EP.11 CNN Announces More Layoffs Amid Ratings Collapse
CNN previously claimed it was all rumors, no layoffs were coming. But then offered over 100 buyouts to staff to leave voluntarily. As we know buyouts are a layoff with a smile and sure enough the rumors were true, more layoffs just dropped.Other SegmentsWhy is Media running defense for Nancy Pelosi?Captain Marvel Clip Shows Us The Regressive Left Love VillainsSilicon Valley Gets Woke Goes Broke5G technology is actually dangerous according to New Report
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
After a round of buyouts, CNN staffers are worried about what's next.
We'll read a little bit of this.
But now we're hearing that, yes, layoffs are coming.
Now, the reason I say CNN lied There were rumors circulating.
Journalists with sources were saying CNN was going to be laying off a large portion of its staff.
Brian Stelter, the media reporter, started refuting these, saying, no, no, no, it's not true.
Brian Stelter was misleading the actual journalists who had real, verifiable information, probably because his job is more important to him than reporting the truth.
CNN is trash, in my opinion.
But we're going to go through all this.
The story from Fox News.
Struggling CNN lays off health unit staffers as headcount reduction moves forward.
So we've had around 100 employees given a voluntary buyout option.
And that's a layoff with a smile.
And now there's the actual layout from Sina.
Now before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address where you can send things.
Of course, just like and comment on this video because that engagement helps.
Or just share it because YouTube loves it when you share the videos.
It's not so much that people see the share, but that whenever an external link is detected by YouTube, they promote the video internally more.
So it's good stuff.
Or by all means, if you hate me, do none of those things.
things, but let's read the news. Fox News says Sanjay Gupta is safe, but much of the
rest of CNN's Atlanta-based staff that covers health care found out Tuesday they are getting
pink slips only a few weeks after the network called mass layoffs a crazy rumor. I am deeply,
deeply offended by this. CNN has been falling into a just downward spiral of trash.
Listen, we know the laughs are coming.
There were good journalists who had sources within CNN who were saying, look, there are rumors circulating about mass laughs.
And what did Brian Stelter say?
There is a rumor making the rounds today about big impending laughs at CNN.
A CNN spokesman is knocking it down on the record.
No layoffs.
There were voluntary buyouts throughout the organization and about 100 people opted for it.
No.
They were not rumors.
It was true.
It's mind-numbing to me that CNN is going to try and push back on fact-based reporting.
Is that a surprise to anybody?
CNN is outraged over silly videos.
We'll get to this part.
CNN is angry because there's a misleading video on Facebook.
For real.
CNN, who falsely covered Covington.
We'll get to that stuff.
Let's go back to the news.
Fox says specific details were not yet known, but a source told Fox News that basically the whole division will lose their jobs.
TV news or a media watchdog site started by CNN's Brian Stelter managed to get confirmation from the network just in time for a Friday news dump.
As part of the normal course of business, our newsgathering team made a small restructure earlier this week that ultimately impacts six to seven employees within CNN's health unit.
Wow, what a bold-faced lie coming from CNN.
TV newser, AJ Katz.
Many health department staffers met with Human Resources on Tuesday.
Katz noted that correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is also safe.
Staffers are shocked as the health department is considered successful and CNN recently
declared that no laughs were imminent.
Wow, what a bold-faced lie coming from CNN.
Is that surprising?
There are no mass laughs at CNN.
I have no idea where that crazy rumor came from.
We have recently offered a voluntary buyout option for employees, and just over 100 people voluntarily decided to take it.
That's it.
Executive Vice President Allison Golas told Fox News on May 7th.
What is that, only a couple weeks ago?
We have nearly 4,000 people at CNN, and around 100 of them exercised the option for a program that was offered.
That's it.
Those are the facts.
Despite CNN's denial, staffers have been worried about potential layoffs since rumors began surfacing.
CNN's Southeast Bureau in Atlanta, CNN Health and CNN Climate, will now be under one leadership, something that was not the case before.
The more than 100 CNN employees who decided to accept a voluntary buyout option included CNN International Executive Vice President Tony Maddox, who left the Ratings Challenge Network after 21 years.
The ratings for CNN are in the gutter.
The other day, I did a segment talking about how after hosting a Beto O'Rourke town hall, their ratings were down 30%.
Huge, huge drop-off.
And throughout the week, CNN only gets a couple hundred thousand viewers in the key demographic.
That's called the money demo.
It's the demographic that advertisers are trying to reach.
CNN can't cut it.
They can't break it.
Layoffs were imminent.
We knew they were imminent.
And when the rumors started circulating, of course Brian Seltzer pops up to shoot it down.
Well, he works there.
There's a conflict of interest.
And I'm deeply offended by this because to the great media reporters who knew this was coming, to only be refuted by CNN, the least trusted name in news, my opinion, it's offensive.
And so we saw this story on the 7th.
Hollywood reporter Basically said, look, we know the layoffs are coming.
They said after 100 people took voluntary buyouts, people are worried.
What's next?
Well, here it is.
The entire health unit at CNN is gone.
Here's another story.
As we move on from CNN talking about layoffs, I want to get into how CNN And expect more of this.
As more people get laid off, involuntarily, there's gonna be more people talking about the problems that CNN faces.
This is a story published just today from Fox News.
And you know what?
It's fine if they're biased.
Contributors say network openly despises conservatives and you know what it's fine if they're biased just admit it
Several conservative commentators who were previously employed by CNN are now speaking out against the network
Claiming its current identity is anti-trump instead of neutral as it claims to be
One claims the network openly despises conservatives.
Most of us got squeezed out involuntarily, Jack Kingston, a former Georgia congressman who appeared on the network, told Mediaite.
I was there for two years and was certainly willing to continue.
It was clear to me in the end that Republicans, they prefer our anti-Trump Republicans.
Of course!
When they talk about censorship and bias, do they bring on actual experts?
I went on the Joe Rogan podcast.
We had the third top podcast for that week and like even a few days after that week, I think into the next week.
