Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Sixty Nine: Live by DEI, Die by DEI

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Sixty Nine: Live by DEI, Die by DEI · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and sixty nine of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. We're
0:07
getting some legitimate post debate polling and it has extended the complete freak out by
0:12
Democrats and the media. Biden comes up with a debate excuse that is an
0:18
obvious lie, the Supreme Court does Trump a potentially big favor. Normal summer
0:25
weather suddenly becomes proof of climate change, and has twenty twenty four seen a
0:31
series of viral stories that are a backlash to the change in traditional female gender
0:37
roles. I hope you're having a great to fourth of July holiday. I'll
0:43
have some thoughts on that at the end of today's podcast, but we begin
0:47
with the aftermath of President Biden's disastrous debate performance and the fact that we now
0:53
have a significant amount of polling data that was accumulated after the debate, at
0:59
least enough I think to start to come to some conclusions about the impact of
1:04
that debate and the perception largely amplified even by the liberal media and by Democrats,
1:11
that President Biden was not up to the job, and certainly not up
1:15
to the job for another four or five years should he be re elected president
1:21
of the United States, and things are going pretty much as I expected.
1:27
I think the bottom line of the polling so far is that Joe Biden has
1:34
lost a solid two points nationally and maybe in the state polls, although there's
1:42
not as much information about that yet, but there's some internal Democrat polling that
1:49
got leaked that certainly is consistent with this conclusion. But the Biden post debate
1:53
has lost about two points in the margin to Donald Trumps. He's losing by
2:00
a solid two points, maybe a little bit more than that, more to
2:05
Trump nationally and perhaps in the state polls than he was before the debate,
2:12
and much of that two points, as I suggested in the last episode of
2:15
the podcast, has not gone directly to Donald Trump, but in fact has
2:22
gone to RFK Junior. Now that becomes a much more complicated situation, especially
2:30
with photographs of RFK Junior seemingly eating a dog that got a lot of publicity
2:36
over the last couple of days. I mean, the guy is a complete
2:38
nutjob. He's a scumbag. There's a sexual assault the story that's out now
2:44
about him. He's a serial philanderer, a drug addict, a conspiracy nut.
2:50
I mean, so I have no affinity at all for RFK Junior,
2:53
but he could play a significant role in how this election turns out. I
3:00
do think that there is some logic that if you're a weak Biden voter and
3:06
you can't pull the trigger on Trump, but you and you want to still
3:09
vote, and you can't vote for a guy you don't think is physically capable
3:14
of doing the job, especially for another four years, that gives you an
3:19
off ramp. RFK Junior gives you an off ramp. And there's some indication
3:23
in the polls of that. So what I'm seeing is that in the head
3:28
to head between Trump and Biden, Trump is ahead by about two points,
3:34
but that when you add in RFK Junior and the other third fourth party candidates,
3:40
that seems that margin seems to go up to three and a half to
3:44
four points. And that is a very significant difference, especially when the margin
3:50
of error in most of these polls is about two three points. So once
3:54
you get into the four point range, now you're talking about a legitimate lead
3:59
that is out outside the margin of error. And so the bottom line here
4:04
is there has been movement now It is an indication of just how unbelievably difficult
4:10
it is to get any movement politically in the modern era of America, because
4:15
we are so divided and because we are all in our own media silos.
4:19
And this is something that I predicted before the debate that no matter how large
4:24
the earthquake, the ground isn't going to move that much. And the fact
4:29
that two points now is considered to be significant movement is a new phenomenon.
4:34
I mean, it used to be that it was normal normal for Republican or
4:43
a democratic convention either or to swing public opinion five to ten points in the
4:51
favor of the party that was holding the convention. If it was a good
4:55
convention, you picked up usually ten points. A bad convention would even pick
4:59
up three, four or five points. Those days are god because there are
5:03
very few people that are not affiliated in at least psychologically, with one party
5:08
or the other. We don't change our minds about anything. Anything we want
5:12
to believe, we can get reinforced with the media we choose to consume.
5:16
And we're just a very, very divided nation. So it is kind of
5:20
bizarre that we're looking at two three points after that dramatic situation where the president
5:30
of United States was universally described as not up to the job in a way
5:35
that was unprecedented. And it appears as if that's only moving the needle two
5:41
or three, maybe four points. Now. To be clear, it's still
5:45
early. We could see some more polling movement as this story becomes deeper and
5:51
deeper embedded, and it doesn't go away, and people talk to each other,
5:57
and we had the Fourth of July holiday where people talk to each other.
6:00
There are reasons to believe that this could just be the start of the
6:04
polling movement and not the end. I want to emphasize that you may be
6:10
saying, but zig aren't there a couple of polls that indicate larger movements than
6:15
two or three points. There are, but there's problems with both of them.
