Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 27, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

57:29

The Saddest Newspaper In The World | Ep. 848

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The New York Times laments digging through old tweets, Joe Biden collapses in the polling, and New York proves education is about leveling and not achievement.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	All righty.
	Well, a lot of folks in the media seem to believe that their industry is in serious trouble.
	And I think that the reason that the industry is in serious trouble is because journalism has lost its credibility with the American people.
	I mean, all too often, you look at the New York Times and you realize this is an activist newspaper.
	You look at CNN, you realize this is an activist newspaper.
	People blame that on President Trump in the media.
	They blame that on President Trump.
	All the journalists say, oh, well, it's Trump shouting fake news at the top.
	That's the problem.
	Guys, a lot of us didn't trust you before, and we don't trust you now, specifically now that the mask is off with regard to President Trump.
	I mean, it is very obvious that the New York Times and major newspapers across the country have been engaging in political activism, not journalism, for all these years, and they've really thinly veiled it.
	And this hasn't just been true for the last few years.
	This has been true for literally decades, going all the way back to Walter Cronkite, who was a committed leftist, going all the way back to Edward R. Murrow, who was a committed member of the political left.
	I'm going all the way back to the Vietnam War when Cronkite was going on TV suggesting that the Vietnam War was lost after the Tet Offensive, which it absolutely was not.
	And the fact is, the media in the United States have been monolithically left since the 1960s, and it's gotten worse, and more activist, and more open, and the American people are on to the game.
	Well, that has resulted in a lack of trust.
	Now, that does not mean that all of these institutions are losing money.
	There were some institutional shifts that happened in the mainstream media over the last 10 years that meant that a lot of the newspapers around the country saw significant losses.
	That includes places like the LA Times, particularly regional papers, saw significant losses because the only people who were subscribing were people who expected a physical copy of their newspaper on their doorstep the next morning.
	Well, if it turns out that nobody wants that physical copy of the pulp newspaper on their doorstep the next morning and then get all their news for free online, then why exactly would you subscribe to the Los Angeles Times?
	Los Angeles Times has been bleeding for years.
	But the New York Times has found a way to make that up.
	That's because they're a national newspaper with a wire service and because they have extraordinary brand credibility, despite the fact that the trust levels in the media generally are down.
	And so they have a lot of subscribers.
	The Wall Street Journal was the first to jump into the space.
	They have a lot of subscribers.
	So in other words, big national newspapers are doing fine.
	Local, regional papers, those are the ones that are getting hit the hardest.
	Now, the reason that all of this becomes important is...
	Is because the media seem to be at wit's end about what to do about the fact that they are sort of bleeding out in terms of both credibility nationally and in terms of money regionally.
	And that is the twin narrative for today.
	Because on the one hand, you've got the national newspapers who are complaining that they are now being targeted as political activists.
	And you've got the regional newspapers complaining that they're being put out of business because there just isn't the money to run them.
	The journalistic industry is in a severe crisis.
	It's a crisis that really could only be cured by a systemic shift in how the news is funded, on the one hand, and by a change in orientation on the other, moving away from activism journalism and toward objective journalism if you hope to maintain brand credibility at places like the New York Times.
	Now, the reason this comes up is because yesterday we saw the most bizarre, strange response by the New York Times to a story that I've seen in a very long time.
	Here's what happened.
	There's a fellow named Arthur Schwartz.
	Arthur Schwartz is good friends with Donald Trump Jr.
	He is close with the Trump administration.
	And he and some of his minions online, some of his friends online, started to go through all of the old tweets of various journalists at institutions like the New York Times, at institutions like CNN, dig those up, archive them, and use them for the possibility of deploying against these institutions.
	And the New York Times is really hot and bothered about this.
	So there's an article by Kenneth Vogel and Jeremy Peters that came out yesterday.
	Call Trump allies target journalists over coverage deemed hostile to White House.
	And the New York Times is very upset about this.
	Resurfacing old tweets from journalists, that's verboten.
	You can't do that.
	It's one thing for the New York Times to go dig up private information on citizens and then distribute it widely.
	It's one thing for the New York Times to go after people who are sort of fringe characters in politics and try and destroy their life with old tweets.
	It's one thing for the entire media to go after Kevin Hart and try and knock him off the Oscars and succeed by quoting tweets from 2009.
	It's another thing if somebody digs up a tweet from a New York Times editor's college days.
	That's very, very bad.
	That's the opinion of the New York Times.
	So in this article, Ken Vogel and Jeremy Peters write a loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.
	Ooh, ooh, terrible stuff.
	Except for the fact, of course, that The New York Times has been doing this for literally years.
	The New York Times has been going after the past of anyone they deem to be politically Politically incorrect.
	They've been doing this for decades.
	I'm old enough to remember when they did this to Joe the Plumber.
	There's a piece by Larry Roeder back from October of 2008 in the middle of that election.
	Remember Joe the Plumber?
	He's this guy who just lived in Toledo, Ohio and Barack Obama was walking around his neighborhood and he stopped Obama during a visit to complain about taxes.
	And suddenly he was this big story.
	Well, the New York Times then went and dug up everything they could on this guy and basically ruined his life.
	And made him into sort of a temporary celebrity, his lines when he was speaking to Obama.
	But they turned him into a national level celebrity and they tried to discredit him as a human being.
	They ran an entire story that was all about Joe the Plumber.
	It's a real deal on Joe the Plumber reveals new slant.
	As though the question that he asked Obama was illegitimate because Joe the Plumber was not actually named Joe the Plumber.
	The New York Times says, as it turns out, Joe the Plumber, as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday's final presidential debate, may work in the plumbing business.
	But he is not a licensed plumber.
	They actually went and did this.
	I don't know if you remember this.
	For my younger listeners, this is a thing that happened in real life 11 years ago.
	The New York Times went and dug up every piece of information they could on a dude who asked Barack Obama a question.
	They said Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber's license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities.
	His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.
	He owes back taxes, too, public records show.
	The premise of his complaint to Mr. Obama about taxes may also be flawed, according to tax analysts.
	Contrary to what Mr. Wurzelbacher asserted, neither his personal taxes nor those of his business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama's tax plan were to go into effect.
	So they went and they dug up all this information on Joe the Plumber to talk about his own personal tax records because he had the temerity to ask Barack Obama a question.
	And that has continued to pace.
	That process has continued to pace.
	Just a couple of years ago, Jared Yates Sexton, a, quote, writer, academic, and journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, the New Republic, and elsewhere, went and dug up information about a figure online named Han Bleephole Solo.
	Really, just a Twitter troll.
	Why?
	Because that person had created an animated gif of President Trump WrestleMania, where he's tackling a CNN logo.
