Larry O’Connor’s Shameless Liars reveals how Trump’s $16M defamation win over ABC’s George Stephanopoulos—who falsely claimed a jury convicted him of rape six times in five minutes—exposed legacy media’s bias. Conservative journalists like O’Connor and Andrew Clavin, shaped by Breitbart, argue corporate outlets (NBC, CBS) falter as independent creators thrive, while nonprofit theater fires artists like Scott Eckert for conservative views despite past LGBT advocacy. Their streaming platforms now outperform traditional media in authenticity, but lasting reform remains uncertain amid institutional resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Claver with this week's interview with Larry O'Connor.
Last Friday, as I was supposed to get up in time to get my show prepared, my alarm failed to go off, causing me to wake up eight minutes late, but also causing me to miss one of my absolutely favorite living broadcasters, Larry O'Connor, who has a show on WMAL in D.C.
And when I say that, I'm somebody who really knows good broadcasters, and he is one of them.
He and I were drawn into the conservative movement together in California by the late, great Andrew Breitbart.
And we had in common the fact that we were among the few conservatives who knew anything about the arts.
Larry worked for nearly 20 years in the Broadway theater industry in New York and yet remained heterosexual and conservative, which is very, very difficult to do.
There should be some kind of Tony just for that.
He is now, as I say, a great broadcaster on MAL.
And he's also got a town hall show as well.
He has written a book for his sins.
I don't know what comes over people.
I think God just punishes you by making you write books.
This is called Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
Larry, it is great to see you.
Where were you last Friday when I needed you to wake me up?
Andrew, I was there.
You know, blame the clocks, blame NSA.
I don't know.
Maybe Tulsi Gabbard got involved.
But I'll tell you, you're right.
Between staying straight in the theater business and being conservative, both are difficult.
One is harder than the other.
And I'll just let your very wise audience fill in the blanks.
All right.
So listen, the subtitle of this book is called Shameless Liars, but the subtitle is How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
This to me was the central takeaway from Trump's victory, that when I saw it, I felt this blanket of peace fall over me, and I just thought, we beat them.
We beat them because they just done everything.
Tell me what you have taken away and what you're seeing, what you saw that night and what you're seeing now.
Yeah, and thank you for identifying that because it is much more than a victory over Joe Biden, whom he defeated in July, and then Kamala Harris in November.
It was a defeat of the legacy media.
And I think only Trump could have accomplished this.
Anybody could write a book about the corporate legacy media lying about a Republican candidate, could have written that book for the last 40-year election cycles.
The difference was that Trump beat them this time.
And what inspired me, actually, was in mid-December, the announcement that George Stephanopoulos and ABC News had settled a lawsuit with Donald Trump.
Trump had sued them for defamation because in March, while interviewing Nancy Mace, congresswoman from South Carolina, George Stephanopoulos is trying to marginalize her, trying to make her the enemy of white suburban women voters by saying, how can you support this man who has been convicted by a jury of rape?
And Andrew, he said it six times in this interview within the course of five minutes, which is quite a feat, actually.
And it was a concerted, obvious lie.
He knew it.
That's why the name of the book is Shameless Liars, because he knew it was a lie.
He had reported on the jury verdict accurately in the past.
And it's funny, it's not as if it's bad enough that Donald Trump was found liable for the misdeeds that he is accused of doing with E. Gene Carroll.
I would think that that would be damaging enough.
But Stephanopoulos had to lie about it.
He had to put it in those terms because he's not a journalist.
He's a political operative, always has been.
So there's the shameless liars part.
But then Trump defeating them.
The fact that he fought back.
You know, any one of the Republican nominees for president and even the winners of the president election throughout my entire lifetime would have just walked it off.
Hey, I won.
Why do I need to fight with the media?
I want them to be my friends.
I'm going to need them on my side.
Trump fought.
Trump fought after he won that election and fought all the way to a $16 million settlement, $1 million of which George Stephanopoulos had to pay himself.
And that's when it all clicked.
He fights them.
He beats them.
