All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
46:52
Ep. 366 - Media Wages War Against Whistleblower

The media has decided that punishing whistleblowers is okay -- as long as it's someone who blew the whistle on their own corruption. Also, a video goes viral showing the many heresies and blasphemies of President Trump's "faith advisor." And Hollywood has gone from remaking movies to remaking people. Date: 11-07-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
11-6-19.
Yesterday's date.
A date that will live in infamy.
As I stand now in the aftermath of yesterday's tragedy, surveying the wreckage, I have trouble making sense of it, of understanding it.
And I think like a lot of people, we're just trying to get on our feet again and move forward.
Not even understanding which way is forward.
In the haze of this tragedy, the news reported by outlets across the world, Daily Mail, Fox News, ABC, NBC, they were all on top of this story.
Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth unfollowed each other on Instagram.
That's the story.
According to a report in People Magazine, this is the latest, says almost three months after announcing their separation, Fans have noticed exes Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth have seemingly unfollowed each other on Instagram.
Now, while it's unclear when the two made the split social media official, or who first made the move, Cyrus 26 still follows Liam's brother, Chris Hemsworth.
And Liam 29, I know now your question is, does Liam follow Miley Cyrus's family?
Billy Ray Cyrus?
Yes, he still does.
Both stars also have left their old posts that featured the two of them together.
The posts are still there.
So there's a lot we don't know and early reports often with these things are misleading.
So you want to be careful about that.
But what we know for sure is that they no longer follow each other and two of the iconic Instagrammers of our time have gone their separate ways.
Never to follow each other again, most likely.
Never to like another post.
Never to comment on another pic.
Never to leave another emoji.
We have now only the memory of what once was.
And a hole in our hearts and a hole in society.
In our culture.
That will never truly be filled.
Okay.
On to lesser news.
The story about ABC and Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, ABC after being exposed for, of course, squashing the Epstein story, suppressing it for three years.
So not just, we should remember this, it's not just that they killed the story one time.
This was according to the reporter who accidentally revealed all this to the public.
This was an ongoing effort by them to suppress this story over the course of three years.
But ABC now is doing some real investigative work.
Not into Epstein.
No, they're not going to do that, but into the person who exposed them.
That's what they're investigating.
Now, before we get into this, before we get into the latest, I think let's go back, in case you didn't see this clip, but even if you did, I think we should play it again to refresh our memories.
And this is just something we shouldn't forget.
I think that we should just play this.
This should be played every day.
So we remember what the media is really all about.
So let's go back and play this video that was released by Project Veritas, James O'Keefe.
This is the video of the ABC reporter revealing the conspiracy by ABC to suppress the news about Epstein.
I've had the story for three years.
I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts.
We would not put it on the air.
First of all, I was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein?
No one knows who that is.
This is a stupid story.
Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.
We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.
And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes.
She told me everything.
She had pictures.
She had everything.
She was in hiding for 12 years.
We convinced her to come out.
We convinced her to talk to us.
It was unbelievable what we had.
Clinton.
We had everything.
I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it's all coming out and it's like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it.
I'm so pissed right now.
Every day I get more and more pissed because I'm just like, oh my god.
What we had was unreal.
Other women backing it up.
Hey.
Yep.
Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying, like, there will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.
I had it all three years ago.
By the way, ABC has mostly tried to ignore all of this publicly.
Most of the mass media has also mainly ignored this story.
Well, they've paid it minimal attention.
They've basically done the bare minimum.
And that's what the media does with stories they don't like, where they don't want to be... In order...
If they could, they would just not report it at all, but they know they can't get away with that.
So they reported a little bit and then they can always point to that and say, no, we reported it.
Look.
Um, which is why the bias in media is often not what they report or how they report it.
Well, there's bias there too, but it's often what they choose not to report or how they, how they choose to stack their stories and which stories are in the lead and which ones are buried.
That's, that's where you find most of the, uh, or at least the most sort of insidious forms of bias in media.
Um, But not only do we have media ignoring this story for the sake of ABC, but also in some cases actively running cover for them.
Brian Stelter is the media reporter over at CNN.
He's the media reporter.