6:17
There's really two poles as of this taping that show a very significant lead
6:24
for Donald Trump nationally. Of course, there's a big difference between nationally and
6:28
the state poles. Naturally doesn't really mean anything. We've said that a million
6:30
times president is elected by the electoral College. Generally, if Trump is winning
6:38
at all nationally, it is presumed that he will win the election because he
6:44
does have certain advantages in the electoral college. I am not convinced that that's
6:48
one hundred percent given the circumstances of today, but I do believe that in
6:54
general that's true. And the two polls that have been shown to be the
6:59
most dramatic when it comes to Trump's post debate lead are Harvard Harris or Harris
7:06
Harvard, which I have continually said, almost only half jokingly, really find
7:14
someone who loves you as much as the Harris Harvard pole loves Donald Trump.
7:18
I mean, it's a bizarre phenomenon. The Harris Harvard pole always has Trump
7:25
leading by more than anybody else, and that's the case after the debate.
7:30
So while I find Harris Harvard to be interesting, I don't put a lot
7:34
of weight in it because it's continually very much pro Donald Trump. Why that
7:41
is, I have absolutely no idea, but it's one hundred percent true that
7:45
that pole has been extremely pro Trump throughout the entire cycle. So I don't
7:50
put a lot of stock in that on its own. But then there's a
7:56
CNN poll. The CNN poll, which I tweeted out, is probably the
8:00
worst data point yet post debate for the Biden campaign shows that Joe Biden is
8:09
clearly losing by at least six points, depending on how you do the candidates,
8:15
and you know whether or not you put in RFK Junior and the other
8:18
third fourth party candidates. But it's a solid six point lead for Donald Trump.
8:26
Now, it's a CNN pole that's a reputable poll, clearly not conservably
8:31
biased, and it hasn't traditionally shown a Trump bias in the margins. So
8:37
it is such to see Donald Trump leading CNN by a healthy margin, way
8:43
outside the margin of error that is potentially significant. However, there's a problem
8:52
in my view with the CNN poll, and that is that the CNN poll
8:56
has a sample where Joe Biden's approval within that sample is minus twenty eight.
9:07
It was thirty six percent approval, sixty four percent disapproval. By the way,
9:13
interesting that that's one hundred percent. Normally you don't get one hundred percent
9:16
on that number. But okay, fine, he's the president United States.
9:20
One hundred percent of respondents had a view on whether or not they approve or
9:22
disapprove of his job's job performance. But minus twenty eight is not just historically
9:31
low for Joe Biden. I mean, it's catastrophically low for Joe Biden.
9:35
It's the lowest he's ever been in that poll or any major poll that I'm
9:39
aware of, minus twenty eight. But that's also way outside the rest of
9:46
the post debate polling when it comes to his approval by about ten points.
9:50
Now, you know, is it possible that CNN just picked up on a
9:56
dive in Joe Biden's approval rate post debate. Yeah, that's possible. But
10:03
when you consider the fact that every other poll that's out post debate has his
10:09
approval deficit at about ten points better or less bad than CNN has, the
10:16
more logical conclusion is CNN got a bad sample. CNN got a sample of
10:24
people that are very down on Joe Biden more so than the general population.
10:28
Is so unless than until I see at least another pole or two that's reputable
10:37
that duplicates both CNN's results as well as their internal numbers on Joe Biden's approval.
10:46
I'm not buying that Donald Trump is winning by six or eight points nationally.
10:54
I'm not buying that. Now. Is it possible. It's certainly possible,
10:58
But again, we would need more data to back that up, because
11:01
there are other polls that are showing this race is still either tied or a
11:07
one point margin, and there's at least one or two poles that have Biden
11:11
up. I mean, they are bad polls for Biden because both candidates are
11:16
in the low forties, and when you're the incumbent, you don't want to
11:18
be in the low forties, especially against Donald Trump. And when you have
11:22
third and four fourth party candidates, that's not good news. So I'm not
11:26
suggesting that it is, but it's not catastrophic news when nationally you're still either
11:31
tied down by one or up by one, which is basically what it was
11:35
before the debate. But when you average all these out, it's clear that
11:41
there is a movement towards more against Joe Biden than towards Donald Trump. But
11:48
Donald Trump is benefiting from it because his lead is being extended, and it's
11:52
being extended into a very dangerous location if you're Democrats. This is dangerous territory
12:01
because once Trump gets ahead nationally by say four or five points, and that
12:07
becomes consistent, and that becomes set in stone, and it's outside the margin
12:11
of error, the race is really close to over because you, as a
12:18
Democrat, you cannot win the electoral college if Trump is winning you by even
12:24
three or four points. And it also creates a perception, a perception that
12:28
Trump is the favorite. It gives him all the leverage. It makes Biden
12:33
look weak, which is especially devastating given the perception of him after the debate,
12:39
and it just becomes a death spiral. So if you're the Biden team,
12:43
this is very very dangerous territory. You are in a situation where the
12:50
ice is very very thin. And it's not because of global warming. It's
12:54
because you're very very close to a situation where this race is over. And
13:01
that's really saying something for me, because one I have thought that Biden was
13:07
very likely to end up winning by a very very small margin because the cavalry
13:11
would come home in the last months of the campaign. I'm no longer convinced
13:16
to that. So I'm not saying the race is over. I want to
13:20
make that clear as well. I don't think that the race is over,
13:22
but we are in a situation now where anything is possible, and we are
13:28
certainly in a place where Democrats and the media are freaking out to the extent
13:35
where it is theoretically possible that Joe Biden made a side on his own to
13:39
get out of this race, and the betting markets are indicating that they believe
13:45
that that's a very strong likelihood. The last I checked, Joe Biden is
13:52
now down to about fifty percent, a fifty percent chance of being the Democratic
13:56
presidential nominee. That's extraordinary. I mean, that's unprecedented fifty percent, and
14:03
you know who knows by the time you're hearing this, it could be below
14:05
fifty percent. Now, that doesn't mean he's not going to be the nominee.