	I mean, this was a couple of years ago.
	And it was a big thing.
	How could President Trump do such a terrible thing?
	And of course, it wasn't very presidential, but the guy who created the GIF was just some dude online.
	And this dude online, it turns out, we had to go through all of his tweets to find out that he was a vicious racist so that we could then tie President Trump to vicious racism.
	So they dug up all this guy's old tweets, and then they suggested that because Trump had retweeted the silly GIF of himself tackling a person with a CNN logo for a face, then this guy's life should basically be ruined.
	And that it is definitely necessary to dig up every old thing that the guy ever said.
	And then this reporter, Jared Yates, texted and he started whining about it in Politico.
	He said, before the hour was up, I was receiving messages from the usual customers, anonymous accounts with Pepe avatars and bios declaring themselves ethno-nationalists and white identitarians.
	Yes, I'm sure that there are lots of jerks out there.
	I know because they have targeted me.
	It's one of the reasons why I have full-time security.
	But does that mean that it is a great idea for the media to start uncovering every bit of information about people they disagree with politically?
	And it was the New York Times who's jumping on the Kyle Cashew shouldn't be able to go to Harvard University bandwagon because some of his old friends had resurfaced crap that he said in a private chat two and a half years ago before the Parkland shooting.
	So the media are all in on the, we can uncover nasty information about people we don't like, or we can resurface old tweets that are 10 years old in order to ruin people's careers.
	But when it comes around for the New York Times, then they're very sad about it.
	Then it's completely inappropriate.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	This is why the media lack institutional credibility, guys.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, You know, I had braces when I was a kid, straightened out my teeth, but as you get older, if you're not wearing your retainers, you remember you leave the orthodontist office, like, wear your retainers the rest of your life.
	And you're like, come on, I'm not a child anymore.
	And so you just don't wear your retainers.
	And then 20 years in the future, you look down at your bottom teeth and they're kind of crooked.
	Well, this is where Candid comes in.
	Candid has experienced orthodontists, licensed in your state, creating a treatment plan for you.
	Here's how it works.
	It's really convenient and really easy.
	They create a 3D preview of how your teeth will look after your treatments are done.
	Candid actually did this with me.
	So, then they send you this kit, and this kit allows you to take impressions of your teeth and then send it back in to Candid, and then they formulate the sort of clear retainers that you need, the clear real liners that you need.
	So Candid is creating custom clear liners and sending them directly to me right now.
	I actually did this.
	There's no hassle of going to an orthodontist's office.
	Instead, you can do it from home.
	Candid costs 65% less than braces.
	For every liner purchased, Candid donates 25 bucks to Smile Train, and they bring safe 100% free cleft lip and palate treatment to children around the globe so you can feel good about yourself while you help straighten out your teeth at the same time.
	Get straighter, brighter teeth in an average of just six months.
	Learn more at CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	That's CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	And use code Shapiro to get 75 bucks off, which is a great deal.
	That is CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	Code Shapiro for 75 bucks off.
	My wife wants to do it as well, because, I mean, why not do it?
	Makes your life easier, makes your teeth straighter and brighter.
	It's pretty great.
	Check them out at CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	That's CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	Even if you had braces in the past, it may be worthwhile to get your teeth realigned today because it's been 20 years.
	CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
	Use that code Shapiro to get 75 bucks off.
	Okay, so as I say, The media have long gone after people that they find to be politically unpalatable by resurfacing old stuff, and it's usually at the apex of their career, right?
	It's about that time when somebody reaches a level of prominence, and then the media jump in.
	People at the New York Times, they're reporters, they resurface, quote-unquote resurface, old tweets.
	Resurfacing old tweets means you just search somebody's back catalog, you find something, you either take it out of context or you pump it out there.
	And then, you suggest that this is indicative of their current thinking and try to ruin their career over it, or demand an apology.
	And if they apologize, then you say you're only apologizing because you used to think this, so you're still a racist, so your career is ruined.
	This is why nobody should ever cave to the outrage mob.
	The outrage mob is garbage.
	Now, the New York Times could be on the right side of this.
	The New York Times and the mainstream media could be on the right side of this.
	Instead of bothering to resurface old tweets, they could just go ask people what they think in the here and now.
	Or they could hold the consistent standard.
	Instead, their standard is, if they're people we disagree with, we can resurface old tweets and dig up old material about them and harm them.
	And if they're people who work for us, it's very bad if you do this.
	If you do this to Sarah Zhang, very bad.
	If you do this to one of our other editors, very bad.
	So, as I say, the New York Times is very upset about this.
	They say this is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting.
	Oh, that's what this is.
	That's what this is.
	So you're telling me that Trump and his allies are trying to target your journalists, but your journalists are sacrosanct, so they shouldn't be held to the same standard that you hold everybody else to?
	Weird.
	That seems like a double standard to me.
	They say four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people.
	who work at some of the country's most prominent news organizations.
	The group has already released information about journalists at CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, three outlets that have aggressively investigated Mr. Trump in response to reporting or commentary that the White House's allies consider unfair to Mr. Trump and his team or harmful to his re-election prospects.
	So again, this is very bad because they're members of Team Trump.
	Releasing information about journalists if you're members of Team Trump, Very, very bad.
	Operatives have closely examined more than a decade's worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said.
	Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up.
	The researchers said to extend to members of journalist families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.
	And you know what?
	This is what you guys get.
	You set this standard, now you live by it.
	Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	These were your rules, and now the rules are being applied to you, and you're very upset about it?
	Sorry, New York Times, you don't get to play it like this.
	That's not the way that this works.
	You're gonna go back and ruin everybody's life because you don't like them politically?
	Guess what?
	You're public figures, too.
	Now, this is what's hilarious.
	Okay, so, the New York Times tries to distinguish between its own coverage and the coverage that is now being applied to them.
	They say it is not possible to independently assess the claims about the quantity or potential significance of the material the pro-Trump network has assembled.
	The material publicized so far, while in some cases stripped of context or presented in misleading ways, has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.
	They say the information unearthed by the operation has been commented on and spread by officials inside the Trump administration and reelection campaign, as well as conservative activists and right-wing news outlets such as Breitbart News.
	This is apparently very, very bad.
	And then they say, The campaign is consistent with Mr. Trump's long-running effort to delegitimize critical reporting and brand the news media as an enemy of the people.
	The president has relentlessly sought to diminish the credibility of news organizations and cast them as politically motivated opponents.
	You know what the thing is?
	Trump didn't have to do that.
	You did it yourself.
	I mean, you literally just had a leaked transcript in which Dean Baquet, your executive editor over at the New York Times, admitted that they built their entire newsroom about the Trump-Russia narrative, and then that failed, and now they're building it around the Trump-racism narrative.
