FULL AFTER SHOW: Glenn Responds to Viewer Critiques on Our Israel-Gaza Coverage | LOCALS Q&A
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glenn.11.greenwald/
Follow System Update:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/systemupdate__/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@systemupdate__
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/systemupdate.tv/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/systemupdate/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7pm Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, As you probably have already discerned, we are not in our normal location in our studio.
That's because I am traveling.
And we recorded three excellent interviews at the very end of last week that we have scheduled for you.
One we already broadcast last night with the always interesting Professor John Mearsheimer, who has, I think, views on foreign policy that are a great counterbalance to prevailing discourse that are already worth hearing, always worth hearing on Friday.
We have David Talbott, who was the founder of salon.com and the author of The Devil's Chessboard, the book I have long said is the best history of the evolution of the CIA in the post-World War II era, the U.S.
security state in general, and the role it may have played in the assassination of JFK.
So I'm really looking forward to showing you that interview.
And then tomorrow night, we have the musician Roger Waters, who we Sat down and spoke with for almost 90 minutes in the studio when he was passing through Rio de Janeiro as part of what might be his last tour.
He's obviously a polarizing figure for a lot of reasons, including the fact that he has been widely accused of anti-Semitism, especially over the last 18 months as he became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the US and NATO role in Ukraine.
He's obviously a critic of Israel as well, and so we talked to him about his music, his career, His political activism, his views on various political debates, but also in depth the reaction he has, the response that he has to the widespread accusations that he is an anti-Semite.
He responds to that in great length.
I pressed him on it and it was really one of the most interesting interviews I've ever done.
He was very introspective, very contemplative, very raw and candid, very emotional, but also had a lot of really interesting things to say.
So that would be Tomorrow night.
Tonight what we decided to do is, as many of you know because I often say at the beginning of each show, every Tuesday and Thursday night, when we're done with our normal Rumble program, we move to Locals for our live interactive after show, which is available exclusively for our subscribers to the Locals community, which is part of Rumble, where we take your questions and respond to viewer feedback, critique your suggestions, and on Thursday night,
After our rumble show we we had our live attractive after show and we purposely elevated the concerns and critiques that viewers have of our coverage of Israel and Palestine of the Israel-Gaza war of my views in particular and I thought it was a great show it was one of the reasons why we do shows like this because I think Responding to viewer critiques is an important form of journalistic accountability.
So things aren't A monologue where the journalist just speaks and never has to respond to critiques, but interacts with them, with their viewers and readers.
That's always been one of the ways that I found online journalism to be such a big improvement over traditional journalism is that it's interactive in nature.
So one can either look at one's audience as a menace and as something to be avoided or as a great resource, including maybe even especially when they're offering good face-substantive critiques.
And that's how I see it, and so we spent a good amount of time interacting with some of those most common critiques of our views and coverage of Israel and Gaza, and we decided to show you that episode tonight, in part because I'm traveling, in part because we want you to see what it is that we do on those live interactive aftershows.
For those of you who haven't joined the locals community, you can do so by pressing the join button.
Right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you there and you can join that gives you access not only to these aftershows but the daily transcripts we post every day to this show, the original journalism we publish there, and it really helps support the independent journalism that we're doing.
But I also wanted to show this episode tonight because I know a lot of you have many of the same critiques and concerns.
I'm happy about the fact that we have kept most of our audience, even though I know many of you don't share our views on Israel and Gaza, we have always tried to maintain and cultivate and attract an audience.
That comes here not expecting or demanding complete validation of all of your views automatically, but just knows my promises.
I'm going to always do my best to give you the most accurate reporting, the most candid perspective and analysis that I can and it may not always agree with your views and we hope that That can be challenging to you.
It can be challenging for me when we hear these critiques, and that's what we did on Thursday night.
So we want to present to you the responses I gave to those, and we hope if you do have critiques, if you do have criticism, you keep them coming by email, by joining the Locals community where you can express them there, where we can interact by Putting them in the chat.
We want this show to be even more interactive than it already is, but here is the after show we did on Locals on Thursday where we deliberately elevated critiques and criticisms from our viewers.
I hope you enjoy it.
Good evening, everybody.
Welcome to the Live After Show here on Locals.
I am joined tonight as my Cake at Nine co-host, Sylvester, who is looking elegant and tranquil as always.
Look at him with those eyes, just very focused, very at peace as well.
And then here on my lap is the more agitated co-host, but his energy is crucial to the show, and that is Kane.