14:11
And I have always said that there are two options. The most likely
14:15
option is that Biden will be the nominee. The second option is that he
14:18
withdraws voluntarily and Kamala Harris is made the nominee. Those are the only two
14:26
scenarios that are remotely viable for Democrats. I stand by that, but I
14:31
am more and more open to the idea that Biden may, underline, may
14:37
decide to voluntarily withdraw. And there's been a lot of pressure being put on
14:41
Biden internally externally. There's been a lot of leaks from the White House.
14:46
There's been a lot of leaks in the media. There's been some Democratic politicians
14:52
that have come out and said some very potentially damaging things about Joe Biden.
14:58
There was a Democratic congressman who actually came out and said that Biden ought to
15:03
withdraw, echoing the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and you
15:11
know, the New Yorker editor and some other liberal media members who have all
15:16
said that Joe Biden ought to leave the race. Now that hasn't been followed
15:22
with the floodgates opening. In order for this to happen, the floodgates have
15:26
to open. Of course, it doesn't really matter that much other than maybe
15:31
putting pressure on Joe Biden to make the decision himself, because it has to
15:35
come from Joe Biden. Whether you believe that's Joe Biden or Hunter Biden,
15:41
or all three of them, or Barack Obama, it doesn't matter. Joe
15:45
Biden, who I as much as I am convinced that he is very diminished,
15:50
still has the ability to make a decision as to whether or not he
15:54
stays in the race or not, and that decision will have to come from
15:58
him. There is no other scenario. That is a cold, stone hard
16:02
fact. It has to come from Joe Biden. Now. Could that be
16:06
facilitated by pressure? Absolutely, and the pressure is increasing even allies like Democratic
16:12
Congressman James Clyburn, who frankly is the reason why Joe Biden is president.
16:17
He's the one who gave Biden his endorsement in twenty twenty during the Democratic primaries
16:22
when Biden was in big trouble and Clyburn basically handed over the black vote in
16:27
South Carolina. Biden won the South Carolina primary. Then COVID hit and the
16:33
rest of his history well, James Clyburn has said that he would support Kamala
16:38
Harris as the nominee if Joe Biden got out, Just by virtue of the
16:45
fact that Clyburn is publicly theorizing about what he would do or what should be
16:51
done if Biden gets out, shows that this is a possibility. Again,
16:57
not a probability at this point, but this is a possibility. This is
17:02
a scenario that can actually happen. And you know, I tweeted in response
17:07
to the James Clyburnt news something that I'm a little bit surprised has not yet
17:12
become a significant media narrative, at least not to my knowledge, but I'm
17:18
really curious. So at what point does Joe Biden refusing to withdraw and blocking
17:26
Kamala Harris from being the nominee? At what point in left wing circles does
17:33
that become an act of racism? At what point does that become an act
17:37
of sexism? Because, frankly, based upon the liberal playbook, it is.
17:45
It's it's you know, the way they view the world, it's racist
17:48
and sexist. That's the only possible explanation that an old white man is clinging
17:55
desperately to power when here we have a woman of color right there, willing
18:02
and able to take over either as president or as the nominee or as both,
18:07
and he won't do it. Is that not racism and sexism? Using
18:14
the definitions, the ridiculous definitions as they have been created by the liberal elites,
18:19
I think it is. And frankly, I think this is something that,
18:22
if this story continues as it is, the Trump team ought to use.
18:29
I think they auto accuse Biden of racism and sexism. Again. I
18:33
talked about this in episode number one hundred and sixty eight. The triangulation theory,
18:38
the putting internal pressure on Biden and Harris, also discrediting Harris, showing
18:45
the public that this is how bad she is, that they're so afraid of
18:51
her that even a clearly infirmed president won't step aside to allow her to become
18:57
the nominee. And let's go a step further, let's call it racism and
19:02
sexism. I mean, use their own rules against them. These are the
19:07
rules liberals have created. She's a dei hire Harris is as vice president,
19:14
So why isn't she getting the position? Why are they so afraid? This
19:18
is the whole purpose of the vice presidency for these situations, So why are
19:25
they so afraid to make her the presidential nominee? Certainly sounds racist and sexist
19:30
to me, and I'm kind of surprised that. Frankly, I'm surprised this
19:34
hasn't become a legitimate narrative on the far left for people who want to get
19:38
rid of Biden. I still think it might become one. And I really
19:45
think that, half mockingly, half seriously, this ought to become a narrative
19:48
on the right. Hey, liberals, why don't you put your money where
19:52
your mouth is? Why is this not racist and sexist? Why is preventing
19:59
this woman of color from getting the position she obviously is in line for.