	So yes, you guys are exactly what you what you purport not to be.
	Here's the best paragraph in this piece by Jeremy Peters.
	He says, using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for or as a warning not to pursue coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
	Oh, oh, so just to get this straight, if you're a journalist for the most powerful newspaper on planet Earth, then you're not in a position of power.
	And so us asking questions about all of your old tweets is bad.
	However, if you are a fringe member of the Trump administration, if you're an intern in the West Wing and they dig up an old racist tweet of yours and blast it out on the front page of The New York Times, that's speaking truth to power.
	Got it.
	Or alternatively, you guys are unbelievably full of crap, and you have decided that the best way to ruin people is to go after everything they said 15, 20, 30 years ago.
	It's to go around digging up what Mitt Romney said back in 1960 while he was giving a kid a haircut, and then use that to destroy his life.
	But if we ask about tweets that your executive editors were sending five years ago, then that's extraordinarily bad.
	Now the real solution to all of this is everybody just goes, okay fine, people said bad stuff, They either agree with it or disagree with it.
	They either apologize for it or don't.
	We all move on with our lives.
	But that is not the standard that the media have set up.
	And the New York Times is very upset about this because they know what's coming.
	They know that they can't live by their own standard.
	And good for Arthur Schwartz.
	Good for the people on the right who are doing this.
	Not because I approve of this sort of activity generally, but because if the left, if the members of the news media are going to play this game, then the rules should be applied to them too.
	There must be mutually assured destruction here.
	If all of politics is going to be an exercise in digging up tweets out of context from 2009 and then using it against your political opponents, then you guys ought to live by that standard too.
	And then we can all decide together, is this a standard that we think is capable of being upheld?
	Or, perhaps, should we be a little bit more forgiving?
	Should we be a little bit more understanding of human nature?
	Should it be that people say dumb stuff sometimes and that is not indicative of their deeper character all the time?
	Should it be that maybe people progress over the course of their lives?
	See, the standard that the media have set up here is that if you ever tweeted anything bad, and now you are a Republican, then you must be ruined for all time.
	However, if you're a Democrat, you can treat like Sarah Jean all day and be totally cool.
	And you can treat overtly racist crap all day and it's totally cool.
	Well, that is not a standard.
	And so now we're going to hold you to your own standard.
	And frankly, it's about damn time.
	It's past time.
	In a second, we're gonna get to the New York Times issuing this bizarre statement.
	I mean, they issued, like, a full-on statement from Pinch Stolzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, very upset about all of this.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, you know, it's really difficult to find good people.
	I mean, just look at my staff.
	You know, every morning, about the time this show is supposed to start, we have a producer.
	His name is Pavel.
	And Pavel will start saying how many minutes it is past the time we were supposed to launch with all the authority of the Soviet Commissar.
	It's very disturbing.
	He's good at his job.
	But if ever Pavel were to announce the time incorrectly, we would have to find a replacement for Pavel, presumably with a similarly intimidating accent.
	Paweł was Polish.
	Well, if we were to do that, we would want to go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	It's why we use ZipRecruiter here at the Daily Wire offices.
	ZipRecruiter sends your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
	They don't stop there.
	As applicants come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
	We're Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Also, my entire staff loves the ZipRecruiter ads because you never know who exactly is going to get clocked during a ZipRecruiter ad.
	So go check them out right now.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWireZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Okay, so the New York Times puts out a long statement from the publisher of the company called, A Campaign Targeting Our Staff.
	Oh, boo-hoo.
	You see, this is me.
	I play the violin right here.
	This is me playing the world's tiniest violin just for you guys.
	Ah, it's so sad.
	People digging up your old tweets?
	Like, you know, the bastards who you employ who do this to all sorts of people?
	I mean, I just, I, I, wow, I feel so, so terrible for all of you.
	I mean, only you are supposed to be able to ruin people's lives this way.
	How, how dare you?
	Only you guys in the media are, are able to go through and make Justine Sacco into a national celebrity for tweeting a dumb joke about flying to Africa and then ruin her life.
	Only you guys should be able to do that.
	You should never be subjected to those rules, ever, ever.
	Pinched Soulsburger writes this, this silly, this silly, See, because it's in retaliation, that means it's bad.
	Well, have we ever exam- Like, this does not hold.
	campaign by President Trump's allies to attack hundreds of journalists in retaliation for coverage of the administration.
	See, because it's in retaliation, that means it's bad.
	Well, have we ever, like, this does not hold.
	90% of the members of the media are Democrats.
	I'm pretty sure they have some political motivations in their coverage.
	In fact, I know they do because they openly admit it when they're asked about it on undercover tape or when transcripts leak.
	It is very obvious how you guys are covering the news.
	So you guys don't get to question the motivations of people who are uncovering material about your reporters when you guys have your own motivations for doing your journalistic work.
	I remember I visited the headquarters of ABC News in New York one time, and there was a big slogan on the wall about, quote-unquote, doing good.
	And I thought, that's really not your job.
	Your job is to report the news.
	Your definition of doing good may run directly counter to my definition of doing good.
	I mean, for God's sake, George Stephanopoulos was in the Clinton administration as your lead news anchor.
	So I have a pretty good idea that you have some different priorities than many of us on the other side of the aisle.
	In any case, the New York Times says, this unprecedented campaign Unprecedented campaign is literally a bunch of trolls digging up your old tweets, guys.
	That's why you're locking your accounts and cleansing them now.
	Too late.
	They already have them.
	This unprecedented campaign appears designed to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with independent news organizations that have asked tough questions and brought uncomfortable truths to light.
	Right?
	Which is completely different than what you guys did to Joe Wurzelbacher.
	Completely different.
	The New York Times, which has distinguished itself with fearless and fair coverage of the president, Fearless and fair cover... I love it when journalists call themselves fearless in covering President Trump.
	Really?
	How many journalists has he arrested?
	Fewer than Barack Obama did.
	When they talk about fearless, yes, it takes great... It takes... I mean, honestly.
	The journalists at the New York Times sitting in their air-conditioned offices typing on computers.
	I mean, when I think fearless, I think... You want to talk about reporters who are fearless?
	Talk about the New York Times reporters not reporting on Trump.
	Talk about the New York Times reporters over in Russia.
	I talk about the ones who are over in China.
	Those are the fearless New York Times reporters.
	Don't give me the elite reporters at the New York Times sitting in their plush offices on Madison Avenue talking about President Trump.
	Ooh, you're so brave.
	Ooh, you're fearless.
	Wow.
	Wow, fearless and fair.
	Nothing says fair like the New York Times.