His job is to report on the media, to cover stories about the media.
And yet this story broke, I think, what was it, on Monday?
It was on Tuesday, I think.
And it took him all day.
He was tweeting about a bunch of other things, but it took him all day to even acknowledge that this story was going on.
Which is kind of like, considering this is the biggest media story of the year, biggest of the decade arguably, a very big story, this is kind of like if you're the sports reporter for a network and the Super Bowl is going on and you're tweeting about stuff you don't even acknowledge it.
Um, but Stelter finally, at the end of the day, on the day that it broke, he, he, he released a newsletter where he finally acknowledged it for the first time.
But he, he, he put it is the last thing he covered in his newsletter.
Let me, um, but what he's doing here is he's actually covering for, he's not really covering the story.
He's covering for ABC.
So here's what we read part of his newsletter anyway.
Um, it says Vox is Jane Coaston reports.
Yes, of course, he gives us Vox's.
He gives us the report from Vox on this story, obviously.
And then it summarizes the story.
He says, in the video, Robach clearly thinks she's just speaking privately to a colleague.
What she has heard describing is roughly what NPR's David Falkenflik.
Falkenflik.
That's his name.
Great name.
David Fulkenflik.
That is a dangerous name to say.
I can't say that too many times.
That's a dangerous name to say too many times on the air.
David Fulkenflik.
NPR's David Fulkenflik reported earlier this year that ABC interviewed the woman who was accusing Epstein in 2015, but decided not to air the tape.
Fulkenflik's story suggested that lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, were involved in scuttling the planned segment.
um uh and then he says Robach put out a statement saying that she was disappointed the interview didn't air but she said that but she acknowledged that it didn't meet our standards that was her after this video came out Now she's saying that, oh yeah, I mean, I'm disappointed it didn't air, but it didn't meet our journalistic standards.
Yeah, well, that's not what she said in the tape.
You saw the tape for yourself.
She didn't say anything about, well, it didn't meet our journalistic standards.
She was very clear that it did meet journalistic standards.
It was corroborated, it was a good story, and they didn't run it.
Stelter continues.
Nonetheless, Tuesday's video clip caused widespread outrage, particularly on the right, with many commenters using it to stoke hatred of the media writ large.
Personally, the most troubling part for me is Epstein's usage of high-profile, high-priced lawyers to intimidate news outlets.
ABC news executives say their journalists were simply not able to corroborate the details of the reporting sufficiently for broadcast, Falkenflik wrote in his story on Tuesday.
Okay, so Stelter is taking ABC's excuses at face value.
He's giving us Folk and Flick's version.
And one of his main concerns is the hatred of the media that is being engendered by this story.
The hatred from the dreaded right-wing commenters.
That's his concern.
Now it gets worse though.
Yashar Ali is a journalist who's worked for various different outlets and he's been following this story this week.
Let me read some of a tweet thread from him with some breaking news in it.
First from last night, it says, ABC News execs believe they know who the former employee is, who accessed footage of the reporter expressing her frustrations about her shelved Jeffrey Epstein story.
The former employee is now at CBS and ABC execs have reached out to CBS about that employee.
And then...
In a statement, ABC News says, we take violations of company policy very seriously and we're pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak.
Isn't squashing a good story because you don't want to get Democrats and the royal family in trouble, that's not a violation of company policy?
Is it at least a violation of journalistic standards, if you have any of those?
And then most recently says, update two sources familiar with the matter tell me that CBS News has fired the staffer in question.
This comes after ABC informed CBS that they had determined who accessed the footage of Amy Robach expressing her frustrations about the Epstein story.
So this is pretty amazing.
First of all, you got ABC more focused on running down the source of the leak than addressing the thing that was leaked.
Namely, that would be the fact that a corroborated account of a serial rapist and well-connected sex trafficker was killed by ABC because they didn't want to, uh, they were worried about the optics for Democrats.
They didn't want to, uh, destroy their access to the Royal family.
You know, they didn't want to, they wanted to have interviews and that sort of thing.
ABC isn't looking into any of that.
They just want to know who exposed them.
That's the thing they're concerned about.