20:06
And when you're holding onto power as an old white male, old straight white
20:10
male, clearly this is the patriarchy. This is the patriarchy at work here,
20:15
folks, at least that's what I was told. So keep an eye
20:18
out for that narrative. That's when you know this is gonna get really serious.
20:22
If they really want to try to take Biden out, that's probably where
20:26
they're gonna go. Maybe the most interesting reaction from a Democratic politician, and
20:33
I found this to be fascinating, came from Democratic Congressman Jared Golden of Maine,
20:41
and he wrote an op ed that concluded that Donald Trump is going to
20:47
win. And I'm okay with that. And this is a Democratic congressman.
20:52
Now, he's from the congressional district that we've talked about in Maine previously,
20:57
where Trump is basically assured of winning that congressional district, the second congressional district
21:03
in Maine. Maine does their electoral college votes like Nebraska does, the only
21:07
two states that allocate them in this way. They give two electoral college votes
21:15
for the winner of the state as a whole, and then they give one
21:18
electoral College vote for each congressional district. And Golden is a Democrat. Obviously,
21:22
he's not a super liberal Democrat, at least not a partisan liberal Democrat,
21:27
because he knows that his district is good to vote for Donald Trump,
21:33
and he has said Donald Trump is gonna win. That's interesting, But maybe
21:37
even more significant is and I'm okay with that. And by the way,
21:41
within the I'm okay with that is him saying democracy is going to be fine.
21:48
He's making the argument, Look, I'm looking at reality here, folks,
21:53
Trump is gonna win. I'm okay with that from the standpoint of who
21:59
the pro going to be. But also, we shouldn't buy into this narrative
22:03
that, oh my god, democracy is going to collapse if Donald Trump is
22:08
president of the United States. And even as ardent and anti Trump critic as
22:14
i am, I tend to agree with that part. Not that we shouldn't
22:17
be concerned about democracy in a second Trump term and all the narrow dwells and
22:25
d and f team that will be surrounding Donald Trump on a second term.
22:30
But let's be clear, we already have a track record here. This is
22:33
the part of the end of democracy and Trump's going to be a dictator that
22:37
I don't understand. He's already been president, He's already lost an election that
22:42
he claims he didn't lose, and he already left. Now. It was
22:48
not seamless, when way worse than it should have. He didn't concede defeat,
22:52
he didn't attend his successor's inauguration, which he should have. So I
23:00
don't agree with any of that. It was all terrible. I don't blame
23:03
him directly for January sixth, and I think January sixth has been exaggerated in
23:08
some ways, especially when it comes to people being killed that didn't happen other
23:12
than one Trump advocate and activist that day by a police officer. But that's
23:18
another story for another day. The point is Trump left, and that was
23:22
his first term, and that was after an election he thought that he had
23:26
won and he was the incumbent, and so he had all the ability to
23:32
do all the things that liberals are afraid of, and it didn't happen.
23:37
And in the second term situation, it would be more clear cut because everybody
23:41
knows he's not eligible for another term, and because everyone would be much more
23:48
on alert because of what happened the last time. So I'm not defending Trump
23:52
on any of this. I'm just saying I don't get the liberal narrative here.
23:56
We've already gone through this and we survived again. It was terrible,
24:03
it was beyond but rocky and not the way it should have gone. But
24:11
the system held and Trump didn't try to hold on to power. It's not
24:15
like they had to remove him physically from the White House. That didn't happen.
