June 27, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:49
3725 CNN IS FAKE NEWS
After CNN's Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta had an embarrassing exchange President Trump, CNN New Year’s Eve host Kathy Griffin published her presidential assassination porn, CNN host Reza Aslan called President Trump a “piece of $h!t” and the organization was forced to retract a major Trump/Russia story - the credibility of the fake news outlet has been on the ropes. Now with James O’Keefe and Project Veritas publishing another undercover video with a CNN Producer acknowledging that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative is nonsense used to drive television ratings – nobody should ever take them seriously again. American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dEYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
You think a particular group or individual is really, really terrible.
Like nasty, mean, malevolent, vicious, underhanded, false.
The enemy of all that is good, noble, true, and virtuous in the world.
But then really, really bad things happen to that person or that group.
And you're like, oh, you know, I really don't like those people or that person.
But, oh, I can feel that in my gizzards.
That's...
Well, I do have that ambivalence sometimes, but not today, because today we're going to talk about CNN. So this sympathy test, I guess I've completely failed for good or bad reasons, because I view CNN as endlessly race-baiting,
as class-baiting, as gender-baiting, as pushing the Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election and steal it from Hillary Clinton, which, you know, in the long run could endanger the entire republic by undermining the very DNA of democracy.
And also they have for fun and profit been pushing events which could eventually lead to World War III. So I just got to tell you, their bad news, I think, is good news for decent moral people anywhere and everywhere.
And let's just go over a couple of the things that have happened recently.
So CNN host Riza Aslan, who I guess is another WASP, Now, he actually once ate a piece of human brain on national television.
I guess it only goes to show that sometimes you're in fact not what you eat.
So he recently called President Donald Trump a piece of shit and an embarrassment to humankind.
I guess he found Donald Trump a little bit short in the cannibalism department.
He was fired after making those statements and after prior tweets of him emerged, wherein he encouraged the rape of a government employee.
He said, just to be clear, I was indeed wishing someone would rape Congressman Todd Akin.
I'd hate to be misunderstood.
I guess he was understood, and I'm sure they fired him regretfully, but they fired because they were caught, CNN, with all of the internal compass of someone with no internal compass.
Then, of course, there was Kathy Griffin, who worked for CNN for years, with her severed head assassination porn holding up ISIS-style decapitation pictures of a simulated Donald Trump, who then, and I really almost have to admire the chutzpah here, She went on television and claimed to be a victim because people were reacting badly to her showing off pictures of a pretend assassination of the president.
Really tough to make yourself a victim, but if anyone's going to do it, I guess it would be someone like her.
CNN senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta.
It's an unfortunate name.
He had a very public back and forth with President Trump.
He was claiming that the President's use of the term fake news to describe CNN was, quote, not appropriate.
Ah, the inappropriate people.
They're like the analogy people.
If you don't have an argument, use an analogy.
If you don't have an argument, just say it's not appropriate.
Like it's just the wrong key to go into the keyhole.
Ah, still not an argument.
So Trump then amended his description of CNN from fake news to very fake news.
And in response, Acosta tweeted, quote, We are real news, Mr.
President!
Hashtag real news!
Now that tweet did not age particularly well for reasons we're going to get into today.
And this is going to be a bit of a long chat.
But please, please stay with me.
I promise you it will be worthwhile.
So, last week, things came to a head, and boy, I guess we thought it was about as bad as it could get to CNN until this week.
CNN, last Thursday, there was an investigative reporter named Thomas Frank who published a story that involved some investigation into a Russian investment fund that was supposed to have potential ties to several Trump associates.
Yeah, sketchy and thin, but don't worry, it's all held up with anonymous sources.
So what happened was the subject of the article, one of Trump's associates, pushed back pretty hard, Breitbart investigated, and an internal investigation, according to CNN, found that, quote, some standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published.
Even when they're talking about fake news, it strikes me as fake news.
So the article was citing a single unnamed source, my hand puppet told me.
So the story was that Congress was supposed to be investigating a, quote, Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.