Does Oliver Darcy, Media Reporter, and Brian Souther cite my references and my sources when talking about censorship?
No.
They talk about Gateway Pundit.
They strawman the argument.
CNN has no ratings, and they're desperate.
They're absolutely desperate.
The layoffs are proof of their desperation.
And in their desperation, as they begin to drown, they splash violently, and it's only going to get worse.
Conservatives come and go, they say.
Pro-Trump contributors at CNN seem to have come and gone in recent months.
Last week, the network fired former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, as reports indicated he was being considered for a high-ranking immigration post in the Department of Homeland Security.
He should have been removed if that was true, because if he ends up getting a job for the government, or even if he's being considered, then they probably shouldn't have him commenting on certain issues.
Conflict of interest.
So that's fair.
But then we get to Mr. Jim Acosta, who is a sleazy grandstander, in my opinion.
He's not a journalist.
Certainly not.
He's a personality who stands up and argues with the president, instead of asking questions and trying to understand the perspective of the government and what's going on.
Of course, in my opinion, it's all lies.
CNN is lying.
Trump is lying.
They're all lying.
If you think people making public statements are telling the truth, I got a bridge to sell you.
It's all public relations.
And you know what's crazy to me is we all know it.
When Brian Stelter came out and said, no, no, no layoffs!
They're just, um...
They're just gonna be buyouts.
I'm just like, yeah, okay, sure, buddy.
We know it's a lie.
It's always a lie.
The most troubling thing to me about how the public world works is that politicians lie, corporations lie, journalists lie.
Why would anyone assume any of these people are being honest about anything?
Anyway, so we get the gist of the story.
I don't want to prattle too much on the issue of CNN hating conservatives.
But the reason I wanted to highlight the story is because of this.
The issues I take with CNN.
Anderson Cooper, 360, posted this video.
In a CNN exclusive, Monica Bickert, Facebook VP for Product Policy and Counter Terror, explains why the social media site hasn't removed a manipulated video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Seriously?
CNN got an interview with a vice president of Facebook because they were upset that somebody made a video of Nancy Pelosi that was unflattering.
Did you not see all of the other millions of videos produced about all the other politicians?
Why is CNN rushing to the defense of Nancy Pelosi?
Why are they so concerned that someone posted a video that made Nancy Pelosi look bad?
And why do they think it should be deleted?
That's very interesting considering.
Remember Covington?
When a misleading edited video was published and CNN reported it as fact?
Ex-contributors say the network openly despises conservatives.
Sure, look, it's fine if they do, just they have to come out and say it.
They're not, they're a partisan far-left news network.
But if they're gonna come out and smear the Covington kids and get sued for it, but then rush to the defense of a Democrat because someone, because one person on the internet made a video, as is what people do on the internet, I'm gonna have to say the obvious.
What we all know Is that their far-left biased source.
Remember when CNN misidentified Ralph Northam as a Republican?
That was really fun and funny.
And what you need to consider is that, as the saying goes, the lie travels halfway around the world before the truth straps on its boots.
So yes, did CNN correct the error when they called a racist Democrat a Republican?
They did, but ultimately, the lie traveled halfway around the world.
You're gonna have a lot of people who just watched in the airport news network, you know, watching, you know, in the airport, in the hotel lobby, seeing the R and assuming Northam was a Republican and not investigating later on.
CNN is completely biased, but something really interesting happens.
In response to this one viral video of Nancy Pelosi, people are now saying they want to delete Facebook.
It's actually gone viral in the United States, delete Facebook.
So this is kind of an aside.
I find it very, very funny that all the outrage drummed up.
They now want to delete Facebook because heaven forbid someone on the internet made a meme video mocking Nancy Pelosi.
But, in response to the idea that Anderson Cooper is saying it's somehow wrong and Facebook needs to delete these videos, apparently YouTube did delete it, which is nonsense, Max Keiser brought up an interesting point.
He said, When Anderson Cooper calls misinformation, others call art.
The quote, doctored video in question is a work of art.
The idea that art should be censored is the most asinine thing Anderson has ever said, in my opinion.
If you don't like somebody's art, make your own.
The issue really comes down to this.
Let's wrap all this up.
We won't go too long on this video, but let's wrap it up.
CNN just laid off their health unit.
They tried telling everybody it wasn't going to happen and we knew it was a lie because all of this PR nonsense is always a lie.
But of course, CNN is just so full of it.
Their ratings are in the gutter and they're desperate.
That's why they're bringing on a Facebook VP to talk about a stupid meme video that no one cares about.
And Max Keiser makes the excellent point to wrap this up.
The internet is full of edited videos, and CNN is so desperate for ratings as they lay people off, they're going to feign outrage over a silly video on Facebook of Nancy Pelosi that makes her look bad.
But certainly, they'll smear the Covington kids.
So anyway, we'll wrap it up there.
Let's go back and finish out the story from... Well, we already finished the story from Fox News.
Suffice it to say, I believe there will be a lot more laughs coming soon to CNN.
This won't be the last of it.
That would be absurd.
Their ratings keep going down.
Down 30% following the Beto O'Rourke thing, so we'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
The next video will be at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
For those listening on the podcast, it will begin shortly, and I will see you all soon.
So we're going to do a follow-up to a little bit about what I talked about in my main video, the Nancy Pelosi video that's going viral.
But I want to focus on how the media in general, from Vox Busby to CNN, are coming to the defense of Democrats, and they never call out the fake news targeting Trump, like Occupy Democrats.
We have two stories.
We've got—excuse me.
Vox, a fake viral video makes Nancy Pelosi look drunk.
Facebook won't take it down, and why should they?
It's not against the rules.
It's a video that was slowed down by 25%.
BuzzFeed writes, Facebook says it won't take down a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi that they know is fake, and why would they?
But we're going to focus on this issue of why is Vox and BuzzFeed and CNN rushing to the defense of a Democrat?
Why don't they call it the fake news targeting conservatives?
Oh, because we know how the game is played.
But before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option.
There's a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course you can just share this video and click the like button and comment below.
