Media Party’s 2021 Edelman survey exposes a crisis: 52% of Canadians distrust journalists, accusing them of lying (49%), prioritizing ideology over facts, and failing objectivity. The host links this to the Toronto Star’s socialist ties—$110K weekly from Trudeau’s government—and its framing of skepticism as "misinformation," ignoring media bias like the CBC’s anti-Trump, pro-Liberal coverage. Protesters in Edmonton call media propaganda "disgusting lies," while activists outpace mainstream outlets on pandemic science. Garneau’s Liberal abstention on Uyghur genocide, despite Trudeau’s $4.8M Huawei gift and family’s China links, reveals political cowardice over principle, contrasting Biden’s contradictory stance. The episode argues distrust stems from media’s complicity with power, not public ignorance—undermining its own credibility by proposing a ban on critics. [Automatically generated summary]
And it says that 52% of Canadians say journalists lie.
Like not just have a bias, but actually lie.
It's incredible, though, because they go on to blame the people, not to blame the journalists.
What are you crazy?
I'll take you through it.
That's ahead.
Before we go through that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click the button subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, and you get the video version of this podcast, which I hope you'll find useful.
All right.
Let me invite you.
It's $8 a month.
Did I mention that?
It's $80 if you get the whole year in advance.
So please consider that.
In any event, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the media party discovers that people don't trust them, and they blame the people.
It's February 22nd, and this is the Eslevant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
A new survey out by a PR and lobbying company called Edelman shows trust in the media and indeed all establishment institutions is plummeting.
Half of Canadians simply don't believe a word the media says.
But look at this headline in the Toronto Star about it.
Epidemic of misinformation is eroding trust in institutions and media finds a new survey.
Just stop there.
I mean, that's your whole story right there.
The poll shows that people don't trust the media and the headline in Canada's largest newspaper is, it's the people who are wrong.
It's misinformation that causes people not to trust us.
They would never for a second even think that they weren't trustworthy.
No, no, no, it's misinformation.
And they threw in that word epidemic because why not?
I mean, people seem to get scared when you say pandemic these days, but that would be too on the nose to say pandemic.
So let's just call it an epidemic.
So people don't trust the media, and the media knows why.
They don't have to engage in any introspection.
People are stupid and gullible.
That's why they don't trust the media.
Otherwise, for sure they'd trust the media.
And their distrust of the media is not based on any good reasons.
It's like a sickness.
It's like an epidemic, really.
They need to be cured of it because obviously the media hasn't done anything to warrant being distrusted.
Yeah, even if this headline shows exactly, it just the headline alone.
You don't have to read anymore.
It shows exactly why the media is so distrusted, isn't it?
Information bankruptcy.
That was the rather bleak assessment offered this week by Lisa Kimmel, chair and CEO of Edelman Canada on the findings of the communication firm's 2021 trust barometer.
Isn't that funny again?
We are in an actual bankruptcy in Canada.
Trudeau's racking up a debt to equal every other debt every previous prime minister ever incurred combined, including to build a railway and fight two world wars.
But it's an information bankruptcy that they want to talk about.
They'd never say Trudeau is making us financially bankrupt.
In Canada, trust in business rose to 61% in May 2020, but has since declined to 56%.
Trust in government shot to 70% in May from 50% and has since declined to 59%.
And trust in the media sits at 54% down from 58% last spring.
So at the beginning of the pandemic, people looked to the institutions, to the government and the media for help, and they realized that the government and the media were of no help and couldn't be trusted and were pretty much just in it for themselves.
I'd say that's not a misinformation pandemic.
I'd say people are actually pretty perceptive.
Nearly half of those surveyed in Canada believe journalists are purposely trying to mislead them by making statements they know are false or exaggerated.
52% think news outlets are more concerned with supporting an ideology than informing the public.
And 52% think the media is not doing well at being objective and nonpartisan.
My response is just 52% to 48% of people really think the media isn't false, exaggerated, or biased.
This next line is my favorite.
Think back on the last year.
Donald Trump was a serial liar who made a campaign against the media a centerpiece of his presidency, denouncing news outlets as fake news and an enemy of the people.
There were the endless lies around the outcome of the U.S. election, and we've seen the science and public health advice around COVID-19 falsely called into question.
