Democrats Call For Impeachment Of Trump After Mueller Statement Is a MISTAKE
Democrats Call For Impeachment Of Trump Is A HUGE Mistake. Following a statement form Robert Mueller Democrats, far left activists, and progressives began escalating their call for the impeachment of Trump.While many are now acting like Mueller's statement is what they needed to being proceedings to impeach President Trump the truth is that they have been using all sorts of weird reasons to claim they should impeach Trump.Mueller basically reiterated everything he already said in his report and by speaking today only served to reignite the trashfire that is our news cycle and calls for impeachment.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As many of you may be aware, Robert Mueller issued a statement today where he essentially reiterated his findings of his report, stated he will not be voluntarily testifying before Congress because he would have nothing to add beyond the report, nor would anyone else.
He basically said what we already knew, but he did go on to say that there wouldn't be
charges against Trump because certain guidelines, regulations don't allow it, and that if there's
no way to resolve a case in court, then it wouldn't be fair, essentially.
Many people took this to say that he was calling on Congress to start impeaching the president,
or start the impeachment proceedings.
And now we're seeing a story from USA Today.
Democratic calls for Donald Trump impeachment pick up after Mueller's first public remarks.
We've seen this for a while now.
They've been calling on Donald Trump to be impeached for some of the craziest reasons.
Why, just a few days ago, they said, the case to impeach Trump for bigotry from the New Yorker, which to me sounds absurd.
following Mueller's testimony, we see Cenk Uygur say, impeach the mother effer. So yes,
we are seeing many people pick up their rhetoric and they want to put impeachment on the table.
I think it's a mistake. I think the Democrats need to campaign on policy and ideas, but this
seems to be the leading charge. And I think that's going to distract from the actual issues and
ultimately end up benefiting the president. But let's read this story from USA Today.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address if you'd like to send things.
But of course, just like, comment, and subscribe because that really, really does help.
Let's read what we got from USA Today.
They say, Democratic calls for an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump increased Wednesday after special counsel Robert Mueller weighed in for the first time on his two-year investigation of the President and Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Democrats honed in on Mueller's comment that charging Trump with obstruction of justice was not an option for the special counsel's office because of a Justice Department policy.
Several argued that it was now the task of Congress to hold the president accountable by starting an impeachment inquiry.
David Cicilline, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, was one of the many to make the call Wednesday, thanking Mueller for his work and adding, Now it is the time for Congress to do its job.
The next step is for the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry to formally begin consideration of whether or not articles of impeachment should be filed.
The opening of this inquiry will allow the committee to collect evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and decide how to proceed.
He added that if any other American committed the acts outlined in Mueller's report, they would be indicted and prosecuted.
What I can say, as someone who doesn't care about much of this, it feels like politicking.
And it really does feel fake.
Of course, that is not the opinion of people like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks who tweeted, Mueller just said I can't charge him on obstruction because of DOJ policy.
There isn't enough evidence to charge him on collusion, but there is enough evidence on obstruction.
The people who can charge him is Congress, so translation of his legal speech impeach the mother effer.
Well, I don't know if I agree with Cenk's partisan opinion, and I will go to the New York Times article where they quote Robert Mueller, who said, After a thorough investigation of the facts, that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state, Mr. Mueller and his investigation wrote.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
But the legal system doesn't exonerate people.
That's not how it works.
They don't find you innocent, you're found not guilty.
That's when you're in court.
So after you're indicted, and go to trial, they will decide whether you're guilty or
not guilty.
Because the legal standard for whether or not you will be punished or, you know,
reprimanded in some way is not whether you were innocent, it's whether they can prove guilt.
Personally, I'm more of a layman, but I do find the statement to be kind of odd,
because again, they wouldn't be seeking to exonerate.
That would be implying they would try to prove a negative.
They're simply saying, or I should say this, they're not looking for evidence he didn't obstruct.
They're looking for evidence he did, and if they don't have it, they don't have it.
But of course, many conservatives are outraged because this is being used now to claim Mueller is essentially implying Trump did commit a crime, or as Michael Tracy put it, he is pouring gasoline on the impeachment fire.
Let's go back and carry on with the USA Today article.
They say, other Democrats on the committee, which would be tasked with leading impeachment proceedings, were not as quick to jump to impeachment.
Chairman Jared Nadler did not mention the word in his statement following Mueller's conference.
Nadler said it's clear, though, that President Trump is lying about the special counsel's findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the special counsel's report, and is lying in saying the special counsel found no obstruction and no collusion.
Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoings of President Trump, and we will do so, Nadler said.
No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
Mueller, in his first public statement in two years he spent investigating the President and Russia efforts to interfere in the election, admitted he had no desire to testify before Congress about the results of the investigation or the findings outlined in his 440 report.
Nadler did not say whether a subpoena was being considered.
Mueller's statement comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to tap down calls within her party to start impeachment proceedings.
Those calls have only intensified over the week since the release of Mueller's report and Trump's defiant attempts to block the House from investigating him.