And well, Andrew, when you said we won, we did it.
That's sort of the last part of the book is where we go from here.
And it is we.
We both have new media streaming content that goes over the heads of the corporations who tell the American people the kind of news and information they can get and in the form that they can get it.
And that helps us get a message out.
But most importantly, it helps people get the message.
Those gatekeepers work against the people as well.
They find the information in the format that they want it and through the lens that they're wanting to hear it from.
And that's why nothing will be the same again.
Well, that's the next thing I wanted to ask you because George Stephanopoulos is kind of the poster boy of the mainstream media.
And I don't want to like, you know, kick him while he's down and then hurl him into the river and then throw rotten vegetables at him as he drifts out to sea.
I do.
Oh, wait a minute.
Maybe I do.
Yeah, let's do it together, in fact.
I could get a posse together and we can do it.
One could call it a mob.
We could get a big crowd.
But here's a guy who's his basic qualifications to be a major network's frontman were silencing women who had been abused by Bill Clinton, plausibly accused Bill Clinton of abusing them up to and including rape.
He intimidated journalists into being silenced.
He's on video doing this.
That was his qualification.
He never covered anything.
And suddenly he's this big.
So what I want to know is if they're that bold, if they're that corrupt, if they are that invested in selling for some reason a left-wing point of view, are they going to let this go at all now that we've exposed them?
I mean, people have been fired.
Nora O'Donnell has left.
Lester Holt has left.
The guy who runs 60 Minutes has just disappeared.
Are they changing or is that too much to hope for?
Yeah, I'm not so optimistic.
Listen, I am the sunny, happy, optimistic yin to your cynical, angry, pessimistic yang.
I just think everyone does need to know that.
This has been our shtick for over a decade now.
Every time I want to show hope and some sort of promise and where we're headed, you always shoot me down.
It's always funny because when I'm with Glenn Beck, it's the opposite.
Like he's the master's tragedy.
I'm the mess and cover.
This is the ballots that we need in our lives.
I would like to think, though, that what's overlooked oftentimes when we deride the legacy media is the corporate part of it.
You know, corporate media.
And, you know, listen, being part of corporate media is a tough thing.
My radio station is owned by a corporation.
Interesting, though, corporations do ultimately, finally, at some point, do care about business.
They do.
And it wasn't until recently that their behavior in this media monolith that had been created and perpetuated for decades, it's not until recently that it actually started to affect the bottom line.
I'll give you a good example.
We both have great respect for Megan Kelly.
She has been through an incredible media journey, if you think about it.
And when she left Fox News and got that big contract over at NBC News, you know, I think maybe a lot of us thought, oh, gosh, what's going on with Megan?
I mean, is she going to now go over there?
But she didn't.
She pretty much maintained her integrity, her values, her principles, her perspective.
And that's why NBC News had to get rid of her.
They had to get rid of her.
That's right.
They give her this $30 million buyout, right?
And they figured, oh, well, you know, none of the other networks are going to pick her up and Fox News won't take her back.
So we'll never see Megan Kelly again.
Megan Kelly then plugs a microphone and a camera into a laptop, starts doing her own show.
And, you know, YouTube is now the number one digital download service on the planet.
But more people get download streaming information from YouTube.
And in the middle of the election cycle, Andrew, Megan Kelly had more downloads for her one-hour show than NBC and CBS combined.
So it's affecting their bottom line.
And that's why I think, I believe, at some point they either change and adapt or they die.
Well, that's interesting.
So it's just going to take a while before the message gets to the head.
It gets from the wallet to the head, basically.
I think it's starting.
I think a little bit of it is starting.
I think the changes we're seeing at 60 Minutes are an indication of that.
It doesn't make good business sense for them to keep doing this.
And I've got a chapter called 60 Minutes Runs Out of Time, where, you know, our entire adult life, if you want to run for president, you've got to do the 60 Minutes interview.
I mean, that's just everyone knows that.
It's conventional wisdom.
And we know what those 60 minutes interviews are.