24:21
And I think that's kind of Jared Golden of mains point here. And
24:26
you know, that got some publicity yesterday when it came out, but probably
24:30
not as much as it deserves, because that's a Democratic congressman again from it
24:37
from a district that's going to vote for Trump, but saying some things that
24:40
I thought were certainly contrarian and interesting and potentially significant. Now, as far
24:45
as the media reaction over the last couple of days, this has been fascinating
24:52
and very very telling. My god, this whole situation has basically exposed the
24:57
foundation of this past, the death of journalism. And it's weird because now
25:04
even in many ways that the media is starting to tell the truth about Joe
25:11
Biden, it actually exposes the death of journalism because it's only under these extreme
25:15
circumstances that they're willing and able to tell the truth, where suddenly they have
25:22
no choice and they're really acknowledging their past sins here, the past malfeasans,
25:32
and sometimes they're even being forced to admit this, not as much as they
25:36
should, but effectively they are now. Two of the major media members that
25:42
I find to be most interesting over the last couple of days are Jake Tapper
25:48
of c and Anamika Brazinski of MSNBC, obviously the two major liberal cable news
25:53
networks. Tapper, of course, was the comoderator of the debate, which
25:59
gives him a lot more street cred in his reaction to it, not that
26:03
it really should, but I understand why it does, because people, first
26:07
of all, he has more credibility having been in the room, and obviously
26:12
his name recognition is up and he's kind of got the post debate glow,
26:18
so people are looking at him more carefully. And he has been really very
26:22
tough on the Biden White House and on guests that he has had on his
26:26
CNN show, where he has basically said, hey, look, why the
26:30
heck has the president not done a press conference? Why does he not do
26:36
a two hour I'm basically quoting him here. Why does he not do it
26:40
live two hour press conference and allow questions of any subject and see what happens
26:47
If he really wants to prove that he's okay, this is the way to
26:51
do it. And Tapper, I think, has been exactly right in this,
26:56
and he's been pretty tough. I think he's doing so largely because it's
26:59
in his own self interest and maybe there's some guilt, you know. I
27:03
used to I've always said, they used to be able to guilt these people
27:06
into at least trying to be fair or per seeming to be fair. But
27:10
now I think they may have a bit of guilt after what has happened over
27:15
the last several months, where they've basically covered up Joe Biden's decline mentally,
27:19
and now it got exposed for all the world to see, and they have
27:23
to make up, I think, at least in some level, for all
27:27
the things that they have ignored and covered up over the last several months or
27:32
years. And so I found that interesting that Jake Tapper has really been at
27:37
the forefront of this idea of Okay, you got to show us, and
27:41
why aren't you showing us? Because there are plenty of ways to do this.
27:45
This is not rocket science. This is very easily done unless you can't
27:48
do it. And then I get to what the Biden team decided to do
27:53
instead of a two hour live press conference in just a minute, but I
27:59
reverence Meek Brazinski, and this was a very telling moment, and frankly,
28:04
I'm a bit surprised this hasn't gotten more publicity, maybe because it's uncertain as
28:11
to what actually transpired. But I referenced in the last episode of the podcast
28:15
that Morning Joe the show hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brazinski, who are
28:19
married. And by the way, this isn't aside I've ever gone through the
28:23
whole history of Mourning Joe, and I'm not going to do that now.
28:26
But the entire history of Mourning Joe is really the personification of the death of
28:33
cable news television. And it's unbelievable all the machinations the Morning Joe has done
28:41
in order to keep themselves relevant and to appeal to a certain audience. I
28:44
mean, Scarborough is a former conservative Republican congressman and now he's a full on
28:48
liberal, and of course he strongly supported Joe Biden and his mental acuity a
28:55
couple of months ago, and then after the debate he basically said he thinks
28:59
the auto withdraw and then he and his wife kind of got into a tiff
29:03
on the air, and then Scarborough disappeared in the first episode of This Week,
29:11
and Meeker Brazinski completely shifted the narrative and did like a four or five
29:17
minute monologue defending Joe Biden and saying that this is part of his whole personal
29:22
narrative and went through all the personal struggles and the tragedy in his life and
29:27
that he's the comeback kid basically now at eighty one years old, strongly supporting
29:33
him. And it was very weird that Joe Scarborough was not there. I
29:37
don't know the story behind that, if it exists, I somehow missed it,
29:41
but there seems to be some internal potential drama going on there. But
29:47
the point of this is that Meeker Brasinski decided, Okay, at least on
29:52
Morning Joe, we're backing Biden all the way, and so people are starting
29:59
to pick their corners and on the left, and that's a problem because unless
30:04
you have unanimity, it's impossible to force or convince Biden that he needs to
30:11
get out. And so I don't see unanimity on the left. I see
30:15
people taking different tax and different courses, and some people are being totally supportive
30:22
of Biden, Others are in the middle, others more and the more on
30:26
the fringes are being very critical of Biden and saying he has to get the
30:30
hell out. But unless you get total unanimity on the left with regard to
30:36
their media, I don't see you certainly not gonna be able to force Biden
30:38
out. And I'm not sure you're going to convince Biden to get out because
30:45
Biden is very, very stubborn, and there are still a lot of data
30:48
points that are there for him to stay in one. The polling drop hasn't
30:52
been catastrophic yet and the fundraising has been very very good post debate. As
31:00
far as this whole idea of all right, well, what the hell happened
31:04
here? You know what went wrong with regard to the news media's coverage of
31:12
you know, Joe Biden and his mental acuity, I think the New York
31:17
Post in today's front page. Really did it best. They have the headline
31:23
now they tell us exclamation point, and then above the headline, media suddenly
31:30
realizes Biden is aduled. And then they reference three different sources on the left,
31:37
all considered to be very credible, that are now saying, oh,
31:41
yeah, by the way, we can now report that this is not a
31:45
new situation. That Joe Biden has been in trouble mentally for quite a while.