The engagement helps, tells YouTube that the video is worth watching.
So let's get back to the first story.
They say, turns out on Facebook, just because something isn't real doesn't mean it's against the rules.
Right, we've always known that.
A doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that makes it seem like she's drunkenly slurring her words at a public event has spread across the internet in recent days.
But Facebook doesn't plan to take it down.
It's the latest example of the ease with which misinformation can spread online.
Did you know that Occupy Democrats is the most shared left-wing source?
I'm curious why CNN, Vox, BuzzFeed, etc.
aren't outraged and demanding to know why the largest source, according to Newswhip,
of liberal news, why they're allowing all of this fake news to persist and effectively
make money for a fake news organization.
Yet they're so outraged that one video of Nancy Pelosi makes her look bad.
They say it's also more, it's also about more than that.
Misinformation propagates so easily because social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, are still figuring out their stances on what counts as prohibited content.
Facebook, for example, says just because something isn't true doesn't mean it's against the rules.
And what's your proposed alternative?
Are you going to then have fact-checkers delete content that they don't like?
Who gets to choose what's the truth?
And more importantly, are you saying that dumb people shouldn't be allowed to use social media?
On Wednesday, Pelosi, who has been publicly quarreling with Donald Trump this week after a failed infrastructure meeting at the White House, spoke at an event hosted by the liberal group, the Center for American Progress.
Soon after, an altered video of her speech that had been slowed down by about 75% to intr— No, no, no, that's wrong.
By about two, about 75%, to introduce significant distortion popped up online, and it took off.
Drew Harwell of the Washington Post flagged the video, one version of which, posted by the right-leaning page Politics Watchdog, has racked up more than two million views and counting.
Why is the Washington Post, Vox, BuzzFeed, CNN all rushing to the defense of Democrats?
Why are the social media sites doing this?
And here's what's really frustrating.
When we see the censorship, here's what happens.
Brexit, right?
BuzzFeed wrote a story flagging pro-Brexit accounts and demanded that Twitter ban them, Twitter ban some of them.
This is what they do.
We know who they work for, okay?
We know, like, this is the media's, it's propaganda.
The video continues to be widely available online.
YouTube took it down, but Facebook has left it up.
Even though it's acknowledged, it's fake.
And why would they take it down?
And now here's where it gets really interesting.
Donald Trump tweeted this video.
It says Pelosi stammers through news conference.
It's a It's a clip where they cut several sections where Nancy Pelosi struggles to speak.
It is not doctored.
Okay, doctoring is meant to mislead people.
No, it's literally just they highlight the sections where Pelosi is slurring.
And now they're trying to claim this video is the same as the other one.
They're claiming it's fake, it's manipulated.
When in reality, it's just a video showing Nancy Pelosi struggling to speak.
I gotta admit, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, what is it with these people being unable to speak properly?
I mean, they're all really old, I get it, but I gotta admit, this video from Pelosi, it's really frustrating to listen to.
And that's the point.
Trump is trying to make her look bad.
But to act like this video is misleading simply because they highlight her slurring is very different from the video where they actually edited it and slowed it down.
Um, basically, so they go on to- you know, it's just so frustrating, man.
This whole article is just complete trash.
They go on to play this video from BuzzFeed where Jordan Peele pretends to be Obama, and it's not particularly convincing if you were to ask me, but the goal is to highlight deepfake technology.
But let's see what BuzzFeed has to say.
This article from BuzzFeed, once again, it's all about framing.
Is BuzzFeed saying they demand this video be taken down?
No.
But they're presenting it as a problem that needs to be solved, and they're highlighting only issues that benefit themselves.
Because I gotta admit, Occupy Democrats is some of the trashiest content ever.
And now this news, for instance, we know they're activists.
Why is all of this fake news allowed to persist?
When it does, When finally, conservatives start using these memes, and they've been using memes effectively for a while, BuzzFeed, Vox, CNN rush to their defense.
But you know what?
Let's read the end of the BuzzFeed story, just because I don't want to rehash all the same news we already know.
They highlight, and this is fascinating, they highlight how you have actual Democratic staffers outraged.
Look at this.
David Sicklian, I don't know how to pronounce his name, let's see who this guy is on Twitter.
Congressman for Rhode Island's 1st District.
He said, Facebook, you are screwing up.
Fix this now.
What does that mean, fix it?
You want someone to take down a video because it makes you look bad?
Sorry.
Then we have this from Brian Schatz.
Facebook is very responsive to my office when I want to talk about federal legislation and suddenly get marbles in their mouths when we ask them about dealing with a fake video.
It's not that they cannot solve this.
It's that they refuse to do what is necessary.
Welcome to the private platform problem.
Facebook is a private platform.
They can do what they want, right?
Well, here's the thing.
When it comes to speech, you are allowed to do this.
It could fall under satire, parody, whatever.
You could argue that the person slowed the video down to highlight the speech.
We slow down videos all the time to show things.
They're mad that someone made information about them that makes them look bad.
Well, too bad!
Bickert told CNN that press coverage of the fake videos effectively shifted the public conversation to how it was manipulated.
The conversation is not about people believing this video.
It is that they were discussing the fact that it was manipulated, and that's the conversation they should be having.
Congratulations!
They acknowledged that CNN, Vox, and BuzzFeed diverted the narrative.
To protect the Democrats.
You heard it.
Originally, people were talking about Nancy Pelosi's slurring.
The media rushed to their defense, said Facebook has had a problem, and now where are we?
The conversation has shifted.
It's no longer about Nancy Pelosi.
It's now about Facebook.
Bravo, Vox and BuzzFeed.
You've done it.
Well, here's the thing.
They've done it great.
Newsweek.
Delete Facebook.
Twitter users urge people to deactivate accounts after fake Nancy Pelosi video goes viral.
The fake clip will slow down and we get it, but let's see what's going on with this hashtag.
It's basically the same story, but are they going to talk about... Well, let's look at some of the Twitter responses.
I guess they're highlighting.
This one person tweets, if you believe news you read on Facebook, Facebook is not the problem.