And then they find this person working for a different network now, and that network fires him.
But wait a second.
And to be clear, the network... So CBS fired one of their own staff for embarrassing a rival network.
But hold on a second.
Isn't this staffer then a whistleblower?
Isn't he blowing the whistle on a major scandal?
And hasn't the media spent the last several months shouting about protecting whistleblowers?
And extolling the virtues of whistleblowers and condemning anyone who outs whistleblowers.
So now all of that passion for whistleblowing is out the window.
Pretty incredible.
This guy, I don't know if it's a guy or not, this person who released this footage, this would qualify as a whistleblower.
This is a scandal, it's a major scandal, and this is someone who has exposed it.
And really the only way to expose it was to release the tape.
Because if someone who works at CBS now, used to work at ABC, had just come out and claimed, asserted that ABC had this story and killed it, nobody would believe it.
It could easily be deflected and denied.
So the only choice was to take the footage, to take the proof, and put it out there, which was the right thing to do.
It was the moral, ethical, and I think courageous thing for this person to do, putting their own career at risk, which obviously apparently now is destroyed.
That's a whistleblower.
So just keep this in mind when we're talking about Trump and impeachment and the whistleblower in that story.
Every time the media talks about protecting the whistleblowers and everything, remember what they're doing here.
Because when someone blows the whistle on them, now they're going to hunt that person down and destroy them.
Alright, so there's this video making the rounds on social media, a different video.
It's a compilation of Paula White.
Paula White is the faith advisor to President Trump.
She's also a prosperity gospel fraud and an embarrassment to Christianity and a heretic.
She's a pastor who's been married three times, makes millions of dollars, owns a private jet, I think, or used to own a private jet, lives in a mansion, Preaches the most hideous mingling of the gospel that I have ever heard.
And that is quite a statement these days.
But the gospel that she preaches is disgusting.
It's revolting what she's doing.
So here's a little bit of the greatest hits compilation that's been circulating on social media.
Wherever I go, God rules.
When I walk on White House grounds, God walks on White House grounds.
I had every right and authority to declare the White House as holy ground
because I was standing there and where I stand is holy.
To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God.
And I won't do that.
We are in a spiritual war right now.
Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken.
Let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.
You want me to tell you what my thoughts are?
The thoughts of the King of Kings.
The thoughts of the Lord of Lords.
I'm downloading heaven.
Okay, now the one thing I'll say in defense of Paula White, the one thing I'll say is
that the bit where she says saying no to Trump is saying no to God.
I believe what she's referring to there was her decision to work for Trump.
She was saying that, I think anyway, I think the context was that she was saying that she felt called to work for President Trump.
God was calling her to it.
Which he wasn't, by the way.
I think we were pretty sure about that.
I don't think God was calling a heretic to go into the White House and influence the president.
But she was saying she felt called to it, so to say no to Trump would be saying no to her calling, thus saying no to God.
So it's not quite as bad as it sounds, but it's still an awful and troubling way for a so-called pastor to phrase it.
But the rest of it, though, is exactly what it sounds like.
Where she walks is holy ground.
She has the power to sanctify any place she walks into because she's so righteous and holy.
And you could store up favor in heaven by giving her money.
God will bless you with material riches if you're a good Christian, and especially if you buy her books and you give her money.
On and on.
Paula White is an absolute charlatan.
She exploits people for money.
She preaches a false gospel and she makes millions on it.
It really boggles my mind that people would go to a church, a quote-unquote church, massive scare quotes around that, I think what's the name of her church?
Well, she left her church.
She stepped down from her church and I think her kid now is the lead pastor or something.
I read what the name of this so-called church is.
I want to say, is it City of Destiny?
I'm pretty sure that's the name of her church.
Something like that.
City of Destiny or something.
Anyway, it's in one sense kind of mind-boggling that people would go to a place like this and sit and listen to this obvious fraud bragging about herself.
Which is so much of her, again, scare quotes, ministry is focused on her and how great she is.
Quite a ministry there.
But unfortunately this wolf in sheep's clothing has been elevated to a prominent position by the president, who made her into a faith advisor, and that's what makes it all the more important for us to denounce what she is doing and to make it very clear that this is not Christianity.