Tensions reached a new level last week After Trump walked out of an infrastructure meeting at the White House with top Democrats, telling Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he wouldn't work with them on shared priorities such as infrastructure and bringing down the cost of prescription drugs unless they abandon investigations into his presidency.
So that's where USA Today wraps it up.
So I want to say this.
For two and a half years, we have heard MSNBC and CNN rag, you know, just go on and on and on about Russian collusion.
One of the more notable instances is Rachel Maddow's fear that the Russians would shut off the electrical grid in Fargo in the winter, or that they could.
This kind of fear-mongering conspiracy nonsense has served us, has not served us well.
It's been bad for everything.
It has done nothing for me, as like a moderate, to figure out what the Democrats actually want to do.
Now we've seen things like the Green New Deal from Ocasio-Cortez, which I think has riddled with problems.
And when they published their FAQs, it was nonsense about getting rid of planes and farting cows.
So I'm asking for legitimate policy positions.
We do have some really great ideas.
And full disclosure, I am supporting, I have supported some Democrats, Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, because I do think they have good ideas and principles.
I'm not going to sit here and act like every single Democrat running doesn't know what they're talking about.
But let's look to the Democrats as a party, as a whole.
They're going gung-ho on impeachment.
In fact, going to Cenk Uygur, we can see that even the progressives
are pushing this line, saying, let's bring about impeachment.
But I will say this.
After two and a half years of targeting the president with this investigation,
This, and then him being found.
There's no collusion.
To carry on from the same thing now.
Oh, there was no collusion, but Trump may have obstructed.
Sounds like politicking and a massive waste of time that is bad for everybody.
In no way is this going to help me, my friends, my family, and those I care about in making the country better, making us safer.
Simply because they don't like the president and they launched this, you know, investigation targeting him for potential collusion.
Well, you know what?
Here's the thing.
Neither do I. I am not a fan of Trump.
I think he's done some good things.
I'm not a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, but she does have some good statements.
She does have some policies I agree with, and that's the point.
You don't have to like the person, but are they going to make the country work for other people?
If you want to argue Trump is not doing that, by all means, I welcome you.
But if you're going to argue that for two and a half years you're going to keep going down this line, I'm going to say you're wasting my time, and you are likely going to tell people you don't have real policies.
Keep in mind, there are good Democrats running with some good ideas.
Not all of them are bad.
I think Tulsi and Yang have some good ideas.
I'm not saying they're perfect.
But when the Democratic narrative is constantly about orange man bad, is that going to do anything for anybody in terms of convincing them to side with you in the long term?
It will not.
I saw this story recently from RealClearPolitics.
Actually, it's from today, apparently.
Democrats' phony cries of racism won't work in 2020.
Jeff Daniels, they say, of dumb and dumber fame, appeared on MSNBC and delivered an all-too-typical elitist rant against the concerns of working-class Americans, whom they pretend are largely motivated by racial animus.
He assailed the Republican agenda as inherently bigoted, saying, At the end of the day, aside from, yeah, I don't want to pay taxes, it's race, it's race.
This is about the Republican Party or a wing of it going, this is our last chance to save the party, and if we don't, it's the end of the Republican Party.
The only way they can do that was to tap the race button and say, go ahead, it's okay.
Now, my opinion on people like Jeff Daniels, that I made in a video last week, is that he's simply on TV promoting a play.
He was promoting To Kill a Mockingbird or something.
They say this.
Anchor Nicole Wallace proclaimed Daniel's current Broadway role as Atticus Finch in
To Kill a Mockingbird as relevant to the present moment.
No.
That's called promotions.
He was appearing on MSNBC.
He wanted to promote a play he was going to be in, in Broadway or something to that effect.
And so he's trying to convince people who are on MSNBC who have Trump Derangement Syndrome that there's some kind of relation between his play and this, so they go and see it.
It was marketing.
And it's dangerous and damaging.
What this says to me...
When people grandstand in such a way and claim it's racism, he doesn't care about the working class individuals and the independents who will vote for Trump.
He's not speaking to them.
He's virtue signaling.
He's speaking to people who already don't like the president, telling them what they want to hear, and hoping they buy a ticket to his Broadway play.
This is the damage we are seeing.
When the narrative and rhetoric being played on cable television, being played on Twitter, social media, is about the president is just bad, the Republicans are just bad.
You're not actually saying anything to anybody who's actually concerned about the economy.
Do you think that middle Americans pay attention to this nonsense?
In reality, they mostly don't.
Some do, but they mostly don't.
Twitter is not real life.
These shows are not real life.
They reach a few million people.
They're just trying to tell the people who already agree with them what they want to hear.
So what's going to happen in 2020?
Impeachment is a very, very, very, very bad idea, if you were to ask me.
Because it plays off like this.
It is just a virtue signal.
It is you saying, I don't like the president, so I want to impeach him.
Is there a reason to impeach the president?
Maybe there's obstruction.
You know, the president says total exoneration.
Well, not necessarily.
There may have been some obstruction.
The question then becomes much more complicated in that if there's no underlying crime, then does obstruction matter?
Well, Robert Mueller made it clear that part of the investigation was whether or not Russia interfered in the election and they did.