Who is also ready to go as always.
So we asked for a lot of input in the Locals thread and we had more than 300 comments or close to 300 comments and a lot of them were great.
So I'm going to try and get through as many of these as we can and I purposely picked a couple of critical ones to start off with because our coverage like Pretty much the entire debate since three weeks ago has been polarizing to some of you.
Although it is interesting, I think the majority of our audience has been very supportive, including people who are on Israel's side in this conflict.
And I think in part because we focused mostly, not entirely, we've done a lot of coverage on the conflict itself.
And what I feel is the wildly excessive use of force, to put that mildly, in Gaza.
Obviously we began by condemning vehemently the Hamas attacks, which I still stand by.
But the kind of freedom of speech and discourse and calls for censorship and cancellation that have arisen around it, and I think even a lot of people who support Israel, Uh, are bothered by that.
And so, we always try to make that a unifying feature of our show, is a belief in free discourse and the importance of free speech regardless.
So, let me start off with a critical comment from Vrooman, who said, Glenn!
Exclamation point.
Will you please be fair and show the other people on the right who are not asking for censorship?
There are so many of us and you are purposely choosing the wackos who stand for all kinds of bullshit.
Think about it, Nikki, Tim, and Ron are freaking neocons who love war.
I would expect them to have disgusting attitudes on just about anything.
I know this subject brings out the worst in everyone.
I'll never understand it, but you are stoking the fires of hate by calling everyone of the right liars and hypocrites.
Look at what you are doing.
I'm watching you change right before my eyes.
Okay.
So, first of all, I think we've been very careful to note from the beginning, and I actually have noted at least on several occasions that there are major figures on the right Who support Israel but do not support cancellation and censorship.
In fact, one of the most prominent disputes happened when Vivek Ramaswamy came out and denounced the attempt to get students fired who have been expressing pro-Palestinian views.
And in response, Megyn Kelly attacked Vivek and said, This is disgusting what you're saying.
I think these people are terrorist supporters and if you want to hire terrorist supporters and Hamas fans, feel free, but the rest of us normal people aren't going to do that.
And in response, Candace Owens inserted herself into that thread to respond to Megyn Kelly and essentially call her a hypocrite for supporting censorship and cancellation, exactly the kinds of things the American right has been doing.
And we featured that exchange on our show, and I've mentioned Candace Owens and FedEx on several occasions as examples of major conservative voices who are not doing this sort of thing.
Now, We also just put on the show, and obviously this commenter, I think this comment was posted today, didn't know we were going to do that in fairness, but we just had a conservative voice, a conservative pundit and author, Brad Palumbo, a conservative writer and journalist, who
vehemently condemned Ron DeSantis and we had him on our show and I said here's a conservative who is extremely principled on this issue and we interviewed him and gave him the floor and he explained why he thinks what the people on the American right who are calling for censorship are doing is so dangerous.
So we just got done featuring a conservative who is not doing this as a way of saying it's not all the American right and I think I've been extremely careful Extremely careful to say, these are not all the people on the American right, these are some of the people on the American right, because I want this split on the American right to be understood and seen.
I don't want it to seem like everybody on the American right is calling for censorship in part because it's not true, as this commenter correctly points out, but also because I want people on the right to see, and to be on the right doesn't mean you have to call for the censorship of pro-Palestinian speech.
You can support Israel and still support free speech.
I want those people to be examples of what I hope other people will follow.
Now, all that said, I think it's difficult, to put that mildly, to call people like Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Ron DeSantis the wackos who are basically just marginalized people.
Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina for eight years and she's Not a leading presidential candidate, but she's somebody who's in the top tier.
She was also President Trump's ambassador to the United Nations.
Tim Scott is currently a Republican senator from South Carolina, and Ron DeSantis is the governor of Florida.
And in every poll, pretty much, he's either in second place or third place with the VEC.
So I don't think I'm nut picking.
I don't think I'm reaching for obscure figures on the right.
These are representative figures of a part of American conservatism, the part that's neoconservative.
Now maybe I haven't done enough to emphasize this split, but I think I have been very cognizant to do so, because I feel like it's in my interest to do so, meaning the interest of my free speech cause.
So, to the extent that we haven't done that, we put on a conservative tonight, sort of on purpose, to say here's how you can be conservative and still support free speech.
You know, I have to say, though, it has bothered me.
And it's not just these politicians.
I mean, there are pundits and journalists.