They talk to a candidate for 40 minutes, then they condense it down into 20 minutes based on their editorial judgment about what they want the viewers to see, and then they put it out there.
We saw what they did to help Kamala Harris in that regard.
Donald Trump not only ignored 60 Minutes and said, I don't need to sit through your interview, but instead he goes and sits with Theo Vaughn and Joe Rogan and all these other long-form interviews.
You know, one of the reasons why the editors at 60 Minutes or the producers at 60 Minutes will say they have to take a 40-minute interview and turn it into 20 minutes is, you know, you've had these conversations in Hollywood too, because of the short attention span of the viewing public.
Oh, they won't sit for 40 minutes of the candidate without an interruption.
Oh, they have a short attention span, these idiots, Americans who watch television.
They're constantly changing the channels.
We know it from the ratings.
Well, they're changing the channels because your content sucks.
That's why.
And so Donald Trump sits with Rogan for three hours, Claven.
Three hours without interruption.
I mean, I do this for a living and it was too much for me.
But they got, what, 35 million downloads within a week.
We do not have a short attention span.
We just want the content uninterrupted, unedited.
We want the truth, or at least as close to the truth as you can get.
And I think that that was a bit of a game change.
I think people took the wrong lesson from the podcasts in this last election that, you know, you see these Democrats now going on podcasts.
They're still inauthentic.
They're still trying to play the same old game.
The real lesson is we crave unvarnished, unedited, and unspun truth, facts, and information.
And that's the only platform we can get it on now.
And it's shocking how close we came under Joe Biden to a censorship regime that really did cut down the flow of information.
This Stalinist phrasing, misinformation, disinformation to describe what turned out more often than not to be the exact truth.
You know, are you afraid that can come back or do you think we've broken that?
Oh, no, no, no.
I think we're always one election away from it.
You know, I don't trust any of those big tech bros that showed up at the inauguration any more than you do or anybody with a brain should.
Preborn.com/Klavana00:02:20
They're licking their finger and seeing where the wind is blowing.
And the second that it behooves them to silence our voices, they will do it, absolutely.
But I do focus quite a bit at the beginning part of the book.
It's impossible to talk about how the media lied about the 2024 election without starting with the Biden presidency.
All of the lies and the cover-ups about him, about the economy, about Afghanistan, about his health, and the censorship regime that was installed there to silence just everyday individuals on their own social media platforms.
If you had gone to a doctor and you had COVID-19 and the doctor gave you a solution or a therapy that was not something that CNN approved of, if you shared it on Facebook, you would get censored.
Just you, just some regular individual schmo who said, hey, my doctor did this for me during COVID and it worked.
That was terrifying.
And it was instituted by the government under Joe Biden.
We can go there like that.
Yeah, I mean, because even while they were saying it's a health emergency, they were ready to declare racism a health emergency and climate change a health emergency.
And government.
Yeah, right.
You know, sunlight is a health emergency.
When a woman faces an unexpected pregnancy, she often feels overwhelmed and alone.
Many initially consider abortion as their only option.
Thanks to donors like you, these women may find their way to a pre-born network clinic where they receive the support they need to make an informed choice about their pregnancy.
At pre-born, women are offered compassionate care and a free ultrasound that allows them to see their developing baby.
This combination of support and information helps many women choose to continue their pregnancies.
There are many women out there who are unaware of their options.
Take Acacia, for example.
Acacia discovered she was pregnant, felt completely overwhelmed and unsure which way to turn.
She found her way to a pre-born network clinic where the staff provided her with supportive care and a free ultrasound.
Seeing her developing baby on the screen helped Acacia make the decision to continue with her pregnancy.
With your tax-deductible donation of $28, you can help provide one ultrasound for someone facing a difficult decision.
Your contribution of any amount can make a real difference.
Last year alone, Pre-Born saw 67,000 babies saved from abortion.
If you'd like to support this work, please consider making a donation today.
The Myth of Objectivity00:05:35
Just dial pound250 and say the key word, baby.