This kind of thing is so damaging I mean, a million anti-Christian zealots could not possibly do the kind of damage to the church that people like Paula White do.
They couldn't possibly do it.
Because when she's out there as this obvious, transparent fraud and charlatan, exploiting people, Then it gives everyone else who's not a Christian a chance to point to her and say, yep, you know, that's what Christianity is all about.
It's all scam.
I really hate it.
I really, really hate it.
Okay.
Speaking of things I hate, there's a movie coming out called Finding Jack.
It's a Vietnam war movie.
And the studio behind the film has settled on one of their lead actors for this movie that's coming out.
And the lead actor is going to be James Dean.
Yes the dead one.
Now he died more than 60 years ago but he's going to star in the movie and what they're doing is they're taking old pictures of him and old footage and they're going to use it to create a CGI version of James Dean.
They're going to have a stand-in probably someone in what you remember you know like Andy Serkis all the when he played Gollum in Lord of the Rings he was wearing the suit and they just grafted Gollum over top of same thing they did with the Planet of the Apes movies that came out.
So they're going to be doing that only with an actual human that once lived and they're going to be grafting him over somebody else and they're going to hire a voice actor that sounds like him.
We have now reached a point where Hollywood is remaking people.
So if you thought the remake and the sequel phase was going to die out No, you were dead wrong, so to speak.
Now they've just gone to phase two.
Now they've only ramped it up.
Not only are we going to remake movies, we're going to remake the people in the movies.
So it's going to get to a point, and this isn't even a joke, it's going to get to a point where they're going to remake, you know, like Gone with the Wind.
With all the same actors in the original movie who they've recreated with CGI.
That's where we're headed.
And it is utterly grotesque and dystopian.
And there are a lot of very good actors out in Hollywood.
Hollywood for all of its flaws.
There are a lot of really talented people and actors, I think.
And they would all do a fine job acting in a Vietnam War movie.
Literally thousands of actors out there would do a fine job in a Vietnam War movie.
But instead of going to one of those people, one of those real live humans, They're going to dig someone out of the grave to do it.
And why?
Is it because it's a, you know, because a reincarnated fake James Dean is really the best man for the job?
Or fake man for the job?
No, it's a stunt.
Of course, it's a stunt, which exploits a dead person and forces him to be in your movie, um, without his consent, which is a whole separate issue.
But I think this is why I think this, this kind of puts a, a face on, on what's Martin Scorsese has been talking about and why Martin Scorsese came out against Marvel movies the way he did.
His whole point, not that Marvel has done this yet, yet they'll get around to it, but his whole point was that movies are just these days turning into a collection of marketing stunts and gimmicks.
And that's what movies are now.
It's just a marketing thing.
And there's no artistry to it.
He wrote an article.
I think it was in the New York Times.
He wrote an article a few days ago, which is worth reading.
I think it's an excellent article where he's fleshing out his criticism of Marvel movies.
And the one thing that he talks about and he keeps going back to is with real art and real films and cinema, there's, of course, artistry to it and there's emotional risk.
It's like you're saying something.
As an artist, you're putting yourself out there.
and presenting something unique and something that is you that is from you as an artist he talks about the you know a real movie is comes from the vision of the people involved and there's a sort of single Unified vision that's being put on the screen.
But with these Marvel movies and these franchise films, it's not like that.
This is, you know, you got focus groups and marketing research and all of that.
It's all tailored and stitched together to put on the screen with the sole purpose of just making money.
There's no other reason to it.
Like I talked about last week when we were discussing this.
You know, I think the primary purpose of a movie It's very simple.
It should be to tell a story.
And all of the artists involved in it, their primary motivation should be to tell this story.
They also want to make money, and they make a lot of it, and that's fine.
I don't begrudge them that.
You make a billion dollars on a movie, good for you.
But if the primary and really sole purpose of the movie was simply just to make a billion dollars, and the story was secondary to that, then I think that's not even a real movie.
What's the point of even watching it?
They're telling you a story that they don't even care about.
