Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, there's quite an uproar taking place at both NBC News and MSNBC.
Apparently, they are convinced that they are some sort of real news network, and as a result, many of their on-screen personalities are expressing serious rage and offense Over the hiring by NBC of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who is better known as the niece of Mitt Romney.
According to these giants of journalism, people such as Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough, the mere presence of someone on their airwaves who was even linked to Donald Trump Who happens to be the person leading all polls to be elected as President of the United States in 2024, would sully this network's reputation for objective and high-minded news.
Worse, they say, it would infuriate their liberal viewers who are very unaccustomed to hearing any dissent from the Democratic Party and would feel deeply uncomfortable if they were exposed to any views that made them feel like they weren't being agreed with.
Now, this is the same august news outlet that is the one that currently employs former Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Nicole Wallace, former CIA director John Brennan.
Joy Reid has a 7:00 PM show show every night on MSNBC, even though she got fabricating an elaborate lie about a time-traveling hacker who she said went back into time and authored all the bigoted blog posts that were under her name, as well as so many former agents and operatives of the U.S.
security state that more than one might even find in a Proud Boy rally or at some Civil War somewhere in the Middle East.
Now, this reaction to hiring a quite banal RNC chair, somebody who actually is so kind of conventional that she's hated by a mother world, reveals a great deal about how employees of the largest media outlets, such as NBC, see their actual function.
And for that reason, we think it's worth taking a look at.
Kara Swisher has become a very wealthy woman, posturing as the mean and no-nonsense watchdog over Silicon Valley.
She has a new book topping the New York Times bestseller list that purports to expose the secret abuses and corruption of the leaders of this tech culture.
And yet, at the very same time that she brands herself as the scourge of Silicon Valley power brokers, the leading cheerleaders for Kara Swisher generally, and for her new book in particular, are and always have been The very leaders of the industry she claims to subject to such harsh and unrelenting and critical journalistic scrutiny.
If you're a journalist that purports to adversarially report on a leading power center, whether it be Silicon Valley, the military-industrial complex, Congress, or Wall Street, and the leading power brokers of those sectors love and applaud and praise and help market you, That is a very good sign that what you're really doing is subservient propaganda that advances their interests, not independent journalism that undermines it.
And that is certainly the case for Kara Swisher, who provides a very vivid window into the role that celebrity journalists like her play as they're promoted by the very people they claim to expose.
And then finally, The neuroscientist Andrew Huberman has become a major force in independent media, someone who has managed to find a very large and devoted audience without relying on large media corporations at all.
He has a podcast that is listened to by millions of people, an audience that he built by himself over time.
Now, there is nothing And I mean nothing that corporate media hates more than that.
Somebody who succeeds without having to rely on their rotted structure.
And so this week they set out to destroy him as they do to everyone who finds success without relying on their corporate structures.
One of the countless failing liberal digital outlets, New York Magazine, has a cover story this week with his face on it that purports to expose dirty and shameful secrets about Huberman's dating life yet having read it there is not a single fact that was even worth reporting that was even of journalistic value let alone that one's brings shame or disrepute to him.
So often these people demand that the public cry and express sympathy as their journalistic industry dies around them and they are laid off by the dozens and yet so often They engage in behavior that makes their failures so well deserved and feelings of sympathy as we watch them lose their jobs almost impossible as their industry deservedly sinks and they drown along with it.
Before we get to all of that, a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on both your smart TV and your telephone, and it also means that you can follow the shows you most like to watch on Rumble, which of course includes System Update first and foremost, but probably a lot of other shows As well, then if you activate your notifications, it means that the minute any of those shows begin broadcasting live on Rumble, you'll be immediately notified by text, by email, however you wish.
So you don't have to wait around in order to wait for when those shows get started.
You don't have to try and remember which shows start when.
You just get automatically notified.
You can click on the link the second they start actually broadcasting.
It really helps you keep track of when these shows Our broadcast, it helps the live audience number for Rumble, and that really, in turn, helps the free speech mission of this platform as well.
As another reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every one of our episodes 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all of their major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
And finally, as a reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, We moved to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive After Show that's designed to take your questions, respond to your feedback, hear your suggestions for future shows.
That After Show is available only to members of our Locals community.
If you want to become a member of Locals, Which gives you access not only to those twice a week after shows, but also to the multiple interactive features that we have there, to the daily transcripts that we publish every night of our shows here.
We publish transcripts there.
It's the place we first publish our original written journalism, and it's the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to the Locals community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Lorde Media corporations are among the most significant and influential in the United States, even though their audience is, as we've demonstrated many times before, rapidly and deservedly as we've demonstrated many times before, rapidly and deservedly dying.
And so there's a lot going on in the world that obviously merits a lot of attention, things that we're going to cover throughout the week, including the ongoing war in Israel and Gaza, the decision by the United States today to abstain from a UN resolution.
The United States is already calling on binding to call for a ceasefire in Israel.
The ongoing investigation of the terrorist attack in Russia that Vladimir Putin and the Russians are increasingly implying was in some way linked to Ukraine, but we don't have any evidence of that yet.
The fact that Mike Johnson, the current House GOP speaker, is vowing that he will get the $60 billion for Ukraine that Joe Biden has asked for.
There's a lot going on, but certainly media corporations merit a great deal of attention given how much of a role they play in all of our political And there are several stories tonight that illustrate very similar themes of media corruption and yet are also really quite different in terms of how they're playing out.
And so we think it's really worth delving into these stories because they provide such a clear and such a vivid understanding of the true role of media corporations in the United States.
So right now there is this remarkable and borderline hilarious scandal that is taking place inside of NBC and MSNBC.
As a result, the decision of NBC News to hire Ronna McDaniel, who until a few months ago, a couple of months ago, was the chairwoman of the Republican National Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with her, she is Mitt Romney's niece.
That's obviously how she got her in into politics.
Like so many people in the United States who are in various positions of influence and power in Washington, she got her start because one of her family members, Mitt Romney, has obvious political influence in the Republican Party.
He was the party's presidential nominee in 2012 and now his niece.
At least until recently, was the chair of the party.
She's a very conventional figure.
In fact, so conventional that the base of the party really disliked her and actually is the reason she ended up being driven out.
Trump supporters didn't trust her.
Donald Trump didn't trust her.