I mean, Dave Rubin was one of my examples.
And there have been others who, you know, have been influential.
Barry Weiss.
And you can call them neocons.
I agree that they are.
They're also influential figures on the right who have led the crusade or part of leading their crusade in favor of free speech and against censorship and sort of watch them so flagrantly violate that and become censorship advocates because their allegiance to Israel outweighs their principles has been very disturbing.
It's been surreal.
I find it shocking.
In a way that perhaps makes me naive.
Now other people who aren't neocons like Josh Hawley also said the FBI should investigate people who seem to be pro-Hamas.
So it hasn't just been confined to the neoconservative wing but you know there are people on the right for sure who not only don't support censorship but don't even support Israel or think the United States should mind its own business and say out of that.
So there is a split on the right over these things and I think in fact one of our shows wasn't even entitled like the split on the right if I'm not mistaken.
Somebody can check that.
So I take your point though, and hopefully if we had been insufficient about that tonight, helped rectify it.
Here is a comment from ecrees1, and this is actually left a few days ago.
But I meant to address it on the last time we did Locals and I didn't have time, but this is the comment and the critique as follows.
Quote, you have articulated many valid critiques of members of the pro-Israel community, the sweeping accusations that supporters of Palestine are pro-Hamas, the attempts to cancel and censor critics of Israel, and the dehumanization of Gaza's civilians.
I think you make it seem like the majority of pro-Israel supporters do those things, and I don't think that is accurate.
But the critiques are certainly well taken.
So, again, here, I'm not sure I've ever said, I don't think I've ever said the majority of pro-Israel supporters are accusing everyone of being pro-Hamas or are dehumanizing God and civilians or are censoring, although it's similar to that I don't think I've ever said the majority of pro-Israel supporters are So I'll certainly, you know, take it under advisement that maybe I haven't been clear that it's not all conservatives doing these things, but there's certainly influential ones.
I try very hard never to just find obscure people and make it seem like they're more representative or significant than they are.
I try and combine myself to people who have influential platforms, who are well-known, whose opinions are listened to by a large number of people, and I think there are a lot of influential people guilty of all these things.
Though, again, if I've been not sufficiently attentive to making that distinction clear, I think that's a valid critique.
But then it goes on to escalate the criticism a little.
Quote, "But I think you've been silent "concerning analogous conduct "by members of the pro-Palestinian community, "including people you've had on your show "and plainly admire, "such as Aaron Maté and Michael Tracy and Jimmy Dore, "the sweeping accusations that supporters of Israel "support genocide, "the justifications provided for Hamas's actions "on October 7th, "the justifications provided for Hamas's actions "on October 7th, "and the justification for what happened on October 7th." I know you say no decent or prominent person thinks such conduct is justified, but maybe you haven't been reading Jimmy Doerr's Twitter post.
This conduct is prevalent by non-fringe actors.
You ignore these statements and actions, and I'm asking why.
Every night since your second show following the October 7th Hamas massacre, you have been focused on those themes.
But if you're going to keep leveling these critiques at pro-Israel supporters, Okay.
pointing out the same kind of conduct by pro-Palestinian supporters, then you are effectively communicating that you don't find that conduct problematic when voiced by opponents of Israel's current policies.
And if that's the case, then just say so.
I don't think I'm morally inferior or less educated than Aramate, Michael Traste, or Jimmy Dorr.
I find their smug judgments about supporters of Israel highly offensive.
We are supporters of genocide, not the cleansing, or we are propagandized.
Okay.
When I say that, so let me start off with this.
There was an attempt at the very beginning to essentially equate people who criticized Israel or who even tried to put this Hamas attack into the broader context by pointing out that Israel is to blame.
There was an attempt to equate everybody doing that With people who are pro-Hamas and supportive of Hamas.
And the way that happened was by focusing on extremely obscure and fringe people.
Like some guy at a DSA rally who disgustingly mocked the, quote, hipsters who were taken hostage and said, oh, I'm sure they're doing well.
And then there was a Black Lives Matter chapter that celebrated the paragliding and glorified it and then later apologized.
And there was like an assistant professor Who wasn't even tenured, who said something like, oh, this is what resistance looks like, or this is what decolonialization looks like.
And what I was trying to say was, the reason those kind of people had to be focused on, people whose names nobody knew.
To point out they're celebrating or defending Hamas is because nobody with a platform is actually doing that.