	They say the New York Times is one of the main targets of this assault.
	Unable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting, political operatives have been scouring social media and other sources to find any possibly embarrassing information on anyone associated with the Times, no matter their rank, role, or actual influence on our journalism.
	Their goal is to silence critics and undermine the public's faith in independent journalism, as opposed to when you guys target, you know, like low-level staffers in the White House comms department, and then try and destroy their lives so that you can humiliate the Trump administration and suggest that they're employing unemployables.
	This represents an escalation of the ongoing campaign against the free press.
	No, this is called free speech, guys.
	And these are the rules you set.
	People digging up your old tweets?
	That is not a campaign against the free press.
	That is people who are using your crap standard against your people.
	End of story.
	Campaign against the free press would be like Barack Obama arresting an AP reporter.
	That would be a campaign against the free press.
	Arthur Schwartz Archive in your tweets, not a campaign against the free press.
	Not a campaign against, not in any serious way.
	And if it is, I have a very easy solution.
	The New York Times should just say, no matter what old stuff is uncovered, nobody's getting fired.
	Also, we are not going to investigate old tweets and then take them out of context to harm people because this is an unlivable standard.
	Then we could all go back to our business, right?
	We would stop trying to ruin the lives of people like Brendan Eich and suggesting that it is deeply important that Brendan Eich contributed, the former head of Mozilla Firefox, that he contributed to a Prop 8 effort.
	These are the same reporters who five minutes ago were suggesting that Joaquin Castro was doing the Lord's work in revealing the names of people who had donated to Donald Trump in his district.
	Yeah, it was Joaquin.
	This whole thing is, it reeks, it reeks of hypocrisy.
	And then you wonder why we don't trust the media?
	This would be why we don't trust the media, guys.
	You hold one standard for yourselves and a different standard for everybody else.
	This is definitional hypocrisy.
	He'll get to more of Pinch Sulzberger's ridiculous statement in just a moment.
	First, when the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas without limitation by their government.
	That would be the First Amendment.
	The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
	And that is the Second Amendment.
	As you know, I'm a big Second Amendment believer.
	That is particularly true because we have a lot of safety threats.
	Here at the office and around my house and whatever gun I own, I want it to be a gun that is going to operate in circumstances where my life and the life of my family may be in danger.
	Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
	Building rifles is no different.
	Started in a garage by a marine vet more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional grade product which is built to combat standards.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.
	They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment that people at BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life or death situation by a responsible citizen, a law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
	To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	You can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.
	That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	If you need more convincing, find out even more about BCM and the great people who make their products at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
	Their videos are terrific.
	Check them out again.
	BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	Great folks, great product.
	BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	So as I say, we're going through Pinch Solsberger's statement from the New York Times.
	Very, very upset at people on the interwebs who are targeting their reporters by digging up old stuff.
	And again, they've been doing this on an ongoing basis nearly daily.
	It was a front page New York Times story when Media Matters started digging up old clips from Tucker Carlson on Bubba the Love Sponge, and this was considered national news.
	So if you guys are doing this to go after Tucker Carlson's advertisers, well then I think that it's perfectly fair to go after you and go after your advertisers.
	This is all dumb, but this is the religion of leftism.
	The religion of leftism suggests that That there is no such thing as sin.
	There are only sinners.
	Sinners are people who don't believe in the religion of the left.
	So the difference between a sin and a sinner, from the normal sort of traditional religious perspective, is that everybody sins, and we are all sinners, and therefore you have a lot of tolerance for sinners, but little tolerance for sin.
	The perspective of the left is you have a lot of tolerance for sin, because there's no such thing as a sin, but there's no tolerance for sinners, meaning people who disagree with the left.
	Those people have to be exposed.
	They can never be forgiven.
	There is no purpose in issuing an apology.
	There's no purpose in getting better.
	That's the left standard at play.
	Well, now it's going to be applied back to you.
	And the New York Times is super upset about it.
	Pinch Solzberger says this represents an escalation of an ongoing campaign against the free press.
	For years, the president has used terms like fake news and enemy of the people to demonize journalists and journalism.
	Now, I, as a commentator, I've called out President Trump when I think he is applying the label fake news to non-fake news.
	I don't like when he uses the term enemy of the people to describe the media.
	But, you guys, you have to admit that your credibility started to decline long before President Trump was President Trump.
	They are not.
	They are using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
	Do they have mirrors over the New York Times offices?
	in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures.
	They are not.
	They're using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
	Do they have mirrors over the New York Times offices?
	Like at all?
	They're using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
	I'm fairly certain that just described the entire New York Times editorial board.
	You guys literally just ran a 1619 project suggesting that America was born in 1619 with the advent of slavery, not in 1607 with Jamestown, not in 1775, in 1619.
	And then you ran pieces that were purportedly journalism about how American capitalism has its roots in slave plantations.
	I'm pretty sure that that is a description of what you do for a living, using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
	In fact, the New York Times editorial bent is a disgrace to many of its own reporters, many of whom are terrific reporters.
	The New York Times actually does have a bunch of really good reporters, but the editorial bent of the New York Times makes their reporting less valuable, not more valuable.
	I mean, it's the New York Times that has had, they ran a full-scale anti-Semitic cartoon in their international edition like four months ago.
	The New York Times admitted back in the late part of 2018 that they had not reported on hate crimes in New York City because it didn't fit a political narrative.
	Insinuating and exaggerating to manipulate the facts for political gain is basically your stock and trade, guys.
	Sulzberger says, I want to thank the journalists at the Times and elsewhere who brave this type of pressure daily to bring essential information to the public.
	Slow clap, guys.
	This is the scene in the movie where we get the slow clap, we get the backlit, pinched Sulzberger speaking to his journalist, and then they stand slowly, and the slow clap builds into a wild round of applause.
	Yeah, you know, you need to stretch your arm out there like Mrs. Incredible in order to pat yourself on the back there, Pinch.
	He says, under intense scrutiny and routine harassment, they remain undeterred.
	When our reporters learned of this campaign to attack journalists, they did what our colleagues around the globe always do.
	They went to work and started reporting.
	Well, I mean, they sort of had to do that because if they didn't, then you would fire them because they presumably would not be doing their jobs.
	He says, I also want to be clear.
	No organization is above scrutiny, including The Times.
	Well, then why are you saying they're above scrutiny?
	Because that's what you're doing.
	He says, we have high standards, own our mistakes, and always strive to do better.
	Oh, do you?
	Oh, freaking really?
	If anyone, even those acting in bad faith, brings legitimate problems to our attention, we'll look into them and respond appropriately.
	See, this is where they want to uphold the double standard, right?