The storytellers themselves don't care about the story they're telling you.
They just want your butt in the seat so that they can make money off you.
That's the only reason.
And this is a perfect example of that.
If you really wanted to tell this story about the Vietnam War, I don't know what the specific story is they're going to tell, but there are a lot of great stories there.
If you really wanted to tell the story, then you would just tell it.
You would hire an actor who can do the role and you would tell the story, but instead they're going to make it into a grotesque marketing stunt.
Which we're told is okay because James Dean's family has signed off on it.
His ancestors, 65 years later, say that, oh yeah, sure, you could piss a bunch of money and put his likeness up on the screen.
As if that makes it okay.
All right, um, mattwalshowatgmail.com, mattwalshowatgmail.com is the email address.
Get to some emails.
This is from Adam says, I appreciate what you've said about children having a right to a mother and a father.
However, as you spoke about this issue, I heard the opposing voices screaming in my head.
The studies all show that children of same sex couples turn out no worse than those of traditional couples.
I'm not well versed in the literature concerning this issue.
So do you know of any studies that do support your position on this matter?
Um, Yeah, this is where I think we have to be careful about trotting out studies, Adam.
One of the peculiar things about debates and discourse these days in America is that people think they can win the argument just by broadly citing, not even citing, but simply mentioning studies.
Without themselves having been, the people haven't read the study, they're not familiar with the methodology that went into the study, they think if they can just say, oh, studies have shown this, And maybe provide a link to a study or a news article about a study, having not even read the news article, much less the study itself.
This is how debates work these days, where it's a contest of who can compile the most studies that might vaguely sort of vindicate your position, but you don't even know because you haven't read them.
So, yes, I'm familiar with the claim that out of the 70 or 80 studies that have been done on children who are raised in same-sex households, the claim is that all but a handful have found that the kids turn out fine.
Now, I haven't read all 80 studies, okay?
And I doubt that anyone has.
But from the outset, before I even get into any of these studies specifically, which I will in a second, From the outset, my BS detector is going haywire.
And I'll tell you why.
Before even looking at the studies, I am extremely skeptical.
Because, first of all, same-sex adoption has not been a widespread phenomenon for very long.
So if we want to know how children turned out with same-sex parents, we would need to look at people who are now over the age of 18, We're raised by same-sex parents, that's over, and now we can look at how they turned out.
The problem is that there just aren't that many people over the age of 18 who have been raised by same-sex parents because it was certainly not very common 18 years ago.
And it's still not very common, though it's more common.
Now, 20 years from now, I think you'll probably have a pretty large sample size, for better or worse.
But as it stands right now, if you want to know how do kids turn out being raised that way, it's going to be really difficult to find a study that can give you relevant results because there isn't much of a sample size to choose from.
Also, I'm wondering again before even looking, I'm wondering how are these studies conducted?
Who are they asking?
Are they asking the parents themselves about how their kids are doing?
And if so, are these blind studies?
Do the people involved know that this is a study about the effectiveness of same-sex parenting?
And if they do, wouldn't that wildly skew the data?
If they know, if you're a same-sex parent and you know that someone is doing a study about how effective same-sex parenting is, aren't you going to be really biased in how you respond to the questions?
And also, do these studies have a control group?
Do we have another group that we're comparing it to?
Are these studies looking at a representative cross-section of parents in all different socioeconomic conditions?
There are a lot of questions to consider here.
So whenever someone talks about studies, whatever the subject is, your immediate question should be, what was the methodology?
How did the researchers arrive at this conclusion?
Just because something is called a study doesn't automatically mean that its findings are compelling or even legitimate.
So let's take a look here.
I'll give you two examples.
If you google same-sex adoption studies, which is what everyone does on this and this is how they come up with and they find oh 80 studies have been done.
Well, I googled it too, but I took the extra step of actually reading what some of these studies have to say.
One of the first things that pops up, at least for me, is an American Psychological Association article.
So that sounds pretty science-y and legitimate, right?
So on the APA.org website, there's a headline that says, Adopted children thrive in same-sex households, study shows.
Okay, so you've got the APA saying there's a study that shows—SHOWS—children thrive with same-sex parents.