I agree.
This person's got... I can't remember the guy's name.
It's the famous basketball player eating popcorn when delete Facebook is trending on Twitter.
Keith Olbermann, there is no excuse for us to continue to use, support, or allow to continue an amoral media platform like Facebook.
Deliberate electronic manipulation of speech, political or not, for or against any political point of view, is not free speech, it's societal suicide.
Well, it is free speech, Mr. Olbermann, but you know what?
I don't care what the reason is.
If people are saying delete Facebook, count me in!
I'm on board.
I think everybody should agree and say, yes, you know what?
You're right.
How dare Facebook allow Nancy Pelosi videos to go viral?
Let's all delete our Facebook pages.
And I will admit, I don't really use Facebook anymore.
I use it somewhat for Messenger, but I've been using other Messengers.
I have been using Instagram.
So, you know, ultimately, I kind of just don't really care about Facebook.
So if Facebook goes away, then fine, whatever.
Ultimately, I guess the point I want to make with why I decided to highlight these stories is, you know, one thing I always go to is Ancient Aliens.
I think Ancient Aliens is hilarious and entertaining.
But Ancient Aliens posts on Facebook too, and that's deliberate misinformation.
The thing is, Vox and Buzzfeed may as well be arms of the Democratic Party rushing to the aid of Nancy Pelosi when one video, one video makes her look bad.
Occupy Democrats producing, what, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pieces of content out of context and misleading to make Republicans look bad?
Not a peep.
Not a single peep.
These outlets are far left.
We know they're far left.
They operate in the defense.
They frame the narrative in this way.
And there's your proof.
So you know what?
If they're going to use all this to get people to delete their Facebook pages, then sure, fine.
Screw it, whatever.
Count me in.
End of story.
I'm going to leave it there.
Stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up shortly.
And I will see you soon.
Let's talk about heroes and villains, and I want to talk to you about what I grew up with.
And what I learned from superhero shows, comic books, and cartoons.
We're going to start by looking at an extended clip from Captain Marvel showing that Captain Marvel is indeed a supervillain.
I was actually really shocked to see this.
I tweeted about it.
So Joey Sales tweeted the segment that was released.
It was an extended clip from a scene where she harms and robs a man for being a jerk.
Grand Theft Auto steals clothing and takes off.
In the movie, spoiler alerts, I'm sure you've seen it or don't care to, She meets a guy, he says, will you smile for me?
And then in the next scene, she's wearing new clothes and she's riding off on his motorcycle.
I thought it was kind of weird that she stole his motorcycle, but I get it.
I'm like, whatever.
She's, you know, doing what she can to survive on an alien planet.
And I kind of just shrugged it off, but it was kind of weird.
I tweeted this.
I never saw this clip, but damn, Captain Marvel is a villain.
She straight hurts and robs a dude because he was a jerk to her.
That's a villain.
So this is a tweet.
From Joey Sales.
And it was written about by the Daily Wire, sorry about that.
But look at the video.
And I don't want to play the full video, but basically, this dude walks up to her, and he says, how about a smile?
He says, I'm here to help you.
She says, how about a handshake?
She shakes his hand, introduces herself, the guy says, I'm the Don.
Here's what happens next.
She uses her superpowers to drop him to his knees, and then says, if you give me the keys to your motorcycle, I'll let you keep your hand.
Captain Marvel is a super villain, plain and simple.
So I want to talk about Batman.
What did Batman do?
What did Spider-Man do?
What did I learn from these superhero comics about being a true hero?
It's about being selfless.
It's about not robbing a guy simply because you don't like him.
It's really interesting.
One of my favorite storylines is the Injustice storyline, where Superman becomes super evil.
So here's what we'll do.
We'll talk about this, but I also want to talk about how a Democratic lawmaker told a 16-year-old, you're right to be afraid of us.
And I want to talk to you about this social justice ideology is about power and domination, and it is the opposite of what superheroes really, really are.
Before we jump any further, make sure you go to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, you can just share this video, like and comment, because the engagement tells YouTube the video is good, and then they recommend it more.
So let's do this.
Let's jump over to this story and talk about what Captain Marvel does, and I want to talk about Batman, Spider-Man, etc.
Batman refuses to end people's lives.
It's part of his character arc.
I recently replayed Injustice 2.
If you're not familiar, if you're not a video game person, don't worry.
You can just hear what I have to say and it'll make sense.
Superheroes often do things they know aren't going to be Effective, necessarily, right?
In the injustice storyline.
And this is a big spoiler, but it's an old storyline.
The Joker drugs Superman.
Superman becomes a weapon of mass destruction, and he ends up killing Lois, the woman he loves.
Superman, in a fit of rage, kills Joker, and this turns him.
Superman then, you know, he basically convinces everyone else to become evil, and because Superman is so damn powerful, they become an authoritarian dictatorship.
But Batman refuses.
Batman doesn't turn.
Now, here's the point of the story.
It's fantastic.
But what we learn in the uh like the actual superman story and what it means to
be a superhero is that even though you may be angry even though the super villain may have harmed
and killed many many people the superheroes always refuse to end their lives the
superheroes always refuse to act for personal gain what do we see with captain marvel in this scene she
actually tortures the guy I'm not gonna- I'm not acting like it's the worst torture of all, but she uses her powers.
You can see her hand is glowing, and the guy's going, ah, in pain.
She inflicts pain on somebody to steal from him.
The exact opposite of what a hero would do.
Even in movies where we see a cop commandeer a vehicle, it's meant to be questionable.
Superheroes aren't meant to do this.
This is not ambiguous.
This is Captain Marvel hurting someone out of a personal slight.
Now here's what I take away from this.
She smiles.
She's proud of herself that she's hurt someone to take from them.
But, the real message here is that he said, how about a smile for me, right?
And she got angry.
In the movie, this clip is there.
The guy pulls up and says, how about a smile for me?
And then she's like, huh?
How dare you?
And then the next scene is her driving away on his bike.
This says something to me about social justice and what they really believe.