The issue then is if Trump was obstructing, was that damaging to the investigation of a foreign intelligence agency and perhaps But I kind of feel like this is politicking and needs to end.
Whether or not you think Trump was committing obstruction, fine.
But the issue is, he didn't collude with Russia.
He may have just been, you know, oafish or acting like an idiot.
But the point is, he didn't collude with Russia.
Let's put it aside and say, enough.
Let's figure out what's going to make this country better.
I'm not a big fan of Trump.
That's fine.
Some of his policies have worked.
The economy is doing really well.
I can't really argue with that.
When it comes to middle Americans who then say, why should I vote for a Democrat or someone like Andrew Yang?
And I would answer this.
Again, completely disagree with me.
You're allowed to.
Comment below and tell me why I'm wrong.
I would say something like, Andrew Yang is forward thinking and is approaching the issue of automation.
While many people say we're not quite there yet, the truth is we actually are.
And many companies are getting ready to roll out trucks.
We're looking at kiosks.
We do need to start thinking ahead and looking towards solutions.
Ultimately, I'm focused on a couple issues, right, as most people.
So I can't blame people who say that they're going to vote for Trump when they're focused on manufacturing.
I'm not going to blame someone when they say I'm going to vote for Tulsi Gabbard because she's predominantly anti-war.
Most people are single-issue voters, and it's hard to know what to do beyond this.
But I will say this.
I know the people I like and think are good probably won't win.
It's just the way it is.
Because the things they're signaling, you know, the core issues, they don't have... Actually, let me back up.
They don't have the core issues.
Look, the president can come out and say, I told you the economy was bad and I was going to fix it.
Well, he did.
The economy is doing really, really great.
Some people argue that he's kicking the can down the road and it's a, it's a, it's, you know, it's a bandage on a bullet wound.
Sure, things look good now, but they will get worse later.
Unfortunately, if Trump says he's going to uphold certain policies that were held by Democrats 10 years ago, if he has improved, I'm talking about immigration, if he has improved the economy, Argue that he didn't, fine, but things are good and he's the president.
Well, you need to figure out what you're telling people you're going to change.
Trump has a massive advantage as the incumbent and with a strong economy, and many people say that those are indicators he's going to win 2020 in a landslide.
I think the reason we're hearing calls for impeachment is because the Democrats don't really have anything to counter the president on.
The phony cries of racism won't work.
People don't care.
People are, to an extent, selfish.
They want to hear, how is my family going to improve?
Well, the president's racist.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
I'm trying to find a job.
Well, guess what?
Trump became president, you got your job.
What do the Democrats have to say?
Things aren't that bad right now.
Things are going really, really well for many people, not for everybody.
So the Democrats have to try and find a problem to solve.
Unfortunately, many of them, as a whole, not the candidates themselves, because I think Yang and Gabbard have identified some serious issues that I think should be solved, but as a whole, we constantly hear about Trump is bad.
He's immoral.
Or, he should be impeached.
But they just keep carrying on with this line from 2016 about Russia, and it won't go away, and it's not going to help them.
In the end, final thoughts, because I don't want to rant forever.
Of course the Democrats are calling for impeachment.
Of course progressives like Cenk Uygur are calling for impeachment.
They've been calling for impeachment even before Mueller.
Mueller changes nothing.
He changes nothing.
It was a few days ago they said the case for impeachment for bigotry.
Fine.
Whatever.
The point is, Mueller coming up and speaking now changes nothing.
You will hear partisans on both sides.
The left is going to claim what Mueller said now is telling Congress to do X. Whatever.
Don't act like this is the thing that changed the game.
Don't act like it was Mueller coming out that rallied the Democrats to do this because they've been calling for impeachment.
If you want to call for impeachment, present your argument, fine, I'll listen.
But to act like Mueller had anything to do with it is disingenuous.
It's nonsense.
And I'll say finally for me, I just want to hear about policies.
We've got a real crisis at the border.
While Trump's got a proposal, more funding for law enforcement and a wall.
Okay, maybe that's not the right idea.
I know some people don't like it.
What's your solution?
Do you have a proposal?
Are you going to come to me and say, here's what we should do instead?
I'm listening.
Instead, I hear things like it's immoral.
That doesn't mean anything.
It's not going to solve the problem.
And we do have a big problem.
So I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
If you disagree or agree.
In the end, all I can really say is please get off of the impeachment stuff.
It's just going to help Trump in the long term.
And I feel like watching the Democrats, they're, again, not the individual candidates for the most part, but as a party, they're just fractured and split up.
They're lost.
So there you go.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I'll have more videos coming up in the next segment.
We'll be starting shortly.
And yeah, I'll see you there.
Yesterday, in my main segment, I started by talking about CNN shutting down much of its international coverage through London.
We do have a huge update because shortly after that reporting, it was announced layoffs are coming.
Now, in the initial story, they said we can expect a small restructuring or reduction.
Now we have the official confirmation here from The Guardian, CNN preparing to make cuts at London-based news operations.
Surprise announcement likely to result in at least a dozen employees losing their job.