Now, let's read the article, okay?
Radical step.
Let's actually read the article.
It says, New research shows that children adopted into lesbian and gay families are as well-adjusted as children adopted by heterosexual parents and follow similar patterns of gender development, said Charlotte J. Patterson, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
Patterson discussed the results of a study in press in Applied Developmental Science at an APA annual convention symposium on same-sex marriage.
Patterson and co-authors Rachel H. Farr, a psychology doctoral student at UVA, and Stephen Forsell, Ph.D., of George Washington University, studied 106 families, including 56 same-sex couples and 50 heterosexual couples, who adopted children at birth or in the first few weeks of life.
Okay, it's all sounding pretty great so far.
And I think that most people, when they're looking for studies, they stop right there.
If they even read that far, they're going to stop right there.
Because, okay, it sounds science-y, we've got PhDs involved, and okay, it all sounds great, we're good to go.
Now, already there are problems.
It's not a huge sample size.
We're not told anything about whether these couples represent various socioeconomic conditions or not, which would be very important for a study like this.
But at least you got the control group with the heterosexual couples also included.
So, okay, maybe we've got something legitimate here.
But then things go wildly off rails.
It continues.
In the study, parents assessed their own parenting styles and relationship satisfaction.
They also filled out the Preschooler's Activities Inventory, which assesses whether gender role behavior conforms to expected patterns or not.
And the child behavior checklist.
Teachers and daycare providers were asked to complete the caregiver teacher report form which assesses a child's somatic complaints, anxiety, depression, and withdrawn behaviors.
By looking at parents' self-reports and reports of others, the researchers found that the children of gays and lesbians were virtually indistinguishable from children of heterosexual parents.
You see the massive problems here?
Problem number one, the self-reporting of parents is basically useless.
Parents are notoriously biased in favor of their own parenting and their own kids.
Problem two, we're not told whether the parents and the teachers knew what the study was about.
Did the teachers filling out the survey know?
What was going on?
And if so, wouldn't that give them an ideological incentive to be more generous in the answers that they provide?
Problem number three.
If these are preschool teachers filling this thing out, are they really around the child enough to make reliable assessments about the child's well-being?
If a teacher says that a child seems fine, as far as they can tell, does that mean the child is actually fine?
Would you take that as definitive?
Problem four, and this is a big one.
These apparently are preschool-aged children.
These are very, very young children.
How in God's name could you possibly purport to prove anything about same-sex parenting by looking at kids who have only been in that environment for a few years at most and who have not developed at all, really, psychologically?
You know, we need to see.
This is all about their psychological development.
They haven't had any psychological development yet.
So what could that possibly... Okay, well, a bunch of preschoolers seem happy.
All preschoolers seem happy.
Have you ever been around preschoolers?
Tells you nothing.
Now, if a kid seems fine to his parents and his teachers at the age of four, that doesn't mean he's going to be fine at 10 or 12 or 14 or 22.
This is an embarrassingly weak study that have all these PhDs involved, and this is what they come up with.
And the APA publishes it without criticism.
Okay.
So, but let's look at another study.
There's a much touted study, a much cited study that takes a longer range view, which is what you need to do.
Think Progress has an article about it.
Headline, kids in the longest running study of same-sex parenting are doing just fine at 25.
Okay, longest running study, doing just fine, that sounds powerful.
Let's take a look.
The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study has been following a contingent of lesbian families since they first started to plan to have kids in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Those children are now about 25 years old and the researchers have confirmed that they're doing swimmingly.
Compared to their peers who were not raised by same-sex couples, researchers found no significant differences with respect to adaptive functioning, behavioral or emotional problems, scores on mental health diagnostic scales, or the percentage of participants with a score in the borderline of clinical range.
In short, the longest running study of same-sex parenting found that kids raised by same-sex couples turn out pretty much the same as everybody else.
Okay.
Major, major, major, major problems here.
In fact, this study is garbage.
This study is useless.
I'll put it that way.
And I had to look around a little bit to do some more research about this research.
To get all the facts.
First of all, the people conducting the study are not objective researchers.