	I mean, he can't just say, maybe this has all been a mistake.
	They can't just say that.
	They can't just say, maybe our pseudo-journalism, where we dig up people's old garbage in Twitter, and then pretend that that is representative of their worldview, and their worldview today, They can't just say that's a bad idea.
	Instead, it's, if you bring it to our attention, maybe we'll consider it and maybe we won't.
	But if it's you, we'll go after you with hammer and tongs.
	He says it is imperative that all of us remain thoughtful about how our words and actions reflect on the times, particularly during this period of sustained pressure and scrutiny.
	We all play a part in upholding our commitment to give the news impartially without fear or favor.
	What's the proper response to a campaign like this?
	Even in periods of pressure and change, the New York Times has the benefit of the long view, writes Pinched Soulsburger.
	We have served the public for 168 years now.
	We've covered 33 presidents.
	We know a free press is vital for our freedoms in our society.
	We've been attacked and threatened before.
	We all know how to do our jobs under fire.
	Sorry, you're not braving the Alien Sedition Act here.
	You're not braving Woodrow Wilson.
	You're not braving the shutdowns of the press under President Lincoln.
	Like, give me a break.
	So our response is the same as always.
	We will continue to cover this administration, like any other, fairly, aggressively, and fearlessly, wherever the facts lead.
	Oh, and the hero music swells.
	Well, even other folks in the media left are looking at the New York Times going, guys, you're ridiculous.
	Eric Wemple, who is certainly not on the right, has a piece over at the Washington Post today talking about how dumb the New York Times response to all of this is.
	And he is basically correct.
	I know words that I never thought I would say.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, President Trump made a lot of promises during his campaign, and many of them he's kept.
	He's appointed conservative justices.
	He moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Israel.
	He's cut regulations.
	He's cut taxes.
	He's done a lot of really good things.
	And he's running that re-election campaign in part on that record.
	There's still one promise that he made that he's trying to pursue, and that is bringing down the cost of prescription drugs.
	But many in the left and the press, even some big government Republicans, are making it hard for that actually to happen.
	The result is that, amazingly enough, some in the Trump administration, in the name of claiming victory, would like to push some form of price controls from the top down.
	That is not a good idea.
	Price controls rarely achieve their policy goals.
	They generally result in lack of innovation, lack of investment, in particularly the area where you have imposed a price control.
	Well, what area do you need innovation and investment more than in prescription drugs?
	That is the area where you need new cures and new treatments.
	Price controls are not going to be the solution.
	Putting price controls on America's medicine makers could lead to less R&D, which leads to less medical innovation.
	There's a reason that half of all medical innovation on planet Earth happens in the United States.
	That's why I'm asking you to go to DontCapMyCare right now and help FreedomWorks stop the Senate from capping your care by signing their petition right now.
	Again, that is DontCapMyCare.com.
	DontCapMyCare.com.
	Go check them out right now.
	DontCapMyCare.com and fight back against price controls.
	OK, we're going to get to more of this on the press in a second.
	Plus, Bernie Sanders has a plan to save the press.
	Which should make all of your alarm bells start to go off.
	If Bernie Sanders has a plan to interfere with the freedom of the press, that is not saving the press.
	That is just re-enshrining the kind of press that he likes.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, The Daily Wire has now turned four years old.
	So congratulations to us and to you.
	As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code BIRTHDAY.
	For all of August, as we celebrate this milestone, we are giving away a free first month for new premium monthly subscribers.
	Again, just use the code BIRTHDAY.
	Time is quickly running out, so come on over and join the fun.
	It's pretty great.
	Also, tune in today, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific, for our latest episode of The Conversation.
	Host Michael Moles will be answering your questions live on air, so make your questions better than his answers surely will be.
	The episode It's free to watch on Facebook and YouTube.
	Only subscribers can ask the questions.
	So subscribe to Daily Wire right now, get your questions answered by Michael Molls today at 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific, and join the conversation.
	Also, just subscribe generally to DailyWire.com.
	When you do, as we say, you get that special deal because you use that promo code BIRTHDAY and you get that free month.
	Beyond that, you also get the Leftist Sears Hot or Cold Tumblr if you get the annual subscription.
	It is glorious.
	It is magnificent.
	You will enjoy every moment of it.
	So go join us.
	Help protect us against the nastiness of the left that has a double standard for sure when it comes to coverage in the media and when it comes to the right versus the left.
	We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So Eric Wemple over at the Washington Post, the media critic over there, even he who's on the left is ripping into the New York Times for their response to this news that people are going through old tweets of journalists.
	He says, Just what would the damaging information uncovered be?
	Illicitly obtained DMs?
	Gossip about sexual habits?
	HIPAA-protected information?
	journalist and they read Twitter very carefully.
	Nope.
	These are the contours of an alarm rung on Sunday by the New York Times.
	Just what would the damaging information uncovered be?
	Illicitly obtained DMs?
	Gossip about sexual habits?
	HIPAA protected information?
	Nope.
	Apparently, it's just old tweets.
	Among the central players in the network notes the Times is a combative 47-year-old conservative consultant to Arthur Schwartz, a man who makes no apologies for his work.
	As the article notes, the network has surfaced anti-Semitic and otherwise offensive posts from other reporters in the mainstream media.
	And Wimple says, Sulzberger has all but admitted that the information supplied by Schwartz and company can be relevant to the management of the New York Times.
	It's good.
	There's an incompatibility in the Times story and the Sulzberger's memo.
	On one hand, there's an attempt to tire the motivations of the loose network of conservative operatives.
	On the other, there's a stubborn admission that they have brought actionable information to public attention.
	For decades now, representatives of the mainstream media have answered conservative critiques by imploring, judge us by the work we produce, not by the fact that more than 90% of us are liberal democratic.
	Mainstreamers cannot have it both ways.
	Cut the idle and unverifiable talk about motivations.
	If the tweets presented by the loose network of conservative operatives are racist or anti-Semitic or otherwise problematic, take action.
	If they're nonsensical distractions, ignore them.
	Even the Washington Post pointing out at this point that the New York Times wants a double standard.
	And so that is correct.
	That is correct.
	Now, the credibility of the media is in the toilet.
	That is one problem for the media.
	And the media have basically become overtly partisan at this point.
	That means that they are trying to buy subscribers with negative news coverage of President Trump.
	Basically, Dean Beckett announced that in that leaked transcript to Slate.
	He said, our people who read our newspaper are rooting against Trump, and we basically know that.
	That is one problem for the media.
	The other problem for the media going forward is that there have been institutional changes in how the media operates.
	This is particularly true on the local level.
	So local newspapers have been shutting down.
	Why?