That's pound250 baby or go to preborn.com slash clavin.
That's preborn.com slash K-L-A-V-A-N.
So the book, again, talking to Larry O'Connor, the book is Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
I want to ask you, just you have a title.
You know, we both kind of admired, if not revered, Andrew Breitbart, the things that he did.
He's right over my shoulder.
I keep him here in my studio all day long.
An amazing, truly a guy I miss all the time.
I mean, he's just, and he did create out of California, in the midst of Hollywood, he created this movement that has now spread out.
I mean, you know, Shapiro, you and me, you know, and Crowder, you know, we're all even Gutfeld.
People forget.
Gutfeld was one of Andrew's discoveries too.
And he called Roger Ails and said, hey, this guy who's writing for, I think it was Details, he's pretty good.
Give him a chance.
Yeah, no, he was amazing and generous that he never took it, you know, on it.
He never made it about himself.
He never made it about making him.
And he became famous almost accidentally.
But you talk about him, the myth of objectivity.
Can you unpack that a little bit?
Because that's something that I've always been very interested in.
Oh, yeah, thanks for that.
And, you know, you're so right about Andrew's humility and his, he never really did desire this spotlight.
He was better than all of us at going out there and being the tip of the spear on his stories.
But his one great character flaw is that he was a Dodgers fan, Andrew.
And so, but I would go to Dodgers games with him sometimes.
And I'm like, Ten, did you ever want to play?
He goes, no, I never wanted to play.
Never wanted to be a manager.
I wanted to be a talent scout.
I wanted to be the guy who went out and found the player.
In fact, I remember when you were writing for us at Big Holly, I still say us, even though I haven't worked for Breitbart So long.
You were writing at Big Hollywood, and I know you got, and all of us at the beginning, none of us got paid to write at Big Hollywood.
I think Nolte was the only one on the payroll.
The rest of us, we just contributed because we loved the idea.
And I remember not naming names or organizations, but you got an opportunity to go to another platform and you were going to get paid.
And I was in outside the office when Breitbart was talking to you.
And he was like, I love it.
It's great.
He said, I would pay you if I could.
I can't pay you.
Go.
We need your voice.
And he didn't begrudge it for one instant.
No one else in the media is like that.
No.
The myth of objectivity is an early chapter in the book so that I can sort of set the stage for the reader because I think we've bought into this idea that the media must be objective, that the media must be biased, that Jake Tapper doesn't have an opinion.
I couldn't even say it without laughing because it's such a myth.
There's no such thing as objectivity.
You know what?
I would be objective if I worked for a week writing about Japanese politics.
For the first week, I'd be objective.
But then pretty quickly, I'd have an opinion because that's a human thing.
In the early days, when the First Amendment and freedom of the speech was first enshrined in our Constitution, there was no objectivity expectation in our newspapers, in our pamphlets.
We knew which newspaper was for the Federalists, which was for the Democrat-Republicans.
Those were the slave owners, by the way.
The Whigs.
They didn't have a very good paper, obviously.
But we knew which paper had which political perspective.
The whole myth of objectivity, ironically, was created because of a bunch of multi-millionaire newspaper owners in New York, the Pulitzers, the Hearsts, et cetera.
They wanted to save money covering the Spanish-American War.
They didn't each want to send their own reporter down there to cover the war.
And so they pooled their money together and created a thing that we now know as the Associated Press.
They went down, they covered the war, they sent via telegraph their reports back.
But because their reports were going to be used by multiple biased, unobjective newspapers, their reports had to be free of opinion.
It was just the facts.
This was the late 19th century.
But this then, for some reason, by the time you get to the mid-20th century, became this norm that we all assume journalists would wedge themselves into, that they were objective.
They didn't have an opinion.
But it's a lie.
It's a fraud.
And that's how Andrew Breitbart comes in.
My job for him was the editor of Breitbart TV.
My job was to find really great videos that conservatives would love and put them on our website.
And yours, of course, Andrew, your great videos had a prominent place on the site.
I fell into a rut.
