Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Forty Five: Goodbye O.J.

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Forty Five: Goodbye O.J. · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and forty five of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. OJ
0:08
Simpson has died, and I will have extensive thoughts on his impact on my
0:12
life and vice versa. Donald Trump's first criminal trial gets underway, multiple major
0:19
media outlets are in an existential crisis, and a unique take on the Master's
0:25
golf Tournament. Obviously, a lot of people tuning into this podcast and who
0:31
are subscribers to the Death of Journalism are probably very interested in my thoughts on
0:36
the death of OJ Simpson, and I have a lot to share because,
0:41
as you probably know, this is this entire OJ Simpson saga has played an
0:47
extremely significant role in my life, and I've played a minor role in Ojy's
0:53
life. But I'm going to hold off to the second half of this episode
0:57
of the podcast before I get into that in detail, mostly because I don't
1:03
know how long it's going to take me to do that, and I'd rather
1:07
get to the news of the day other than OJ first, and then I
1:11
can just kind of lay it all out in the second half of the podcast
1:15
in a story that I probably have never told in its totality before, you're
1:19
going to hear things you've probably heard prior, but probably not all in one
1:26
place. And I will promise you this. There's one piece of information that
1:30
I'm going to reveal later in this episode regarding OJ Simpson that you have never
1:36
heard before that ought to be a major national news story but won't be.
1:41
That I think you're going to be finding to be quite interesting and very compelling.
1:46
I don't want to oversell it, but it's a tidbit that I have
1:49
never revealed before, and I feel like now that OJ is dead, it's
1:53
perfectly appropriate for me to do so, So that's going to be in the
1:57
second half of this episode the podcast. I do want to also, at
2:01
first at least reference the big international news story of the last few days,
2:07
which was the attack by Iran on Israel, the drone attack, which appears
2:13
to have been largely, if not totallyffeckless and may have been almost entirely symbolic
2:20
this in retaliation for Israel taking out and Irani in general. A lot of
2:24
people talking about is this the beginning of World War three? And with Russia
2:30
backing Iran, and you have basically the nexus of Iran, Russia, and
2:36
Hamas going up against Israel and the United States and maybe some others. I
2:43
don't think we're there yet. I don't like talking about things that I don't
2:46
have special insight into, and I don't have any special insight into this particular
2:53
situation other than it's remarkable how well Israel's defenses, apparently with the help of
2:59
the United States, was able to effectively thwart the Iranian attack, which again
3:05
may not have been all that impressive militarily. I do feel like I can
3:10
talk about the political implications of this escalation in the Middle East, and obviously
3:16
no one knows where this is going to go from here, but from a
3:21
United States perspective, I do think this causes some problems for Joe Biden,
3:25
even though in the short run it doesn't appear to have caused any harm for
3:30
him, especially since the attack against Israel failed, But it does create the
3:37
impression that things are not under control. That chaos in this particular situation for
3:44
an incumbent president who is eighty one years old is not good because it reminds
3:51
people of the dangerous nature of the world and the fact that Joe Biden is
3:55
going to be even older than he already is in a second term, and
4:00
so from a subliminal standpoint, I don't think it's very good for Joe Biden.
4:04
More specifically, this continues to raise the problem he has in Michigan,
4:12
where what might be the most important state. You could argue right now that
4:16
the state where Biden is most vulnerable, the biggest major swing state, Michigan,
4:24
where he is most vulnerable, is presenting a situation where he has a
4:29
balancing act between the Muslim vote and the mainstream vote that it may not be
4:36
doable for him, and so almost no matter what he does now, the
4:42
more this issue is at top of mind, I think it causes problems for
4:47
Biden and Michigan. We saw in the Michigan primary where there was an unprecedented
4:53
number of people who voted uncommitted. Those were thought to be Muslims. There's
4:57
a high Muslim population in Michigan, and so therefore almost anything Biden does in
5:03
this area is either going to cost him Jewish votes and I think Pennsylvania is
5:10
probably the only key swing state where that could even be remotely influential, or
5:15
it's going to cost him votes in the Muslim community, which is going to
5:18
be a major factor in Michigan, so I don't think that's good for Joe
5:24
Biden. Also, any trouble in the Middle East, although this doesn't directly
5:30
relate to what's going on with the price of gasoline, it may indirectly relate
5:34
to it. Any trouble in the Middle East historically has driven gas prices up,
5:40
the price of oil, and then eventually gasoline up. We've talked previously
5:44
on this podcast about how there's already conspiracy theories that the Saudis are trying to
5:49
help elect Donald Trump by raising the price of gasoline and continuing to forward the
5:56
inflation narrative. There's no question, regardless of how and why it's happening,
6:00
that the price of gasoline is increasing and chaos in the Middle least is not
6:05
going to help that, and that is not helpful to Joe Biden's campaign.