Nobody in Congress did that, including probably Rashida Tlaib and Elian Omar, the most pro-Palestinian voices.
Elian Omar, the first statement she made strongly condemned Hamas, and there's nothing Rashida Tlaib said that justified pro-Hamas either.
And even if they had, they would still be kind of on the fringe of Congress.
But nobody in Congress was pro-Hamas or saying supportive things of Hamas.
No major person with an influential platform at the New York Times or the Washington Post, any of the networks, was saying it.
And no real independent journalists with a major platform were saying that either, that Hamas is justified.
I don't really follow Jimmy Doerr's Twitter stream much.
I don't think he appears much.
He doesn't use Twitter a lot.
I don't think, I'm not familiar with what Jimmy Doerr is saying on Twitter.
I'm more familiar with what Michael says, because we've had him on our show since, and I see his Twitter feed a lot, and Aaron's to a lesser extent.
I don't think they've defended Pro Hamas, but I don't think that's what this comment is suggesting.
I think this comment is suggesting that, especially Jimmy maybe, but I guess Michael and Aaron as well, are suggesting that everybody who supports Israel is a supporter of genocide and ethnic cleansing, doesn't care about Gaza, Or, is propagandized.
And I will acknowledge, I don't think Michael, by the way, is somebody who is guilty of that.
In fact, Michael has been, as usual, very even-handed.
He just, like, plunges forward with the slightest regard to whose side he's on, and he's offered pretty strong condemnations of People who are on the left or who are pro-Palestinian supporters who, in his view, became very excessive in their rhetoric.
He actually covered a march, a pro-Palestinian march, in Manchester in the UK and pointed out, documented, that he interviewed a lot of the people there and a lot of them were, in fact, supportive of Hamas or very hateful toward Israel and all Israelis.
So, I honestly haven't seen that.
I haven't seen these people suggesting that everybody who's supportive of Israel is a supporter of genocide or wants to extinguish all people in Gaza.
And in fact, one of the points I tried making in response to people saying, look, if you support If you're somebody who stands up and calls for the murder of all Israelis, then your speech is too dangerous to permit.
I've showed that there were a few extremists at these pro-Israeli marches who expressed similar thoughts about people in Gaza, namely, wipe out Gaza, flatten Gaza, kill all the people in Gaza, turn it into a parking lot.
And I really don't think that's what the majority of Israelis think.
It is true, though, that the nature and the face of the Israeli government has changed.
When we had on the Knesset member, he was pointing out that a lot of people in the coalition governing party, the governing coalition, the partners of Benjamin Netanyahu are people who explicitly say, we should push out the Gazans out of Gaza.
We should annex the West Bank.
So I don't think it's a fringe position.
But I also don't, I know a lot of people who are supporters of Israel who don't harbor any hatred for Palestinians and who are pained by the fact that Palestinians are dying and who even think the Israelis are being too excessive in their use of force.
So I know in my own personal life that it's not the case that people who are supportive of Israel All believe in genociding the Palestinians, nor do I believe that they're all propagandized.
So that's not something I've said.
That's not something I believe.
And if I saw somebody prominent saying it, you know, I can't promise you that if I saw Aaron Maté saying it, I would think that that would warrant time on my show to condemn.
If it were Ilhan Omar saying that, or Rashida Tlaib saying that, or somebody who I thought was more influential and powerful with a congressional seat, I certainly would, I think.
I would like to think that I would.
But to the extent this is a criticism that I have focused on the flaws or the excesses of Israel supporters while ignoring the flaws and excesses of pro-Palestinian supporters, I think that's a valid critique.
The only defense I'm offering to myself is that I really haven't seen these three people or anybody else I consider influential having done that.
But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.
Maybe they didn't and I just didn't see it.
I really don't think Michael would have.
I can see Jimmy Dore doing that.
I can see Aaron Mate, who I think is very careful usually, but nonetheless very kind of steadfast on the positions he holds very strongly saying things like that as well.
I will actually check.
And if it's the case, maybe I'll even have them on and question them about it.
Because I agree that to generalize about all Israel supporters, either in Israel or the United States, is unwarranted.
So, let me just postpone that criticism and try and look around and see if there are things that merit my critical attention.
Here is Ruby C. Kinglet who says, Do you think Dave Rubin, who I believe is the creator and perhaps majority stockholder in Locals, will continue to allow voices with differing perspectives on Palestine and Israel to receive funding here?
I support you by paying my subscription to your channel through the Locals app.