I was finding the most atrocious things that hosts on MSNBC would say.
And there was plenty to work with.
Keith Oberman had a primetime show at the time.
Ed Schultz, remember him?
I would pull all of these horrible, offensive things that they would say.
And I had a lot of them on the site.
And he called me one time and he says, What the F is with all of the MSNBC things?
And I said, Well, I mean, look at it.
It's terrible and people are clicking on it.
He goes, I don't care.
Our fight is not with MSNBC.
They tell us who they are.
We know who they are.
Our fight is with CNN.
Our fight is with Anderson Cooper.
Our fight is with the people who use objectivity as a cloaking device to pretend like they don't have an opinion when we know they do.
They're the ones who you need to stop.
And that was a big wake-up call for me.
And he was right, as he was about everything except the Dodgers.
No, you know, I love that website that MRC has, the newsbusters website.
But I've said to them a couple of times, you know, stop picking on MSNBC.
Fighting Objectivity Masks00:13:06
They come on.
We are crazy leftists, and this is our crazy leftist opinion.
I can live with that.
You know, it's the New York Times that has all the news that's fit to print and just lies like a bum.
There is only one exception I would give to that, and that is The View.
Because again, like we all know what The View is.
We all know how insane they are.
But you know, The View is actually an ABC news show.
All of those ladies at The View are news colleagues of David Muir and George Stephanopoulos and Terry Moran.
You know, when Barbara Walters started that show, it was under the umbrella of ABC daytime television, like soap operas and game shows.
Then they moved it over to news, and that ain't news.
I don't know what that is, but that ain't news.
The author is Larry O'Connor, the book is Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
I have to ask you this because you are just one of the few people on the right who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to the arts.
You worked in theater and people, I love the theater.
I just absolutely, I mean, I just saw Uncle Vanya from Berkeley Rep with the guy from Downton Abbey, Hugh, what's his name?
I can't remember his name.
But so, it was so wonderful and so great.
But the theater is, I mean, I have this pal, Robert Cooperman, he put on my play in Ohio.
And he writes to me all the time the things they do to him, just, you know, the people who quit just because they find out he's not a left-winger.
Is there any hope of revitalizing, reforming the arts?
And if there is, what is it?
I wish I had a short answer for you.
No, give me a good one.
I mean, I think it might be the same thing that might have to affect corporate media at some point.
I think they need to be starved to death until they realize that they, in fact, do need an audience.
The institutionalized nonprofit theater, which began in the late 60s and really blossomed in this country, that has now become the only place in this nation where theater is created, born, nurtured.
And because of the nonprofit aspect and nature of it, they don't really have to worry about market demands.
They can produce something that doesn't really sell tickets, but everybody still walks away with money.
And I think that that has taken, sadly, a I think the lesson that's been learned here is that it's art for art's sake instead of actually doing art that is accessible and relevant and important to we the people, people who are going to end up buying tickets.
And sadly, political pressure from Washington, D.C. and other avenues in this country ends up affecting the art in its own way.
If you're getting a grant from a foundation that wants to push an agenda, that agenda is going to find its way into the text of the art.
So instead of pleasing ticket buyers, you're pleasing the grant writer, right?
One of my turning points in the theater where I realized I couldn't go back and stay in the business.
And by the way, I worked in the commercial end of business.
I worked for the Schubert organization.
They own 17 Broadway theaters.
I was manager of the Schubert in Los Angeles.
Big Broadway, you know, cats and ragtime and Sunset Boulevard and Beauty and the Beast and all these big musicals.
A gentleman that I knew named Scott Eckert, he ran in Sacramento called the Sacramento Music Circus.
It's like a summer stock situation and Civic Light Opera.
They would bring in touring shows, but they would also produce shows.
Great guy.
Everybody loved him.
He ran the thing.
It was like that.
He did what in Sacramento, what I did in Los Angeles.
And you could never find anyone to say a bad thing about him.
2008, Barack Obama sweeps into office, huge landslide victory.
