All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:07
3498 New York Times: An Obituary and Postmortem

Stefan Molyneux responds to the Carlos Slim owned New York Times and their recent "re-dedication to truth" after devolving into a biased Anti-Donald Trump propaganda merchant. Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
I hope you're doing as well as I am.
Still doing the gloating, enjoying the demise and crunchy sound of salty liberal tears as we stride forward towards the new frontier of a potentially even freer society.
Hallelujah!
So, it is of course not enough that our friends do well to make us happy.
Our enemies must also do badly.
That allows us to perform a traditional Irish jig in our brain with our hobnail boots, dancing on the crunchy, salty, beach sand-like tiers of liberal lamentation.
And this is of course occurring with the mainstream media, as you know, if you follow this election at all, domestically or overseas, as I am.
You saw that the mainstream media as a whole attempted to load sickly Hillary into, I guess, the equivalent of an Imperial Walker with a giant jetpack attached and had her try to win this race against Donald Trump.
And even with the support of the mainstream media, with the chilling half-smiles of every Botoxed-inflated celebrity that got behind Hillary Clinton, again, attempting to prop her up and keep her going, With massive amounts of money flowing in from Wall Street, with just about every conceivable advantage that you could imagine, she's still lost and lost enormously.
And that shows the level of distaste and dislike for Hillary Clinton.
Now, the New York Times holds a special place in the, I guess, lowest level of the Dantian circle of hell, which is reserved for traitors.
The New York Times holds a special place.
So on August 7th, they kind of had...
Made explicit their implicit declaration of war against Donald Trump.
Jim Rutenberg, he's a media columnist at the New York Times, wrote a story with the headline, Trump is testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.
Now, first of all, and I'm going to spend a little bit of time breaking down the language here because it's really, really important to understand.
Of the money that was sent to a political candidate from journalists, 96% of it went to Hillary Clinton.
That's not...
That's not very diverse, people, given what shook out in the election.
Only about 4% of people in Washington voted for Trump because apparently they have no idea what goes on outside the obsidian biosphere of Washingtonian politics and backstabbing and horrendous Madame Tussaud's melting wax macabre kabuki-style dance of the undead.
So here he says, Trump is testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.
Right?
Now, the norms of objectivity in journalism...
First of all, I don't think there's anyone who's named Norm at the New York Times.
He's not testing the objectivity.
You're making choices.
You're making choices.
Like, if someone's annoying me, and I, you know, I'm going to punch them.
Well, they're testing the norms of interactions.
It's like, no, I'm making a choice to punch them.
You're making a choice.
Trump isn't testing any norms.
You're making choices.
And so in the article, he wrote that journalists had a really, really tough time Very, very tough time staying objective, you see, because Trump cozies up to anti-American dictators.
You see, that's really, really terrible.
Why?
Because he has not mad, insane, deranged conspiracy theory, tinfoil hat-wearing ideas about how nefarious Russia is.
You know, cozying up to anti-American dictators...
Well, there are some questions about Saudi involvement in 9-11 and the fact that 20% of Hillary's campaign contributions and funding for her campaign came from Saudi Arabia.
I don't think that Donald Trump took 20% of his funding from Vladimir Putin.
So cozying up to anti-American dictators, boy, that...
That really seems to be quite lunatic.
Also, they said that...
He said in the article that Trump has, quote, put financial conditions on the United States' defense of NATO allies.
Yes, that's true.
Trump doesn't want to have the American economy destroyed and a massive amount of manufacturing jobs shipped overseas, partly because taxes need to be high, debt needs to be high, to pay for the national defense...
of other countries who then opened their borders to Well, anyway, I've talked about that before.
We don't need to go down that particular yellow brick road to hell again.
But yeah, so is that not allowed?
Is it not allowed to say, well, I'm not sure how it benefits the U.S. taxpayer to pay for the defense of various countries in NATO? What's wrong with asking people to pay their way?
Is that not allowed?
Does that mean that testing the norms of objectivity, that's a policy!
Idea.
That's a policy argument.
You can say pro, you can say con, but it's not the reporter's job to tell the voter which policy ideas were good or bad.
It's their job to present the policy ideas in a fair-minded way and let the voters decide for themselves.
Otherwise, it's a campaign contribution, in my humble opinion, and should be dealt with accordingly.
And they also said, you know, Trump's really hard to cover objectively because...
His foreign policy views break with decades-old consensus.