And ultimately, she did quite a poor job in leading the party.
And MSNBC, or in particular NBC, still has to pretend, given that it's a network, That there's something other than a Democratic Party activist group.
They, unlike MSNBC, still have to pretend that they're a real news organization.
And in order to be that, they can't just go around hiring Democratic Party operatives or only Republicans who agree to spend all their time attacking Donald Trump as a condition for getting on air.
Occasionally, they have to give some airtime to somebody who at least minimally represents The views of 50% of the country, or at least the voting public, would say that they intend to vote for Donald Trump for president.
You have this bizarre imbalance where outside of Fox, every major media corporation employs huge numbers of people to write op-eds on their op-ed pages, to speak on their television networks and their cable news networks.
All of them, with very few exceptions, almost none, reject the political views and the political ideology of 50% of the country, meaning they hate Donald Trump, they think his movement is an insurrectionary movement, is a criminal movement.
And so you have this gigantic imbalance in the views of the American people on the one hand, in the perspectives that the largest media corporations on the other offer.
And this was a very minimal attempt to try and recalibrate, to try and offer a tiny little bit of balance by finding one of the meekest and most malleable and least ideologically fervent Republican figures in Rod and McDaniel to become a voice of NBC News that occasionally appears on NBC programming.
And you would have thought, based on how MSNBC and NBC personalities are reacting, that they announced that they had hired Adolf Hitler.
And in fact, this is how the liberal wing of the corporate media, which is most of the corporate media, does in fact view anyone remotely linked with the Trump movement as basically a Nazi.
The only thing that's untouchable, you can have, as these outlets do, a mountain of Proven liars, operatives of the U.S.
security state, former heads of the CIA and the FBI and the NSA, people who have engineered coups and started wars based on lies.
And those people are all fine.
The only thing you can't have is a Republican who has not taken a sacred oath to devote themselves to hating Donald Trump.
That's the only thing that you can do that will provoke their anger.
Here, over the weekend, Chuck Todd, one of the biggest jokes in all of media, One of the most empty-headed and ridiculous people.
What has Chuck Todd ever said that's interesting?
What story has he ever broken?
What has he ever done other than mouth the most banal and conventional wisdom?
He clearly considers himself a sort of dean of television journalism, a kind of giant of American reporting, and he decided over the weekend to raise his voice.
About the way in which the hiring of Ronald McDaniel is going to corrupt the integrity of NBC, the sacred honesty for which NBC is so well known amongst a tiny portion of the American public, mostly Chuck Todd and his friends.
Here's what he said on Meet the Press.
Dive right in.
What were your takeaways?
Look, let me deal with the elephant in the room.
Yeah.
I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe.
She is now a paid contributor by NBC News.
So, this is Chuck Todd's successor at Meet the Press.
I believe her name is, is it Kirsten Walker?
Something like that.
Nobody watches these shows except for people in Washington, so they do still exert influence within people in Washington.
I think I spent We devoted a show last week talking about the interview that was done with Elon Musk by the former CNN host Don Lemon.
And I spent 40 minutes talking about it, and I think I called him Don Lamond about 35 times, and a lot of people in the chat thought that I was doing this on purpose to mock his name.
Actually, I think it was me gratitude.
I kind of took his name, which is a yellow fruit, and I made it a little bit more continental and elegant and chic by calling him Don Lamond.
But I actually wasn't doing it on purpose.
I never watch that show.
I've never sat down and said, "You know what, I wanna watch Don Lemon's show on CNN." So I don't, I've never heard him start a show.
I've never heard him say, "Hello, good evening, I'm Don Lemon." So I thought his name was Don Lamon.
I've seen clips of his show.
I don't think I've ever talked about him.
So I really didn't do it on purpose.
I thought that was his name.
And then after the show, we had a little debate and I turned on his YouTube channel, his new YouTube channel and clicked play And he said, Hi, good evening.
I'm Don Lemon.
And that's how I knew.
So I mean, I'm somebody who works in journalism and has for 20 years.
I work on in politics.
I do reporting on politics, and I never watch these shows.
These shows are watched almost entirely by 75-year-old partisans or older, and there's nothing wrong with being 75 or older.
We're all going to be that hopefully one day.
But those are the people who almost exclusively watch these programs and people in Washington, and that's pretty much it.
But because they do exert influence in the Washington agenda, they still weren't Commentary and NBC News itself is a giant media corporation.
It's a television network.
It has massive online presence.
So while it's true and we should celebrate that their audience is shrinking rapidly because of independent media and largely because of the internet, it's still important not to minimize their influence.
And so he's apologizing To his successor, the host of NBC News, because she was put in the position of having to interview Ronna McDaniel, until recently the Republican National Committee chair, and somehow that put her in a difficult position, even though NBC, the same network, hired the press secretary of Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, and negotiated that contract while she was the press secretary.
And Kirsten Walker, I believe that's her name, and all these people have to constantly talk to Jen Psaki.
They hire, and have hired, Michael Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman, who they like because he constantly bashes Republicans, Donald Trump, there you see, from Axios, when Jen Psaki was still the White House Press Secretary.
Everybody knew that she was leaving and had an MSNBC contract.
There you see on the screen Scoop Jen Psaki planning to leave the White House this spring for MSNBC gigs.
So MSNBC was simultaneously covering the Biden White House while they were negotiating with the press secretary without disclosing that to come and work for that network.
This is a network that's drowning in all kinds of conflicts and ethical scandals like that.
And obviously Chuck Todd never said, I think our bosses owe anyone an apology for having done that.
It's only when they hired somebody now who has some kind of link to Donald Trump.
She was the RNC chair.
And even in the first interview she did, she basically already distanced herself from Donald Trump, knowing that that is a prerequisite to surviving at MSNBC and to having a media career.
She basically apologized for having defended him in certain instances, saying, look, I was just kind of taking the bullet for the team.
That was my job as RNC chair.
There's a lot that he says that I don't agree with him.
She was asked whether she agrees with certain things that he said that he didn't even say.
And instead of saying that's not what he said, she immediately started saying, look, I was only pretending that because I was the RNC chair.
I didn't really believe it.
That was my job.
She's already becoming Michael Steele.
But look at the scandal they're creating over the mere fact that they have to be anywhere near somebody who is associated with the Trump movement.