But you'll remember, Andrew, in the state of California that same year, we had a ballot measure called Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 defined marriage between one man and one woman.
In the same year that Barack Obama won in a landslide, especially in blue Democrat California, California passed Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 was passed into law, and a huge portion of the vote that got Barack Obama elected in California also affirmed that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
It was revealed through campaign finance searches that Scott Eckert, the guy who ran that theater in Sacramento, he was also a faithful, believing member of the Church of Latter-day Saints.
He was a Mormon.
And he believed in marriage being between one man and one woman.
He had contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign.
That was discovered.
And the actors, the wardrobe, the musicians, not so many musicians, they're actually kind of conservative.
The dancers.
They all revolted.
They all demanded that this guy be fired.
Now understand, he worked for two decades with gays, with lesbians, with transgender, with every walk of life from the LGBT alphabet soup that you can think of.
But because he made a private personal donation to this cause, he was drummed out of his job.
He had to leave.
And that's when I realized I can't stay in this business.
I can't continue doing what I'm doing.
And as long as those forces remain and flourish in the industry, I'm afraid they're never going to produce content that is widely accessible to the general public.
You know, I just want to say, first of all, I want to remind people that that law that defined marriage was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
So they changed the Constitution and the judges ruled changing the Constitution was unconstitutional.
So you'd be like, if you think these guys are not willing to abuse the law, you're wrong.
But the other thing is, you know, it's not so much the accessible, because you said art for art's sake.
I would have no problem if it were art for art's sake, but it's art for propaganda's sake.
I mean, you can go to a Broadway show and out of nowhere, they will attack President Trump, even if it has nothing to do with anything.
But they will never attack Joe Biden.
They'll never attack a Democrat president.
And it makes you feel, I mean, our pal John Nolte used to call it the sucker punch, you know, that you would, in the middle of a movie, you'd suddenly get punched in the face and you'd think, you know, what the hell?
I'm watching a Western here.
Donald Trump wasn't even alive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Suddenly they make him.
So I guess what I wonder is people always ask me, will Hollywood reform?
And I always say no.
But that doesn't mean that we can't become Hollywood.
I mean, I would like to see what I'm looking for is I would like to see a corner of the internet become our Greenwich Village.
I would like to see a corner of the internet be where the offbeat, look, artists are always going to be offbeat.
They're never going to fulfill an agenda for you if they're real artists.
I mean, if they're not, they're going to be leftists.
They can go to Hollywood.
But if they're real artists, they're going to say things that offend everybody.
That's part of an artist's job is to show you reality.
And nobody likes reality.
It sucks.
So what I want to know is, is there some way that, do you think it's possible that with the help of donors, with the help of creatives, they can change the landscape of where art comes from?
Yeah, I think so.
In terms of the performing arts, in terms of theater, there is a path forward for it.
The problem is the economics of theater are so different than Hollywood.
So, you know, the great thing about Hollywood is you invest your money into your one product and then you can distribute it and it's replicatable and people can stream it.
With theater, you have a limited number of seats every night.
You have to do the performance live every single time.
You need to keep refilling those seats.
You just have the one play.
If we can figure out a way to augment the live experience with a live stream or with some sort of video content that satisfies people who can't travel to that town and sit in that seat and we can make out the economics of that, yeah, that's the window to do it.
Or you just have to start very, very small and hopefully grow into something.
I'll tell you this though, Andrew, the other problem that we have is people of our generation, conservative parents.
You're an exception and I'm an exception, all right?
Because we both raised our children to love the arts, embrace the arts.
And if your son came to you and said, Dad, I want to be a writer.
I want to be a director.
I want to be an actor.
In your gut, you'd be like, oh, great.
I'm going to have to pay his rent for a while.
But you would still encourage him.
Same thing here.
Most conservative parents, most parents raising children who have conservative values, if their kid in high school says, I want to be an actor, I want to be a dancer, I want to be a writer, most conservative parents will say, no kid of mine is going to have an unsteady lifestyle like that.
No kid of mine is going to be some artist.