See, I think for a lot of Trump supporters, that's the entire freaking point.
Of course it breaks with decades-old consensus.
Look at America's foreign policy.
Over the last, I don't know, 70 years, it's been a complete disaster.
A complete, unmitigated, almost incredibly unbroken series of absolutely horrendous world-shattering disasters.
And you could go through the list.
Just look at the Middle East.
Look at the Balkan states.
Look at Africa.
Look at South America.
Look at Central America.
I mean, it's a complete disaster.
So, decades-old consensus.
Yes, that is correct.
You know, if you keep going to a bunch of doctors who say they're going to make you well, and you keep losing fingers and limbs and senses and brain cells, then at some point, some new doctor says, oh, all these doctors are terrible.
Here's what's really wrong with you.
Here's the proof, and here's how we're going to fix it.
Well, yeah, you're going to have some interest in that new doctor, wouldn't you say?
But of course, these guys, they don't see any problem with the decades-old consensus of American foreign policy.
So that's their bias.
So Rutenberg wrote that he and other reporters viewed, quote, a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous.
And that is why they had to be incredibly critical and, I guess, hostile and promote allegations that are easily disproven, you know, decades-old allegations of aggression and abuse and so on that...
They've got to promote those as if they're somehow reasonable and all of that.
And all of this stuff is just completely ridiculous.
Something that's potentially dangerous.
Well, see, Hillary Clinton talked about nuking Iran.
Hillary Clinton talked about if she even thought that there were untoward social media accounts that even potentially, theoretically, could be linked to Russia, that she considered that an act of war and might start a war with Russia, which is nuclear power, of course, and you've got nuclear on nuclear fun, which is not fun for everything else.
It's carbon-based or not carbon-based or wants to continue drawing some next breath that isn't going to be filled with poisonous radioactive waste and human waste.
Charcoal in the air.
So, yeah.
I don't think...
He's saying let's bring the troops home.
Trump's saying let's bring the sick and tired of these foreign wars for all these globalists.
But apparently it's really dangerous to bring the troops home.
And it's totally not dangerous to take money from Saudis, to destroy countries in the Middle East, to provoke a migrant crisis that might bring down European civilization, and to threaten war with Russia.
None of that, you see!
None of that at all is dangerous.
But Trump...
Ooh, he gives me the willies.
Oh, if only they had willies.
So all of this, you know, crap and garbage that they were talking about, potentially dangerous.
He said, this would make journalists, quote, move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional, which would be uncomfortable and uncharted territory.
Oh yeah, that's right.
Uncharted territory for the media to oppose Republicans.
Boy, that's really uncomfortable and uncharted territory because they've always been so fair and even-handed in the past.
I mean, this whole idea that it's kind of new territory and we're just pushed against our free will.
Trump's dangerousness is just deterministically like dominoes pushing us into doing this.
We have no choice.
We have no individuality.
We have no thinking.
Oh, man.
So, yeah.
Russia is far from the world's worst dictatorship.
Russia's actually been a lot better at fighting ISIS than the Obama administration has been.
So that's, you know, that seems kind of important.
And the nonstop wars and economic collapses and political collapses and overthrowing dictatorships and overthrowing non-dictatorships and funding and arming the world.
I mean, it's been, oh yeah, I think it's okay to question that.
That consensus at this point, I think that's okay.
So, yeah, I mean, again, it's not the media's job to determine whose policies are good and whose policies are bad.
I mean, they can say that if they want, but then just say, okay, well, we're an arm of the Democrat Party, as was generally revealed through the Podesta email leaks and other DNC leaks.
So...
Yeah.
I mean, everybody knows that, right?
We've got this campaign going on.
So Hillary Clinton has these campaign themes and so on.
And, boy, it's weird, you know?
Almost in lockstep.
Almost as if they're dancing together or chained together in an immoral and evil bargain.
When the media campaign...
Sorry, when Hillary Clinton's campaign comes up with these themes, the media just seems to echo and amplify them.
I mean, just astounding.
And, of course, we've seen this, right?
Clinton campaign chairman...
John Podesta.
I mean, this wasn't by accident.
At least in part, it was from direct coordination between the press and the Clinton campaign.
And you can read all of this stuff.
So, what is the upshot of all of this?
Well...
The New York Times apparently is not doing well.
We'll get to some of the numbers.
And I'm not even going to apologize for the Schötenfreude because it certainly would have been far worse the other way around.