Now, this did not appear on television, just on the website.
It was pretty heavily disputed.
This is the Trump ally, Anthony Scadamucci, who now has put that Queen song in my head.
He was mentioned in the story.
He pushed back pretty hard, saying that he had done nothing wrong.
So CNN says, once it was determined that editorial processes were not followed, CNN deleted the story from CNN.com.
This was said on Friday.
I think the press release came out pretty close to midnight.
And they went on to say, soon thereafter, the story was officially retracted and replaced with an editor's note.
So, did CNN have a sudden attack of conscience?
No, they had a sudden attack of blowback and realized that they could not get away with it.
You know, it's that old saying, That a lie can travel twice around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.
And the left, of course, spreading misinformation and lies and stuff which stokes up the fires of their somewhat sheeple broadcast recipients.
It goes all the way back to the French Revolution and before.
So, the piece, according to CNN, did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted.
Links to the story have been disabled.
So, what does it mean?
It did not meet the editorial standards.
And they said, well, you know, it may still be true, but we just can't prove it.
It's like, nope!
That's not how philosophy works.
You don't just make some unsubstantiated claim, find out that you have no proof for it, and say, well, it still could be true.
We just don't need proof for it.
I mean, come on.
You can just make up anything then.
I mean, there's a space alien sitting on my forehead at the moment, telling me what to say.
Oh yeah, prove it false.
I'm going to remove every standard, but you can prove it false.
There'll be no null hypothesis, and therefore it could be true, right?
It takes a special kind of arts degree to end up with that kind of epistemology, but hey, that's how they roll.
Downhill, it seems.
So this retraction cost three employees their jobs.
Frank, the guy who wrote the story, Eric Lichtblau, who was a unit editor, and he was the person who was in charge of the unit, sorry, and the person who was in charge of the unit, Lex Harris.
So, they didn't follow editorial processes, right?
So stories are supposed to go through editors, through legal, through a whole bunch of stuff, but they just, it seems, yacked it up from their keyboard onto the website.
Is it because they were inexperienced?
Is it because they were newbies?
Is it because they didn't know what needed to be done?
Why no?
So Frank, the guy, worked as a reporter for USA Today and Newsday before he ended up Merging with the CNN Borg.
Lichtblüh is a former New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter.
And the guy Harris, he used to work at CNN Money as an executive editor.
So they knew the ropes, they knew the process, they knew the procedures, they knew what was going on.
They just didn't follow it.
So Harris said in a statement, on Friday CNN retracted a story published by my team.
As executive editor of that team, I have resigned.
I have been with CNN since 2001 and I'm sure about one thing.
This is a news organization that prizes accuracy and fairness above all else.
I am leaving, but will carry those principles wherever I go.
And then a bunch of people played taps in the background as his credibility was lowered into the ground.
Now, the fact that he's been with CNN since 2001 and still published a terrible negative piece that seems to be completely false about Trump associates, that does not actually make it better.
But his claim that CNN is all about accuracy and fairness above all else, well, the fact that you published this negative piece about Trump's associates following the Russia narrative, which we'll get to in a moment...
Does not make it better.
It means that you knew exactly what was supposed to be done, but you didn't do it because it pursued a particular agenda.
Now what's fascinating is that CNN, like most tough-minded reporters, they love cornering people and asking the tough questions that make people squirm because they just want to get at the truth.
So, of course, when CNN makes a massive biblical-style cock-up like this, boy, they must be eager to respond to tough questions from other people, right?
Because they're all about the tough questions.
No, apparently they're hiding under a couch in their mom's basement and not really returning many calls.
So, that's all pretty bad.
All pretty bad.
You've got the cannibal who's saying that, you know, Trump is a piece of shit and embarrassment to mankind and congressmen should be raped.
Okay, that guy's floating around CNN. You've got assassination porn princess Kathy Griffin and you've got these clowns making up stuff, it would seem, or not sourcing it, I guess to put it nicely as possible.
That's pretty bad.
Pretty bad week.
Ah, we've only just begun.
So...
James O'Keefe.