6:10
There's no question about that either. So how much of an impact, obviously
6:14
it's yet to be seen. But that's how I see this particular situation playing
6:18
out, at least in the short run. Politically, of course, all
6:23
eyes are on New York City and the first Trump criminal trial, which is
6:30
taking place as we tape this on Monday. It's starting with jury selection and
6:35
my big take on the first Trump criminal trial. And this, of course,
6:41
for those who've lost track, and it's understandable if you have, this
6:44
is the Stormy Daniels case. This is the hush money case. This is
6:46
an alleged campaign finance case where in twenty sixteen Donald Trump paid off a porn
6:54
star to keep quiet about an affair that they had had or a sexual relationship
6:59
that had had just before the twenty sixteen election is when this allegedly occurred,
7:04
and that under the theory of the Manhattan da Alvin Bragg, this is somehow
7:11
a campaign finance violation. Technically, I think you can make an argument for
7:16
that, but the idea that this could be a felony seems absurd. There
7:20
seems to be an insane delay. I mean, this is something that was
7:26
known many, many years ago. We played a clip recently on the podcast
7:30
or Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniel's former attorney who's now in prison, who I
7:34
thought laid it out better than anybody else. I've heard, certainly in the
7:38
mainstream news media that it is absolutely insane that such a weak case is being
7:43
brought in the middle of a presidential campaign. There's absolutely positively no way to
7:46
get a fair jury for Donald Trump. And that's my biggest, my biggest
7:51
dog in this hunt. From a due process standpoint, it is absolutely astonishing
7:57
to me that no buddy in the mainstream news media is raising bloody murder figuratively
8:05
speaking, screaming bloody murder about how absolutely absurd it is that we're putting a
8:11
presidential candidate on trial in a jurisdiction that hates his guts, that knows that
8:18
if they convict, they will be impacting the presidential election in their own favor
8:24
because they're going to be all Democrats in all likelihood on this jury, so
8:28
they automatically have an animus towards the most divisive figure in the United States,
8:33
Donald Trump. And they have been told constantly, and anybody with half a
8:39
brain will know that if they convict, they're helping elect their presidential candidate,
8:46
because everybody knows it's not going to be helpful. Now, how much it's
8:48
going to hurt is open to question. Are those who think that a conviction
8:52
in this particular case won't hurt Donald Trump at all? But there's no question
8:58
that we have been said identivize this jury in an insane fashion that goes against
9:05
everything we allegedly believe about the entire concept of due process. So to me,
9:09
when people say it's election interference, I think even Donald Trump misses the
9:16
biggest point here. He thinks that he keeps saying, understandably so, that
9:20
he's being attacked because of his political position and the fact that he's the Republican
9:26
nominee, and that this is law fair, and I get all that,
9:31
but I've never heard him make the further connection, which is it's not just
9:37
an issue of the DA going after Trump because he's a political threat, at
9:43
least on paper. It's what's going to happen in the minds of these jurors
9:48
and how in the world you can possibly do jury selection and the case like
9:52
this is absolutely mind blowing, and by and large, the news media has
9:58
a nor this issue. We're just going to pretend that this is a remotely
10:03
normal case, that this is not a situation where jurors have been given incredibly
10:09
perverse incentives. Unbelievably perverse incentives. Imagine being a Democrat in New York City
10:18
getting on this jury and knowing you can help elect Joe Biden president simply by
10:24
convicting a guy you hate, and everybody on the jury is going to have
10:28
a very similar view in all likelihood, given the nature of the jurisdiction,
10:35
and the media just pretends that this isn't an issue. And I guess I
10:37
have to say, once again, I don't think Donald Trump has done a
10:41
great job of articulating the inherent dangers of this particular circumstance. Now along these
10:48
lines, there was a very interesting exchange, a fascinating confrontation really on ABC's
10:54
Sunday Morning show hosted by George Stephanopolis. Of course, is you know somebody
11:00
who is a Democrat for life, became famous because he was a political aid
11:05
to Bill Clinton back in the day. And he was interviewing New Hampshire Governor
11:11
Chris Sonuno, who's kind of a bizarre figure at this point. He's a
11:16
Republican governor, moderate who hates Trump, who people thought was gonna endorse Ronda
11:22
Santis. He did not. He endorsed Nikky Haley. Nikki Haley has not
11:26
endorsed Donald Trump, and but Rick Chris Sanuno has And he went on ABC
11:35
with George Stefanopolis, and this was really amazing. I mean, talk about
11:41
two different worlds that these two men were living in. And again, Chris
11:46
Nuno is not a maga guy, he is a moderate. And Stephanopolis and
11:50
Sonunu were talking right past each other. They had no clue. Really,
11:56
I think Snunu had a clue about where Snephanopolis was coming from, but George
12:00
Stephanopolis had no idea what ch Sanunu was even trying to say. And this
12:07
went on for a very long time. I'm just going to play two clips
12:11
from this remarkable exchange, one from the very beginning and one from the very
12:16
end. And at the beginning, Stephanopolis tries to understand how it could be
12:20
that Sonunu would still support publicly Donald Trump if he was convicted in this particular
12:28
case in Manhattan, and Sonunu, I think somewhat, if not mostly correctly,
12:35
basically says George. I'm paraphrasing here. You can determine for yourself what
12:39
he really meant. George, you're out of out of the loop here.