	Because it used to be the only way that you could get the local sports, the only way you could get the local news, was for the newspaper to be delivered to your doorstep on a daily basis, and you'd have to pay for it.
	Well now, there are all sorts of local sites that are running the news for free, and so you don't have to pay for anything.
	It's killing local news.
	So there are a bunch of alternative models that have been suggested.
	501C3 models, right?
	People giving charity so that journalists can go out and do their work on the local level.
	And this seems to me a perfectly fine model.
	If you have a profit-driven model, that's good.
	We have a profit-driven model over at Daily Wire.
	The New York Times has a profit-driven model based on subscriptions.
	That's fine.
	On the local level, 501C3s are probably gonna have to crop up.
	And then there is the move by Bernie Sanders to insert the federal government into the business of protecting local news.
	This is dangerous stuff.
	A lot more dangerous than the vicissitudes of the market.
	If people don't want to buy your newspaper, that's a you problem, as I'm fond of saying.
	That is a problem for you and your newspaper.
	Doesn't mean it's a problem with you, again.
	I'm going to define you a problem.
	That is a problem for you to solve.
	That is not a problem for government to solve.
	But Bernie Sanders thinks the government should step in and protect particular types of news.
	I can't imagine how this is going to go wrong.
	The federal government stepping in and protecting certain types of news, but not other types of news.
	Certain types of journalists, but not other types of journalists.
	I definitely trust the federal government to make those sorts of judgments.
	Bernie Sanders has a big piece over at the Columbia Journalism Review talking about how he wants to save journalism.
	He says, Real journalism is different from the gossip, punditry, and clickbait that dominates today's news.
	Tell me more about real journalism, Bernard McSanders.
	Vacationing, shirtless in the Soviet Union.
	Tell me about real journalism.
	Real journalism, in the words of Joseph Pulitzer, is the painstaking reporting that will fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, and always fight demagogues.
	In other words, real journalism is the kind of stuff that you like.
	Because I have a feeling that Bernie Sanders defines progress and reform very differently than I define progress and reform.
	That he defines injustice and corruption very differently than I do.
	And demagogues, I mean, he is a demagogue.
	So I don't think he means that people should report more stringently on his campaign.
	But Bernie Sanders says, we have to fight the advent of the new market in journalism.
	Real journalism requires significant resources, so we have to crack down on Facebook and Google, which is the way that a huge number of people get their news.
	Also, he wants to ban conglomerations and hedge funds from buying local newspapers.
	Which, by the way, is not going to stop these newspapers from going bankrupt.
	I mean, local newspapers are going bankrupt, whether or not a hedge fund comes in and saves the newspaper or not.
	What are his standards?
	I mean, this is such a mockery.
	So Bernie Sanders' standards for saving the media is that he would like to ban consolidation in the media.
	So you shouldn't be able to buy more than one newspaper, basically.
	He says that he wants to put in place policies that will reform the media industry and better protect independent journalism at both the local and national levels.
	Yes, I think a socialistic top-down government control guy should definitely help reform journalism.
	No danger there at all.
	He says he's going to reverse the Trump administration's attempts to make corporate media mergers even more likely in the future.
	So he'll ban proposals to merge big companies.
	He said he he opposes media consolidation.
	He opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has made.
	Enormous strides, by the way, in terms of speed of the internet and the ability for broadband networks to be built.
	He says, in the spirit of existing federal laws, we'll start requiring major media corporations to disclose whether or not their corporate transactions and merger proposals will involve significant journalism layoffs.
	So now he wants the federal government to start punishing media corporations for laying off journalists, which, by the way, does not add to profit incentive, does it?
	How exactly does it make businesses more profitable to find them?
	He says employees have to be given the opportunity to purchase media outlets through employee stock ownership plans.
	So you're gonna mandate.
	Who the hell's gonna start a new newspaper under these conditions?
	Who in the world isn't going to just take their newspaper into bankruptcy and sell off the assets immediately if all of this were going to take place?
	There are answers to the death of local journalism.
	And as I say, they lie in 501c3s.
	They lie in non-profits.
	I mean, there are plenty of places that do have non-profit journalistic centers.
	That's good.
	That's fine.
	They do not lie in government regulation from the top.
	And yet now you have Bernie Sanders using the death of local journalism as an excuse for the government to jump into the business of regulating journalism.
	Can't see how this is dangerous in any way, shape, or form.
	Yes, I definitely trust the same media that digs up people's old tweets, ruins their lives, and then complains about it when people do the same for their journalists.
	And I definitely trust the media that have built up Bernie Sanders, a man who wants to use taxpayer dollars and the power of the executive branch in order to quote-unquote protect the journalists that seek to cover him.
	Yes, I think this will all go beautifully.
	And meanwhile, let's take a look at this Democratic 2020 race.
	There's a new poll out that is just devastating for Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden's entire pitch is that he is going to win.
	Joe Biden's entire pitch for the presidency is not that he's a good candidate.
	It's that he is the guy who is leading in the polls versus Donald Trump, and he is going to win.
	Well, the problem is once that balloon is punctured, the air is out.
	And once that balloon pops, it ain't a slow leak.
	The balloon is popped and you're done.
	For Joe Biden, if he is seen as vulnerable, he's toast.
	He can brag as much as he wants about the general election, but if he never makes it there, it ain't gonna matter.
	There's a new poll out from Monmouth today.
	It shows that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are in a statistical tie, all three of them.
	Apparently, Sanders is at 20, Warren is at 20, Biden is at 19.
	Now, I would say this is an outlier poll, except for the fact that this is actually the second poll that we have seen in the last two weeks that suggests that Joe Biden has now receded all the way back to the field.
	There's an Economist YouGov poll that shows Biden at 22, Sanders at 19, Warren at 18.
	Now, the polls are really all over the place.
	It's bizarre.
	There's a political morning consult poll that is also out today.
	And that one shows that Biden is still steady at 33% with Sanders at 20% and Warren at 15%.
	So where exactly is the momentum?
	It isn't with Biden.
	And it certainly isn't helping him that Biden is a terrible candidate.
	He just keeps gaffing over and over.
	Yesterday, for example, Joe Biden was in New Hampshire and he forgot which state he was in.
	That tends to happen when you don't actually visit Denny's for the early bird dinners and refill on the energy before you go out on the campaign trail.
	I've been here a number of times.
	Last time was, I think, all the way back in 2014.
	But I've been here before that.
	I love this place.
	Look, what's not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it?
	And what a neat town.
	I mean, this is sort of a scenic, beautiful town.
	The mayor's been a good guy.
	Everybody's been really friendly.
	I like Keene a lot.
	Okay, so you're in the wrong state.