Okay, now we can really start playing some marine music.
This guy is a tough-minded, real reporter.
So he, of course, works with his head of Project Veritas, and he's been kind of hinting that they had something big in the works that was...
Going to come down the pipeline.
And I was up late last night.
Sorry, I'm a little tired today.
Because it's tough to do a jig for seven hours straight and then do a show.
But he then released it.
Got out a little bit early.
But then he released it.
We'll put links to this video below.
You just need to watch it.
You just need to watch it.
So he has got undercover video of a CNN supervising producer talking about...
The, you know, the narrative that CNN has been pushing over 16,000 times.
They've talked about it since the election.
They've mentioned Russia.
So this idea that Russia colluded with Trump to hack the election, this narrative, he's talking about it.
Now before we get into what he's saying, just if you'll listen to with me, that is not the sound of the last soul in CNN leaving the last person with a soul in CNN's body.
That is all of the melting sounds as the selective editing macro key burns up on liberal keyboards because they're going to say, well, it was deceptively edited.
It was selectively edited.
Nope.
Just listen to what he says.
So what does he say?
This guy, his name is Bonnefield.
Bonnefield.
What does he say about this Russia colluded with Trump to hack the election?
He says, I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now.
Like, we don't have any giant proof.
So he confirms why you keep pushing this narrative, which you say is mostly bullshit.
Well, because he says, quote, it's a business.
People are like, the media has an ethical...
All the nice, cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you're just like, that's adorable.
That's adorable.
This is a business.
So, yeah, no ethics whatsoever.
It makes them money.
And Bonafield goes on to say that the instructions to focus on Russia come straight from the top.
And he's citing...
Jeff Zucker, the CEO, of course, of CNN, he says, and I quote, Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the Climate Accords, and for a day and a half we covered the Climate Accords.
And the CEO of CNN, Jeff Zucker, said in our internal meetings, he said, Good job, everybody, covering the Climate Accords, but we're done with that.
Let's get back to Russia!
So it's coming from the top.
That's not a news organization.
That's a propaganda organization.
If the guy at the top is telling you what you're supposed to be reporting on and giving you the narrative, well...
So Bonnefield, this producer, also acknowledged, quote, I haven't seen any good enough evidence to show that the president committed a crime.
I just feel like they don't really have it, but they want to keep digging.
And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look...
You are witch hunting me.
You have no smoking gun.
You have no real proof.
And he goes on to say, if there was proof of anything going on, then it would have been leaked, because there's tons of leaks, and they would have got the leaks.
Now, he also talks about, this producer talks about...
How there's been a real shift in CNN's focus on presidential wrongdoings since the end of the Obama administration.
And he says, and I quote, I think there are a lot of, like, liberal CNN viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized.
And I think if we would have behaved that way with President Obama and scrutinized everything that he was doing with as much scrutiny as we apply to Donald Trump, I think our viewers would have been turned off.
I think they would have felt like we were attacking him.
And I'm not saying all of our viewers are super liberals.
I think there's just a lot of them.
So this guy is a supervising producer for CNN Health, according to his biography on CNN's website.
He works with the CNN Medical Unit and, quote, primarily with CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.
So, to be fair, this is not a guy in deep with the political side, but he's been there for a long time.
He clearly has access to a lot of knowledge, and he gave a tour of CNN Newsroom and all that kind of stuff.
So, I just want to point out, because there's a lot of people online talking about this, saying, well, they're in it for profit, it's a business.
That's not the way it works.
It's not the way it works.
Well, it's just a business, this is just what people want.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
So first of all, your business, as you describe it, is the truth.
You say you're a news organization.
You don't say we're a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.
You don't say we're American Pravda, as James O'Keefe has characterized this upcoming series that I'm deliriously happy to see.
So you claim that you're talking about the truth, but then you're generating dangerous falsehoods and manipulating your audience.
So this is what's important to understand.
There's an old economics idea that supply creates its own demand.
You know, like Apple, back in the day when the first iPad came out, Apple didn't say, well, you see, we're just, we're feeding people's need for an iPad.