This comes off the heels of another announcement of more laughs in Atlanta from their health unit.
Voluntary bias over 100 people and CNN even moving studios.
It's been reported now, I believe it's in this article too, that CNN International is losing.
Here it is, yeah.
Zucker told them the International Channel was losing $10 million a year.
This is devastating, devastating news for CNN.
Massive, massive losses, layoffs coming, and it's probably only going to get worse.
If they're losing $10 million a year, who's paying for it?
Okay, so it's got to be subsidized in some capacity.
Which means they're gonna start cutting, cutting, cutting.
But I've got some reasons why I think CNN may be going down the tubes.
First, we've got Jim Acosta basically saying neutrality for the sake of neutrality and admits to being a grandstander.
So, what do you think's gonna happen?
It's complicated, but essentially, as CNN struggles, they become more desperate, and in their desperation, it's like sinking in quicksand.
You struggle and you actually sink faster.
That's what they're doing.
They need to stop.
Lay back, okay?
So you've got a quicksand.
You lay back and you pull yourself out slow.
You don't struggle.
So let's take a look at what's going on in London.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
I rely on contributions from viewers like you.
There's a cryptocurrency address, physical donations through PayPal.
I'm sorry, a physical address.
Donations through PayPal.
And if you just like, comment on the video, the engagement really helps.
You can share the link and subscribe if you haven't already.
So, here we have this story.
CNN is preparing to make substantial cuts.
We read that part and the losses.
The cuts come shortly after the long-standing CNN International boss Tony Maddox unexpectedly announced he was leaving the station earlier this month.
Viewers of CNN International will see less material produced in London in the short term, with the total amount to be cut by 90 minutes a day.
The channel, aimed at a global audience, will instead show more simulcasts of the main U.S.
CNN network, extra repeats of the flagship Christiane Amanpour program, and additional programming produced out of CNN's Abu Dhabi office, according to staff at the meeting.
If you are paying attention to this news and you don't expect more layoffs are coming, well, then you're not paying attention enough, I guess.
Or you're wrong.
We'll put it plainly.
I think we are going to see way, way, way more layoffs.
Listen, you can't have a company losing $10 million a year and just say, well, everything's fine.
We'll keep going.
No.
Cuts are coming and they need to find $10 million a year to get rid of.
Otherwise, they're in deep trouble.
They say London-based shows such as the discussion program CNN Talk will be cut completely as the company focuses its British office on its online offering at the expense of its traditional TV channels.
Which is, um, excuse me, it's smart.
Because here at the TimCast YouTube channel, I like to point out that CNN is in a downward spiral of decay and destruction.
Sure.
But it would be unfair of me not to point out that CNN does have a massive YouTube channel, partly because YouTube is propping them up.
In fact, I think it's almost entirely because YouTube is propping them up.
And I am completely and utterly disgusted by this, but what we're looking at are the Social Blade rankings for CNN.
We can see in the last 30 days, they got 102 million views.
So they're averaging 3.5, about 3.4 million views per day.
Keeping in mind, it's not single videos.
They just, they upload like five minute clips of everything they do.
And a channel that produces, you know...
24 hours of coverage, they're gonna have endless... Well, they do reruns and stuff.
Now, I've talked to YouTube, and I said, I am offended greatly over what you're doing with CNN propping them up.
You know why?
CNN doesn't make videos for YouTube.
They do some videos that work on YouTube.
For the most part, they do their normal TV garbage, and then they cut it into segments and just upload it to YouTube, and it's the funniest thing, because you'll see a story, you'll see a clip, and when you click it, it starts mid-sentence.
Because they're just grabbing a clip and uploading it to YouTube, and then when you search for news, YouTube defaults CNN among others.
Google does the same thing.
Why?
I'm offended by this because there are great creators on YouTube producing actual news who don't get the same treatment.
CNN is being subsidized by Google and CNN doesn't like YouTube and routinely smears, like many other people, independent creators and independent news.
Not so much.
I don't want to act like CNN's the worst of the worst.
No, Vox and everything are worse.
Here's the thing.
TV is on its way out, so sure, CNN is taking the brunt of that, but let's talk about some of the desperate, disgusting behaviors of some of the worst and most... just... Man, there are some people in this world that I think are truly awful, and Jim Acosta certainly takes the cake in many ways.
Now, he's not like a dictator or anything.
He's not out there, you know, you know, killing people or hurting babies or anything.
He's just a bad dude.
He is a bad person who is only interested in himself, and he admits it!
He straight admits it.
In the story, he says... Where we got here?
Okay.
According to the book excerpts published by The Guardian, Acosta writes that he opts for the bait during his countless viral confrontations with the president, which he admitted can constitute showboating or grandstanding from time to time that bothers some people.
That's him saying, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know what I'm doing is garbage.
Jim Acosta knows that he is a garbage person doing garbage content, and he's not a journalist.
He knows that he's a showboater.
When you admit that, do you know what you're saying?
You're saying you're doing nothing of substance, you're just getting up in there and trying to put yourself in front.
This guy is one of the most damaging things to journalism, I kid you not.