31:52
They reference Carl Bernstein, you know of Woodward and Bernstein, Watergate,
31:56
Nixon. I mean, he's been de crepit for a very long time,
32:00
but in the in left wing circles, he's still somewhat of a journalistic deity.
32:06
Well, he went on CNN and dramatically reported quote that this has been
32:10
a horror show that has happened fifteen or twenty times regarding Biden meltdowns. This
32:17
again on the front page of the New York Post, the New York Times.
32:22
They say, quote laps is more frequent, more worrisome, unquote,
32:27
Politico shielded from outside world by aids unquote. So that really does tell you
32:34
what the true story is here that now we can tell you because now we're
32:39
forced to do so and now it's kind of in our self interest to do
32:44
so. One because we have to protect what little credibility we have left.
32:46
But also, this is a really good story, right, This is a
32:50
great political story. And I've always said that. You know, while there
32:53
are many many biases, most of which are are liberal in the media,
32:59
there's still the really good story biased. They're still gonna dive into a dramatic
33:07
story that is good for them from a rating standpoint, good from them from
33:12
a narrative perspective. They love history, they love something that's unprecedented, they
33:16
love something that's dramatic, they love a meltdown, they love uncertainty. So
33:22
all of this plays into that. And but part of that, part of
33:25
the problem here for them to promote this narrative that Biden's going down and he
33:32
can't do the job anymore, is they have to at least acknowledge We'll wait
33:37
a minute, this can't have just happened now, So why haven't you told
33:44
us this previously? As The New York Post implies on their cover story,
33:46
Well, there've been a couple of rather hilarious attempts to deal with this issue.
33:53
Most prominently this comes from CNN. Their media reporter had Us Gold tweeted
34:00
out, could White House reporters have covered Biden's acuity more aggressively before the debate?
34:07
Question Mark, I spoke to several White House reporters, and it's complicated.
34:15
That's one of the liberal media's favorite lines when they've been caught in a
34:20
lie and they don't admit to it. It's complicated, it's nuanced. That
34:28
is liberal news media speak for, yeah, we screwed up, but we
34:31
really really don't like admitting that we were wrong. The headline of her actual
34:37
article about this is Biden's mental fitness could have been better covered leading up to
34:44
the debate. Some White House reporters acknowledge. Really really, it's kind of
34:52
like, yeah, you know, Oj Simpson's domestic violence could have probably been
34:58
covered a lot better before he murdered two people. I mean, it's not
35:02
a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close because when you look back, when
35:07
you look back in hindsight, it's obvious where this was all headed. One
35:13
of the tweets that caught my attention came from Brandon Buck who's an MSNBC political
35:20
analyst, and he wrote, quote, a pretty big tell was turning down
35:25
the Super Bowl interview. Really, really, this is new information to you.
35:32
This is something we talked about in this podcast. At the time,
35:36
I said it almost directly, I said, how in the world can you
35:39
rationalize turning down this tradition of a Super Bowl interview when the outlet was CBS.
35:49
It wasn't even Fox News that you'd have to do the interview with,
35:52
so you know, it's a friendly media outlet, and you turned down in
35:58
the Taylor's Swift Super Bowl a massive audience to do a taped interview with CBS.
36:07
Now that just never made any sense. And the only way it makes
36:12
any sense is you're afraid. You're afraid you might do something that looks bad,
36:19
that you're just literally afraid of exposing yourself, even to a very friendly
36:23
interview in the least political environment possible, which is the Super Bowl. But
36:30
now even an MSNBC political analyst is going, gee, you know, in
36:35
retrospect, that was a pretty big tell. Okay, fine, but what
36:40
about the Robert Hurr interview the special counsel not just the fact that her wrote
36:47
that he couldn't recommend charges against the president because his memory and mental acuity wasn't
36:53
good enough for a jury to potentially convict him. What about the fact that
36:59
the Biden administration and the DOJ effectively censored the tape of that interview from ever
37:07
being made public. I mean, that's as big as tell as you could
37:09
possibly ever imagine. To this day, I can't believe this hasn't become a
37:15
bigger issue, especially post debate. How is this not a massive issue?
37:22
They are covering up a tape of an interview that the President the United States
37:28
did with a special counsel, by the way, an interview we all paid
37:31
for that was apparently so bad that the special council decided he could not recommend
37:38
criminal charges because the president's mental acuity I'm paraphrasing, was not strong enough for
37:46
a jury to ever be able to convict him. And this is really even
37:52
post debate, this has not become a major issue. Maybe it will be
37:55
again in the future. Maybe Republicans will make it a bigger issue if Biden
38:00
survives this storm. I can certainly see that scenario playing out. But as
38:07
of right now, the Robert Hurr interview, which should be a big deal,
38:12
is currently not a huge part of the media narratives surrounding what's going on.
38:16
With Joe Biden. There's been other elements of the news media and their
38:22
reaction to what's happened post debate that has been rather telling and hilarious. I
38:28
want to share this tweet from Brian Stelter. Brian Stelter is the former media
38:31
reporter for CNN. He got dropped by them. He's now, of course
38:37
picked up by elite academia, because that's what happens when you fail as a
38:42
liberal media reporter. But he's still trying to keep his foot in the door.
