tiny little
47:54
bit of accountability on the CBS Morning Show with regard to school closings, in
47:59
general, there's no media accountability. He is still treated like a conquering hero.
48:06
Why because in the left wing media he has seen, not without logic,
48:10
as the real reason that Donald Trump lost the twenty twenty election. Donald
48:15
Trump was headed for a reelection, and Anthony Fauci played a huge role in
48:22
why he was defeated. And by the way, there's another proof, as
48:24
if we needed it, that Fauci is a political hack, because he's been
48:30
asked on this book tour whether or not Joe Biden is physically capable of being
48:37
president for another four years, and with no evidence, he's actually treated him
48:43
as if this would even be an area of his expertise, if he even
48:45
has an area of expertise. Fauci has said, oh, no question that
48:50
Biden is physically capable of serving as president for another four years, but he's
48:54
unwilling to say the same thing about Trump, which is just amazing. That's
49:00
right there, that's talking about smoking guns. That's the smoking gun. That
49:05
Fauci's a political hack. That's a political diagnosis, just like when he said
49:10
Tamar Hamlin at cardiac arrest because of Komosio cordis, which is completely ridiculous.
49:16
That was a political diagnosis because Fauci wanted it to be Commosio courtus because my
49:22
guess is he had a suspicion or of fear that it might be vaccine related,
49:28
which I think the evidence indicates it probably was. So Fauci is everything
49:35
that people like me feared and worse, and his ego to this day will
49:38
not allow him to take anything close to full responsibility for the damage that he
49:45
helped create, and the media not just enabled but embraced because it fit their
49:51
agenda on multiple levels, including who was going to win the twenty twenty presidential
49:58
election. Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If
50:02
you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
50:07
Please go to Patreon that's p A t R e O N dot com Patreon
50:15
dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is
50:22
j O H N z I E G L e R. That's Patreon dot
50:28
com slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck to you on
50:34
that. But that's how you can subscribe.