But, you know, it's Ding Dong.
The Witch is Dead is not necessarily the worst song to sing when the witch has you in her laser sights of nuclear Armageddon.
So, November 13th, this is to our readers from the publisher and executive editor.
And I'll be breaking in with just a little bit of commentary about this.
So, this is from the New York Times, and they said this.
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years, cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
So that's very interesting phrasing.
As soon as it looks that Trump was going to win, our newsroom turned on a dime.
They changed position, they went 180, but what position did they have before and what position did they pivot to?
If you're going to completely reverse what it is you've been doing because Trump's going to win, is that not an implicit admission of everything you've been doing to help Hillary win?
And again, this is the kind of stuff everybody knows and it's been revealed, but you don't expect the newspaper of record to say, oh yeah, we had to completely reverse our entire policy and approach to the election once it turned out that Trump was going to win.
Turned on a dime!
And here's the thing.
This is just a tip for the New York Times and the mainstream media as a whole, because, you know, I got my eye on you, Flint Lockwood!
So, here's the thing.
They say, we were covering the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
See, no, no, no.
See, that's not right.
I don't want people who are writing nonfiction to be creative.
The creativity is reserved for things like haikus, sonnets, novels, Hallmark cards.
Fine, you just have a little creativity in there.
But if you're supposed to be reporting the facts, don't be creative.
So this is very, it's fascinating that they don't even know how obvious they're being.
As soon as Trump went, we turned on a dime.
We've been covering the 2016 election by making things up, by being creative, not by being factual, not by adhering to reality, not by providing you with information that's objective.
No, we've been creative and agile.
What does that mean?
Agile!
Well, agility, you see, is something that you use when you're fencing, when you're in combat, and creativity is another word for lying.
So, you know, that's a very creative response to my question, but could I actually get some facts now?
And so the newspaper went on to say, this is the letter, after such an erratic and unpredictable election...
No, no, see...
Not erratic, not unpredictable.
This is very, very important.
Lots of people, myself and Mike Cernovich and Vox Dei and Scott Adams and lots of other people, Alex Jones, they all predicted what was going to happen.
I mean, not with 100% certainty, but it was not unpredictable.
It was not unpredictable.
It's only unpredictable if you are doing two things.
Number one, you live in an echo chamber where everybody's repeating back to you what everybody else around you already believes and all want to hear.
So yes, it's unpredictable if you are...
Like if you have a bunch of doctors around you and they're all saying you're perfectly healthy and then you die of a heart attack, yes, that's an unpredictable end.
But if you have some doctors saying you're perfectly healthy and a whole bunch of other doctors saying you've got some god-awful heart disease and you really need to go and deal with it and get shunts and stents and God knows what inserted into you, turn you into half Terminator.
Well, then it's not unpredictable.
You just chose to listen to the doctors who said you were healthy, but it's not unpredictable because there were lots of other doctors saying...
So, no, you don't...
And you also don't get to say that the election is unpredictable and erratic in particular because when you are twisting the wheel, like you're constantly putting out new information that is false and you're constantly...
As you've openly said, you're rooting for one candidate and want to destroy another candidate because you're scared of them.
Because apparently four points of testosterone looks like a tsunami of doom to you.
It's not erratic, it's not unpredictable.
If I'm trying to wrestle a driver who's driving a car very fast, I'm trying to grab the wheel, I say, wow, that was a mysteriously erratic drive.
No, you're trying to grab the wheel, you're trying to change the outcome.
Of course it's going to be erratic.
Now, if you're 19 cars back and you're seeing this, oh, that's erratic driving, but if you're actually in there fighting for the wheel, you don't get to say, whoa, that was mysteriously erratic and unpredictable.
Anyway, so they said, after such an erratic and unpredictable election, there are inevitable questions.
Did Donald Trump's sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?
No, no, see?
It's not unconventionality.
You know what would be an unconventional presidential candidate?
I wish to be king of the space aliens and build giant wormhole tubes from here to Mars and have everyone live with Matt Damon on the Red Planet.
That would be a little unconventional, I guess, would not be particularly vote-grabbing.
But yeah, enough about the Gary Johnson campaign.
Let's talk about what the New York Times is saying here in particular detail.
So, it wasn't just he was unconventional.
It's that he was speaking to issues that American voters have really wanted to have.
Spoken about immigration and trade, the economy, taxes, and all of that.