It would be one thing if Donald Trump and his entire movement were in prison and we were de-Trumpifying the way Germany did after World War II and de-Nazified.
Donald Trump, whether they like it or not, is the leading candidate for president in the United States in 2024.
And NBC, which claims to be a news outlet, is explicitly apologizing because they hired somebody minimally associated With that campaign, even though they're surrounded by people who came right from the Democratic National Committee in the Biden White House, they see no contradiction in that at all.
Look, let me deal with the elephant in the room.
I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe.
She is now a paid contributor by NBC News.
I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to mess up her contract.
She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for her.
So she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with.
Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who's paying her?
Once at the RNC, she did say that.
Hey, I'm speaking for the party.
I get that.
That's part of the job.
So what about here?
I will say this.
How is that not the same for so many of the people that they have employed on their staff?
They have on their staff a former Joe Biden and Kamala Harris aide named Simone Sanders.
She has her own show on MSNBC on the weekend.
She came right working from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and then got put in MSNBC.
Jen Psaki went as the official spokesperson for the Biden White House, whose job was to lie, if necessary, to defend Joe Biden to having a show on MSNBC and constantly being on MSNBC, including Meet the Press.
They have the former head of the CIA, John Brennan, and a former senior FBI official, the former associate director, Frank Fugluzzi, who's on their airway all the time.
These are trained liars of the U.S.
security state.
And you would never see Chuck Todd ask this question, well, how do we know whether because before they said they were speaking on behalf of the Biden White House or the DNC or the CIA or the FBI?
What you're seeing here is the liberal ethos that I think is so important to understand.
The reason Democrats never objected to the hiring of, obviously, Democratic Party spokespeople, but even The heads of the CIA, the head of the FBI, the head of the NSA, all kinds of former Pentagon officials, it's because they don't regard those U.S.
security state agencies as menacing or dishonest.
They regard those as their benevolent allies.
Of course they see nothing wrong with hiring the CIA director.
They consider that person a benign ally.
The CIA is who spread Russiagate.
The FBI is who spread Russiagate.
Tried to put Donald Trump in prison.
They love those agencies.
There's only one entity, one institution in the eyes of news corporations that are bridged too far, and that is people who are associated with the Trump-led Republican Party.
That's it.
That's the only prism through which they understand the world.
You can put neocons on NBC, and they do constantly, who lied the country into war, who defended torture and kidnapping people off the streets of Europe and sent them to Syria and Egypt to be tortured.
As Nicole Wallace, the former Bush-Cheney White House spokesperson did, who has a show on MSNBC and is constantly on MSNBC, there is no bridge too far for liberal viewers of NBC and MSNBC News, and for their personalities, except for the Republican Party.
I think your interview did a good job of exposing, I think, many of the contradictions.
And look, there's a reason why there's a lot of journalists at NBC who's uncomfortable with this.
Many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination.
So it is, you know, that's where you begin here.
And so when NBC made the decision to give her Look at his title!
Now, it would be one thing if this were just nighttime opinion hosts on MSNBC.
This were like Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes or Joy Reid or Lawrence O'Donnell.
Everybody knows they're just liberal opinion hosts.
Of course they love the Democratic Party.
Just like Sean Hannity loves the Republican Party.
Talks to Donald Trump all the time, off the air.
These are opinionos.
Chuck Todd is the NBC News Chief Political Analyst.
If any job claims to be apolitical, it's this one.
And yet here he is saying that we believe the Republican Party should not be spoken to, the Republican Party cannot be trusted, the Republican Party cannot be associated with, the Democratic Party tells the truth.
The Democratic Party is our partners in the media.
This is such a moment of candor.
He's not saying we shouldn't be hiring the chiefs of the political parties to come and work for our news outlets.
That would actually be a reasonable point to make.
We shouldn't be hiring Joe Biden's press secretary to come and work here and then suddenly pretend she's some sort of news reporter.
But he's not saying that.
He's saying the problem is that We shouldn't be hiring Republicans, because they're the only ones in Washington who lie.
The CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Pentagon, the Democratic Party, all those institutions, open the doors and let them all come in, as they do.
The newsrooms are full with them.
The decision to give her NBC News's credibility, you gotta ask yourself, what does she bring NBC News?
Every poll shows that there are few institutions held in lower esteem than large media corporations like NBC.
The public despises these people, despises them.
They don't have any credibility in the eyes of the American people.
Axios reported at the end of 2023, which has shown you many times, that something like 12% of the American public trusts the American media, American television news and newspapers in particular, and believes overwhelmingly that they lie on purpose for political ends.
But in their world, they still do have credibility.
They're unaware of how much the country hates them, or they pretend it's not true.
So he's concerned that Ronald McDaniel is now going to be bequeathed With the sterling credibility that Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell have.
People who have spent the last seven years spreading the most insane conspiracy theories that Russia is on the verge of cutting off our heat during the winter.
In that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to hack into the DNC emails and that Hunter Biden's laptop documents were Russian disinformation.
Lie after lie after lie after lie.
He still believes NBC News has some kind of credibility that Ronna McDaniel is now going to contaminate these people who live in a dream world where they're respected and beloved and trusted by the public.
Make deals like this, and I've been at this company a long time.
You're doing it for access.
Access to audience.
Sometimes it's access to an individual.
And we can have a journalistic ethics debate about that.
I'm willing to have that debate.
And if you told me we were hiring her as a technical advisor to the Republican convention, I think that would be certainly defensible.
If you told me We're talking to her, but let's see how she does in some interviews, and maybe vet her with actual journalists inside the network, see if it's a two-way, what she can bring to the network.
So I do think, unfortunately, this interview is always going to be looked through the prism of, who is she speaking for?
Right?
I think you did everything you could do.
You got put into an impossible situation, booking this interview, and then all of a sudden the rugs pull out from under you, you find actually being paid to show up?
I mean, these people are such jokes.
The gap between how they perceive themselves and the reality of who they are and how the country perceives them could not be any wider.
that bolster that editorial independence. - Well, I appreciate that. - I mean, these people are such jokes.
The gap between how they perceive themselves and the reality of who they are and how the country perceives them could not be any wider.
Here are the giants of American journalism, Joe Scarborough and Zygmunt Brzezinski's daughter.