If you were inspired by this scene, you have villainous tendencies.
The fact that he said, smile for me, she inflicts pain on him and steals from him shows this is something that resonates with the people who hold this ideology.
And it's represented in, in real life.
When a democratic lawmaker told a teenager, you're right to be afraid of us.
And it got me thinking about everything having to do with the regressive left and what they believe.
And, and I think the main goal for many of these people is just power and their path to power is playing the victim.
There are many of us who have integrity, who believe in loyalty and compassion.
And when you believe in those things, you would not hurt someone for being mean.
You would allow them the right to speak.
You would be a true liberal.
Unfortunately for us, those of us who truly believe in liberty and compassion, our compassion was taken advantage of by these people who play the victim, act like they've been slighted, so that good people say, let us help you.
What do they really want?
They want power.
How in the hell are you going to tell a teenager your right to be afraid of us?
Let's read this story.
This is from a couple months ago, admittedly.
Democratic New York Rep Nydia Velasquez told pro-Trump teen pundit C.J.
Pearson that you were right to be afraid of us Tuesday after he referred to her as the woman next to Democratic New York Rep Ocasio-Cortez in a tweet about the State of the Union address.
She said, Hi C.J.
Pearson, I'm not the woman sitting next to her.
AOC and I and millions like us are the future of this country and you were right to be afraid of us.
Keeping in mind, C.J.
Pearson is a young black conservative, why she's saying this to him is rather terrifying.
Why would a politician say something like that?
It's like the... Do you know what swords to plowshares is?
I'm not super familiar with its cultural context outside of Magic the Gathering, but it's a representation of turning swords into plowshares that people give up the violent way of life to become farmers.
And it also plays into the idea of, you know, the philosopher king, right?
The king who doesn't want to be king is better.
It's like, uh, spoilers for Game of Thrones, you have someone like Jon Snow who keeps saying, I don't want to be king, and they're like, that's why you should be.
Granted, the ending was trash, but I'm not going to get into that.
When you see these people who flaunt the power and oppress and subjugate people and tell them to fear them, those are terrifying leaders.
So why is it that the regressive ideology supports this while they claim to be good guys?
They're not.
They're dangerous.
And that plays into another big idea.
Look at the milkshakes.
You've seen the milkshakes flying around, right?
People getting hit in the face.
I keep thinking to myself, like, why won't any people on the right throw a milkshake back?
Plain and simple.
They're the bad guys.
It's not that the left is evil.
It's that the left is being taken over by evil people who are exploiting our compassion, liberals and conservatives alike, to gain power.
They will throw a milkshake in your face and laugh about it, but then complain when someone says, you know, hey man, you're asking for trouble.
That happened.
A brewery said, throw a brick.
And then when they got a response saying, you're asking for trouble, they went, oh, they're threatening us.
They don't believe in principles.
They believe in power.
They believe there is no truth but power.
They say this is part of their ideology.
So isn't it all surprising to me to see a clip that's meant to... Look, she steals his jacket, and the guy runs away.
She inflicts pain, she steals from him, and then she laughs about it.
When there are people watching this, feminists, social justice activists, regressive left, whatever you want to call them, and they're cheering for this and laughing, that is villainous behavior.
Complete selfishness to take from someone else because they were mean to you?
That's terrifying.
They say Pearson, 16, had joked on Twitter that Ocasio-Cortez had been talking this entire speech and the woman next to her keeps trying to look the other way.
She then says, basically, you're right to be afraid of us.
Now, also, remember, when Ocasio-Cortez threatened Donald Trump Jr.
with subpoena power, this is, this is, It's kind of sad to me.
I'm someone who believes social justice is important and good.
But the people who have taken the reins of social justice are, in my opinion, evil people.
They would laugh at the idea of harming and robbing somebody.
They would tell a 16-year-old, you must fear us.
C.J.
Pearson responded, I'm sorry, Congresswoman, but as real Donald Trump said, socialism will not be the future of this country.
And Nydia, nothing about you nor AOC scares me.
It's your policies that jeopardize the stability of our nation and the future of my generation that scare me.
So I will say that no, you are right to be afraid of them.
Not because they are strong, not because they are right and just, but because they are terrifying, evil people who will use victimization for power Flaunt this.
Cheer for the torture and harm of individuals as their property is stolen from them.
And then when you criticize them, they'll tell you to fear them.
When you post a joke about them, they will threaten you with subpoena power, the power of the government.
And that to me is truly worrying, but I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
When I saw this story from the Wall Street Journal, I had absolutely no shock and no surprise at all that Wall Street isn't buying what Silicon Valley is selling.
They say some of the best funded startups disappoint when they go public, a tough pill to swallow.
Now I'm sure there's going to be a lot of interesting data and math that will talk about legitimate financial reasons why These Wall Street types don't want to invest in Silicon Valley.
I would like to offer up an alternative.
And that is, Peter Thiel left Silicon Valley, this story's from over a year ago, over his dissatisfaction with the industry's liberal politics.
There's a phrase you may have heard called, get woke, go broke.
And one thing that has been said time and time again, there's actually a big push as of recently, as of a few years ago, to short sell stocks from woke companies.
The idea being, if a company is more concerned with diversity as opposed to meritocracy, then their product will suffer.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to take a look at this Wall Street Journal story, go through some of the real reasons, but I do want to highlight this past story from Peter Thiel.
Now, before we do that, check out TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency addresses, a physical address, but of course, share the video.
It really helps.
Click the like button and comment below.
The engagement tells YouTube the video is great, and then YouTube shows the video more often.
It's one of the big challenges of YouTube, I might add, is whether or not YouTube is going to allow you to appear.
So engagement, make sure that happens.
Let's check out this Wall Street Journal article and see what they're going on about.
They say, Silicon Valley is pumping out giant startups with expansive visions, but Wall Street isn't sold.
It isn't just Uber, whose public performance has looked grim compared to its private fundraising.