It's not unconventional.
It's only unconventional if you say, well, politics has to be Hillary Clinton, and everyone who's not doing Hillary Clinton is wildly unconventional.
No.
And here's the thing, too.
News outlets underestimating his support among American voters.
OMG! Can you imagine what they're saying here?
Let me just sort of break it down for you.
I'm sure you see it.
But just in case you don't see it, glaringly outlined enough.
I want this to vibrate within your mind like the last chords of Bohemian Rhapsody.
Now, here's an analogy that will help you really understand this.
You've got two chicken farmers next to each other.
There's chicken farmer Trump and chicken farmer Clinton.
Now, in the middle of the night, the media goes and steals a thousand chickens from chicken farmer Trump and insert them into the fields in chicken farmer Clinton's farm.
Now, the next day, they come and count the chickens and say, That's weird.
I guess we must have mysteriously underestimated how many chickens Chicken Farmer Clinton had and overestimated how many chickens Chicken Farmer Trump has because he has fewer and she has more.
Isn't that strange?
Well, that was very unpredictable.
Well, that was very mysterious.
Well, that was very unexpected.
No.
If you're actively trying to change something, you don't get to say, well, we just mysteriously underestimated.
So, the letter goes on to say...
What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?
This is like the protagonist in American Psycho saying, gosh, I wonder what has driven this mysterious disappearance of people who come to my house and I lecture about music to.
Huh!
What has caused these mysterious spots on my face in the mirror that are red and bloody?
You know what forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?
You!
The mainstream media!
You were the divisive ones.
You were driving this divisive election.
I mean, it's like you don't get to stand there with a gun smoking in your hand and say, huh, there were mysterious shots fired.
I wonder what that's all about.
I mean, I guess you do, which is...
How bizarre and dissociative these people are.
Or guess how little they respect their readers and their intelligence or anybody's intelligence and think they can get away with this.
Ha!
How mysterious!
Trump is Hitler.
Trump is evil.
Trump is a racist.
Trump is sexist.
Trump is misogynistic.
Trump is dangerous.
Trump will get us all killed.
Trump loves dictators.
Trump is a rapist.
Trump is sexually assault.
Wow!
What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and out of your mind?
I just can't imagine.
And of course, the media has their finger on the button that is currently driving the riots that have been going on for five or six days at the moment, resulting in shootings and assaults and beatings and putting dozens of people into hospital and so on, mostly white people and people that other people, I guess, imagine voted Trump.
So gosh, what forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?
Huh.
Well, you know, there's an old saying, and it's beautifully portrayed in Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, that the criminal always likes to return to the scene of the crime and pretend to be a spectator.
Huh!
I wonder what could have happened here.
How terrible.
Letter goes on to say, Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?
Oh, my God.
Largely enigmatic?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Largely enigmatic.
He's been a public figure for 40 years, been on TV for like, what, more than 12 years.
The guy went around the country and spoke to like a million people in rallies.
He did hundreds of interviews.
Enigmatic?
Enigmatic?
How about Hillary Clinton hiding from the press like a giant game of hide-and-go-seek, which results in depression for emotionally fragile people who will benefit from having lost for the first time in their life because, hey, what?
Guess what?
Reality is this way.
Not everyone gets a medal all the time.
Losing is healthy.
That which does not kill you will, in this case, make you stronger, if you let it.
If you let everyone continue to prey upon your weakness, like thirsty, salt-starving vampires in the desert of your tears, well, then you're going to get weaker.
Enigmatic?
He said, here's what I want to do.
Here's my facts.
Here's my policies.
Here's my research.
Here's my data.
He did God knows how many interviews and spoke to a million people.
Hillary could barely get 100,000 people to show up to her rallies.
You know, if you can't get a lot of people come to your rallies when your rallies include Beyonce and Jay-Z... That might be an indication that, hey, Hillary, America, just not that into you.
So, enigmatic?
No, it's because you refuse to understand his appeal.
It's mysterious.
He's just unconventional.
Maybe he has a shark fin and people really like Jaws and that's why he voted.
I don't know.
No, it just means that you don't have a freaking clue what is going on in America, New York Times and mainstream media.
I don't get to go to Japan not speaking Japanese and say, wow, Japanese people are incomprehensible.
They just babble.
They're enigmatic.
They're inscrutable.
No, you just don't speak Japanese, so you don't speak American.