12:43
You don't understand what a joke this case is and how it's not going to
12:48
have any political impact regardless of what the verdict is. And here's what that
12:54
sounded like on ABC tomorrow at that criminal trial. Will your support for Donald
12:58
Trump continue even if he's convicted in Manhattan? Yeah, Look, this trial
13:05
is not going to have major political ramifications that a lot of people, I
13:07
think think it may have. When it comes to these issues. People see
13:11
it more as reality TV at this point, they really do. And so
13:16
you know, whether it's a conviction or what that conviction looks like, a
13:18
lot of folks they conflate all four of these different trials that he's in.
13:22
I don't think it's good that he's going to be in the court, have
13:24
to be in there probably three days a week, you know, for a
13:26
number of weeks. That takes him off the campaign trail. He'll probably go
13:30
back on the campaign trail and almost like rehash what's going on. He'll try
13:33
to victimize it. And that has worked for him, right, I mean,
13:35
this has been going on for over a year, and his poll numbers
13:39
never seem to go down because of the issue. Well, yeah, you're
13:41
going to politics, So I'm asking you about right and wrong. You think
13:43
it's you're comfortable with the idea of supporting someone who's convicted of oh, no,
13:50
federal crime as President. No. I don't think any American is it
13:54
comfortable with any of this. They don't like any of this, of course,
13:58
but I mean when it comes to actually, you know, looking at
14:01
each of these trials as they kind of take place, whether it's this year
14:03
or next year, as they kind of line up right now, this is
14:07
about an election, right, This is about politics. That's what people are
14:11
judging this on. And the ultimate you know, decision will be will be
14:13
in November to see where people now. As an anti Trump conservative from the
14:18
very beginning, I actually thought that Sonuno made a pretty good point there that
14:24
the media is completely out of touch, that they do not understand that to
14:30
the average voter, this is not what the media thinks it is. They
14:35
think all these cases are completely legitimate and therefore, you know, if there's
14:41
a conviction that would disqualify Donald Trump. But Snunu is saying no, this
14:48
has become a joke, especially this particular case in Manhattan. I think that
14:52
you know, there's a conventional wisdom out there, and I'm always very very
14:56
hesitant to accept the conventional wisdom, but this time it might be right that
15:00
the New York case going first is an advantage to Trump. Now, I
15:05
thought the Florida case going first would be an advantage to Trump because that was
15:09
the one because of a Florida jury where I thought Trump would have the best
15:13
chance at a mistrial or a hung jury, and that would be a victory
15:18
for Trump. There's a very good chance that he gets convicted here because of
15:22
the nature of the jurisdiction. However, the nature of the allegations are such
15:28
that it may not actually hurt and could in theory even help Donald Trump depending
15:33
on how this all goes down. So I kind of sympathize with Sununu's take
15:39
on this, especially since he's exposing Stephanopoulos as being completely out of touch.