So Trump was a liar.
Not Trudeau, not Teresa Tam, not Patty Haidu, not Doug Ford or John Torrey or whoever.
It was that evil Donald Trump.
He's the only liar, and he's the reason Canadians don't trust Canadian media.
Hey guys, you're doing it again.
You're doing the thing that makes people not trust you anymore.
You're lying and exaggerating and running partisan errands for Trudeau again.
I love how the star uses that same language about health and sickness and cleanliness and dirtiness.
Only one in five Canadians have good information hygiene.
That's defined as engaging with news, avoiding information echo chambers, verifying information, and not spreading information you haven't confirmed.
So the CBC and the Toronto Star and the Media Party, you're expected to believe that they are not an echo chamber and that their one point of view is not an outlier and they are not just spinning for Trudeau.
I'm serious.
When they say a news echo chamber, it's hard to believe, but they are not talking about themselves.
Hey, can I give you a reminder about who the Toronto Star is?
Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, is officially socialist in its orientation.
It's hardwired right into its corporate constitution, actually.
They call it their Atkinson principles, named after their socialist publisher from about a century ago.
You can find these Atkinson principles very quickly on their website.
They're proud of it.
You can see the newspaper has broken them down into six different categories.
I'll just quote from a couple of them.
Here they're talking about social justice, redistributing wealth.
The Star publisher was certain that many of Canada's ills could be resolved by a fairer redistribution of the nation's wealth.
Yeah, they're talking about socialism and just taking money and giving it.
Here's an example.
He favored public ownership of gas, electric light, electric power, coal mines, oil wells, timber, pump and paper, telephone, telegraph, radio, television, railways, airlines, and streetcars.
Got it.
All right, that explains a lot.
The government should own all media, all communications, all factories, all utilities.
Got it.
It checks out that Toronto Star is keeping to that mission.
And they're certainly leading by example.
I mean, the star itself takes $110,000 per week per week from Justin Trudeau.
So the thing about that though is that when a media company is owned by the government, people can sort of tell that it no longer holds that government to account.
At best, it's play fighting, controlled opposition, as the kids say.
Reading about the Atkinson principles, Atkinson styled himself as a gadfly against the governments of the day.
He was a gadfly from the left, of course, but he was a pain in the neck for them.
But whether you're right-wing or left-wing, if you are paid by the people you're covering, you don't really cover them anymore, do you?
Except maybe covering them with kisses, as the Toronto Star does for Justin Trudeau.
Such media like the CBC that has wholly owned by the government since the beginning, they try to give the simulation of being independent and accountability-oriented by going after, say, Donald Trump, even though Trump isn't the president anymore.
They're still talking about him even in this article.
They won't go after Joe Biden in the same way, of course.
Listen, all politicians lie.
They don't mention his lies, but mainly they don't go after Trudeau because Trudeau gives the Toronto Star $110,000 a week.
So even in this article, they're railing against Trump.
I'll be honest, if someone gave me $110,000 a week, I'd probably only have nice things to say about them too.
But do you see my point?
This is why no one trusts them.
Let's look at the Edelman study directly.
Let me show you page 16.
49% of people say journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.
So that's not even about bias.
They say journalists are deliberately trying to trick people.
That's not saying he is left-wing or right-wing or he has a clear opinion or bias.
That's saying they are tricksters.
They are liars.
That's shocking.
52% say they're biased.
Most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.
And to that, I say just 52%.
And 52% say the media is not doing well at being objective and nonpartisan.
And let me close with what I think is just incredible.
Such a lack of self-awareness here.
Just a total lack of any hint of responsibility for this or any responsibility at all.
On page 18, there's a graph that shows that because some people have poor information hygiene, we talked about this, they are less likely to want to be vaccinated.
That's their test.
And how do you know that they have poor information hygiene?
They're using that, oh, you're dirty, you haven't been vaccinated.
You have poor information hygiene too.
Do you see the trickery here?
Well, they know that people who don't want to be vaccinated have poor information because they don't want to be vaccinated.
It's a loop.
It's a logical circle.
They're dumb because they don't want a vaccine.
They don't want a vaccine because they're dumb.
A proof is a proof, as Cretchen used to say.