Listen, when the president stands up, we need people to ask them questions and put them on the spot.
But what do we get?
The White House press corps is complete trash.
They're garbage, okay?
But they're not Jim Acosta.
Jim Acosta takes the cake.
He takes the garbage cake swimming through fields of trash.
But think about what the White House Press Corps does, for the most part.
I don't want to drag them all through the mud, but for the most part, they talk about hot-button garbage nonsense that we don't need answered.
Mr. President, you recently said at an event, you know, something on Twitter, blah blah blah, I don't care about that!
How come you never get anyone in the White House Press Corps, and I shouldn't say never, I'm being hyperbolic, they do this sometimes, I don't want to be completely, I don't want to be 100% a dick, but Where are the real questions, the real investigations?
It's all just a dog and pony show.
Nobody wants to get their press pass pulled, so they just played the game.
Well, now Trump's not even having press events, so there you go.
And Jim Acosta, you know what he said?
He saw the trash.
Listen.
Let me stop and back up.
Public relations for everything, everywhere.
It's a lie.
It's all lies.
It's always been lies.
You think when there's an oil spill and Exxon comes out and says, we're sorry, they're really sorry.
No, they're not.
You think when there's a scandal with a celebrity and they say something, they're sorry.
No, they're not.
And this goes for everyone, including President Trump, Ocasio-Cortez.
I don't care.
Look at that stupid farting cows thing that Ocasio-Cortez puts out.
And he decided, you know what, if the world's full of garbage, why don't I just be the garbage man?
And be, like, I mean literally made of garbage.
Here's a guy.
Man, I really don't like this guy.
Because what he does is get in the way of everybody else.
Now, I guess I can say this.
There is a point to be made that if we are swimming in fields of trash, it doesn't matter if he does it or not because it's not like anyone's doing a good job anyway.
The media is full of garbage lies.
They think they're the bastions, the heralds of truth.
They think they're smarter and better.
And this was proven to be false when Ian Bremmer, NYU political scientist or something contributed to Time Magazine, published a fake Trump quote, and all of these journalists lined up to condemn Trump for this quote.
Trump never said it.
They just didn't bother fact-checking.
So I guess I can give that one to Acosta.
You know, if you're going to have a bunch of people parroting garbage nonsense from Twitter without fact-checking, well, then can you really blame Acosta for saying, everything's trash?
Why don't I be the king of the trash pile?
I can't necessarily blame him.
I still think he's the trash king, standing atop his tower of garbage with his garbage scepter, you know, waving his glorious crown amongst his garbage people.
But I do love this.
Fox News has been repeatedly running articles about this.
Struggling CNN reportedly shakes up London operation on heels of health unit layoffs.
Yes, because, I don't, I mean, you've watched Tucker Carlson at Imagine at some point, and he loves dragging CNN.
CNN is, is just awful.
They're just, they're just, they're doing so poorly.
Their ratings are really bad.
In daytime, I believe the ratings for last week in daytime, they actually surpassed, in the key demo, MSNBC.
But prime time, they just can't cut it.
So I don't even know what CNN is.
I don't even know why CNN is bothering at this point.
They're losing $10 million a year on the international venture.
Well, you gotta realize you're doing something wrong.
Unfortunately, they don't.
And we'll bring it back to Mr. Acosta here.
Because as I pointed out earlier, this is what happens.
CNN is failing.
This is essentially an addendum to the video I made yesterday, that the collapse is driving these companies insane.
They're losing their goddamn minds.
Acosta is the perfect example of the psychosis of the collapse of media.
Look at his behavior.
He even admits it.
It's like, I feel like this is a guy who's watching everything collapse and he's like, well, At least I can climb to the top of the ship before it sinks, right?
And then by the time he jumps off, then he's gonna try and land somewhere else.
He's putting out a book.
He's trying to get a TV show.
That's what we all think, right?
But this is what's happening.
The media is going nuts.
So they're doubling down.
All of these people at CNN, the way I see it, are just saying, you know what?
I'm gonna take care of me.
Because when it comes, you know, like I made this video yesterday about Mount Everest and survival.
When you're on Mount Everest and your oxygen runs out, don't expect anybody else to give you any oxygen.
They're not gonna die for you.
And that's what's happening with Jim Acosta and CNN.
They're going insane.
So what do they do?
They dedicate segments to making, like, to ragging on Infowars and things like this, and, you know, tweets from the president, instead of doing anything really substantive.
They're just like, oh, and... What's frustrating about it?
It's all wrong.
It's all lies.
I feel like when I watch CNN, it's them saying, we're going to go as crazy as possible, desperate to squeeze the last drop of viewership out of this, you know, sponge.
And what that does is it makes regular people slowly back away like these people have lost their minds.
Absolutely lost their minds.
So it's not going to help their ratings.
The ratings are going down.
Their content is trash.
They're losing money.
They're laying people off.
And then when you get Jim Acosta standing up admitting he's a piece of trash, well, don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down faster.
I think CNN has an opportunity to save itself.
I really do.
Unfortunately, like I mentioned earlier, when people get stuck in quicksand, they start struggling.