	Also, he then went out on the campaign trail and announced that he is not going crazy, which is a fantastic campaign slogan, by the way.
	Biden 2020, I'm not going nuts.
	Okay, Joe, that's, yeah, all right.
	I just spoke at Dartmouth on healthcare, at the medical school, or not, I guess it wasn't actually on the campus, but the people from the medical school were at the, I want to be clear.
	I'm not going nuts.
	I'm not sure whether it's the medical school or where the hell I spoke, but it was on a campus.
	Oh man, he sounds like he is just... I mean, he does sound like he's 80, right?
	You know why?
	Because he's close to 80.
	That's why.
	So Joe Biden is having troubles of his own.
	And then the media obviously want Elizabeth Warren to be the nominee.
	Why?
	Well, she checks all of their boxes.
	She is a woman, which is intersectional, at least mildly so.
	She's not Native American.
	That would have helped her, but she's not.
	She is an ideas person by which they mean she has a lot of bad ideas that do not mirror her ideas from earlier in her career when she was sort of moderate.
	Now she is a wild, wild eyed progressive.
	And she also has the cadences of an upper class An upper class elite from Massachusetts, which is where she's been teaching for the last 20, 30 years.
	So she fulfills all of their boxes.
	She makes them feel smart.
	If you actually want to do well in a Democratic primary, you have to make the press feel flattered that they agree with you.
	And they feel so smart because, oh, Elizabeth, she taught at Harvard Law.
	That means she's smart.
	Just like Barack Obama.
	Barack Obama made them feel super smart.
	Well, you know, I'm saying intelligent things.
	And they're like, yeah, he's so smart.
	I feel so smart when he's in the room.
	Oh, it's wonderful.
	And then doing the same thing with Elizabeth Warren.
	Bernie Sanders doesn't make them feel smart because Bernie Sanders can't make anybody feel smart.
	It's like being hit in the head with a socialistic two-by-four.
	Okay, Elizabeth Warren makes them feel smart because she's got plans, man.
	She's got plans and doctrines.
	So, the media are covering her with, I mean, they are just ladling the gravy of joy upon her.
	It's unbelievable.
	Okay, the Washington Post ran, on the front page of their website, a piece called Elizabethan.
	Warren knows the power of words.
	I'm not kidding you.
	This is it.
	Our journalistic firefighters!
	We should certainly trust them.
	I can't imagine why people don't trust the media.
	I can't imagine it.
	Peter Marks is their theater critic.
	Okay, and the Washington Post ran this piece.
	I'm sure- I remember when they did the same about Marco Rubio.
	No.
	I remember when they did this about- Nope.
	I remember- Trump- Nope.
	Needless to say, rave reviews from the critics.
	Critic reviews the performances of the Democratic candidates.
	Needless to say, rave reviews from the critics.
	Peter Marks, he says, she enters in an ordinary blouse and slacks, not a toga.
	And yet, when Senator Elizabeth Warren takes the stage of a music hall in the sweltering Sunbelt City, it is with a command of the occasion that might have Julius Caesar's Mark Antony taking notes.
	I'm never going to stop vomiting.
	It's just going to be a continuous stream of vomit.
	It's going to be like that scene in Team America where the puppet just vomits.
	That's what this is.
	But it gets better.
	You ready?
	Journalism-ing!
	Peter Marks says, the vocal modulation, the oratorical rhythm, the instinct for a good story.
	She's got the ingredients for a magnetic performance.
	And she delivers!
	When Warren speaks, you lean in.
	Okay, I've been, like, I took a sample class with Elizabeth Warren when I visited Harvard Law School, this would have been back in, like, 2004, and she was fine.
	I mean, she's somewhat charismatic, but this is wildly overstated.
	Have you watched her speeches lately?
	What made her interesting in a small crowd is not what makes her interesting on a big stage.
	On a big stage, all of the charm that she has in small crowds is lost.
	She seems mannered, she seems over the top, She is a slightly souped-up version of Hillary Clinton on the campaign stump.
	But according to the Washington Post, she's like Shakespearean.
	She's Olivier.
	They literally put this on the front page of their website.
	Friends, Romans, Countrymen, is not exactly where the talk goes in her 45-minute strut upon the Tempe stage on this August evening in the Marquis Theatre, capacity 2,500.
	It is so packed, some of the crowd must remain outside in the 100-degree heat.
	Still, the sense of drama Warren radiates replicates the momentum of an actor at the climactic point of a play.
	Her speech may not convey the compact, lyrical eloquence of Marc Antony, but the sights and sounds of her presentation deliver the centrifugal emotional force of a potent soliloquy.
	Just as Antony fashioned an address to provoke a passionate response in which every wound of Caesar should move the stones of Rome to rise in mutiny, Warren has a gift for infusing a call to action with raw, clarifying emotionality.
	Antony appeals to the crowd's desire to control its destiny.
	So does Warren.
	I mean, this is what I thought when I saw her dancing in Minnesota.
	I mean, that's what I see right there.
	I think Mark Antony.
	I don't see awkward Elaine from Seinfeld.
	I don't see Grandma at the Bar Mitzvah.
	I see Mark Antony when she's doing this.
	Folks, you should subscribe just so that you can actually see the tape of this so you know what I'm talking about.
	It's not good.
	It ain't good.
	Are you seeing Mark Antony here?
	This is our moment in American history, she exclaims, her voice catching.
	Dream big.
	Fight hard.
	Wow, I mean, deep words there.
	Dream big.
	Fight hard.
	Wow.
	I mean, it's not like she's running for third grade secretary or something.
	The audience response is so high decibel, her signature closing line is all but drowned out.
	You mean her fans are fans?
	That's crazy!
	But according to the Washington Post, deployed their theater critic to write this.
	Warren's tempeh appearance was the first time in my travels as a theater critic on the 2020 campaign trail, in which I was moved by a politician's oratory, and I could feel I wasn't the only one.
	Warren's team seated about 120 people on the venue stage to cheer her on, and one exuberant young man in the first row was clapping so ferociously, I thought his hands would bleed.
	That kind of enthusiasm is difficult to manufacture.
	No, it's not, actually.
	It really is not.
	I remember when people went crazy for Hillary Clinton.
	I do.
	I mean, we can pretend that didn't happen, but that was a thing that I know is embarrassing for everyone.
	I remember when there were lots of people who did this for Ted Cruz and the Republican Party.
	But, again, they deployed their theater critic to do this!
	I trust the media so much, guys.
	They say in this hall it came across as genuine in part because the speaker seemed to be seeking that kind of intensity.
	One of the most seductive attributes of great actors is that they create the impression they are giving you more of themselves and asking you as an audience to give them more in return.