Private investments in 6 of the 10 best-funded U.S.
tech startups to go public since 2015 have fallen from peak levels they hit in funding rounds before the company's stock debuts.
according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from research firm PitchBook. Uber
investors paid an average of $48.77 per share between December 2015 and October 2018 for a
total of $8.6 billion, one of the largest fundraising hauls ever for a startup. Uber,
which went public two weeks ago, now trades at about $40 per share.
So let's get to the facts here. So they say, over the past half decade,
venture investors have pumped tens of billions of dollars into the largest startups,
betting that stock market investors would look beyond companies' heavy losses and embrace their
visions of industry disruption, a position that so far looks increasingly dissonant.
Tech companies are valued at absurd numbers that make no sense because they think the disruption is going to result in a new monopoly or new market.
So look at it this way.
Uber drivers recently went on strike, saying they need to get paid more money.
Here's the thing.
Uber is subsidizing your trips, lowering fares, and paying the drivers more money.
At least that's my understanding.
I could be wrong.
That's my understanding.
Because they want to disrupt the entire cab market.
Once they win and shut everyone else out, they can jack the price up and make some profit.
Is that really going to work?
Is that a sound business model?
I don't know, but it requires heavy Heavy investment to keep pumping out those new drivers and pay their wages.
They are losing money.
They say every few days it seems the Silicon Valley startup machine elevates some new company to a valuation over a billion dollars, often aiming for a rich IPO some years down the line.
Recent entrants include a company that makes luggage and another that handles drone delivery of medical supplies.
Startup investors, particularly early stage venture capitalists, are betting on founders that they think have compelling visions of technology that could drive wholesale industry change.
They expect that many of their gambles won't pan out But think of IPOs as a way to cash out on successful bets.
It seems.
Like what we're seeing with all these big tech companies in Silicon Valley.
It's not so much a get what go broke thing.
It's that the whole area was inflated, the value was way higher than it actually is, and we may be looking at a massive tech bubble burst.
If people don't want to invest in these companies, and these companies are not profitable, massive losses, Well, it's going to be an interesting next few years.
And this is going to have a profound impact on the culture war.
Many of these big tech companies push these overt regressive ideologies, or this regressive ideology, and it's based on false evaluations.
So what happens when they lose that money?
They're gone.
Let's go wrap this one up, because I want to highlight this past story from Peter Thiel.
Because for those who don't know, Peter Thiel is a major investor.
He was the guy who took down Gawker, and he said he's pulling out of Silicon Valley.
This was a year ago.
Again, it's an older story, but I want to highlight this as we contrast it with the refusal to invest in these companies.
So we'll just wrap up this story and see what they have to say.
The public markets could eventually warm to these new business models.
Facebook Inc.
had a disappointing public debut before going on to become one of the world's most valuable corporations.
It's very hard to look at these things in a very narrow period of time, said Roger Li, partner at Battery Ventures, which invests in startups in various stages of maturity and has backed online retailer Wayfair and Groupon, among other companies.
Few have more at stake in this area than SoftBank.
Its initial investment in Uber is up about 20%.
It bought shares from existing investors at a discount in late 2017.
A modest return compared with others in its portfolio.
It's unclear how long the company plans to hold its Uber stake.
It often holds stock of public companies for years.
So, we get it, right?
What we're seeing here is that these companies are operating at a massive loss.
It's all smoke and mirrors, and they may actually collapse.
Now, Facebook is making money.
I believe Twitter has turned things around and started making money, but they are facing serious problems.
Facebook is losing young users.
They recently lost a bunch of major brands, most recently CrossFit.
We heard that Playboy and Tesla last year, but we also see this, right?
So, Peter Thiel is leaving Silicon Valley again from last year, but I want to stress this because this is important.
Especially, I think, if you're someone who's interested in these companies.
They say, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire known for his libertarian politics, is leaving the Bay Area after four decades and stepping back from tech due in part to his dissatisfaction with the industry's politics.
Citing what they called Silicon Valley's sclerotic nature, That's really, really interesting.
A new media endeavor from the guy who took down Gawker.
I'd be interested to see what he's going to bring about.
where he will focus on a number of new projects, including creating a new media endeavor.
That's really, really interesting.
A new media endeavor from the guy who took down Gawker.
I'd be interested to see what he's going to bring about.
And I will also stress, the story's old.
So we haven't seen anything yet, but Peter Thiel certainly has the money, and apparently
After taking down Gawker, I'm sure free speech and free and fair press is something very, very important to somebody like Peter Thiel, especially ethics.
For those that don't know, the reason Peter Thiel took down Gawker is because Gawker outed him, and that could get him killed.
It's the craziest thing.
You'd think woke Gawker wouldn't out people.
No, they did, seemingly with no respect.
Teal will all, he says, LA is a better place to do that.
The source said LA is also less out of touch and it's a better place to connect with the rest of the
country. Teal will also move his investment firm Teal Capital and his Teal Foundation to LA. The source
said founders fund where he is a general partner will remain in San Francisco. Teal is also
considering resigning from the board of Facebook according to the source. So here's the idea, right? I'm not
surprised when we, I don't know.
I wasn't surprised at all when we heard Peter Thiel was leaving, considering Gawker and considering his personal politics.
But let's think about the idea of woke companies for a second.
Get Woke, Go Broke isn't an absolute.
No way at all.
Jordan Peele has done a series of movies which are super woke, and they've been very successful.
Black Panther was considered to be woke.
I think that's kind of not fair because Black Panther was, they handled the politics very well in my opinion, but it made a ton of money.
And so these ideas, like when these movies succeed, especially Captain Marvel, Then people say, you know what?
It worked.
But it may not work for the reasons they think it's working.
Black Panther was just... It was a decent movie.
It was pretty good.
I liked it.
But they weren't overly woke.
In fact, the main character T'Challa in Black Panther holds very similar views to Donald Trump.
But he was the hero.
So for a lot of people who think it's woke, they're simply just looking at race.
I think that's kind of racist.
But that's the idea.
You look at Captain Marvel.
Terrible movie.
Just terrible.