That's why Trump seems enigmatic and mysterious.
You don't speak American.
You speak...
Well, let's just say another language.
So, it goes on to say, As we reflect on the momentous result and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.
What?
Rededicate ourselves?
So basically they're saying that they deviated enormously from their mission.
You know, if I'm dieting and I then go and face plant at a buffet restaurant and scoop up the entire dessert tray and come out looking like a hyperactive, diabetes-prone hamster with my cheeks stuffed like I'm ready for a long winter, yes, I have broken my diet and I need to rededicate myself to my diet.
If I'm a recovering alcoholic and I go out on the kind of bender that would do Mel Gibson proud, well, okay, yes, then...
I get to rededicate myself to my sobriety.
So they're saying they fell off the wagon and they went 180 from where they were before.
So, what?
Fundamental mission?
They say.
That is to report America and the world honestly without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
Bullshit!
Bullshit so high, Jeff Goldblum could fall into it and be completely missing.
Come on.
Come on.
Reflect all political perspectives?
Where are the Republicans on your staff, huh?
New York Times?
Mainstream media?
96% of the money that comes from reporters goes to the Democrats and you dare to say that you want to reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories?
I mean, I've got a great idea, New York Times.
How about you do a piece, a feature piece, on Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, a woman of great intellect.
She came from a single-mom household.
She seems to be a really fantastic person, wise, intelligent, and able to stand even up against the vampiric remoras on The View.
Okay, how about this?
Ooh, I got a good idea.
Into feminism, into girl power, woman power.
Okay, Kellyanne Conway is the first woman in America...
To run a successful presidential campaign.
Ooh, that seems like a very big plus.
That seems like something worthy of note.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Is she on the right and therefore is irrelevant to feminism or something that you used to attack because she's on the right, like Ann Coulter, like Margaret Thatcher, like Ayn Rand, all of these women who have incredible accomplishment and intelligence and grace and oftentimes beauty.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't see they're on the right.
They don't exist.
Because, as we all know, feminism is just socialism in granny panties.
Trump has, or has had on his team recently, he's talking to Ben Carson, a black man.
He's talking to Peter Thiel, a gay man.
And where's all of this racism and sexism and homophobia now?
Where?
Well, because they were just words designed to stick to someone.
Like throwing monkey feces at the Mona Lisa so that people don't want to watch and see how beautiful the art is.
Where are the Republicans?
Are you saying, well, you know what?
We've got a bit of an echo chamber here in the mainstream media, and this is what drove us all astray.
This is what deluded us, deluded people.
We set up for a perfect Hillary victory because that was our fantasy, and now people are so disappointed because we didn't give them a soft landing.
They basically just nosedived straight into the ground because they were completely unprepared for the Trump win by the mainstream media that lied and manufactured and falsified information, polls, you name it, accusations.
So we're in an echo chamber here.
We really screwed up.
So what we're gonna do is we're gonna fire a whole bunch of leftists.
We're gonna fire a whole bunch of Democrats.
We're gonna hire a whole bunch of Republicans.
Why?
Because clearly we are doing terrible at our core mission of bringing objective facts to the people.
Are they gonna say that?
See, I don't mind forgiving people.
I don't even mind forgiving people When the timing of their apology and their turnaround is pretty suspicious.
Oh, Trump got in!
Well, I guess now it's time to review.
Maybe we slipped just a tiny little bit from our objectivity, because now Trump got in.
Okay, so Trump got in.
We get it.
You backed the wrong horse.
I get it.
I get it.
You threw all your credibility into a giant bonfire with Hillary Clinton's hairspray, and it all went poof-boom.
I get it.
You backed the wrong horse, you came up snake eyes on the gambling table, and now you're like, oh, okay, can I get my bet back?
Can I just pretend I didn't do...
I understand that.
I mean, of course.
All Weasley people have the same impulse.
They go all in, and when their choices turn out to be incorrect, they want other people to clean up their mess and pretend that there was no mess and do these vague...
Well, we're going to rededicate ourselves without admitting what went wrong.
But here's the thing.
To be accepted, apologies need to be earned, not just stated.
Well, sorry.
Yeah, okay.
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do, mainstream media?
What are you going to do to crawl out of this unbelievably left-leaning, red-stained bullshit that you have been coughing up and flinging down the mouths of the American public for the last year and a half?
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
Don't tell me, well, you know, we may have slipped a little.
What are you going to do?