I don't know, that's probably like an urban legend or whatever.
But the point is, you understand the metaphor.
Is it a metaphor or is it an analogy?
I don't know, whatever.
People stand in quicksand, they start shaking violently, and they get sucked down faster.
And that's what they're doing.
If they would just calm down and do some legit news, they might actually survive this one.
But they're not going to.
They don't know how, and so they're going insane, and they're putting Jim Acosta right up in front!
Leading the ship as it goes off that waterfall cliff.
Goodbye.
Anyway, stick around.
I got more segments coming up later today.
Next one will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
For those on the podcast, it will be starting shortly, and I will see you then.
Audiences don't want Disney remakes to get woke.
They'll still probably go and see them, but according to a morning consult poll, everyone, including Democrats, mostly do not want, you know, woke versions of Disney movies.
Um, even if it means they'll be a little culturally insensitive.
And we're starting to see that.
So it's pointed out by the Daily Caller, which I don't have pulled up, that Dumbo removed a scene with, like, a racist stereotype of the Crows.
I get why they did that.
But I went and saw Aladdin recently.
I thought it was okay.
I didn't think it was the greatest movie ever.
It's kind of eh.
The original Aladdin, I love.
It's fun.
Fantastic.
But maybe I just remember it because I was a kid and it's nostalgia.
But the new Aladdin, Has like a weird woke arc, where Jasmine... You know, I guess they didn't want her to be a damsel in distress, so they added this woke arc to her character?
And... Spoil- There's gonna be spoilers, I guess?
Uh, I did not enjoy it.
I thought it was just... I thought it was so cringey and like, forced.
The movie's fine, whatever.
It's not perfect.
The critics are panning the movie.
The audience seems to love it.
Eh.
I'm probably somewhere in the middle.
I would not go see it again, but if you feel like going to a movie, yeah, you can check it out.
I'm not gonna tell you to go rush out to try and see this movie.
But let's talk about the idea of wokeness, and I'm gonna save the Aladdin spoilers for a little bit later so that, you know, those of you, you're warned.
But this is a really interesting poll.
People are rejecting the political correct narrative that is being forced on everyone's throat.
And I think the good reason is, everything you hear about wokeness and PC stuff is the squeaky wheel demanding grease.
The average person just wants to see a live version of Aladdin.
They don't need Jasmine to develop superpowers.
I'm half-kidding here, seriously.
Seriously!
Okay, I'm just gonna say it, so spoiler alert.
I guess because they don't want Jasmine to be a damsel in distress.
There's a scene where, like, time slows down, and Jasmine starts singing about how she will not be silenced and she's gonna stand up and speak.
And then she, like, walks through the temple, where everyone's moving super slow, and when she, like, touches people, they get vaporized.
And then she, like, grabs, like, a curtain and pulls it, and it, like, moves, like... It's like the Quicksilver scene.
It makes no sense.
And then, all of a sudden, after she successfully vaporizes everyone while singing about how she's not gonna be put down, and just go speechless, it reverts back to everyone being, like, back, and it was, like, a fantasy sequence.
It made no sense.
But I jokingly said my favorite part of the movie is where Jasmine develops super powers and... super speed and disintegrates all the guards.
It made no sense.
The song was terrible, but that was their attempt at being like, Jasmine will be woke, and then guess what?
Surprise!
Jasmine becomes the sultan.
She is now the leader of Agrabah.
So, um, but anyway, before we start reading through this article, check out TimCast.com slash donate 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 like, comment, share the video.
The engagement really, really helps.
So what's going on with this narrative?
They say, Over half, 55% of adults, said the live-action reimaginings of classic cartoons should stay close to the original even if the originals include culturally insensitive stereotypes.
A third of Democrats said these remakes should change with the times compared to 11% of Republicans.
That's not surprising at all, but what is kind of surprising is that the majority Not like more than 50%, but in terms of both groups, 47% of Democrats said no, keep them the same way.
And that says to me something else, as I've brought up time and time again.
Regular Democrats are not down with this woke culture nonsense, okay?
The Morning Consult says Walt Disney and company's latest live-action adaptation of Aladdin, which premieres Friday, has already sparked concerns about culturally insensitive elements from the original cartoon, as well as criticism over some of its casting choices.
However, new data shows that consumers are willing to overlook potentially controversial elements if the live-action version stays true to the original.
Disney has made an effort to make its live-action remakes more culturally sensitive than the originals amid changing social norms.
For example, Tim Burton's live-action Dumbo, that was released in March, does not feature the scene where Dumbo meets a group of crows led by a bird named Jim Crow.
Wow.
who embody 1940s-era racial tropes.
And Variety reported that Disney's streaming service live-action version of Lady and the Tramp will nix the controversial Siamese cats of the original, often criticized as an Asian stereotype, and instead include a reimagined version of the Siamese cat song, courtesy of Janelle Monae and her artist collective, Wonderland.
I'm gonna stop right there, and I don't know where I'm allowed to be critical of these things, because, you know, if you agree with the wokeness, then you're okay, but if you don't agree, then you're, like, the worst of the worst.