38:46
He still goes on CNN from time to time, feels like he's trying
38:50
to get back in their good graces. But bizarrely, hilariously and tellingly on
38:55
Twitter, he's being attacked by the left now because he, like a lot
39:01
of other liberal media reporters, has suddenly become obsessed rightly and understandably with this
39:09
entire is Biden up to the job narrative? And he noticed that both he
39:15
and CNN as former colleagues, have been attacked by the left hilariously because of
39:22
what he calls a conspiracy theory. That's what these people call anything that they
39:29
disagree with, It's a conspiracy theory. Sometimes it is many times it turns
39:32
out to be true, but a conspiracy theory that somehow CNN get this was
39:37
out to get Biden because they want to elect Trump, so Steltzer tweets,
39:43
the sheer amount of conspiracy thinking on the left at this moment is deeply unhealthy.
39:50
Example, all the people who seem convinced that CNN and other media organizations
39:54
are trying to ruin Biden and re elect Trump, in reality, news outlet
40:00
are merely trying to report the news. The irony in that is so deep
40:06
I could probably talk about it for half an hour. I won't. Of
40:08
course, this is a defensive CNN that bought into all sorts of conspiracy theories
40:15
about Donald Trump, which is a large part of the reason why no one
40:20
trusts them and other media outlets when it comes to their legitimate warnings about Donald
40:25
Trump, because they used up all of their credibility. And here he is
40:30
using the exact same language now to talk about the left. Not to mention
40:36
this whole idea that the left now thinks that CNN is a right wing organization
40:43
because they're being blamed for the downfall of Joe Biden, and the fact that
40:46
CNN and others are latching on to this narrative and they aren't giving this up.
40:52
And this thing has not just legs, but you know, this thing
40:55
has Usain Bolt legs at this point where there may not be any way to
41:00
stop it. Now, we've got a holiday coming up, and Biden's gonna
41:05
try to do some things to slow it down. I'm not convinced that that's
41:07
gonna work as of yet, but it could. But you know, the
41:13
irony is so deep here and it's so telling because everything is now exactly the
41:17
opposite of what happened during the Trump administration, where CNN clearly was trying to
41:23
take out Donald Trump. Now, is it possible that there is something to
41:30
this theory that you know what, the liberal media part of what's motivating them
41:35
is not just gee, we have to admit we were wrong and we can't
41:38
ignore what's so obvious, and we love a good story. Is it possible
41:44
that part of this perfect storm is that they're looking around going, you know
41:47
what we are. We are in a big world to hurt. Our business
41:52
model is broken and we're losing money and we're losing jobs, and we're losing
41:59
relevance an audience, and you know, when Trump was elected the last time,
42:05
that was a pretty good period for us. That was basically the dead
42:07
cat bounce of the entire media, a business and industrial media industrial complex.
42:16
Maybe we could put the band back together. Yeah, I think that's possible.
42:21
I think that is possibly part of why the media is so enthusiastic about
42:28
this one. They love the short term drama of it. I think they
42:32
also think that a Harris Trump campaign might be more interesting, more fun when
42:38
entertaining. But I also think that it's possible that some of them, kind
42:45
of like, in a weird way, the congressman from Maine, they're starting
42:49
to realize, you know what, Trump's probably gonna win, and we're okay
42:52
with that because that might be good for us. That's gonna give us a
42:55
lot better content moving forward than a second Biden administration. A second Biden administration
43:04
is going to be for the liberal media, very boring, not ratings friendly
43:08
at all. And Trump has always said this. Trump has always blatantly and
43:14
overtly said that the media needs him to be re elected, and I think
43:19
he's right about that. Now how much that's motivating their actions, I'm not
43:22
sure, but I think it's certainly possible that there is something to that,
43:27
and I'm not sure that Brian Stelter is willing to acknowledge that because of who
43:31
he actually is now. I also want a reference to Tucker Carlson is still
43:37
beating this drum that he knows that Joe Biden is done, that it's over,
43:44
that Joe Biden will not be the nominee. I mock both him and
43:46
Bill O'Reilly in the last episode of the podcast, not because I want to
43:51
make this clear, not because they said that Biden's not going to be the
43:55
nominee. I mocked them because they they have sources telling them it's a done
44:01
deal that did not happen. They are lying about that. They are making
44:08
a prediction. It's what I call predictive reporting or predictive journalism. It's not
44:16
based in fact, it's not based in sourcing. It's based on what they
44:22
think or maybe hope, or maybe a little bit of both, what they
44:25
want to have happen, what they think is going to happen. And so
44:29
then they use their celebrity for you, some bit of credibility, and they
44:36
fool their fans into thinking that they have knowledge that's not in the public sphere,
44:42
and so that gives a little bit more weight rather than just a prediction.