15:45
But Stephanopolos did not stop there. This went on for several minutes, and
15:48
want to fast forward to the end where an incredulous Stephanopolis is lays out all
15:56
the things that he thinks clearly should qualify Sanunu from supporting Donald Trump. But
16:03
Snunu says, no, none of it's going to matter, and he strongly
16:08
indicates that he believes that the American people are on his side. And here's
16:12
what that sounded like. That's how badly America wants a culture change. So,
16:18
just to sum up, you would you support him for president if he's
16:21
convicted classified documents. You support him for president even though you believe he contributed
16:25
to an insurrection. You support him for president even though you believe he's lying
16:27
about the last election. You support him for president even if he's convicted in
16:30
the Manhattan case. I just want to say the answer to that is yes,
16:33
correct, Yeah, me and fifty one percent of America. Governor,
16:38
thanks for time this morning. Up next Arizona puts the abortion debate back in
16:42
the spot. Now. I'm not convinced that Snunu is right that fifty one
16:45
percent of the American people agree with Sonunu. It may not take fifty one
16:52
percent. It may only take, especially with RFK Junior taking a decent amount
16:56
of votes, it may only take forty five or forty six percent of the
17:00
American people to agree with Sinunu for Trump to win. I have said previously
17:03
that I think that Trump is not currently the favorite. That doesn't mean he
17:07
can't win. I think that Biden is a slight favorite, and I think
17:11
that the data is drifting slowly, and maybe not that surely, but it
17:17
is seemingly drifting in Biden's direction, and obviously with this court case, and
17:23
with Biden having the power of incumbency, you know, forgiving millions of student
17:30
loans against the clear edict of the Supreme Court, just one example of what
17:34
you can do as an incumbent that gives you an advantage when it comes to
17:40
an election. It's just clear vote buying by Joe Biden, and the media
17:44
just stands by, doesn't say anything about it, because if Trump had defied
17:47
the Supreme Court in the same way, we'd have a constitutional crisis. But
17:51
Joe Biden does it, and at best, there's no condemnation at all.
17:56
In fact, some people even cheer him for doing this, and so there
18:00
are advantages to incumbency, and that's partially why I think Biden is the slight
18:06
favorite at this point. Now as far as how this is all going to
18:10
play out, I am definitely one of those that believes that there's not going
18:15
to be a debate unless Joe Biden is forced to do debates against Donald Trump.
18:22
And that's one of the reasons why the polling actually matters. We saw
18:26
it in the Republican primary process. I called this from a million miles away
18:30
that as soon as you let Trump break containment and get way ahead, he
18:33
doesn't have to do the debates, and that was going to take away.
18:37
Ron DeSantis is probably best, if not only, chance to really go after
18:41
Donald Trump in a credible way head to head. Man demand mono amano never
18:47
happened, and I told you it was never going to happen. I've also
18:48
predicted that Joe Biden was not going to debate Donald Trump unless he was forced
18:56
to, because he was too far behind in the polls and the perception of
19:02
his lack of mental acuity was going to box him in where he was forced
19:07
to do these debates because otherwise he was going to look weak when you're behind,
19:11
and when you're eighty one years old, it looks like you're afraid to
19:15
debate Donald Trump. Now, I don't know for sure what's going to happen
19:18
here, because it's you know, the polling seems to be going a little
19:22
bit in Biden's direction. If they can pull ahead in the next couple of
19:27
months, then they might be able to get away with not doing debates because
19:33
of the nature of Donald Trump. Part of why I'm mentioning the debates right
19:37
now is that there was a rather interesting exchange on Bill Maher's HBO show with
19:45
Piers Morgan. And again this keeps happening where people that I have had extremely
19:51
strong disagreements with in the past I end up agreeing with in this strange,
19:55
upside down world that we're living in. And Bill Maher this happens a lot
19:59
with him, especially related to COVID issues. But Piers Morgan is another person
20:03
that sometimes can you know, speak common sense. And here Bill Maher and
20:08
Piers Morgan on Real Time on HBO are talking about how they both believe that
20:17
Donald Trump would cross Joe Biden in a debate if a debate, such a
20:22
debate between Trump and Biden ever happens. And here's what that sounded like.
20:26
I think it's gonna be bad on Biden if he goes into the debate.
20:30
I mean I've said that before. They're almost the same age, but for
20:33
some reason, Trump just doesn't present as old and feeble, and he doesn't
20:37
he looks, he kind of looks the same. Trump would destroy him in
20:41
a live debate, destroy him, wuld destroy Biden in a live debate.
20:45
I've got how many live press conferences as Joey Biden? Well, I mean,
20:51
there's a reason they don't put him in front of a large gathering of
20:53
the media. It's the same period of time taking questions. There's a reason.