You're going to go to college and you're going to be a lawyer.
You're going to be in finance.
You're going to, you know, because those are such conservative industries.
And we discourage our own children from pursuing their artistic desires.
And so when, and those very same parents will complain and whine that they watch Saturday Night Live and it's all liberal.
Well, you know why?
Because all those actors and all those writers had parents who said, great, follow your dreams.
So until we encourage our children to hold on to their values and break into that industry, we're going to have some roadblocks.
We need to re-encourage people of our generation and conservative parents to raise young conservative artists.
Excellent answer and really interesting.
Again, talking to Larry O'Connor, the book is Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
My last question is about the news media as it now exists, which includes us.
I mean, it includes people like us giving our opinions.
How do you foresee that working out in the future?
Is there a path?
Are there things that people like us, the Megan Kelly's, I mean, look, Megan is so great and Ben is great.
And I, you know, I love the Daily Wire.
I love what you do.
I listen to you every morning.
I mean, I think it's great stuff.
But are there things we're missing, things that we should be doing to augment our strength and our power?
Well, first of all, I think we're way ahead of a lot of the lefties at this point on the content that we're creating.
They're trying to play catch up right now with some of their podcasts.
The best, their most successful podcast and sort of over-the-top direct-to-consumer media is either NPR, which is taxpayer-funded and way overproduced and wouldn't make economic sense in the real world if they didn't have subsidies, and the New York Times, ditto.
So other than that, other than those two platforms, we're actually beating them right now.
This is where you and I may differ in that I still have quite a bit of respect for our viewers, Andrew, where you still consider them to be some.
My viewers are the best.
I just mean the viewing public in general.
The old line, never underestimate the intelligence of the viewing public.
I actually have great respect for the intelligence of the viewing public.
I think they actually know what they're looking for.
I think that they can smell BS a mile away.
And the authenticity of the content that we're producing and putting out there, the fact that it's rising so well now that many of the barriers are off the algorithms that had been inexplicably keeping our content down.
I think that actually we're growing quite a bit.
What we could do, though, and we're starting, we're seeing some platforms do it, is reinvest into some very, very smart investigative journalism.
You know, commentary and analysis is fine, but we need the people who can really look under the rocks, see all the worms that are crawling around and uncover the stuff that has been covered up for so long.
Liberals aren't doing that either, by the way.
Anything that's shown as an investigative report in Washington, D.C. right now is really just a partisan under the cloak of anonymity handing a story to a reporter anonymously, and they've already done all the work for them.
That's a dirty little secret in Washington, D.C.
We need conservative investigative journalists.
I know that many of the platforms are starting to invest some time in that, but we also need some people who are interested in investing in these platforms so that we can do that.
I think as soon as we start getting that kind of journalism going for our side, I think that that's going to be a game changer for Washington, D.C.
I 100% agree with that.
I think that's exactly dead on.
And the other thing I think is technology.
Like, why should the people who invent Facebook and X and Twitter and all, why should they all be left-wingers?
Why don't we get into that business as well?
Oh, no, no.
Andrew, I'm sorry.
You missed the metaphor.
Mark Zuckerberg is a full-on right-wing consumer.
Yeah, I know.
Sorry.
Are you not up to sneak here?
I know.
As long as you have your back against the wall, I think that's funny.
All right.
Once again, Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
Larry O'Connor on WMAL and your own Town Hall, too, right?
Yep.
Yep.
Right here.
You can stream it on all the platforms.
Wherever you see or listen to Andrew Clavin, you'll find me.
Oh my God.
He's been following me around.
It's great to see you.
Thanks for coming on.
Thank you.
All right.
One more time so you don't forget Larry O'Connor and the book is Shameless Liars, How Trump Defeated the Legacy Media and Made Them Irrelevant.
Really a terrific broadcaster, by the way.
If you're in DC area, WMAL in the morning and Town Hall, you can get anywhere.
And you could also, if you really want to hear some more great stuff, you could come to the Andrew Clavin show on Friday.