Zygmunt Brzezinski, you might recall, was the national security advisor for Jimmy Carter and a top national security official in the United States.
His daughter, just like Mitt Romney's niece, was Someone who had a hat paid for her.
She's now somebody who believes she's an important journalist.
Joe Scarborough was a right-wing Republican congressman, a supporter of the Iraq War.
These two probably did more than anybody to help elect Donald Trump in all of media.
They put him on the show all the time.
They went down to Mar-a-Lago in 2016.
They were very good friends with Donald Trump.
Here they are talking about how deeply harmful it is to the integrity of MSNBC Which even Bill Clinton mocks as MSDNC, an outlet of the Democratic Party, because now Ronald McDaniel is there.
Well, let's talk about the hiring of former RNC Chair, Ronna McDaniel.
Well, she was on Sunday's Meet the Press.
It was her first appearance since NBC News hired her as a political analyst.
I know you won't be surprised to know that we've been inundated with calls this weekend, as have most people connected with this network, about NBC's decision to hire her.
We learned about the hiring when we read about it in the press on Friday.
We weren't asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons, including, but not limited to, as lawyers might say, Ms.
McDaniel's role in Donald Trump's fake elector scheme and her pressuring election officials to not certify election results while Donald Trump was on the phone.
To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage.
But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier.
And we hope NBC will reconsider its decision.
It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on Morning Joe in her capacity as a Okay, so what they are saying is the line for them is basically anybody who in any way supported Donald Trump in his questioning of the 2020 election.
Now, why is that a worse lie than having a network filled with people including Joe Scarborough and so many others who lied the country into the war in Iraq, who told Americans that Saddam Hussein had massive destructions that led to the deaths of thousands of American citizens, over a million Iraqis, a destruction of the Middle East that led to the emergence of ISIS.
Look at how many lies just one of their hosts, Nicole Wallace, who used to be George Bush and Dick Cheney's White House spokesperson at the time when liberals were calling Bush and Cheney Nazis.
Why is she not a bridge too far?
Here are the tsunami of lies that she is responsible for.
On MSNBC, just listen to watch some of these.
This is a video that was put together for me by the videographer Matt Orfella back in 2021.
It was watched close to a million and a half times on Rumble Alone, and let's take a look at that.
We're talking about exterminating Latinos.
100% pants on fire.
The Havana Syndrome.
Headaches and a loud noise.
Clearly acts of aggression, acts of war.
Scientists say the sounds were crickets.
The Havana Syndrome.
Our enemies might be weaponizing technology, beaming something to hurt people's brains.
The claims are scientifically implausible.
Donald Trump to now investigate a conspiracy theory about COVID coming from a lab in Wuhan.
This theory needs to be investigated, which is what President Biden is doing.
Hunter Biden's laptop reveals emails.
We shouldn't look at it as any The Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine.
The murder of a police officer.
Officer Brian Sicknick was killed in the line of duty.
They beat a Capitol Police officer to death.
Officer Sicknick died of natural causes.
The Steele dossier.
It may be dirty, but it ain't fake.
Obviously the SEAL dossier is discredited by far, actually.
I mean, this is the lunatic response to what is a very rational, evidence-based, fact-based investigation.
FBI pleads guilty to doctoring email.
What the report shows is something that won't be surprising to people that have spent a lot of time in the federal government.
The report left former officials aghast.
The FBI is exonerated today.
It doesn't vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this.
They are all absolved of any wrongdoing.
The activities we found here don't indicate anybody.
The Trump administration cleared peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters so the president could take a photo in front of a church.
We did not find evidence that federal agents used CS gas.
The DC police used the CS gas.
Protesters were gassed to clear the way for Trump's photo op.
Demonstrators were pushed out to allow contractors to build a fence, a response to damage done during the two previous nights of rioting.
Russians offered a bounty for the killing of U.S.
soldiers.
U.S.
intel walks back claim Russians put bounties on American troops.
This mountain of evidence that we now have of bounties that Russia paid.
The Biden White House acknowledged.
There was little evidence.
January 6th committee's investigation into a 7-hour, 37-minute gap.
Possible cover-up in the records of calls and it is no coincidence.
The call logs are complete with no missing pages.
The gap is explained by use of White House landlines and cell phones.
These are the facts.
Let that sink in.
I mean, and that is a tiny little fraction.
As I said, that's like a two-minute teaser of what ended up being about a 22-minute video of just one person who works every day at MSNBC.
And again, the fact that the White House spokesperson, the spokesperson for the official Bush-Cheney re-election campaign of 2024, 2004, who hasn't changed her views about anything is acceptable, says all you need to know about the prevailing ethos of this network and about the liberal wing of the American media.
Here in February of 2018 is an announcement.
Ex-CIA chief John Brennan signs on as MSNBC, NBC commentator.
So it's absolutely fine to have the former director of the CIA.
Somebody who, when he was the CIA director, got caught spying on the Senate in its investigation of the CIA's torture program, and then lied about it and denied it, only to then have to admit it because he was lying.
Somebody who's a trained liar and operative of the U.S.
security state.
He can work at NBC News.
There's no melodramatic hand-wringing about the effect on the journalistic integrity of MSNBC as a result of this.
They currently have as a nightly host this person, Joy Reid, whose very bigoted blog posts, viciously bigoted toward gay men and lesbian and LGBTs in general from 2006 to 2010 were discovered.
And the fact that she was writing posts about the LGBT population just a decade ago that would get anybody else completely destroyed in terms of their reputation if they were found to have said it, It's not even really an issue.
I mean, people can change.
She apologized for it.
She renounced those views.
She said she didn't have them anymore.
Obviously, if you didn't have the politics of Joy Reid and you wrote those things, you could apologize all you want.
It wouldn't matter.
The issue, though, is not that she wrote bigoted blog posts 10 years ago.
It's that when they were discovered, she went on the air on MSNBC and she denied authorship of them, of some of them.
She claimed that she thinks there was a hacker who went back into time and wrote a lot of the worst blog posts saying that this was not her who wrote it.
She even claimed that her lawyer had alerted the FBI to this hacker and to try and find this hacker and nobody, not even CNN or other media outlets, believed it or even thought it was plausible.
Everybody knew it was an outright lie.
And not only was she not fired from MSNBC, she was promoted after that.