It is completely unthinkable.
The thought has never crossed their mind in the media party, all of them, and I'd include the star and Edelman in that, that maybe people actually have real reasons not to get the vaccine.
And that, in fact, people worried about the vaccines might actually be better informed than those who simply do whatever Teresa Tam or Justin Trudeau says to do this week, which is likely different than what they said last week.
I mean, according to the star and this study, listening to Teresa Tam tell you to have a mask on during sex, that's good personal hygiene and good information hygiene.
That's being super smart.
Thinking she's a kook, though, that's misinformation.
I mean, remember this.
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential you could track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
Yeah, if you're a bit worried about our experts, if you're worried about these things, they call that misinformation.
You know, I've been covering protests in one form or another for most of my adult life, going back decades, actually.
Most of the protests on the left are full of people.
I'm sorry, and it's my number one question.
I ask, why are you here?
And most people I've ever met at a left-wing protest, when you say, why are you here?
They can't tell you why they are there.
They can't.
I'm not being mean.
I'm just an observation.
It's my number one question of protest.
So why are you here?
So what message do you have?
And they don't know.
They just show up to be part of the club.
Maybe someone at school said to come.
Maybe, you know, I mean, they know a few lines about global warmings, hate the tar sands, whatever.
They're a rental mob who can't articulate any position.
I don't think they're deep information.
I think they're low information voters.
You could say they have poor information hygiene if I was a person on the left.
But my observation is that anti-lockdown activists are actually the opposite.
They'll talk your ear off.
They read much more than the average person does.
And I'm not saying that they're all correct.
There is misinformation out there, but boy, I would stack the average anti-lockdowner's knowledge about things like PCR tests and false positives and herd immunity and the risks of vaccines.
I would stack their knowledge against the knowledge of the mainstream media on those subjects any day.
So maybe they have a real reason for not wanting the vaccine other than just being dumb.
I can think of some real reasons.
If someone's under 40, the risk posed by the virus is approaching zero.
Whereas the risks of the vaccine themselves that were rushed to market and haven't been put through the normal testing that medicines and vaccines do, there's lots of reasons to be against a vaccine rush to market promoted by Bill Gates, besides they're just stupid.
I saw this video from an anti-lockdown protest in Edmonton on the weekend.
An anti-lockdowner was being a bit rude towards some media party journalists and the media party journalists, boy, they complained about it.
Anti-Lockdown Anger00:02:49
I mean, I'd say what comes around goes around a bit.
The media party called these specific protesters all kinds of names, including specifically calling them racist.
But look at this.
It's from Bailey Nitty.
If anyone is interested in what it was like being a journalist at yesterday's protest, here's some raw footage.
Okay, let's take a look.
Let's watch.
That's what's going on.
You won't look back.
Fake disgusting!
You guys are disgusting.
You're liars.
You're liars.
You're lying to the people.
You're liars to the people.
You know it.
If you don't know it, you're not doing your research.
Yeah, put the camera on me.
What are you going to edit?
You're liars.
Your fridge is full of liars.
You're going to be held accountable for your lives.
You're going to be sued.
You're going to be held accountable for your lives.
Complicit with communism, you prostitutes.
Nor did that issue stop in the panel.
So a couple of guys who are clearly mad.
The first guy in sunglasses said, you're here for the riots.
Did you catch that?
He was referring to the fact that all these media reports of racist, racist, racists are coming.
So Black Lives Matter came to challenge the anti-lockdowners because the media said the anti-lockdowners were racist.
So he was calling out the media for sensationalizing it, for misinformation, for smearing him and the others as racist.
At least that's what I gather.
He called it disgusting propaganda and lies.
He didn't swear.
I don't think he particularly shouted.
They were outdoors and it sounded like there was some noise there.
The whole encounter with him lasted about 30 seconds.
No swearing, no assaulting, no threatening, no touching.
And then another guy was angry talking about a full fridge, obviously referring to people who are unemployed or poor because of the lockdowns.
I heard the word prostitutes thrown in there by someone, which is something the media get called from time to time.
It's not friendly.
It's an insult for sure.
And that's it.
About one whole minute of raw feedback from people whose lives have been shattered by the lockdowns and the media that's cheering the lockdowns.