It's like, well, there was no particular need for an iPad until Apple created an iPad and started selling it.
And then people were like, wow, this is great.
I'd really like an iPad.
Supply creates its own demand.
So, if you're some CEO or you're some media organization, and you put out that there's some illness out there, there's some illness out there, and you need to take this medicine to cure yourself, well, and it's a lie that there's some illness out there, then what happens is you've created a demand for this medicine by talking about this lie that there is some illness out there that you need to take this medicine to cure yourself from.
So you can say, well, you know, we're just supplying the market for this medicine.
People just want this medicine.
It's like, no, no, no, you've created a market for that medicine by repeating a lie.
So this idea, well, we're basically just being pulled in the direction of the audience, I think, is not very accurate.
I mean, you're creating a market for political hatred.
Like, deep down in the very DNA of the republic.
You're saying, or implying that Trump is an illegitimate president.
For money!
For money!
I mean, in the end result, this can potentially lead to a lot of violence all the way up to civil war.
So, if you claim to be telling the truth, and you're not really telling the truth, and it's provoking a lot of hatred, and undoing the republic, just saying, well, you know, we're a business, that's, you know, we're just, we're just, we're following the market.
And, Say this is one guy, but he's a guy who's been there for a long time.
He's been a reporter and producer.
He seems to know the ins and outs and the heartbeat of the organization.
I would argue that this perspective, this kind of corruption is right down in the deep DNA of the corporation.
I mean, imagine you're a fresh-faced reporter, Jimmy Olsen type.
You come out of journalism school and you get hired by this guy and he tells you, well, you've got to push this narrative or you're someone, you've got to do this, you've got to do something.
Just imagine.
Would you stay?
And you bring your ethics and say, well, you know, we really can't print this stuff because we don't have enough proof.
It's a business!
Our ratings are up!
Push it!
This changes who you hire.
This changes who's willing to stay in the organization.
Imagine what this guy would tell you to do if you work for him or people like him.
Imagine working for Jeffrey Zucker.
What would he order you to do?
If you had an ounce or shred of integrity, would you stay?
This is a massive integrity repellent, the entire culture.
Repellent being the key word.
Now this morning, this is huge news.
This is absolutely huge news.
And I went to the major U.S. outlets to see who was reporting on it.
Echoes, nothing, nada, goose egg, bagel, big fat nothingness.
Why?
Why are they not reporting it?
I think it's pretty obvious.
Because they're trying to figure out who might have got information on their organization, who's been surreptitiously recording their people.
Maybe they were concerned that they're next.
Maybe they feel that if they come out gleefully about CNN, that they're going to be next in the target sites.
I mean, they're going to be next if there's information on them anyway.
But, yeah, they're not reporting on it because they're scared of raising awareness of this because this is brand.
This is brand.
What do these organizations have?
They're kind of like in the software industry.
Like 90% of your market value, of your market capitalization, 90% of that goes down the elevators every day, gets in a car and drives home.
You don't have a lot of fixed capital.
Like if you have a giant supertanker and you have a crew, well, you can replace the crew pretty easily.
The supertanker is what's really worth a huge amount of money.
But when it comes to software, when it comes to a variety of other things, and when it comes to news, what you have is credibility.
What you have is people believing that you are telling them the truth.
Now, even if what you're selling them is confirmation bias for their pre-existing prejudices that Hillary should have won and Trump is illegitimate and so on, they have to believe that you're telling the truth in order for you to provide to them the drug of confirmation bias.
As soon as you are confirmed to have shoddy standards internally, as soon as you are confirmed to be pushing a narrative you believe is, quote, largely bullshit or mostly bullshit, end quote, Then you're no longer a good drug dealer of confirmation bias to historical leftists.
Like, once you find out that there's more baby powder than cocaine in your cocaine, you're going to go to another dealer.
And this is huge news because, I mean, come on everyone.
Everyone kind of knew this, but it's one thing to know it and to have endless amounts of evidence for it.
It's quite another thing to see it so boldly reported internally.