So you see they have this tsunami of liars and partisan operatives and scumbags.
Actually, people who led the FBI and the CIA, who work for NBC News, who deliver the news for NBC News, it doesn't bother anybody.
That's because those kinds of lies are not considered ignoble.
Those kinds of institutions are not considered sinister.
The only thing you can do in the eyes of establishment American liberalism and establishment corporate media that makes you untouchable is in any way associate yourself with a political movement supported by at least half the country, which is
The Trump movement and the fact that Americans know this, that these media outlets are almost entirely partisan, that have almost no relationship to anything that's remotely journalistic or newsworthy, is the reason why they're held in such contempt.
It's the reason why Americans have, quite rightfully, decided that they deserve no faith or trust at all.
And to watch them go through this ritual Where their non-existent credibility is being dirtied and contaminated is really at this point kind of humorous because thankfully most Americans have come to see what they really are.
Now, speaking of somebody whose branding and self-image could not be any further apart than the reality of what she really is, we have this person named Kara Swisher, who has become quite a well-known journalist And she is somebody who has been covering Silicon Valley for a long time and she parlayed that into a lot of wealth.
She created events that people paid a lot of money to go and watch.
She has been now published and working for many, many major mainstream news outlets including the New York Times.
She has a New book out, a new book on Silicon Valley, and her branding is that she's one of these tough journalists.
She's no-nonsense.
She holds powerful people to account.
She doesn't care how rich you are, how powerful you are within Silicon Valley.
She's going to ask you the hard questions.
That's how she's branded herself, and that's how people in Silicon Valley talk about her.
Now, what's so odd about this is that the people who love Kara Swisher the most, who are promoting Kara Swisher, who are promoting Kara Swisher's book, Are the very tycoons in Silicon Valley who she pretends to be so adverse to, who she pretends to put the fear into, see such a scourge of these people, and yet they all...
Couldn't heap enough praise on her.
They want to promote her work so much.
Isn't that kind of odd?
Imagine if you were actually exposing the secrets of the CIA and the FBI or Wall Street or any other power center.
Do you think they would be promoting your show?
Promoting your book?
Promoting your work?
Applauding you?
Cheering you?
Heaping praise on you?
Or do you think they would be treating you like the way the CIA treats Julian Assange for having exposed their crimes?
Don Lemon, Don Lemon, not Don Lamond, Don Lemon, the former CNN host, he was fired for making misogynistic comments, among many other things, as well as having a show that nobody watched.
Now as his own independent show, it was going to be on X, but now I guess it's just on YouTube.
He had Kara Swisher on his show to promote his book, her book, but also to talk about his interview with Elon Musk.
And this is what the two of them decided was the takeaway from the fact that Elon Musk walked away from the interview with Don Lamont and decided to fire Don Lamont from X.
And people have been asking me what I meant by when I said he did not like answering questions or being held to account from people like me.
And so some people took it to mean a racial thing.
I meant someone who has a different worldview.
But since people raised And you said what you said.
Do you think that he was uncomfortable?
I didn't want to go there Do you think he was uncomfortable sitting in front of a gay black guy?
Oh Look, look, I didn't want to go there.
I personally don't like to bring this sort of thing up.
I Don Lemon Was merely saying, when I said, oh, people, Elon Musk doesn't like to get hard questions from people like me.
And by the way, if you go and watch the interview, hard questions, every single question that was asked of Elon Musk was completely predictable.
They were all just the exact questions that would come out of the mouths of every liberal journalist at MSNBC and NBC and CNN about, to Elon Musk.
The idea that he asked hard questions is such self-glorifying praise, but do you hear what Don Lemon is saying?
Like when I said Elon Musk doesn't like to have hard questions asked by somebody like me, he's like, I didn't want to go there, but other people have said The reason he ended up firing me is because I'm a gay black man, and he doesn't like to take hard questions from... I'm not saying that.
I would never say that.
I don't like bringing that up.
But other people have brought it up, so I'm going to now bring it up.
And what do you think, Kara Swisher?
Is that the reason why Elon Musk felt uncomfortable in hearing what she said?
Probably more gay than black, I would think.
I hate to say that, but I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't think he likes control beyond himself.
And so it doesn't matter who's exerting it.
I don't think he much likes Joe Biden either.
So what was that?
I guess they started off by saying, yeah, because you're gay and black.
And then she said, really, because more because you're gay.
And then they both realized there's absolutely no basis whatsoever for saying any of that.
So they concluded by saying, you know what, it probably didn't matter at all.
This is so reflexive.
Now, Don Lemon just got paid $24 million by CNN.
After he was fired by CNN, he went into arbitration.
CNN agreed to pay him the $24 million remaining on his contract.
Paris Swisher is somebody who has been promoted by the richest people in Silicon Valley for years, and you listen to each other.
And they basically see themselves as these icons of marginalization and victimhood and they want you to hear about all their struggles, the difficulties they have in journalism being gay in the case of Kara Swisher and Don Lemon and being gay and black in the case of Don Lamont.
These people who want you to feel so sorry for them.
Now, here is One of the people who is arguably the most powerful and influential people currently in Silicon Valley, Sam Altman.
He is the founder and the CEO of ChatGPT and is now in partnership with Microsoft.
He is also a very early and heavy funder in Reddit, which just had a very successful IPO.
He's worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, if not a billionaire.
And he's in charge of the leading company that is ahead in artificial intelligence.
He's exactly the kind of Power broker that Kara Swisher goes around presenting herself as putting such fear into the hearts of these people because she's so tough and Yet here she is the two of them are sitting together promoting her book.
They're giggling together.
They're smiling together and Here you see Mary Jordan reporting Sam Alton interviewing Kara Swisher tonight in a packed San Francisco theater No wonder her new burn book shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list days after it's released.
Line out the door.
AI, Elon, what's next?
Great night.
Now, imagine, let's say, if Seymour Hersh had a book, and the head of the CIA said, oh, I would like to have a book event with Seymour Hersh, and I would like to promote Seymour Hersh's book.
Obviously, this would never happen.
The reason is because Seymour Hersh has actually spent his life being a scourge for the CIA, exposing their crimes, debunking their lies, exposing the secrets that they want hidden.
The CIA would sooner put Seymour Hersh into prison alongside Julian Assange than they would host a book event with him.