44:46
No, no, I know this because I have sourcing. They have
44:49
no sourcing. That's all bullshit. And so they're making a prediction that is
44:53
being masked as a report to give it more credibility and get more attention.
45:00
So they could end up being somewhat right, although they're not right when it
45:04
comes to the idea of Biden being forced out, or they're being an open
45:07
convention, or that they're being a scenario where anyone else other than Kamala Harris
45:13
can be the nominee. That's all ridiculous. But just for the record,
45:17
Tucker Carlson doubled or tripled down on his prediction slash Report, tweeting Biden is
45:24
done. Oh, that's pretty definitive. Biden is done. Bet on it.
45:29
Oh wow. He's telling people to put their money on the idea that
45:35
Joe Biden is I guess not going to be the nominee. It's little ambiguous.
45:38
Does that mean he's not the nominee or he's not going to win.
45:44
I would not put my money yet on Joe Biden not being the nominee.
45:47
But that's what Tucker Carlson wrote, too many prominent Democrats have suggested he's brain
45:53
damaged. They can't walk that back. They have to remove him, and
45:59
they will oh wow, okay, so this is this is him not getting
46:04
the nomination. They will remove him. Now remember that, folks, remember
46:09
that. Now again, there's a little bit of ambiguity here, remove him
46:13
meaning from the presidency or from the nomination. Now, to me, logically
46:20
those two things should go together, right, I'm not sure how you stay
46:22
president but you're not well enough to run. I guess you could argue,
46:28
well, I'm okay now, but I just don't think I'm up for it
46:30
for another four years. There is some logic to that, but there's all
46:36
sorts of political implications of that, including, by the way, which I
46:40
have not seen nearly as much attention on this as I thought there might be,
46:45
especially since Hunter Biden has become a big part of the narrative with him
46:49
now advising the president, which is really bad optics. I mean, your
46:53
whole argument is you're running against a convicted felon, and now you're having a
46:58
convicted felon become a major White House advisor in the middle of this crisis.
47:02
But because he's a convicted fellow and hunter, Biden has a massive conflict of
47:06
interest because presumably he wants a situation where his dad would be free to pardon
47:15
him, and one of those situations would be where Biden is president but not
47:22
running, and then after the election he could pardon his son. I do
47:27
think that's got to be part of the equation here. But anyway, Tucker
47:31
Carlson is making it clear he believes that Biden will be removed, not one
47:37
hundred percent sure if that's from the presidency or the nomination, and they the
47:40
only question is when Carlson says, if they're smart, they'll do it immediately.
47:46
If Kamala is going to be the nominee, she might as well be
47:50
president first. And then he goes on to talk about the issue of Trump
47:53
and his sentencing. Of course, the sentencing has now been moved from July
47:59
to September, which I'm going to get to in just a bit. But
48:04
I don't believe that Tucker Carlson has any inside information. I believe Tucker Carlson
48:07
is simply making predictions. He's getting a lot of attention for this. That
48:13
particular tweet I think had over ten or eleven million views the last time I
48:16
checked. And it's all bullshit because popularity is the coin of the realm,
48:22
not truth, and he's not telling the truth. Now again, could he
48:28
be partially right? Could Joe Biden end up not being the nominee. That
48:35
is a possibility, That is absolutely a possibility. We're not there yet.
48:42
There's a few things that have to happen before Joe Biden would theoretically decide to
48:47
get out, and the biggest one on the horizon is his first post debate
48:53
interview. And this, to me is extremely telling. This is an obvious
49:01
situation where Joe Biden is essentially admitting he's not up to the job because instead
49:08
of taking Jake Tapper's advice, which is to do a two hour live press
49:15
conference and answer any and all questions without a script, without a teleprompter,
49:22
that's not what Joe Biden's going to do. Joe Biden is going to do
49:25
a taped interview with George Stephanoppolis of ABC, A taped interview with a guy
49:37
who became famous as a Democratic political operative for Bill Clinton, George Stephanoppolis.
49:44
So it's not like he's going into the lions Den. It's not like it's
49:47
going to be an all likelihood a particularly long interview. My guess is half
49:52
hour, forty minutes something like that. You need to go over a half
49:55
hour so that they can't claim that it's a short interview. But you know,
50:00
my guess is it's going to be in that realm. I'm pretty sure
50:04
it won't be an hour. That's for sure. Again, because it's taped,
50:07
and so you know they're going to air it on World News tonight on
50:12
Friday and then on the Sunday morning show that Stephanopolis hosts on ABC. And
50:19
so you know, if you give them, if you're Biden, and you
50:22
give them forty forty five minutes of content, that's more than they're going to
50:24
be able to use in an hour long show on Sunday, so they can't
50:30
complain. So it's taped, which means it's going to be edited, which
50:35
means that gives Stephanopolis and ABC complete and total control over how this thing is
50:44
going to be perceived. Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated
50:49
show. If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must become
50:52
a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A t R e o
50:59
N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
51:07
My name is j H N z I E G L e R.
51:12
That's Patreon dot com slash The Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck
51:20
to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.