Uyghur Genocide Debate00:13:39
So yeah.
Maybe it was a bit unfair and maybe it was a bit mean towards the journalists.
But you can see the reaction by the media party to grubby people talking back.
They weren't swearing, they weren't threatening, they certainly weren't assaulting anyone as many of our conservative reporters have been assaulted, some of them repeatedly.
The media says the people are the problem.
You don't trust us?
You must be misinformed.
You say we're biased?
How dare you?
We insult you.
We call you racist and dumb, but you speak back and call us disgusting.
How dare you?
Yeah, like I say, I'm shocked that only 52% of people call the media liars.
Aren't you?
Stay with us for more.
Mr. Speaker, I abstained on behalf of the government of Canada.
Mr. Garneau, abstention, abstention.
There you have it, Mark Garneau, a cabinet minister and actually a former leadership rival to Justin Trudeau, bravely abstaining in the House of Commons on a motion to condemn the Chinese Communist Party treatment of the Uyghur ethnicity, a Muslim group in Xinjiang province, to call that a genocide.
Well, Mark Garneau and the entirety of the cabinet bravely abstaining.
They'll neither say it was or it wasn't a genocide.
They didn't have that same ambiguity when it comes to Canada being a genocide.
Here's a quick recap of Justin Trudeau not hesitating at all.
He says it rather matter of factly in just a few moments.
It's no big deal.
Yeah, sure, we engaged in genocide here.
We accept the findings of the commissioners that it was genocide.
Yeah, of course.
Canada commits genocide.
China, whoo.
Well, we're not going to go there.
Joining us now to talk about this is our friend Spencer Fernando, the boss of SpencerFernando.com.
Great to see you again.
Thanks for joining us today from Winnipeg.
You know, if you think it's a genocide, say so.
If you don't think it's a genocide, say so.
Make your case each way.
But to bravely run away is, I think, the most pitiful thing I've seen from a pitiful parliament in a year.
Yeah, I mean, you know, it's if this was a different prime minister, the best they could say was, okay, we're trying to, you know, maintain some sort of strategic ambiguity when we talk to China, say, oh, well, the government didn't say you committed genocide, just the House of Commons.
But this isn't any prime minister.
I mean, this is Justin Trudeau.
You know, we've all seen him when he said he admired China was the country he most admired.
So it just, you know what, it just doesn't add up for this government to say, oh, well, we're just being smart about it.
No, I mean, this is a guy who every chance he's had to kind of get in line with public opinion on China, he avoids it every single time.
You know, there's not really any exceptions to that.
And so it's very interesting to see liberal MPs, the vast majority of them, voting for the motion after what I'm guessing was a bit of a lobbying effort from Trudeau internally to get them to do otherwise.
So there's some who are showing some courage today, which is good to see.
Yeah, you're talking about the backbenchers who just could not show their faces to their ridings, backbenchers who have claimed to care about minorities and civil rights.
It's bizarre to me.
I mean, just a week ago, the news came out that Justin Trudeau's government had approved $4.8 million as a gift, a kind of foreign aid, to Huawei, the Communist Party-connected tech company.
Trudeau wasn't abstaining on that.
He wasn't wishy-washy on giving $4.8 million in foreign aid, essentially, to the world's largest economy.
He's resolute on that.
When the Canadian military wanted to cool off joint training projects with China, he was furious with that.
But to actually call them, to call it genocide by its proper name, he won't even show up.
I find that odd.
I just think that if you can't say the name of your foreign policy, if you can't say it, if you're literally hiding from the House of Commons, that in itself is probably a sign that you're doing it wrong.
If you can't bear the consequences of it for or against, if you're literally hiding under your desk, I think that's a sign you're off course.
What's the payoff?
I just don't understand this as a kind of diplomacy.
Almost three years or two and a half years after the kidnapping of the two Michaels, surely Trudeau knows this does not work.
Yeah, you know, it's there's a few things I think about.
One is that, you know, if you look back at Trudeau's history, his father was very much obviously pro-communist and pro-China, a big fan of dictatorships, communist dictatorships.
So I think that a lot of that was instilled in Trudeau from a young age.
And I think he really can't break out of it.