But it made money because it was a Marvel movie, and now you're going to have people saying, oh, see, Get Woke worked.
I don't think it was Getting Woke that worked.
I think it was the fact that it was a Marvel movie, both of them, and Marvel has a great track record.
People want to go see movies.
So, look, very few movies come out.
I recently saw Brightburn.
Not a big fan.
It was okay, whatever.
But I know that when I go to see a Marvel movie, I will be entertained.
I will really like it.
Then what happens is people assume Getting woke works, but I think it's actually less likely to work.
Now look at all these companies in Silicon Valley.
If you want to make sure your company works and you make money, and you've got a list of people and you say, well, this white male is really good at his job, but you know what?
I'm not going to hire him because we want to hire a diverse staff.
You're now going to be hiring people, you're going to be, like, the idea is you have, like, an A-plus candidate who's white male, so you say no, and then you move on and try and find the best possible non-white candidate.
Very often, you will find, absolutely, many non-white candidates who are better, the same or better than someone who's white, but what happens when you care more about a diverse staff than you care about a good employee?
You will absolutely hire down and bring on people who are less skilled And less likely to do a good job.
And that creates a huge problem.
So let's do like a simple wager here.
A simple math problem.
If you have two candidates that are both white and, let's say, I don't know, Latino.
Hispanic.
And they're both completely identical resumes.
You, as somebody who cares more about diversity, will hire the Hispanic individual.
And it won't have any impact.
Let's say you have a white person and a Hispanic person, but the white person is slightly better.
You'll still hire the person who's not as good.
Now, if it was inverted, you are more likely to end up hiring someone who is worse at the job if you only favor people based on their race because you're omitting the key functions you need for the job, the skills and the talent.
Well, I can certainly respect many of these social justice policies.
I think social justice is a good thing.
I think authoritarian social justice is not.
And I think refusing to hire someone based on their race is not social justice.
You can't say, I'm not going to hire this person because he's white.
That's racist.
They like to tell you that's not racist.
It is.
It's you making an assumption about the history and skills of a person because they're white.
We can break it down to its root.
Get really nuanced here.
Let's say you've got a white person and Hispanic person.
Hispanic person was born to a billionaire family, you know, tech billionaires from Mexico City.
Best education ever.
And then you get a white person with the exact same qualifications and you say, but I'm not going to hire that white person because of privilege.
And then it turns out that white person is from rural, you know, bumble, bumble, I'm not going to swear.
Middle-of-nowhere town, crack-addicted family, struggled to climb out of his circumstance, and you think that person has more because of their race.
You're racist.
What ends up happening is you have, you know, companies that don't care about doing right and hiring people based on merit likely won't succeed.
So let's point over back at the original story and we'll wrap up this This segment.
I don't necessarily think that the whole reason people don't want to invest in these companies is wokeness.
I think it's that these companies are basically fluffing their evaluation to get a quick exit, and they're not worth what they're worth.
They're massive losses.
But the important bit is many of these companies are absolutely woke.
And once people realize investing in them isn't worth it, which is happening now, Silicon Valley will start falling.
And the reason I highlight Peter Thiel pulling out is because he's one of the big OGs.
He's one of the big Silicon Valley guys.
With him leaving, we can see that maybe we're on the back end of the bell curve.
And Silicon Valley's time has come.
And with Silicon Valley going away, the power of the regressive left will start to drift away with it.
But we'll see what happens.
So thanks for hanging out.
Again, I'll have more segments coming up shortly.
The next video will be on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
For the rest of you listening on the podcast, it will be shortly.
And I will see you soon.
Alex Jones went on a rant about how 5G was dangerous.
There were some studies, there was one that was published in the LA Times, I believe,
saying that 5G exposure led to increased tumor probability in rats.
Although Alex Jones went on to rant about, you know, humid cow hybrids or something,
I had no idea what he was talking about.
It apparently is very dangerous.
There are a lot of shortcomings to 5G that are apparently being overlooked
and pushed away because we have a massive race between all these companies
to roll out fifth generation cellular technology.
Gotta admit, I've seen a video of 5G and it is amazing.
500 megabits down in Chicago.
I'd love to get 5G, but we have this story from The Verge.
5G could mean less time to flee a deadly hurricane.
Heads of NASA and NOAA warn.
They're suggesting people could die because we won't have enough evacuation time.
While it's certainly not the story that Alex Jones was pushing, I still think it's interesting to point out that for a while now, people have been claiming anyone talking about 5G being dangerous is a conspiracy theory until the government said so, and now it's not.
So before we get into the story, check out TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address. Or you can just share this video,
click the like button, comment below, because your engagement with it tells YouTube it's great.
Sharing it is really, really great, because it's not that people are going to click it later,
it's that when it gets a share, YouTube says, oh, it's shared, we'll show it more for you. So it's
really, really good. But back to the story.
The Verge writes, it's become increasingly clear the wireless industry is trying to push the idea
of speedy 5G wireless networks before the technology is actually ready. It's a race,
and the race is BS. But until today, we hadn't realized that people's lives might also be at
stake. As reported by the Washington Post and CNET, the The heads of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warn the issue could set back the world's weather forecasting abilities by 40 years, reducing our ability to predict the path of deadly hurricanes and the amount of time available to evacuate.
It's because one of the key wireless frequencies earmarked for speedy 5G mmWave networks, the 24 GHz band, happens to be very close to the frequencies used by microwave satellites to observe water vapor and detect those changes in the weather.
They have the potential to interfere, and according to NASA and NOAA testimony, they could interfere to the point that it delays preparation for extreme weather events.
So you pick!
Do you want gigabit cell phones, or do you want to know when the storm's coming to end the life of you and your family?
Last week, Acting no-ahead, Dr. Neil Jacobs told the House Subcommittee on the Environment that based on the current 5G rollout plan, our satellites would lose approximately 77% of the data they're currently collecting, reducing our forecastability by as much as 30%.
I wonder if there's a way to appropriate 5G, however, from the actual cell towers to collect that data for you.