20:57
Okay, Now, I tend to agree with that analysis, although I
21:00
am not convinced that we're ever going to see debates between Donald Trump and Joe
21:07
Biden. If we do, I've joked that the Biden team is going to
21:11
make sure that they're fifteen minutes long and held at eleven AM, because that's
21:15
about as long as Joe Biden can go before he runs out of gas.
21:21
And look, you know, Trump clearly has more energy, but that doesn't
21:23
mean that Trump is a tremendous debater. Yes, he had some moments against
21:30
Hillary in twenty sixteen, but every single poll, which was really strange,
21:37
every single major poll, scientific poll indicated the Hillary won every single one of
21:41
those debates and it didn't matter. Now, maybe it'll matter more this time
21:47
if they happened because of the nature of Joe Biden's health and age. And
21:52
I do think there's an issue which we talked about previously regarding the state of
21:56
the Union, where the expectations for Biden would be so low that he may
22:03
you know, kind of proven by what mar and Morgan said there that he
22:07
may exceed those expectations. Having low expectations in a debate is a huge advantage.
22:12
So that's something that the Trump team should necessarily be very concerned about.
22:18
But when it comes to Trump and his own mental acuity, you know,
22:25
he's been making a lot of blunders himself. And I want to play a
22:29
clip that happened just a couple of days ago during a rally that Trump had
22:33
in Pennsylvania. And the reason I'm going to play this is mostly just because
22:37
I found it to be hilarious. If put forward in the right context,
22:42
maybe you won't find it to be funny. I did. My wife did,
22:47
who's a teacher, and the context that I presented this clip to her
22:52
was, I want you to imagine that there's a middle school kid who is
22:59
prepared, is allegedly prepared for a classroom presentation on US military history. That
23:07
was the assignment, or maybe US military history when it comes to Pennsylvania.
23:12
You're supposed to do an oral report on US military history in Pennsylvania. And
23:18
the middle school student is Donald Trump. And here he is in Pennsylvania talking
23:25
about the military history of Pennsylvania, my home state. In fact, he
23:29
even references Washington Crossing, which is where I literally grew up. Washington Crossing,
23:34
Pennsylvania, where Washington crossed the Delaware in seventeen seventy six on Christmas in
23:40
a situation that was probably the most overblown military victory in the history of man,
23:45
because basically they just decided to surprise some drunk Heshians who have been celebrating
23:52
Christmas. There were very few casualties, and they kind of broke the rules
23:56
of engagement at the time, and they were able to get a big win
24:00
and it was a pr victory, but from a military standpoint, it was
24:03
hardly all that spectacular. But anyway, this is Donald Trump. I want
24:11
you to imagine again, this middle school student giving an oral presentation that he
24:15
clearly is not totally prepared for, especially when it comes to his description of
24:19
the Battle of Gettysburg. And here's what that sounded like. Theirs was much
24:25
worse. It's where the army weather is brutal, winter Valley Forge, where
24:30
General George Washington led his men on a daring mission across the Delaware, and
24:36
where our union was saved by the immortal heroes at Gettysburg. Gettysburg. What
24:41
an unbelievable battle. That was the Battle of Gettysburg. What an unbelievable I
24:48
mean, it was so much and so interesting and so vicious and horrible and
24:52
so beautiful in so many different ways. It represented such a big portion of
24:57
the success of this country. Gettysburg, well, I go to getty Now.
25:03
To me, that was hilarious because there's a guy who has no idea
25:07
what he's talking about, I mean, almost classically so, providing every possible
25:12
description of Gettysburg because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just
25:18
faking it. And of course the crowd in Pennsylvania, I'm sure was going
25:22
right along with it, because they're part of a cult, the people that
25:25
would show up at a Trump rally. So I'm not sure that Trump is
25:29
really the greatest debater. It's just that he would be going up against a
25:33
guy who, in all likelihood would be very bad given his age and lack
25:37
of mental acuity. And Trump at least has energy and can sometimes get off
25:44
a decent line or a good sound bite, which in a debate format is
25:48
often all that matters. But I'm not convinced that Trump wipes the floor with
25:52
Joe Biden based upon his history against Hillery, his history against Joe Biden at
25:57
twenty twenty and what we saw there. But I am not convinced that we're
26:04
even going to see debates because I think that perception is reality, and I
26:08
think a lot of the Biden campaign is probably feeling the same way that Bill
26:14
Maher and Piers Morgan are, and that is that they want to try to
26:15
avoid this at all costs, and if the polls allow them to get away
26:19
with it, that's what they will try to do. Now, more specifically
26:25
to news media related issues, there are several that I want to talk about
26:27
in this episode of the podcast. A few weeks ago, we talked pretty
26:33
extensively about the story of Catherine Herriage, a really good national security reporter who
26:40
was suddenly fired at CBS and a bunch of layoffs just after the Super Bowl
26:45
that were related to paramount cutting costs, and I was absolutely baffled as to
26:52
why Catherine Herriage, especially in an election year, would be fired by CBS.