If Kara Swisher is such an intrepid and fearless and relentless journalistic exposer of the tycoons of Silicon Valley, why is it that they're so interested in applauding her and praising her and promoting her?
Doesn't that raise some questions about what her actual function in Silicon Valley is?
Sam Altman wasn't the only Silicon Valley billionaire who decided to sit with Kara Swisher and giggle with her and chat with her and promote her book.
So too did Steve Jobs' billionaire widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, who is also the owner of the Atlantic magazine, Ground Zero for Russiagate, it's run by Jeffrey Goldberg, probably the single most lie-drenched and blood-stained journalist in all of American journalism.
Did more than anybody to sell the lie that Saddam Hussein personally participated in the 9-11 attack through his alliance with Al-Qaeda when he was at the New Yorker.
And here you see her with Laurene Powell Jobs and Kara Swisher, and I watched a good amount of this, and Laurene Powell Jobs just kept saying what a wonderful person Kara Swisher is, how great her book is.
And obviously, Laurene Powell Jobs' billions rest in Silicon Valley.
Her husband is a major part of this book.
Kara Swisher heaps all kinds of praise on Apple, on whose wealth Laurene Powell Jobs' billions obviously depend.
This sounds and looks a lot more to me like an industry propagandist and spokesperson than it does some aggressive, scary thorn in the side of their power.
I mean, I once debated, during the Snowden reporting, the former head of the NSA, General Michael Hayden, who was the head of the CIA and the NSA under George Bush and Dick Cheney, and As one would expect, and as I hoped, he went out into the media and said the worst things he could possibly think about concerning me.
And then when he wrote a book, he actually said that when he debated me, it was like looking the devil in the eyes.
That's the kind of thing that people say about you if you're actually reporting on them.
Adversarily, they don't sit on a stage with you and giggle with you and tell you how great you are and encourage people to go buy your book.
If you're actually reporting in an aggressive and adversarial and subversive way on the power of their industry.
Kira Swisher is a gigantic fraud.
The only people she's willing to criticize are people who she perceives as being adversary to her liberal ideology.
People like Elon Musk, who she used to heap immense amount of sycophant and praise on.
She couldn't say enough good things about Elon Musk.
Until he bought Twitter, turned it into Axe, ceased censoring, began promoting ideology that she disagrees with.
She took some shots at people like David Sachs, even though she didn't really mention him by name because of his opposition to the war in Ukraine.
She's just a liberal operative.
And so, of course, the liberal operatives inside Silicon Valley love her.
She's exactly like Chuck Todd.
the function she pretends to perform, the branding that she relies on to make herself very rich could not be at greater odds with the actual function she serves.
Now, the person she reminds me of the most, and I'm sure someone like her would take this as a compliment, is Tim Russard.
And a lot of you may be too young to remember, but Tim Russert, before Chuck Todd, was the host of Meet the Press for many years.
He was the host of Meet the Press.
He died of a heart attack.
He was something like 58.
Very suddenly, I believe in 2008, something around there, And Tim Russert was very valuable to Washington because people in Washington talked about Tim Russert the way Silicon Valley talks about Kara Swisher.
Like, oh, that's a journalist who really asks the hard questions.
Everyone's afraid.
What's that?
Yeah, so I just got confirmation that Tim Russert did die in 2008, as I said.
So they used to talk about Tim Russert like he was this scary guardian of the truth.
He was there to hold the people in Washington accountable.
And they would all go on his Meet the Press show, though, which obviously they didn't have to do.
Why would they go on Meet the Press if he was so scary?
Tim Russert would ask the really hard questions that nobody wanted to have asked.
And of course, the reason was because Tim Russert was a fraud.
He used to ask questions that they wanted to have asked.
He used to be the person who would allow people to go on his show and they would purposely use his show to disseminate propaganda.
In fact, Meet the Press was, for example, Dick Cheney's favorite platform.
And when Dick Cheney was trying to sell the war in Iraq, he most loved to go and meet the press.
And the reason this became known was because there was an investigation of a top aide to Dick Cheney named Louis Libby, because Louis Libby had leaked classified information to harm a critic of the Iraq War named Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame.
In fact, Joe Wilson became an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, and his wife was an undercover CIA agent.
His wife was a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, and Louis Libby, who was the top aide for Dick Cheney, his nickname was Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the newspaper as punishment and ruined her career as an undercover CIA agent.
And there was an investigation of Scooter Libby, and a lot of things surfaced as part of that investigation, including the fact that one of the people with whom he was speaking most was Tim Russert.
Scooter would call Tim Russert all the time.
They would have all kinds of private, friendly conversations.
And as part of that investigation into Scooter, maybe some very embarrassing information emerged about how Washington really looks at Tim Russert to meet the press, as opposed to how they pretended to.
Here from the Washington Post in January of 2007, I think it says 2001 on the screen, but it's 2007.
You can see the correct date here.
This was all as a result of the evidence that emerged as part of the Security Libby investigation, and there the headline is, in X8's testimony, a spin through Vice President's PR.
So one of Dick Cheney's leading PR advisors had to testify, her documents were obtained, and here is what Dana Milbank, the Washington Post.net columnist, wrote about that.
Memo to Tim Russert, Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This was the guy that Official Washington would point to as proof that they had a free press holding them accountable, just like Silicon Valley points to Kara Swisher.
And in reality, they laughed at Tim Russert behind his back.
They knew he was a joke.
They knew that that was the place that you could go and get your messaging out without anybody actually really bothering you in any way.
They would cast the theater, the appearance that you were being rigorously questioned.
But everything was just theater.
It was all Tim Russert was One of their friends, quote, flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambition.
Option number one, meet the press, she wrote.
Have the vice president go on Meet the Press.
That was option number one to deal with this controversy.
She then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show, Meet the Press.
Under pro, she wrote, control message.
Quote, I suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which is a tactic we often use.
It's our best format.
And in fact, that's, you know, we've showed you before, many times Dick Cheney would go on Meet the Press, and that was where he could sell the Iraq War easiest because Tim Rustert would cast the appearance that he was asking hard questions.
But in reality, it was all staged and Dick Cheney was talking to Tim Rustert, as was Scooter Libby.
In fact, one of the things that emerged as part of that trial was that Tim Rustert testified in the trial.