That is really quite astonishing.
And this, of course, raises a huge number of questions.
Horizontally and in the past, right?
What are the other mainstream media outlets like?
What kind of agenda are they pushing?
We know that reporters, particularly in Washington, are overwhelmingly Democrat or liberal.
What kind of bias are they pushing?
Look at the past reporting that has gone on.
This is all only available because of new technology, right?
The new technology to record surreptitiously.
The new technology And avenues to broadcast this across the world.
I mean, of course, this would never have been picked up by a mainstream media outlet.
And so how do you get it out there?
Well, you get it out there through YouTube, through social media, through Twitter, through Facebook and other things, right?
So this is all very new.
The capacity to record this, to broadcast it, to get the information out.
And there are, of course, alternative news organizations, alternative news sites that are getting this information out to people.
This was not available in the past.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine if the alternative media and the vehicles for distributing facts, or at least rebuttals to nonsense and lies, can you imagine if it had been around in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq?
You know, this, we don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
He's trying to get yellow cake from Niger.
He's got weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein, we've got to go and invade.
Can you imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraqis, the tens of thousands of lives of Americans that would have been saved?
The entire region would not have been destabilized.
It may have not happened that Libya fell.
It may not have happened that Syria fell.
It may not have ended up producing this horrible migrant crisis that's threatening to swamp Europe and the West as a whole.
Can you imagine if social media was as strong then as it is now?
What might have been pushed back?
You go back even further.
Look at how McCarthyism was reshaped.
The whole narrative was remolded.
And you can look at my presentation, The Truth About McCarthy, for more on that.
Or Nixon.
Or look at how much the Clintons have gotten away with over time.
When you lift the lid on this particular hellish manipulation that passes through news these days in the mainstream media, you really do understand that what you call history is generally a lie told by psychopaths that it's thirsting to drown your remaining freedoms in black deadly ink.
So...
What now?
What's going to happen now?
Well, a couple of predictions that aren't too hard to figure out.
First of all, the media is going to run to the government to try and get real reporting like this shut down.
You know, like the guy who recorded the Planned Parenthood people and so on.
He was hit with a whole bunch of charges.
Most of them were dropped.
So that's what they're going to do.
They're not, of course, going to attempt to reform internally.
They're not going to attempt to change the business model.
They're not going to admit any faults.
They're going to run to the government and try and get reporting shut down.
And my guess is, of course, they're going to try and put some limits on free speech and all that kind of stuff.
And this is what's happened, of course, to the media.
Mainstream media invented fake news to try and describe the non-mainstream media.
And, of course, it has completely bounced back on them.
So there's a couple of things.
They're going to try and invoke the power of the state or the court system or whatever it is.
Or they're going to do what the Wall Street Journal did to PewDiePie.
They're going to create a false narrative and then try and cut off revenue sources for their competition.
This is what...
Crony capitalism does, right?
These are all corporate entities that rely on the power of the state in order to maintain their income and their influence and power in society.
And they're going to try and shut down competition using the power of the state because they don't want to operate in the free market.
Now, as far as all this stuff goes, to me it's complicated.
And I hate any restrictions on free speech with a sort of visceral passion deep down in my spine.
So the fact that they seem to be admitting to pushing a false narrative at CNN, a false and highly dangerous narrative.
Okay, well, you can lie.
Free speech includes the ability to lie, not to slander, not to incite violence, but to lie.
But here's the thing.
Here's where it gets complicated.
And I don't want any government response to this in any way, shape, form, because there's so many things that can be done that don't require a government response of any kind.
Because here's the thing.
CNN... Okay, I think it's going to expand.
This is James O'Keefe.
This is what he does, right?
Like, he releases some stuff, and then he accumulates all the denials, and then he releases more stuff, which overturns the denials.
I mean, it's...
They've got to be wise to it by now.
But...
CNN, in particular, you know, they say that they're a news organization, that they're reporting facts.
They don't claim to be an opinion organization alone.
I mean, there's news, these are facts, at least the part of the shows which claim to be factual.