26:56
She's very good, she had done a lot of good work, specifically
27:00
on the Hunter Biden story, and she was clearly independent. She's a former
27:06
Fox News reporter. So you know, from CBS standards, she was about
27:11
as good as they had, especially when it came to being fair to both
27:15
sides and not being extremely liberally biased. But it wasn't just that she was
27:19
fired at first, she had her source materials basically stolen by CBS. And
27:26
it wasn't until her union sag after had to step in and CBS back down.
27:33
Who knows what they did with the information before they provided it back to
27:37
her, But Catherine Herriage has really been at the center of a lot of
27:42
very significant issues. She's ebroiled in a major First Amendment lawsuit, and then
27:48
of course the issue of her firing and the issue of what CBS did with
27:52
her materials, at least in the short run after her firing, have all
27:56
been made public, fought, and you know, they've been the source of
28:02
significant media related news stories. And Catherine Herridge testified to Congress a few days
28:08
ago. And this is one of the few benefits of Republicans, at least
28:14
temporarily barely holding a majority in the House of Representatives. Because they have the
28:18
majority, they basically get to determine who's going to testify in any particular committee.
28:25
Hearing, and so a Katherine Herridge story can be amplified via congressional testimony.
28:33
And Herrodage went to Congress, went to the House of Representatives. She
28:37
testified about a bill that is proposed to try to help journalists deal with some
28:44
of the issues that Herodge has had to deal with herself. But I want
28:48
to play a little less than three minutes of her testimony where she talks about
28:55
two basic things, the issue of sourcing and how difficult that has been for
29:03
her in the lawsuit situation where she's standing up and having really her own life
29:07
upended because she is defending the identity of protected sources, which is key to
29:15
journalism, and also the treatment that she received at CBS after firing, which
29:22
she described as a red line that had been crossed. And if it hadn't
29:27
been for a lot of people, including Sagafra, including Fox News Channel supporting
29:33
her former employer, who knows what would have happened in this particular situation.
29:40
Here's Catherine Herridge testifying in the House a few days ago. I hope that
29:44
I am the last journalist who has to spend two years in the federal courts
29:49
fighting to protect my confidential sources. My current situation arises from a Privacy Act
29:56
lawsuit. I am only a witness in the case. Yes, it is
30:00
not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt,
30:06
but when such cases happen, they have profound consequences, impacting every journalist
30:11
in the United States. Forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources would have a
30:17
crippling effect on investigative journalism because without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will not
30:25
come forward. The First Amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate
30:32
is at the foundation of our democracy. If con forces are not protected,
30:37
I fear investigative journalism is dead. Each day I feel the weight of that
30:42
responsibility. As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding
30:48
the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources. I
30:52
have complete respect for the Federal court and the judicial process, and I'm not
30:57
here to litigate the case. It will play out before the Appellate Court in
31:02
Washington, d C. But the fact that I have been fighting in the
31:06
courts for two years and that I am now facing potentially crippling fines of eight
31:11
hundred dollars a day to protect my reporting sources. Underscores the vital importance of
31:18
the Press Act when you go through major life events as I have in recent
31:22
weeks. Losing your job, losing your company health insurance, having your reporting
31:29
files seized by your former employer, and being held in contempt of court gives
31:33
you clarity. The First Amendment, the protection of confidential sources and of free
31:40
press are my guiding principles. They are my north star. When I was
31:45
laid off in February, an incident reinforced in my mind the importance of protecting
31:51
confidential sources. CBS News locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of
31:56
pages of my reporting files, in including confidential source information. Multiple sources said
32:04
they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct,
32:08
they would be identified and exposed. I pushed back, and with the public
32:14
support of my union, sag AFTRA, the records were returned. CBS's News's
32:20
decision to receive my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never
32:25
be crossed again by any media organization in the future. Kudos to Catherine Heritage
32:30
for standing up for what is right here, standing up for journalism. I
32:36
certainly hope and expect that she will be hired again by a major news outlet,
32:40
maybe by Fox News Channel again, even though she left Fox News Channel