Well, I am part Asian, as most of you know, and I am greatly offended at the racism being portrayed by Disney removing, or changing, this bit of cultural heritage that spoke about, at least, Siam.
Anyway, the point is... The point I'm making about that, and I'm being facetious, is that either you remove something that's culturally Asian, and people get mad at you, or you include it, and then you're a bad person for including it because it's insensitive.
So there's no winning, right?
Why can't we just leave that in?
Because it doesn't bother me, I don't know.
It didn't bother my family, one bit.
But I guess maybe I'm not Asian enough?
I have no idea how this works.
The rules don't make sense.
Just bend the knee, they say.
The May 9th through 11th Morning Consult and Hollywood Reporter Poll found that 55% of adults said that when films are remade, they should be remade as close to the original as possible.
And I agree.
I think the storyline, like the Aladdin remake just doesn't really, I don't know, it kind of doesn't make sense.
And they tried to correct some of the errors of the original film.
But by doing so, instead of filling plot holes, they just kind of made the movie not make sense.
I want to point to this, and I want to highlight two articles.
We can see this is really fascinating.
55% of most people say, leave it alone.
And I think it's interesting because, look, I recognize there are certain things from, you know, a long time ago that we would not remake.
We absolutely wouldn't.
So where's that cutoff line?
You know, we're absolutely never going to entertain a Disney movie that has blackface characters, right?
So there clearly is a line in which we're gonna be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no, no, that's not okay.
And so maybe the Jim Crows being removed from Dumbo, it's probably a good idea to do that.
But did they need to add a story arc for Jasmine to become Sultan and refuse to be, like, pushed back?
Like, you know, there's foreshadowing in the movie where, you know, Jafar says, you're better seen and not heard.
And I think that was originally, like, I think that was in the original.
I can't remember, I haven't seen the original.
But they added this song where she's like, I will not go speechless.
And they're trying to make her seem like strong, I guess.
So we have this review.
This is one review.
I don't want to act like this is indicative of everyone's perception on Aladdin.
But Donald Clark of the Irish Times writes, Aladdin is a weird mess of woke filmmaking.
Thanks, Guy Ritchie.
Disney's bid to make flesh of their animations has hit a speed bump.
The Great Disney Project, yadda yadda yadda, they say it's been largely negative.
What to make of Guy Ritchie's finished film?
Anyone approaching it without prior knowledge of the animated picture would wonder how anything so culturally confused has made its way into the larger cinemas.
Ritchie has made a genuine effort to cast the film with ethnically appropriate actors and he's carried that off quite well.
Manama Sood, an Egyptian-Canadian, makes a more roguish charmer of the title character.
Naomi Scott, an Englishwoman of Indian descent, is better still as one of the less drippy Disney princesses.
Bored by Aladdin's flash, good with rolled eyes.
Marwan Kenzari is less good as the evil Jafar.
But that's largely because he feels 15 years too young for the role.
Yeah, I will say that as kind of like a personal review.
The guy who played Jafar, I think he actually did a good job, but he's 15 years too young.
Like, dude looks really young to be Jafar.
They needed an older, grisly, more lecherous character to play Jafar, but hey, what, that's just my opinion, whatever.
I love how they get into cultural appropriation.
It's all scattered cushions, pretty arches, and mounds of orange spice.
Aladdin's movement across roofs and scaffolding will remind some of the original console game.
Except the original console game had stop signs in it, thus proving that Aladdin actually takes place in a dystopian future.
That's a real theory.
It's awesome, by the way.
And that's canon as far as I'm concerned.
All this speaks of uncertainty about how to bridge the gap between animation, blah blah blah.
Half-heartedness.
The better songs flourish, the bouncy.
Is he going to talk about the weird... I don't know.
Anyway, look, I'm not going to read any more of this article.
You get it.
He's criticizing its weird, woke filmmaking.
But here's the thing.
Back in 2017, when they announced they were going to be redoing it, Bitch Media, which I have no idea what it is, was outraged because they weren't getting the right actors.
And so here's the thing.
They actually cast actors that made sense for the role.
They didn't racially wash anything.
They didn't make a white character black, a black character white, yadda yadda yadda.
They actually got people who kind of fit the ethnicity of the characters.
They're still upset about it.
In this article they talk about Mena Massoud and the light-skinned white Indian actress Naomi Scott.
And they complain that there simply wasn't a right fit among 2,000 actors who auditioned for the role.
That elephant is the source material of Aladdin itself.
A misogynist, xenophobic, white fantasy.
Are you kidding me?
It's like, there's literally nothing you can do.
And that's the point I wanted to make about the initial thing with the Siamese cats.
No matter what you do, you're doing something wrong, right?
So, they replaced, in Doctor Strange, the Marvel film, they replaced the ancient one, what was supposed to be an old, like, Chinese man, and they cast an English-Irish woman, Tilda Swinton, and everyone complained.
And they said, well, we didn't want to do a stereotypical Fu Manchu China guy, that's, like, ethnically, that's, like, racially insensitive.
Too bad!