Are you going to get some Republicans in your reporting staff?
Are you going to fire the pollsters who polled ridiculously high Democrat samples?
Hello!
I'd like to find out if anyone in this household supports Hillary Clinton.
Could you do me a favor?
And could you get me somebody with a Hillary Clinton poster?
No?
Well, do you have just young people in the House as a whole that I could talk to?
Oh, look!
They all support Hillary Clinton!
And when she doesn't, I guess you can implicitly assume that everything was stolen in riot!
Mysteriously violent riots going on at the moment.
What are you going to do?
Where are the Republicans on your staff?
Are you going to change up your mix?
If not, shut up.
Nobody believes you.
Now, the letter kind of winds up, says that their mission, it is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.
Ah!
Hold power to account impartially and unflinchingly.
So I guess the New York Times in saying that and other media outlets that say they're going to rededicate themselves to holding power to account, I guess you're all going to get behind and support the investigations into the Clintons now, right?
Into Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and the Clinton Foundation because, you know, now they're rededicating themselves to hold power to account impartially and unflinchingly.
So, let's find out.
Let's find out if they are.
Of course they're not going to, and they're going to oppose it, and they're going to say the following.
Well, mistakes may have been made in the past, but don't you feel it's time to move on and heal and not get stuck in the past?
Yeah, yeah, right.
Yeah, absolutely, mainstream media.
Let's not get stuck in the past.
Oh!
I got a good idea.
How about not getting stuck in the past by regurgitating nonsense allegations from a woman who claimed that over 30 years ago Trump groped her in a plane?
Can we go back 30 years to come up with bullshit that could have been disproven with five minutes research?
Oh, that was fine to go back in the past for that, right?
Go right back into the past.
You need a time machine.
We'll go back and find a dinosaur that was offended by Donald Trump.
Sorry, that is the mainstream media.
But...
Of course they want to go way back into the past.
Way back into the past.
Oh, oh, oh, did we get Trump's leaked tax returns from the late 90s where he had a huge loss and wouldn't pay any income tax for a long time?
Oh, let's go into that past because that's really good for us.
Great past.
Oh, let's go deep into the past.
Oh, wait.
Oh, investigate the Hillary Clinton Foundation from a couple of years ago.
Oh, no, you see, we don't want to go into the past.
Now, the past is a bad and dark and dirty place and only bad people go into the past.
Let's look forward.
Let's look forward.
Let's go forward.
It's going to be great.
No past.
La la la.
Break the rear view.
La la la.
People are so...
So ridiculous.
I don't even know what to say.
So they end up by saying...
You can rely on the New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
Well, that is actually true.
Finally, we get a true statement.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They are going to bring the same level of scrutiny, the same level of independence of our coverage to the new president and his team.
Exactly the same independence, which is, I don't know, what the Democrats want.
What would be helpful for the Democrats?
How can we get Democrats into power?
Are the Democrats okay with what I'm typing?
Can the Democrats stand over me and give me a neck rub while I type this sort of stuff and then lick my ear when I finish it just because I like Democrats?
So, yeah, it's a fantastic, true statement.
So apparently they're completely rededicating themselves to their core mission, but they're not going to change a thing.
Because they're turning 180!
Turn on a dime!
As soon as Trump is going to win, we're turning on a dime!
We're going to rededicate ourselves to being honest again!
But we're going to give you the same level of scrutiny and independence that we always have.
So this is literally like jumping into the brain of a crazy person whose words have absolutely no connection and whose paragraphs are completely separate from each other.
Good job, modern education.
You have created polysyllabic word salad tossing subjectivists who just are trying to grab every particular advantage in the moment.
And talk about not delving in the past.
Did you read what you wrote five minutes ago?
It's only a paragraph or two up.
How about you delve into that past and see if you can make any of this stuff make sense at all?
Um, I'm going to be serene tomorrow.
So, they say we cannot deliver the independent original journalism.
See, no, I don't want you to be original.
I want you to just tell me the facts.
I've got a diagnosis of your condition.
It's completely original.
No, no.
I don't want you to be original.
We cannot deliver the independent original journalism for which we are known, which is true, without the loyalty of our readers.
We want to take this opportunity on behalf of all Times journalists to thank you for that loyalty.
No?
See?
This is what they just don't understand.
Don't be loyal.
Don't be loyal.
Loyalty, I don't know what's that for sports teams.