32:45
to go to CBS. But the fact that Catherine Herriage is having to deal
32:51
with so much bull crap, having her life so uphended because she's standing up
32:55
for basic journalistic principles and now is out of a job in the middle of
33:00
a presidential campaign is maybe the best example or the worst example, depending on
33:06
your perspective, of the death of journalism that I can think of in the
33:09
current news cycle. I mean, this should not be happening. If journalism
33:13
wasn't dead, none of this would be happening to Catherine Herriage, and thankfully
33:17
she's standing up for what is right and appears as if there's at least enough
33:22
support for her to where some of this is going to be rectified. I
33:27
hope again she gets another job with a major news media outlet, which one
33:31
other than Fox News Channel, I don't know, because almost every major news
33:37
media outlet appears to be in an existential crisis, and there's all sorts of
33:42
examples of media malpractice all over the place. I want before I get into
33:47
the existential crisis element of this story, I want to share a few most
33:52
recent examples of how and why journalism is dead and how in the mainstream it
33:59
is incredibly and totally broken. I got to mention what the Washington Post has
34:04
been doing. It was specifically when it comes to the US Senate and the
34:09
smear campaign that they have gone on regarding the Republican the senatorial candidate Tim Sheehey
34:16
in Montana. Now, this is so overtly absurd and insanely biased that it's
34:23
it's almost comical. I mean, there's no reason, no reason at all
34:29
for the Washington Post to be at all interested in the Republican senatorial candidate in
34:34
Montana. It's obviously not a local story, and it's not a particularly you
34:40
know, it's going to be a very contested election. But the only reason
34:44
why the Washington Post is interested is there's a very good chance, a very
34:49
good chance that the Montana result will determine who controls the US Senate. Republicans
34:57
are going to pick up a seat in West Virginia. I think it's possible
35:00
they could pick up a seat in Maryland, but Larry Hogan is barely a
35:05
Republican, so I'm not even sure that would count. But for Republicans to
35:09
really have a majority in the US Senate, Tim Sheehy is probably gonna have
35:15
to win in Montana. And so it's so clearly obvious that that's why the
35:21
Washington Post six not one, not two, not three, not four,
35:24
not five, not six, not seven, but eight reporters, eight reporters
35:31
on the biography of Tim Sheehey. Eight. I mean, the Washington Post
35:37
is cutting back all over the place, like all major news media outlets are.
35:44
This is a lot of money, a lot of manpower. They put
35:47
eight reporters on Tim Sheehey, the Republican senatorial candidate in Montana. Why because
35:55
they are working on behalf of the Democratic Party. That's why. That's it.
36:00
They are activists. This is not journalism. This is activism. And
36:05
the best they could come up with, the best they could come up with,
36:07
basically, was that she he a war hero, misled about a bullet
36:14
wound he took because he thought it was been the best interest of what was
36:21
happening, and he didn't want to leave the battlefield. He made a decision
36:25
that it was basically made the courageous decision the high that he had been shot.
36:30
I mean, this is unbelievable. This is the worst they could come
36:36
up with. And thankfully, she he And this is one of the benefits
36:40
of the Trump phenomenon. I you know, the most of it has been
36:45
bad. But part of what has been good about the trumpeification of the Republican
36:50
Party is that the playbook is now clear. You don't take any of this
36:54
bullshit anymore. You fight back. And she he has been fighting bad,
37:00
hard against this insanity from the Washington Post and the and Fox News understandably has
37:07
taken she east side. Fox News put out an article headline Washington Post smear
37:13
of highly decorated Iraq War veteran Senate candidate omits critical information. The Shihi campaign
37:21
called out the outlet for citing known Democrats for their smear piece. Then the
37:28
Washington Post report is critiqued in Fox News Channel with the following paragraph in Fox
37:35
on Foxnews dot Com. The Washington Post is facing a backlash after the media
37:39
outlet quoted three quote unquote experts to cast doubt on the validity of a bullet
37:45
wound sustained in Afghanistan by a top Republican Senate candidate, but omitted the Trios
37:52
ties to the Democratic Party. So here we had the Washington Post acting like
37:58
Democratic activists, eight Democratic activists working under the guise of the Washington Post,
38:04
quoting three people that they admitted have ties to the Democratic Party. This is
38:09
a clear and obvious political attack. Why not because she he's a bad guy
38:16
or did anything really wrong. In fact, if you really read the story
38:21
with an open mind, it makes you think better of Shih. And I'm
38:24
actually hopeful. I hate to be optimistic because I'm obviously by nature a pessimist.