Dave Rubin has pitched the site repeatedly as a free speech platform and I believe he means it.
In the context of free speech, there always seems to be the caveat of no descending voices regarding Israel.
So, and then, Rubin has in recent days made it very clear that he applauds the censorship of anyone speaking out against the bombing of Gaza.
In fact, we criticized Dave Rubin explicitly on our show.
That was one of the first examples we cited.
of somebody who has built a career defending free speech and opposing cancel culture and when it was announced that the French had imposed a nationwide ban on all pro-Palestinian protesters, Dave Rubin said, oh maybe there's hope for the West after all, meaning the key to saving the West Which he always said was eroding and decaying because of its lack of free speech.
Now we seem to be saying the key to saving the West is to censor and ban pro-Palestinian protests.
I think what he actually means is that these immigrant populations inside Western Europe need to be treated like a menace and an enemy.
And he saw these bans on pro-Palestinian protests finally clamping down on these groups.
And that doesn't make it any better.
In fact, on some level, it makes it worse.
And we were very critical of Dave Rubin for having, and in fact I asked Dave Rubin to come on my show to talk about that.
I didn't want to just criticize him.
I've been on Dave Rubin's show once when I was in Milwaukee to cover the presidential debate.
He had a booth at Locals and I didn't have any booths available to do my show so I went on Dave Rubin's show first with Jordan Peterson and I've Michael Malice yeah, and and then we went live afterwards, so I didn't want to just criticize Dave Rubin on Twitter Which I did or my show which I did without inviting him to come on, but he couldn't come on I guess He cited some family issues, but then it didn't work out.
I guess after that either He's certainly welcome on but no I don't think Dave Rubin Would try I don't first of all I don't want to say things.
I'm not sure of but I My understanding is that Rumble purchased Locals.
So Locals is now part of Rumble and subject to its management structure.
So I don't think Dave Rubin has managerial control over Rumble.
I know the CEO of Rumble, of Locals rather.
Sorry, I don't think he has managerial control over Locals.
I know the CEO of Locals.
I believe he reports to the CEO of Rumble, who's Chris Pawlowski, who would never Ever allow censorship on the Israel-Gaza question or any other question, I believe.
I haven't seen him.
In fact, I've seen him do the opposite.
Stand up to the French government, stand up to the British government when trying to pressure him to censor.
So I trust Chris a lot.
And I've never seen any suggestion or indication that Dave Rubin would either.
Obviously, if that happened, I'd have a gigantic problem with it.
I would not be part of a platform that would start censoring that way, let alone allow my own show to be subject to censorship.
So all I can tell you is I appreciate the concern, and I can promise you that if that happened, I will pound the table as I did when I was at The Intercept.
But I haven't seen that or anything like that or any suggestions that that might happen yet.
Alice everywhere.
I just want to say I love flowers and my favorite color is glen with a lot of nice emojis.
Thank you, that is super nice.
Guest suggestion, Dan Schmattenberger.
I'm not familiar with who that is.
We can definitely take a look.
Alright, last comment.
There are a lot of good ones here.
I'm trying to pick and choose, but we're almost out of time.
We're going to try, I'll even try and go through that Twitter thread and to that local thread and see if I can answer some.
I think it's a good way to interact and provide some additional interaction.
I don't want to promise that.
I'm traveling next week actually.
We have some interviews planned for you by the way, including one with John Mearsheimer, another one we did with...
David Talbott, who's the author of A Devil's Chessboard, and then we have a very special one we're recording tomorrow that I will not preview for you so it can be a surprise and I want to make sure we do it before I announce it.
So I don't want to promise that, because I am traveling throughout the week, but we're going to have shows, if not every night, almost every night, because of the ones we've taped, and I'll probably do at least one from the road, but I'll try and answer.
But here's the last one.
I have been appalled at the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict given by U.S.
mainstream media.
This morning, Al Jazeera's English listening post explained just how bad the censorship really is.
The 26-minute video can be found here.
The listening post, by the way, Which is part of Al Jazeera English is excellent.
I've been interviewed on that show before.
They do deep dive 20 to 25 minute documentaries about issues.
They're extremely careful with the facts, but they're very in-depth as well.
And then it says, here's one example of censorship, which was how these three prominent MSNBC hosts, Mehdi Hassan, Ayman Molodin, and Ali Vleshi have their shows taken off the air.
I think that was a little cloudy because none of them ever Spoke publicly about that report.