I think that's still his mindset.
I think at his core, he's much more of a, you know, pro-dictatorship or pro-China than he is pro-Western civilization, for example, pro-Canada, the Anglosphere, the U.S., the U.K., that history.
And I think he just can't break out of it.
And then I think there's some people who, and it's not necessarily that they're bought off or anything, but I think there's some people who are unable to adjust to how China's changed.
You know, I think around 20, you know, 2005, 2010, you know, you could be forgiven for thinking, well, China's probably going to, even though the Communist Party will still be in charge, they're probably going to become a little more democratic, a little more open.
You know, it's going to be more like kind of a normal country.
It's going to be fine.
And it just hasn't turned out that way.
China's getting more and more authoritarian, more bullying of their partners, the people in the region.
Their human rights abuses, obviously what's happening with the Uyghurs, the genocide there is getting worse and worse.
And I think people, some people just can't really accept what China's become and are just kind of caught in some sort of fantasy world and just hope, oh, we just won't talk about it.
It's all going to go away.
And of course, history shows that never works.
You know, one thing that comes to mind is Joe Biden.
Of course, his family does a lot of business with China.
But in a recent town hall with CNN, Joe Biden made a kind of defense for China.
I think he had just spent two hours on the phone with Xi Jinping, and he said the most astonishing thing.
He said, China and its dictators have to be this way because it's expected of them.
It's just who they are culturally.
And just like an American president has to be American, a Chinese president.
Here, here's it in its own words.
I think this was stunning.
He basically said, yeah, they say that's their culture.
And who am I to disagree?
Here's a clip of that.
You know, Chinese leaders, if you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven't been unified at home.
So the central, vastly overstated, the central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China.
And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.
I point out to him, no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn't reflect the values of the United States.
And so the idea, I'm not going to speak out against what he's doing in Hong Kong, what he's doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China, and Taiwan trying to end the one China policy by making it forceful.
I said, and by the way, he said he gets it.
Culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow.
So Spencer, I think that some of it is Trudeau's own natural pro-China ideology.
And you're so right.
He inherited from his dad.
His brother shares that.
His brother published his last book on China, and the publisher was the Chinese government.
That's how tight his brother is.
But I think Joe Biden coming in with the pro-China point of view, I think Trudeau's going to completely harmonize his China policy with that of Joe Biden.
I think that's their tracking each other on this Uyghur issue.
Yeah, well, see, you know, what we've seen from Biden so far is a little bit contradictory.
On the one hand, I saw his comments in the town hall, which, yeah, it seemed kind of almost a justification in a way, which in a way is kind of insulting to Chinese people, right?
Like to say, you know, it's like the same argument people used to make in the past, like, oh, you know, certain cultures or countries just aren't compatible with democracy.
And people said that about a lot of European countries that have now been democracies for more than half a century.
So I think, and just look at Taiwan, right?
I mean, ethnically the exact same as China, and you've got a very functioning democracy with human rights, you know, just across the Taiwan Strait there.
So I think it's important to not fall into that idea that someplace is just, oh, democracy just doesn't work.
But, you know, the flip side is, you know, the Biden administration, the Trump administration had declared China's actions a genocide.
And one of Biden's top officials was asked, well, does the Biden administration think that?
And they said, yes, we stand by that call.
So somewhat contradictory so far, but to be honest, even the Biden administration has shown more courage than the Trudeau government on China so far.
Now, I care about this issue because I'm very interested in China and I see them as a global rival to the West.
But I think some folks don't know what the word Uyghur means.
It's a strange sounding word.
It looks strange when you read it.
I don't think many people know Uyghurs.
It's a small community.
And when you explain it, you know, it's a faraway place, far away land.
And yeah, there's a lot of tough things in China.
So on, I mean, I think that the way China is treating the Uyghurs is atrocious.
And I think there's a lot of evidence that they have prison camps, labor camps.
There have been violence and mass rape, for example.
But to some Canadians, it is such an abstract, far away pretend issue in terms of their daily lives.
Where, you know, is their work being shut down because of the lockdown?
Are they going to run out of pandemic benefits?
When will their kids be allowed to go back to school?
Are we going to have to wear masks and be afraid all the time?