So you claim that the information that you provide is factual, and you say that to your customers, you say that to your advertisers, and you say that to your shareholders.
Now, if I had CNN shares, I mean, other than buying them frantically last night to short them, if I had CNN shares, then I would actually be really, really angry with the management of CNN at the moment.
Because CNN was selling me, not shares, they were selling me the value which they have, which is called credibility.
I mean, their studios aren't worth that much, their real estate isn't worth that much, it's all about credibility, that's why they get...
And so, if the management, if I had CNN shares, and the management, I found out the management had knowingly tarnished the CNN brand by promoting falsehoods, by promoting false narratives, by pushing stories that they suspected were largely bullshit, I'd be really, really angry because I would have given CNN money in the hopes of getting a rise in stock price or some dividends.
Knowing that CNN's major asset was its credibility.
And if the management had knowingly tarnished that credibility, then they have undermined the value of my shares.
And that's kind of a serious business.
You have a fiduciary responsibility as a CEO, as a CFO. If you're senior management in an organization, you have a fiduciary responsibility.
You can't knowingly do things that are going to harm the value of the company.
I mean, you can, but I don't know.
What happens?
Do the shareholders have the right to launch a lawsuit against CNN saying that you have destroyed the value or undermined the value of our shares by knowingly pushing false narratives, by destroying or undermining the credibility of the organization, which is the basic reason why the share price is more than three cents or so?
I don't know.
Be interesting to see.
What about advertisers?
So, of course, people have advertised on CNN. You know, all those people who want to capture everyone trapped in dentist-wasting rooms and hospital ERs and airports and so on.
The advertisers have tied themselves to a brand called CNN. Now, if it turns out that the brand called CNN has been pushing these fake narratives, this false news, okay, well, you've just tied yourself.
To an organization and given them millions and millions of dollars to advertise on that organization's television and website and so on.
And now your brand is kind of tarnished perhaps even by association.
Are the advertisers upset?
Now they have to pull their ads from CNN, at least I hope some of them will, pull their ads from CNN and they're going to be forever associated with this tarnished brand.
You know, if you say a medicine, medicine X cures disease Y as a company, as a CEO, and it turns out you know it doesn't, well, that's kind of fraudulent, right?
I mean, you can get in big trouble for that kind of stuff.
Was it fraud to say, you know, fair and balanced, we're all about the honesty, we have all these processes, and blah blah blah, when the CEO is telling people what to report on and which narratives to push, when the employees, at least one of them, indicates that they know it's largely bullshit and President Trump has every right to push back and call it a witch hunt?
I mean, did the CNN management team betray their fiduciary responsibility to protect the value of the brand of CNN? I don't know.
Interesting questions, though.
We'll see how it plays out.
I mean, I wouldn't.
I don't advertise, but I wouldn't advertise on CNN now.
Like, yuck.
I wouldn't buy anything from any company that remained as an advertiser on CNN. So it's a pretty wild time.
What an unbelievable shake-up.
And what an opportunity for people who have been pretty much committed to telling the truth, even when it's difficult, compared to all of this goo that is currently pouring out of the television and your browsers in an attempt to invade your skull and take over your brain with leftist propaganda.
What an astonishing development.
And of course, massive kudos to James O'Keefe and Project Veritas for pursuing this and putting people on notice.
Putting people on notice.
People are going to be nervous about being recorded.
And it's funny because, of course, the mainstream media has, for centuries, been jamming microphones into other people's faces.
And it's funny because, of course, the mainstream media has for centuries been jamming microphones into other people's faces.
Yes, I know microphones are more recent than centuries, but you get the analogy.
They've been cornering people and pushing them up against the wall, so to speak, and asking them the tough questions and leaking and revealing embarrassing information.
You know, there's an old saying in the news business that every story gets printed has at least one person who desperately does not want it to be printed.
And so the fact that the, quote, watchers are now being watched, the fact that those who stick microphones in other people's faces are now being recorded themselves is really quite fascinating.
And I think the mainstream media does need a takedown in its amount of influence.