They didn't deny it, but they didn't object either.
But I do think their shows, the ones they host, weren't aired, even though they themselves are part of panels.
And I think that their shows are now back on.
But there's no doubt that this censorship is exactly like what happened in the wake of 9-11 and then George Floyd.
And on some level, I find it even more pernicious because you're seeing now not just proposals, but in the case of Governor DeSantis, an actual use of his state power, He closed, he shut down a Palestinian group, a pro-Palestinian group on campus.
That is insane!
And you have a lot of calls for censorship and everyone is petrified politically of looking like they support Hamas and so nobody wants to Even dissent on any level who has any political power, with a few exceptions.
And I really do actually worry about that.
I notice here, it's true, there's people who still ask about this podcast that I did with Ben Mora, I guess, more than a year ago now.
It was called Glenn and Ben's After Hours.
It was sort of like a dark version of a podcast because it was much more informal.
Ben Morris, this hilarious gay former Sanders campaign aide who got fired because as a campaign organizer for Bernie Sanders because he got caught or the Daily Beast outed him as having maintained a secret private Twitter account just for his friends where he said incredibly
Bitter and insulting things about Hillary Clinton and Liz Warren and Pete Buttigieg that were hilarious in this very kind of like campy, aggressive, bitter, snide, gay, humorous way.
But it's obviously not something a campaign could be associated with.
Some scumbag at the Daily Beast thought that even though he was a low-level campaign manager, he should be outed.
He got fired.
And he and I did this podcast about four or five episodes and it was a little strange.
The dynamic was difficult.
We had chemistry.
We used to talk on the phone.
For an hour and that's when I said, look, these are conversations are hilarious.
I really enjoyed them.
Let's bring them to podcast.
I think the glare of the light made the chemistry a little bit more difficult.
So we were struggling to figure out how to make it work.
It started working and then he decided he was a little bit too.
It was just too stressful for him because there was so much negative feedback from his friends for doing a podcast with me.
as well as just the pressure of knowing that everything he was saying was going to be heard by a lot of people.
People still ask about it.
It's kind of like it had a cult following.
I think the episodes are still up on Substack.
Oh, good.
The person to whom I responded, Ecries, just said, I tried posting this, but I don't see it, so I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful response.
It means a lot to me that you did because I'm such a big fan.
I don't have to agree with you on everything and it's probably best that I don't.
I'm just happy you responded in a thoughtful way.
I honestly feel the same way.
I'm thrilled, genuinely.
Obviously, we get a lot of praise and a lot of compliments for our work from our viewers, and I'm obviously very gratified by that.
But I'm also very happy when we get thoughtful, good faith critiques, even if they're spirited.
Because I want to have an audience that still watches, that still respects the work I do, even knowing that sometimes we're going to disagree.
And I don't think everything I do is perfect and everything I say is perfect.
I don't get defensive or I try not to when especially viewers and subscribers in good faith say, I think this is wrong what you're doing.
So I'm glad to hear that comment.
And I feel the same way.
I appreciate your thoughtful critique.
It's very valuable for me.
I consider the show kind of a form of journalistic accountability.
That's what I've always said.
When I started writing about politics and doing journalism, One of the most valuable asks that I had was the comment section to my blog where I would spend a lot of time.
I would post my article and then an hour later I would go into the comment section.
You know, supporters, readers who would say, oh, I think you made a mistake here.
Oh, this argument doesn't really have as much logical validity as you think, or there's an evidentiary hole in what you're saying, or this article that you cited doesn't really support.
And a lot of times they were right.
It strengthened my work as a journalist.
It made me more careful.
It made me more rigorous.
A lot of times I corrected it, so I learned very early on not to get defensive about criticisms, but to see them as an asset and a value.
Obviously, bad faith ones, ones that just tell you that you suck, aren't very valuable.
But the ones that take the time to try and express their critique based in good faith for what you're doing, there's few things more valuable.
All right, so we're going to call it a night.
I-- We are very appreciative of the comments people leave for that reason.
I consider this a really important part of what we do here.
So, thank you so much, in the most sincere way possible, for supporting our community, for participating in it, and we hope to see you back tomorrow night at 7pm.
We're going to have shows Most of next week if not all of next week despite the fact that I'm traveling and we'll be back tomorrow night at 7 p.m.
Eastern.
Obviously next week we won't have local shows because I'll be traveling but then we'll be back at our normal time Tuesday and Thursday the week following.