38:30
I actually think there's a chance this may help she because I think the
38:34
media has hated that much. And if you're a Montana moderate and you're seeing
38:38
the Washington Post go after from two thousand miles away or more go after a
38:45
war hero under bullshit pretenses, I gotta believe that this is it's certainly not
38:52
gonna help hurt she. He and it may actually help him. Now,
38:53
there's nothing. I've not seen any major polls in recent days. I don't
38:58
think there have been any. There's very little polling in that Mountana race,
39:01
and sheeh right now, would be an underdog against the Democratic incumbent and senator
39:06
tester. But I am hopeful that maybe, just maybe there'll be enough back
39:10
last year that she he will be helped. But from a journalism standpoint,
39:15
this is as overt as it gets. This is activism. This is not
39:21
journalism. And this is the freaking Washington Post acting on behalf of the Democratic
39:27
Party only because they know damn right well, this is a very key Senate
39:34
race that could determine control of the US Senate. In fact, I think
39:37
that there's a very good chance that the Montana Senate race is going to determine
39:42
control of the US Senate depending on who wins the presidency. If Trump were
39:46
to win the presidency, it probably wouldn't matter because then the vice president would
39:52
presumably break all ties in a Republican direction. But should Biden win, I
39:58
think Republicans probably we have to win Montana to have any real control of the
40:04
US Senate. And the Washington Post is exposing themselves as a bunch of political
40:07
hacks and activists on behalf of the Democratic Party. That's not the only area
40:13
where the Washington Post has embarrassed itself. In recent days. You're probably aware
40:17
that one of my pet peeves is the issue of global warming, climate change,
40:22
especially when it comes to how the media covers what's happening here in California.
40:29
As I have discussed many times, for the second straight year, we
40:32
have had a very cold, very wet winter. The drought here is completely
40:38
gone, and the promises of a permanent drought were a lie. We were
40:45
told for years we were going to have a permanent drought in California, that
40:49
that's part of the price of climate change, global warming. It turned out
40:52
to be a complete lie. We have never been in modern history at California.
40:57
You have never been in better shape from a water standpoint, even though
41:00
allegedly the last few years have been the hottest on record. And we were
41:05
told constantly that California was the epicenter of this, the smoking gun of global
41:10
warming, that the drought was the most clear cut, real world evidence of
41:17
climate change global warming. Well that's now gone in dramatic fashion, and so
41:23
much so that even Death Valley. Death Valley now has a massive lake and
41:30
all sorts of growth that we had never never seen in many, many years.
41:37
And so how does the Washington Post tell that story. Well, they
41:40
did a feature just the other day about how Death Valley is alive this year.
41:46
There's a super bloom, there's flowers growing in Death Valley along with this
41:52
massive lake that's been created by the record reigns of the last two years.
41:59
And what's their headline? What did they put out on Twitter to describe and
42:04
promote this article about how Death Valley is now alive? This is a This
42:09
is a doozy. This is unbelievable yet all too predictable. The Washington Post
42:15
wrote, heavy rains spurred by climate change earlier resurrected a prehistoric lake in Death
42:25
Valley. Now the area is covered by colorful blooms. Let me repeat that.
42:32
This is the Washington fricking Post. Heavy rains spurred by climate change earlier
42:38
resurrected a prehistoric lake in Death Valley. We told you about that several weeks
42:43
ago. Now the area is covered by colorful blooms. So let's review here.
42:50
So when they tell us we're in a permanent drought and that ends,
42:59
instead of it raising very very serious questions about the credibility of whether or not
43:06
climate change is real, because that's what you told us was the basis for
43:10
all this. This was the proof. This was the real world proof that
43:14
climate change, global warming is real. Was the drought. Now the drought
43:19
ends spectacularly, and you're gonna say it ended because of climate change. You
43:23
gotta be fucking kidding me. Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the
43:28
abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must
43:32
become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A T R e
43:37
o N dot com. Patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with
43:45
John Ziggler. My name is j hn z I E G L e R.
43:51
That's patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
44:00
Luck to you on that, But that's how you can subscribe.