Maybe it's not possible because I don't exactly know how you're using the data, but maybe?
Maybe it's about changing the way we do the microwave readings?
If you looked back in time to see when our forecast scale was 30% less than today, it's somewhere around 1980.
This would result in the reduction of hurricane track forecast lead times by roughly two to three days.
If we hadn't had that data, Jacobs added, we wouldn't have been able to predict that the deadly Hurricane Sandy would hit.
A European study showed that with 77% less data, the model would have predicted the storm staying out at sea instead of making landfall.
Jacob said later that we currently have no other technologies to passively observe water vapor and make these more accurate predictions.
On April 19th, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine made similar comments to the House Science Subcommittee.
That part of the electromagnetic spectrum is necessary to make predictions as to where a hurricane is going to make landfall, he told the committee.
If you can't make that prediction accurately, then you end up not evacuating the right people and or you evacuate people that don't need to evacuate, which is a problem.
I will stress, ultimately, we can't just get angry that new technologies are emerging.
We need to continually innovate.
Perhaps the solution to this problem, I'm not saying they're not implying this, isn't so much to stop 5G, but to figure out better ways to track water vapor.
If the issue is that we want to track potential storms to save lives, then I don't think we should be restricting the development of new technologies because old ones might be interfered with.
Do you guys remember when they switched off analog and everyone went digital?
It was like, what, 12 or 13 years ago or something?
All of the TVs used to operate on analog radio frequencies and it switched to digital to save bandwidth.
Perhaps the issue here is not 5G, but that we need to update.
We need new technology in tracking water vapor plain and simple.
I don't like the idea of restricting technologies, especially communication technology, simply because old technology wouldn't work properly.
None of this should be a surprise to the industry or the FCC, as experts have been debating this point for years in the belt of the 5G.
In fact, recent versions of the 3GPP's 5G NR specification specifically have a carve-out to protect satellite weather services by reducing the emission levels of neighboring 5G signals between 24.25 and 27.5 GHz.
It's under 6.5.3.2.2 additional spurious emission requirements.
27.5 gigahertz. It's under 6.5.3.2.2 additional spurious emission requirements. That is, I
don't know what that means. But the NOAA is arguing the current emission requirements
aren't enough.
It'll lose that critical data unless they're clamped down even further.
I'm optimistic that we can come up with an elegant solution where passive microwave sensing and 5G can coexist.
The FCC has definitely been warned, by the way.
Space News reported, we'll open this one, that NASA's Bridenstine and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross sent a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to discuss protections on February 28th, a couple weeks before the FCC started auctioning off 24GHz spectrum on March 14th.
But that Pi rejected the invitation, claiming there was no technical basis for an objection.
So I guess there's an interesting point to be brought up with like Alex Jones, for instance.
You know, he's been waving his arms in the air and shrieking about weird things and mutations coming from 5G.
And I think that's a little off.
And maybe you could argue is distracting from the real potential threats of 5G technology.
But I also have to say, while people like Jones and others were saying 5G is dangerous, they were being called conspiracy theorists, and this issue was being ignored by the mainstream media.
So which is worse?
Overly, like, you could argue that, hey, at least with Jones, if some people listen to that nonsense, they might look into it and be concerned.
Or you could say, people will look into it, assume he's full of it, and then not look into it at all.
I guess the issue is, when it comes to digital media, Facebook, etc., there's this big controversy over fake news, and what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed.
One of the biggest arguments I've made is that, if you restrict individuals from posting news under the guise of preventing fake news, what happens when someone breaks something really, really important?
I'm excited for 5G.
I actually got a 5G phone.
Not because I plan to use it, it's not rolling out anytime soon, but because I needed to upgrade my phone anyway, and I'm stoked for when it's gonna come out.
I have to upload multiple videos per day, and each video's run a gigabyte.
So that's not an easy thing to do on your average phone right now, but with the new 5G technology, it's gonna be epic.
But the point is, besides me using 5G, Should people be allowed to talk about these issues, or should there be some kind of restrictions?
Or, can we simultaneously say The Verge is a conspiracy theorist?
This is conspiracy nonsense coming from The Verge, citing some random government people who don't know what they're talking about.
Why do we just assume the government is telling the truth, or they're right all the time?
That's another big issue I have with modern journalism today.
The government said it, it must be true.
Other people on YouTube complained about it, no, but that was a conspiracy.
And then what happens when the government says it's true?
Now you just believe it?
To me that's absurd.
Senators Ron Wyden and Maria Cantwell sent a letter to Pi on May 13th as well.
To continue down the path the FCC is currently on, to continue to ignore the serious alarms the scientific community is raising could lead to dangerous impacts to American national security, to American industries, and the American people, they warned, asking Pi not to award any final 24 gigahertz licenses or allow carriers to operate in the 24 gigahertz band until it can protect satellite measurements in the way that NASA and NOAA believe they need to be protected.
Earlier this week, the Wireless Industry Trade Association tried to ridicule these requests as fake news.
That's the point I'm making!
By publishing an argument about how the scientific community's claims relied on 13-year-old weather sensors that was never actually used.
That was quickly rebutted by meteorologist Jordan Gerth, who pointed out on Twitter that a different 23.8 GHz sensor, the JPSS, replaced it.
We haven't yet seen the study ourselves to confirm whether the CTIA is correct, that the study relied on the older sensor, and whether the new one would make the difference, but a spokesperson argues that the newer sensor is less sensitive to interference from 5G signals.
Well, hold on there a second, buddy.
The Verge hasn't actually confirmed themselves.
Well, perhaps this whole issue is The Verge publishing nonsensical conspiracy theories then, right?
This is one of the biggest problems I have with the media today.
How they accuse people on YouTube of publishing fake news, of Facebook, you know, it's all fake news.
They say intimate creators are fake news, and then they themselves don't actually confirm the data.
So is it fair to point out The Verge is publishing conspiracy nonsense in the same way they do to us?
Yes, absolutely.
But let's be real.
NASA and NOAA are saying we've got potential risks here, so I'm gonna defer to that.