And he said something amazing, which is in journalism, Everything that someone says to you is automatically something that you're permitted to report and, in fact, you're duty-bound to report if it's in the public interest.
Obviously, if something is not in the public interest and you learn about it, you don't report it.
We're about to get to that in just a second, that principle, that important principle.
If you learn someone is dating somebody else, you don't report that.
That's not in the public interest.
But if you learn something about the public interest that someone tells you because they tell it to you, You're a journalist, you have to go report that.
The only exception is if you agree in advance that what someone's about to tell you is off the record, which you might agree if that's the only way someone will talk to you, if that will help your story, but they don't want to be quoted.
But that only is off the record if you agree in advance.
If they say to you, I'd like to say something to you off the record, and then you say, yes, I agree, it'll be off the record.
Sometimes people will send you things as a journalist and they'll put at the top, off the record.
But you're not bound by that in any way.
It's not off the record unless you agree it's off the record.
Tim Russert said his policy was the opposite and everybody in Washington knew that.
He said he was friends with all these people who worked in Washington and his position, his policy was that everything was presumptively off the record unless he was told he should go and report it.
So they would tell Tim Russert things all the time that they knew he wouldn't repeat unless they told them to repeat it.
That was his testimony at this trial.
Tim Russert was, to this day, if you ask somebody, oh, who in journalism used to be really a tough guy?
People say, oh, Tim Russert.
That was the legend of Washington that they purposely promoted because they could use him so easily to promote their propaganda.
That's the role Kara Swisher plays in Silicon Valley.
And it's the reason she's treated exactly like Washington treated Tim Russert, the people who promote this bullshit branding legend about Kara Swishershoes, tough reporter putting fear, are the people who promote her because they love the theater that there's somebody holding them accountable when in fact all she is is their messenger for their propaganda.
And that's the reason they're so eager to build her up, promote her book, and cheer her as much as possible.
All right, for our last story, I wanna talk about a New York Magazine cover story on someone named Andrew Huberman.
Now, Andrew Huberman, and it's really interesting how fame works these days.
In one sense, Andrew Huberman has become a very popular and famous person.
He has millions of people who listen to his podcast.
And I was talking to our team about this earlier today about how fame works now.
Fame has become so fragmented.
There are so many people Who, in one sense, have become quite famous.
They have millions of fans, millions of people who listen to them.
And yet, if you don't listen to them, if you're not a fan of Andrew Huberman's broadcast, it's very likely that you've never heard of Andrew Huberman.
And so fame is this very fragmented thing where there's a lot of people who have very popular YouTube shows and say comedy or culture or streaming or podcasts.
And they have bigger audiences than Almost every one of these mainstream media corporation shows.
You have 500,000 people watching CNN.
You have millions of people listening to the podcast of Andrew Huberman.
So he's very famous in one sense, and yet a lot of people haven't heard of him in another.
That's true for so many people now who influence, who wield influence in our media culture.
And I think that's because of the decentralization of what the internet has done.
There's not just a tiny handful of corporations any longer controlling the flow of information.
People can find whoever they want to listen to by the millions.
And these people become much more influential Then those who work inside these media corporations.
Obviously, Joe Rogan is a perfect example of somebody who hasn't worked for a media corporation in many years.
He worked for NBC News 25 years ago as the host of a reality TV show for a couple of years.
But by and large, Joe Rogan built up his entire massive audience outside of the structure and framework and therefore the rules of corporate media.
And that's the reason corporate media hates him so much.
Andrew Huberman is somebody who has done the same.
He's a neuroscientist.
A few years ago, I think in 2019, 2020, he started a podcast with like so many people during the pandemic.
When people couldn't go out, they were online all the time.
He found a massive audience.
Talks a lot about neuroscience, but about self-help.
I have to confess, I've never listened to his program before.
I'm not very well aware of him.
I don't have a strong opinion about him one way or the other.
I've seen his name around.
I knew he had a popular podcast, but I'm not here to defend Andrew Huberman because I don't really know much about him.
What I saw, though, was a bunch of media people today promoting a story, a cover story, that is on New York Magazine.
His face appears on New York Magazine.
And here you see it on the screen, Andrew Huberman's Mechanisms of Control, the private and public seductions of the world's biggest pop neuroscientist.
And it's written by a New York Magazine journalist named Kerry Hawley.
And I saw a bunch of media people talking about this like it was some big Me Too scandal, like there was a bunch of shameful dirty secrets and Andrew Uberman's dating life that had been exposed by this article.
I saw people congratulating her.
And I assume that there were a bunch of stories similar to a report of the kind that they did on Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports, who they obviously hate as well, where they tried to metoo him in a way that I think turned out to be very factually dubious at best.
But I assumed it was that kind of an article by the way people were talking about it.
Oh, he's been exposed.
He's a very abusive person.
And I began reading through this article expecting to find that because there's a lot of people in the media talking about it.
I assumed there was something really dark and sinister here.
And the more I began reading it, I...
Kept reading it.
It went on and on and on and on and on.
It was this endless article.
And it was basically nothing other than reporting on his adult dating life.
He's a 48-year-old man.
He is very focused on fitness.
He's very big.
He's very muscular.
Conventionally handsome.
A lot of women find him handsome.
That's part of his appeal.
It's the reason why a lot of people listen to him.
And he's unmarried.
And he's unmarried.
He's a bachelor.
He's a bachelor.
He's wealthy.
He's wealthy.
He's a neuroscientist.
He's a neuroscientist.
He has a lot of charisma.
He has a lot of charisma.
That's why people watch him.
That's why people watch him.
And so, as you can imagine, he dates a lot of women.
And so as you can imagine, he dates a lot of women.
And this article didn't do any, it tried to destroy his reputation.
You can see here it's framed his mechanisms of control.
So you assume it's some kind of like article about his abuse with women, his misogynistic network of women that he's manipulated and abused non-consensually.
That's what you're expecting.
And you're reading it and you're reading it.
And it's just basically nothing other than a report interviewing women that he is dating and still has dating.
And I guess the worst thing that they found out about him was that he was dating women who didn't realize he had other girlfriends at the same time.
He wasn't married to any of them.
And that's it.
I mean, there's nothing in this article that's even journalistically justified to publish, let alone something that's scandalous.