	A worn performance is a polished act of seduction.
	Dude, take a cold shower.
	I mean, goodness gracious.
	That's what I see again.
	Polished act of seduction right here.
	Polished act of seduction.
	Wow, I'd hate to see what an unpolished act of non-seduction looks like.
	My goodness.
	As the candidate makes plain and even makes fun of herself for, she's got a plan for everything except maybe what you should have for dinner.
	But I'm drawn to something more elemental and just as vital for someone auditioning for the role of Communicator-in-Chief.
	How does a politician convince you she understands the way you think?
	How does she share enough of herself for you to not only imagine you know her, but also want to side with her?
	With Warren, this seems to be a holistic mission, one in which she skillfully integrates who she is with how she reveals to you who she is.
	She knows how to bring you into her spotlight, even when the focus remains entirely on her.
	At other times, Warren can summon a bit too fiercely her disapproving inner school marm.
	But unlike Vice President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Warren has a fully evolved performance style.
	In a gritty, poetic way, her spiel is akin to that of a folksy troubadour.
	She is the Springsteen of campaign 2020.
	Well, there it is again, Springsteen.
	Take a look.
	Look at that.
	Bruce Springsteen making the magic happen out there.
	And by the way, Bruce Springsteen, wildly overrated.
	Alright, I can't do this anymore because I actually have to- I'm getting dizzy from the need to vomit at this point.
	Well done, Washington Post.
	Journalism-ing!
	Getting your journalism everywhere.
	Hot journalism all over the place.
	Well done, everyone.
	Okay, time for a thing I like and then a thing I hate.
	Things that I like today.
	So we talked yesterday about the deep and abiding problem with the Chinese government, the fact that they are a strong geopolitical foe, that they have a long term vision and that they are attempting to expand their reach.
	There's a good book on this by Bill Gertz.
	It's coming out very shortly called Deceiving the Sky Inside Communist China's Drive for Global Supremacy.
	The book is is well researched.
	Bill Gertz is a longtime reporter for The Washington Times.
	And this is a particularly good book.
	Again, Deceiving the Sky.
	Inside Communist China's Drive for Global Supremacy, he talks about the history of it, what exactly they're trying to do, everything from using Huawei to invade privacy, building 5G networks.
	Check out the book again, Deceiving the Sky.
	OK.
	Time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Should we do one?
	OK, fine.
	So, quick thing that I hate.
	So, one of the beautiful things about the left's perspective on education is it's not about educating children, it's about leveling the playing field.
	By leveling the playing field, what they mean is that no one should actually perform well.
	How do we know this?
	Listen to this.
	The New York Times reporting on New York's education plan.
	Desegregation plan.
	Eliminate all gifted programs in New York.
	You got that?
	So in order to achieve racial parity in the programs in New York, they want to eliminate the programs for the smartest kids, who are disproportionately Asian in the city of New York, by the way.
	For years, according to Eliza Shapiro, no relation, New York City has essentially maintained two parallel public school systems.
	A group of selective schools and programs geared to students labeled gifted and talented is mostly filled with white and Asian children.
	The rest of the system is open to all students and is predominantly black and Hispanic.
	Now, a high-level panel appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio is recommending that the city do away with most of these selective programs in an effort to desegregate the system, which has 1.1 million students and is by far the largest in the country.
	De Blasio, who has staked his mayoralty on reducing inequality, has the power to adopt some or all of these proposals without input from the state legislature or city council.
	If he does, the decision would fundamentally reshape a largely segregated school system and could reverberate in school districts across the country.
	So now, they're going to shut down the gifted programs in selective schools, specifically because not enough Hispanic and black kids are getting in.
	Asians are wildly overrepresented at these schools.
	This obviously is because New York is a deeply racist place.
	Or alternatively, it is because there are racial differentials in test performance that are reflected in who is getting into what school.
	So the solution is to get rid of the possibility of better schools and make sure that everybody goes to the worst schools.
	Great job, New York City.
	Obviously, you care about kids.
	The proposals may also face opposition from some middle-class black and hispanic families that have called for more gifted programs in mostly minority neighborhoods.
	That would be a better plan, would it not?
	Still, the plan could resonate, says the New York Times, with black and Hispanic families who believe that these selective programs unfairly divert money and attention from neighborhood schools.
	The plan includes all elementary school gifted programs, screened middle schools, and some high schools, with the exception of Stuyvesant High School and the city's seven other elite high schools, whose admission is partially controlled by Albany.
	The panel says, quote, gifted programs and screened schools have become proxies for separating students who can and should have opportunities to learn together.
	This is such absolute crap.
	Studies do not show that when you put gifted students in a room with non-gifted students, that the non-gifted students benefit.
	All they show is that the gifted students underperform.
	I'm aware of no study that shows that gifted students perform better when they are placed in a mediocre classroom, and that students who are not gifted perform better when they are placed in a class with gifted students.
	In fact, precisely the opposite.
	In my own personal experience, I've been in and out.
	When I was growing up, I was in public school, and then I was in private school, and then I was in public school again, and then I was in private school.
	We bounced around a lot, depending on my parents' financial fortunes at the time.
	Well, when I was in my original public school, I had to skip a grade because the classes couldn't keep up with where I was, so I skipped third grade.
	And then I went to a private school and the private school couldn't keep up with where I was on the secular side.
	So my parents put me in a highly gifted magnet here in Los Angeles area.
	And the highly gifted magnet classes were disproportionately Asian and they were separate from the other classes in the school.
	Now, do I think that I would have learned better if I had stayed at the private school, not even the public school, the private school where they didn't have the capacity to deal with me on an academic level?
	I probably lost a year in math because I was in a class where the teacher literally did not know how to deal with me.
	The teacher was teaching algebra, I was already past algebra, and the teacher literally just handed me a geometry book and said, learn it.
	I think I was nine or ten at the time.
	Needless to say, I did not learn geometry that year.
	Hey, do you think that you're doing these gifted students any favors?
	And do you think you're doing the non-gifted students any favors by basically pushing the gifted students down into a crappier system?
	This is insanity, and it demonstrates full scale that the left does not give a damn about achievement.
	The left only cares about equality of outcome, and that means that if they have to force gifted students into worse classes, they will do it.
	They're not about raising other students up.
	They're about pushing the great students down so that you can assure that parity is achieved.
	Even if that means mediocrity through parity.
	Unbelievable.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Adam Sievitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, people are saying that America has never been so divided, and they can say that all they want, but it's completely and utterly untrue.
	What is true is that there's never been a time, at least not in my memory, when the elite establishment has been rooting so hard against the country that it's given them everything they have.
	I'll show you what I mean on The Andrew Klavan Show.

▲