Loyalty, by definition, is not objectivity.
I'm loyal to these people.
Well, that means that they're really screwing up.
And, you know, you stick pie people when they're, I guess, maybe if they're being unjustly attacked.
But that's not really the case that they're talking about.
Don't be loyal.
Don't be loyal to me.
Don't be loyal to others.
Be loyal to the truth.
And if people regularly bring to the truth in a productive and entertaining way, great.
Then enjoy their content, what they produce and so on.
Don't be loyal.
So, yeah, I mean, it's pretty funny.
And this is inevitable, along with the riots that have been inflamed and are being maintained by the mainstream media.
If the mainstream media came out and just said, guys, you're basically fitting the legal definition of terrorist, this is absolutely wrong, we would have...
Never accepted this from Trump people.
You need to go home.
You need to accept the results of the election.
And you need to figure out what you did wrong.
And stop blaming Trump.
You guys, we all supported a crappy candidate who did crappy things.
And we should have gone with Webb.
We should have gone with Saunders.
We all made a mistake.
And let's own our mistake rather than saying the mistake is somehow the neighborhood's fault.
So let's burn it down because that will fix this.
And just, you know...
What did you do?
The media as a whole.
Well, ship was sinking, captain was coughing, and you went down to go save your coughing captain, and you went down with the ship.
You went down with the ship.
There's bubbles.
No, you won't.
No, you won't.
You're done!
You're done!
We might have a ceremony.
There may be some ceremonial playing of taps, and by that I mean tap dancing, because this is the reality.
Why are they putting this stuff out?
Well, because they're dying.
They're dying.
News Corp, right?
A huge news organization.
Newspaper advertising is getting weaker and weaker.
And listen, people come on my show, they sell books, they get massive increases in their web traffic, they get jobs, they get exposure, they get more tweets.
So, you know, I mean, lots of other people can help as well, but I'm a huge boost to people.
And I've heard from this, the people who are on my, Mike Sanovich was saying this, comes on my show, sells thousands of books, gets massive increases in web traffic and so on.
He goes on the mainstream media or he gets written about in the New Yorker.
Nothing!
Nothing!
They can't give you anything anymore.
They can't give you any benefit anymore.
For anybody who wants to vault themselves into the next level in their artistic endeavors, in their writing endeavors, in their political endeavors, you've got to go to mainstream.
You can't go to mainstream media.
You've got to go to alternative media.
This is where the jetpacks are.
This is where the boost is.
Advertising revenue is dying.
Because they're not selling anything through the mainstream media.
And the readership is dying off as well.
They're pretty old.
It's just why I'm never that afraid of offending them.
Anyway.
So, yeah.
It swung to a loss.
News Corp swung to a loss in the past quarter.
Declines in advertising and circulation, which came out recently.
So this is the media group that's run by Rupert Murdoch.
His family reported a loss of $15 million in the fiscal quarter ending September 30th.
$15 million loss.
Compared to a year ago, they made a $175 million profit.
So, it's quite a big switch.
Can I brother get a $190 million swing in profits over the election cycle from crappy mainstream media?
Bing, bing!
Yes, we can!
Thank you!
The New York Times saw profits evaporate.
In the third quarter, they had some one-time costs, but also a steep drop in advertising revenues, print advertising revenues to be particular.
They reported a profit of $406,000.
A quote, profit of $406,000.
Yeah, it sounds like a lot of money.
Let's go back a year ago.
Hey, we like going back into the past.
Yeah, let's go back into the past a little, shall we?
So, a year ago, they made $9.4 million profit.
Now they're down to $406,000 profit.
Ooh, back of my hand.
96% down.
96% drop in profit.
Yeah, so I guess you get one of these bullshit non-apology half-letters about, well, we're kind of sorry, but we're not going to admit that we did anything wrong, and we're going to change, but we're not going to change any of our stuff.
No one's going to get fired.
Nothing's going to get reorganized.
We're not going to change a goddamn thing, but we kind of, maybe you should change a little bit of a direction.
We didn't...
Oh, need a brain moral loofah to scrub that cack off my face.
So, we'll leave it to a great woman, Camille Paglia, to sum it up.
She said this, people want change and they're sick of the establishment.
If Trump wins, she said, it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy everything.
The power structure of the Republican Party, the power structure of the Democratic Party, and destroy the power of the media.
Now, of course, the reality is, power can't be destroyed.
▲
Export Selection