I mean, it does need a balance in this.
particular, I mean, Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, other people who are working on this, Mike Cernovich and so on, they are really beginning to sand back down the excessive power of the mainstream media, which I think is for the better.
It is for the better.
And so the wonderful thing now is that we'll see how this plays out.
This is sort of my first reactions to the story.
But the great thing with this story is that, okay, CNN can now be legitimately branded by a lot of people as fake news.
I mean, all the stuff that I've talked about from the beginning of this presentation, it's garbage, it's crap, it's nonsense.
Now, if anyone who still thinks that CNN has unturnished credibility, fantastic.
Fantastic.
Because it means that that person has no capacity to process information that contradicts their worldview.
Beautiful.
You can save your time.
Anyone who's like, well, they were quoted out of context, and oh yeah, well, this other organization is even more fake, or I still believe the narrative about Russia hacking the election.
Fantastic.
They've just crossed themselves off the list of worthwhile people to talk to in our short and mortal life.
So it's a great dividing line.
It's a great dividing line.
See how people respond to this story.
I'm curious.
I want to see what else James O'Keefe has to offer.
I want to see what the responses are.
I want to see what happens at CNN. I want to see what happens if the shareholders get mad.
I want to see what happens if the advertisers pull out.
It's a great way.
When something like this goes off, it's like a flare being shot up in a dark forest.
Now you can see around.
You can see everyone's reaction and response to what has just happened.
Do they process the information?
Do they absorb it?
Do they change their behavior or do they change their consumption habits?
Do they change what they say or do they completely ignore it?
Thus proving that they're kind of crazy people immune to basic empirical feedback.
Now, The fact that this happens under Trump, it wouldn't have happened under Hillary.
Of course not.
Of course not.
not.
I mean, you remember back in the day, when Barack Obama thought Hillary Clinton was going to win, he basically laughed off the very idea that Russia could even potentially do anything to alter the election, because he thought Hillary was going to win.
And he didn't want to give anti-Hillary media any kind of grist to the mill to say, well, Russia did this.
So he's like, ah, you can't possibly hack an American election.
It's crazy.
And then Hillary loses.
It's like, ah, Russia hacked the election.
I mean, it's so, I mean, it's so ridiculous.
It's such a bunch of nonsense.
So the Trump thing to me has always been to some degree, at least about the media.
And And The media is interfering with rational conversations about politics, ethics, immigration, welfare, poverty, you name it.
They're just constantly screaming, you know, racist and sexist and homophobe and otherphobes and this, that.
They're just constantly getting in the way of any rational, empirical, objective, sensible conversations about some very, very pressing issues regarding Western civilization and, you know, civilization as a whole.
So the media has been in the way of rational conversations for as long as I've ever read the media.
And the fact that the media is being pared back, so to speak, that there's pushback against this power that they've had for a long time.
And boy, if you want to look up population of sociopaths in various industries, you won't find the one reporter missing from that particular list.
And this is fascinating because without the media, we'd have much better conversations.
Without social media, without YouTube, without other ways of sharing information, Trump would likely have gone the way of Nixon.
And so this, to me, is very, very powerful.
So...
The media has a vision which is, you know, constantly or generally, the mainstream media has a vision which is generally leftist, socialist, socialist, socialist.
Whether socialism ends and blends into communism, well, I'll just let Vladimir Lenin say, as he said, that the end goal of socialism is communism.
So the mainstream media has a vision.
Maybe it ends up with you hunting pigeons in the sewers like people are desperately trying to do in Venezuela.
And that's the vision of the media.
When is enough government enough?
When is more government enough?
When do they run out of more things they want the government to do?
I've never seen an endpoint, and I don't imagine there is going to be one, other than pure totalitarianism.
So the media has a vision.
And Trump has a vision.
Smaller government, more free markets, national sovereignty, protection of Western civilization.
So the media has a vision, and Trump has a vision.
And the media is in the way of Trump's vision.
And, of course, we all know the best vision, right?
We all know the description or the definition of the best vision, right?