Should I be worried about not getting a vaccine?
So part of me thinks that this is only for people who follow politics as a hobby and that severely normal people who don't know where Xinjiang is, don't know what Uyghurs are.
It's actually in some ways a welcome distraction for Trudeau because he doesn't have to talk about his vaccine failure.
What do you think of that?
Yeah, possibly, although I think if you look at the way the Liberal cabinet is responding by abstaining, shows that they know this isn't good politically.
I mean, they couldn't just outright oppose it because they know they'd get a huge backlash.
Most liberal MPs are voting, you know, voting for the motion, of course.
And then I think this will have long-term issues with Trudeau.
I'm already seeing people on Twitter saying things like, you know, Trudeau can't talk about Islamophobia or feminism or colonialism ever again.
Because every time he does, he's just going to be reminded, well, I guess he kind of took the cowards way out when it came to talking about the Uyghurs, right?
So I think this does hurt the Liberal Party for sure, especially Trudeau, the divide between him, his cabinet, and then many liberal MPs.
But yeah, it's not the biggest issue for most Canadians right now, for sure.
And I think if you look at the polling numbers, the Conservatives are still struggling.
Aaron O'Toole is still struggling.
So yes, this is an issue.
You have to take a strong stand, have to stand up for what's right.
But just from a political perspective, yeah, you're going to have to talk about the issues that most people are thinking about.
Yeah.
I tell you, these are dark days in so many ways.
I hope that, you know, I mean, we sometimes lament the state of affairs in Canada, but I think we can all thank our lucky stars that we're here and not in Xinjiang as many parts of the world get darker.
Spencer Fernando, always a pleasure.
Thanks for joining us.
Today, I want to give your website one more shout out.
It's spencerfernando.com.
My favorite thing is you are quick with the news.
I often learn about breaking news from you even faster than I get it anywhere else because you're quick on the emails and on the Twitter.
I don't know how you do it so quickly, but you've got, you're just spot on every time.
I want to encourage everyone watching, go over to spencerfernando.com, follow him on Twitter, sign up.
I love the emails.
And if you can, chip in a few bucks.
I got to tell you, folks, you can count the number of independent journalists who don't take the Trudeau bailout money.
You can count those people on one hand.
And Spencer's one of them.
So if you've got a few extra bucks, the lad is independent and it shows.
So keep up the great work, Spencer.
All right, take care.
All right, there you go.
Stay with us.
more.
The God Complex Rich00:02:13
Hey, welcome back on my show Friday.
Jerry writes, the lockdowns are destroying the world.
The governments need to finally admit that the science was wrong.
The virus is not deadly to the vast majority of the population.
Well, you say the lockdowns are destroying the world.
Most of the world is not locked down this way.
It just isn't.
It's, I think, the luxurious, wealthy countries of the West.
And again, not every place.
I mean, Florida is practically open.
It depends on your local politician, which isn't science, is it?
Jameson writes, the media has a lot of blame for this.
They thrive on bad news.
As long as there is anger and fear, people will continually flock to the media.
You are so right.
And, you know, the media feasted on Donald Trump for four years.
They need something else to be exhilarated and furious and shocked by, don't they?
Bruce writes, the problem with Bill Gates and other rich folks is they get a God complex.
They feel that their money makes them wiser than the average person.
Well, it's a few things.
I mean, it is true they've achieved enormous and amazing things.
And I would trust Bill Gates about computer software.
I sure would.
And about, you know, the things he is great at.
But he's not great at everything.
He's not a scientist.
He's not a doctor.
He's not a climatologist.
So someone who's great at software then think, well, I'm the best in the world.
Therefore, my opinions on other subjects are to be listened to.
I think there is that God complex.
I think also when you're that rich and powerful, you're surrounded by yes men.
It's the emperor has no clothes, the emperor's new clothes.
No one has the courage to say to the big boss, you're actually naked, because no one wants to get on his wrong side.
And of course, finally, there's just plain old money.
You can buy your way anywhere.
So I think that you see it with Bill Gates.
You see it with Mark Zuckerberg.
You see it with George Soros.
Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world.
So far, it seems like he lacks that God complex.
He likes being a bit of a troublemaker, which I prefer.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters to Wood Home, good night.