These are activists with an ideological agenda.
And this study is funded by people with an ideological agenda.
They are out to prove that same-sex parenting is fine.
They actively want to reach that conclusion.
Now, if you go into a study rooting for a certain conclusion, it doesn't necessarily mean your conclusions are wrong, but it does make your entire methodology and everything suspect, because that is not the scientific and legitimate way to go about these things.
You're not supposed to want a certain result.
You're supposed to just What you're supposed to want as a researcher is to find out what the result is.
It is obviously an issue with the people conducting a study strongly favor one conclusion over another.
Second problem.
This is not a random or representative sample.
They only studied lesbian parents.
There are no men in the study.
And the participants are mostly upper middle class, employed, college educated, basically well off.
Third problem.
The participants all know they're involved in a long-term study to prove that same-sex parenting is good.
The participants were, in fact, eager to participate in a study like that.
And wouldn't you know it, all of these politically engaged, well-off lesbian women, when asked, will tell you that lesbian women do a great job parenting kids.
Wow!
Isn't that shocking?
Fourth problem.
The study contradicts almost everything we know about child development.
For example, the study found that these lesbian relationships broke up at a pretty high rate, a higher rate than the national average.
But amazingly, it also found that the breakup of these homes had no effect on the kids.
They all turned out fine.
Which contradicts almost all research, not to mention common sense.
Which tells us that kids in broken homes are at a disadvantage.
So summon things up here.
This is an ideologically driven study involving exclusively well-off lesbian women who know what the study is about.
There is no control group.
There is no economic diversity represented in the sample and it relies largely on self-reported data from people who are both ideologically and personally committed to a certain conclusion.
So this again is just embarrassing and I would suspect having not looked at all 80 studies, I would suspect That most of them probably have one or all of the problems represented by the two studies that I just shared with you.
And those two studies are not cherry-picked.
These are the ones that are often cited the most, considered the most legitimate, and so on.
All right, let's move on.
There was one other thing I wanted to... This is from Jeff, says, Hi Matt, caught the stream of your talk the other night.
I thought your speech was one of the best I've ever heard, honestly.
I thought you handled the Q&A very well, but I did have a question about one of your answers.
Someone asked you if society has an anti-white bias and you said no.
That seems to contradict your past statements.
Did you just say that because you didn't want to give any more ammunition to the idiots asking questions?
I understand if so, but I was confused by your response.
Yeah, fair question.
Yeah, I was asked, I believe that was the exact phrasing was, does society have an anti-white bias?
Pretty sure that was like, I have to go back and look, but I think that was how it was phrased.
My actual answer was, no, I think the bias is based more on ideology.
I stand by that.
I don't think society in general is set up to keep the white man down.
I think that if you're a white person in our society, you can do quite well, obviously, and encounter very little resistance or discrimination.
If you toe the ideological line, so a liberal, especially an upper middle class urban white liberal, I think will have to deal with very little bias and will live a very privileged existence.
Now, if he's a conservative Christian, That's a different story. If he's blue collar, if he's from
a low-income area, particularly in the south, and so on, then there will be more of a societal
bias. Also remember something. I've talked many times about the victim hierarchy in society,
with of course the irony being that people who are the most, who are most considered to be
victims actually have the most privilege and have the most sort of social capital that that supposed
victimhood affords them.
Well, at the top of that hierarchy, as I have literally drawn for you in the past, at the very top are LGBT.
And they're at the top of the victim hierarchy in society.
And there are plenty of white people up there.
There are even plenty of white men up there.
Doing very well in terms of how society treats them.
Now, if you want to get more specific and start talking about specific institutions, then you can start to see a more generalized anti-white bias affirmative action, for example, in the education system.
That is obviously anti-white bias.
It's intended to be that.
It is institutionalized, codified anti-white bias.
It's also anti-Asian bias.
But even that, you know, that is focused more on men than it is on women.
So that's how I would break this down.
I don't think it's quite accurate to say society has an anti-white bias.
I think society, the culture, is much more concerned with ideological conformity.
But the explicit racial bias starts to creep in and become much more apparent in certain institutions.
So maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs there, but I think that this is an important distinction, and it's important for us to be specific in how we talk about this.
I know many times in the past I have not been specific about it, but we have to keep this in mind that the elites in our society, academic elites, people in government, Hollywood, so on, many of them, probably most, are white.
And what are they up to?
What's their agenda?
Are they white people with an anti-white bias?
No, that to me is like when a black person comes out as conservative and then he's accused of being self-loathing and bigoted against himself.
I think that's absurd.
I don't think the human mind works that way.
You're not going to be bigoted against your own group.
Now, I think there is this sort of performative self-loathing thing that white people can do, but I don't think it's sincere.
I think these are people with a white savior complex, and they want to be seen as especially woke and enlightened, so they pretend almost to be self-loathing.
I don't think they actually are.
So I think the agenda of these elites is one, as I said, ideological conformity.
There are certain ideas, a certain worldview, that they're trying to impose.
And if you go along with it, if you repeat the lines that they give you, if you follow the script, you'll have smooth sailing.
White, black, doesn't matter.
As I said, a white person with the, quote, right ideology, and who says the right things, and has the right worldview, and has the right attitudes about sex, and especially comes from the right socioeconomic stratum, will lead a very privileged existence.
Same for anyone of any race who falls into all those categories.
And one other thing, the question, if I remember correctly, the question was about anti-white, it wasn't anti-white male, it was anti-white.
I do think that society is, in many ways, especially the education system, biased against men, against boys, and against manhood in general.
But, I mean, think about a well-off, liberal, sexually enlightened, white woman.
I would say someone like that is basically going to encounter no bias anywhere.
I mean, that's one of the easiest existences you can have.
That's one of the easiest existences currently on offer in the world, is that.
Especially in the education system.
I mean, our education system is designed for people like that, in that category.
And the woman part, the girl, that's a very important aspect of it.
The education system is designed for girls.
And it caters to them.
Which is why, huge coincidence right, that you find that boys in the school system are drugged for ADHD at a much higher rate than girls.
Why is it?
Because the system isn't really made for the boys.
It's made for the girls.
And the boys who are not able to learn like girls learn and aren't able to conduct themselves in a similar way, then we just say that they're mentally disordered and we drug them.
So that again, is that a racial thing?
No, I think it's deeper than that.
Um, so that's my point.
All right.
Last question.
This is from Jude says, Matt, great show, but what's up with the banjo in the background?
Can you actually play that thing?
If so, can you play us a song?
Well, Jude, um, yes, the banjo in the background, which I, it's usually in the background, but I have it right here because I was waiting for this question.
Now, first of all, um, Why would you even ask me if I can play it?
Do you really think that I would have a banjo on display in my office that I can't play?
I mean, what kind of poser do you think I am?
What kind of poser has an instrument on display that he can't even play?
That you would even ask me that.
You would think I'm that kind of person.
I mean, goodness.
No, in fact, I can play the banjo.
I play it every night for my family.
They all gather around.
And I play a tune on the banjo.
We call it Banjo Hour.
All the kids are excited.
You know, every night there's a... When is Banjo Hour?
It's a whole hour of banjo.
It's kind of maybe a little bit excessive.
Anyway, can I play you a song?
Yes, I can.
I will.
Let me get this bad boy tuned up here.
You always got to tune your instruments before you... Just got to get it all tuned up, ready to go.
Now this is an original composition that I'm going to play for you here.
You weren't expecting a musical interlude for this show, but here it is.
Okay.
Okay, I'm gonna start playing this song.
You know, I'm something of a what we call a minimalist musician.
Um...
It's not everyone's style.
It's a little abstract.
It's a very sort of heady way of playing the instrument.
It really makes you think.
But that was my song.
So thank you for giving me the chance to share my music with you, which really is my greatest passion in life.
And thanks everybody for watching.
Thank you for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Democrats' impeachment attempt isn't merely a hoax or a witch hunt.
It's a coup, and you don't need to take my word for it.
That's the word being used by the lawyer for the whistleblower who kicked off the latest impeachment push in the first place.
We will blow the whistle on the whistleblower's coup.
▲
Export Selection