I was actually going to go through it and I'm actually now that I'm thinking about it I don't even want to give it that level of attention.
I guess one of the things that it alleges to try and justify itself is that there was a woman he was dating who had unprotected sex with him and she says it was because she assumed they were monogamous when in fact he was dating somebody else which I guess means that the minute you become a public figure
At this point, not even if you hold public office, he's not a senator, he's not a cabinet official, he's not somebody who wields public power, he's a podcast host.
But he's not even married, so it's not even adultery.
I mean, I guess the worst thing you can say about him is that he dated a woman and was dating a different woman without one of the women knowing.
And if this is the stuff of cover stories now, Then I guess it means that it's fair game to go around following every single journalist and tracking their private lives and seeing who they're working with.
I guess I should read some of this since I'm commenting on it just to give you a sense for how filthy and Baseless this entire article is to try and ruin the reputation of somebody whose crime is that they have developed a much bigger audience than anybody at New York Magazine possibly could and has done so on their own.
Sarah's relationship with Andrew began in February 2018 in the Bay Area where they both live.
Sarah was willing to have unprotected sex because she believed they were monogamous.
Through a spokesman, Huberman says he did not become exclusive with Sarah until late 2021, that he was not doted on, that tasks between him and Sarah were shared based on mutual agreement and proficiency, and that their Thanksgiving plans were tentative and that he maintains a very busy schedule and shows up to the vast majority of his commitments.
And that was because she had complained that sometimes he didn't show up for things, that he wanted, he put more burden on her in the relationship than I guess he was willing to take, like the most banal, conventional, trivial, standard complaints in their relationship that they decided to air.
The relationship struck Sarah's friends as odd.
At one point, Sarah said, quote, I just want to be with my kids and cook for my man.
I was like, who says that, says a close friend.
I mean, I've known her for 30 years.
She's a powerful, decisive, strong woman.
We grew up in this very feminist community.
That's not a thing either of us would ever say.
In August 2021, Sarah says she read Andrew's journal and discovered a reference to cheating.
She was, she said, quote, gutted.
In 2021, she tested positive for a high-risk form of HPV, one of the variants linked to cervical cancer.
Quote, I have never tested positive, she said, and had been tested regularly for 10 years.
A spokesman for Huberman says he has never tested positive for HPV.
According to the CDC, there is currently no approved test for HPV in men.
When she brought it up, she says, he told her you could contract HPV for many things.
Sarah said she grabbed Andrew's phone when he had left it in the bathroom, checked his text, and found conversations with someone we will call Eve.
Some of them took place during the camping trip they had just taken.
Caught having an affair, Andrew was apologetic.
That's, I mean, we pretty much picked the worst parts of this entire multi-thousand page article.
As our friend Sagaranjeti said, who's the I'm sorry, many thousands of words, not pages.
I mean, I think it's at least 5,000 words, if I had to guess.
It's a very long article, and it goes on and on like that about nothing but his dating life.
As Sagar and Jenny, the host of Breaking Board, said, quote, just a few months ago, New York Magazine published a practical guide to polyamory, and yet today they're somehow so concerned about the sexual mores of the unmarried, most popular health podcaster in the world.
There you see the cover story celebrating polyamory.
I mean, I guess they would say that polyamory is a consensual relationship between more than two people, whereas the crime here is that Andrew Huberman was dating women without doubt.
I mean, the fact that they would delve into this person's personal life, there's no allegation of sexual assault or abuse, let alone sexual crimes like rape or anything non-consensual at all.
These liberal outlets, and New York Magazine considers itself a serious political magazine, are so trashy.
They're so vindictive.
Really what happened was they saw somebody who is very successful.
He's been on Joe Rogan's show before.
He encourages men to engage in self-care.
I guess they decided he was an ideological enemy.
They set out to destroy him.
They dug into his personal life.
They really found nothing.
They published it anyway.
These people are sick and evil.
Imagine setting out to try and destroy somebody's life by digging into their dating activities when they're unmarried, when there's no allegation of anything abusive, simply out of resentment that they built a popular and independent platform that they can't control.
I will say, as I said before, that You know, when these people get laid off, and this is the sector, the media that gets laid off so much, they expect you to cry for them, they demand that you feel sympathy for them.
And it's very difficult to feel that.
Because this is not just trivial, though it is, it is deeply toxic and destructive.
These people, this is, this is, Just a moral scumbag behavior of the worst kind.
And this is what they do over and over.
And when there's a part of an industry that is toxic, if there's a, you know, I think that the industrial, agricultural industry is guilty of all kinds of moral atrocities, they are threats to the public health.
When they fail, I celebrate.
Because they're toxic to our society.
I think they engage in a lot of harm.
That's the same for how I feel about this sector of the media.
And so when they fail, it's something to celebrate.
It really is true that no matter how much you hate this wing of the corporate media, it's really not enough.
And they have wrought the failure onto themselves.
And so if you're one of those people who celebrate when they lose their job, when they're massively off, when these magazines close, don't feel guilty about that.
It is completely well-deserved and the kind of
Commonality between all three of these stories that we covered tonight that NBC News is so enraged that a Republican Party operative might contaminate their sacred integrity that Kara Swisher is celebrated by the very people that she claims she holds so accountable on the fact that New York Magazine set out to destroy a person for no reason other than the fact that he can't be ideologically or substantively controlled because he found an audience outside of their failing corporate structures.
It really is all the same thing.
It just shows what bitter and resentful people are inside these outlets, the fact that their failure is so well-deserved, and the fact that although they brand themselves as holding power to account, what they're really there for is to serve the powerful and to destroy anybody who's a dissident, anybody who in any way pushes against the grain of the prevailing orthodoxies inside these institutions of power.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form, where you can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow the show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
As a final reminder, every Tuesday and Thursday night, Once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform, where we have our live interactive aftershow that's designed to take your questions, respond to your feedback, hear your critiques and your suggestions for future shows.
If you want to listen to that aftershow, it's available Solely for members of our Locals community, and if you want to join the Locals community, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week aftershows, but to multiple other interactive features that we have.
It's the place we publish transcripts of every program that we do here.
It's the first place we publish our original written journalism.
And it's the community on which we most rely to support the independent journalism that we're doing here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that.
For those of you watching this show, we are, as always, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m.