They brought in a white, a Celtic woman, and therefore, it's wrong no matter what you do.
Unless they made, like, the Ancient One an Asian woman that wasn't stereotypical, I guess?
But there's no real way to, like, present martial arts in this culture without someone getting mad.
There's nothing you can do.
It's like, they want to be mad.
That's it.
No matter what you do, they want to be mad.
And that's the world we live in.
So anyway, here's what I'll say.
Here's my review.
Eh, if you're bored, go see Aladdin.
Don't expect too much.
The reviews are really bad from critics, but really, really good from the audience.
So it's fun, right?
It's nostalgia.
It's fun.
I think... I think it's kind of... I don't know.
Some of the problems I have is that they kind of omit some important things from the original movie, but it is what it is.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Here's the main point.
Regular people don't want woke remakes.
They want their original.
So, anyway, thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come, and I will see you soon.
It's possible that journalism has always been garbage.
Yellow journalism has been around for a while, but today it seems like it's more obvious than ever, and I think the internet, the ability for us to communicate with each other, is making it easier for us to see through the facade.
Now we can actually see that these journalists are not acting in our best interest, but it also is, as I mentioned in my video yesterday on my main channel, As these companies start whittling away, they start collapsing, they become increasingly unhinged, desperate to get voters, and as they shake violently, they start to... well, it gets worse.
They drown, become more erratic, produce crazy content hoping for clicks and viewers.
It doesn't work.
It just gets worse.
Now I mentioned this briefly on my second channel early this morning, but I wanted to take a look at what we're seeing from Jim Acosta, where he rejects neutrality for the sake of neutrality, and says straight up that he absolutely does grandstand and some people don't like it.
Jim Acosta may be the best example of how journalism today is people who have discovered they can just make themselves famous, make a ton of money, and that's what they're gonna do.
Journalism, be damned.
But we actually have some instances that highlight exactly why or how the media plays this game.
There's a chart here that was published by Our World in Data showing how the media is highlighting certain things because they want traffic.
They want money.
It's warping our view of the world.
It's warping our perspective.
So here's what we're gonna do.
First, we'll read a little bit about Mr. Jim Acosta and how he opens up to not being neutral and grandstanding on purpose.
I'll show you some data and we'll talk about how trust in media is down and how we can see now that, no, journalism is not doing its job, it's actually failing.
Before we get started, make sure you go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, like and comment.
It really, really does help.
Or just share the video, subscribe if you haven't already.
So in this story from Mediaite, they say, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta argued that neutrality in reporting is not effective in the age of President Donald Trump as he lays out the current administration's unique attacks on the press in his upcoming book, Enemy of the People, a dangerous time to tell the truth in America.
I really, really, really do not like this guy.
I think he is one of the scummiest people in media.
And I just got to say that because my My disdain for this man will be palpable.
According to a book excerpt published by The Guardian, Acosta writes that he opts for the bait during his countless viral confrontations with the president, which he admitted can constitute showboating or grandstanding from time to time, and that bothers some people.
However, he argued that his style of aggressive questioning is necessary with Trump.
Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn't really serve us in the age of Trump.
One of the things that activists have been pushing, as long as I've been involved in this industry, is that there is no such thing as objective journalism.
To me, this is the lie they feed to justify their rage-bait content meant to make money, not make change.
But activists have figured this out, that being a journalist affords you certain protections, and it's a bit nefarious and it's unfortunate that they've been doing this, but They do.
And it's not just on the left.
You will see many right-wing personalities and activists now become journalists.
Because as a journalist, they can claim, oh, you're trying to shut down, you know, my journalism and somehow it's more noble.
It's unfortunate.
To me, there are very few journalists actually left.
A journalist is someone who says, look, man, here's what's happened.
You figure it out.
I feel like I kind of fit that bubble a little bit.
I'm not perfect.
I don't think I'm perfect.
I just think, you know what, when I look at Jim Acosta, he's somebody who wants to make money.
He wants to sell a book.
So he's yanking your chain and he knows it.
He even talks about grandstanding.
There are many people who are activists who truly believe they're doing the right thing.
And that's a little different.
At least they have good intentions, albeit it's still wrong and destructive for society.
But in this blog post from Our World in Data, we can actually see through the veil.
Something really interesting.
Exactly how, or at least some data to show, the media is absolutely warping your view of the world on purpose.
It makes them money.
And I want to say, I don't necessarily blame them.
I think there's some important things to highlight here, but let's do it.
This story talks about, does the news reflect what we die from?
One of the primary motivations for our work at Our World in Data is to provide a fact-based overview of the world we live in.
A perspective that includes the persistent and long-term changes that run as a backdrop to our daily lives.
We aim to provide the complement to the fast-paced reporting we see in the news.
The media provides near instantaneous snapshot of single events.
Events that are in most cases negative.
The persistent large-scale trends of progress never make the headlines.
I'm not gonna act like I'm not guilty of similar things.
A lot of people want, they say they want good news, but Do they really want good news?
Because good news doesn't really... You know, it's not as... It's not as shocking.
It doesn't catch your attention.
And we also kind of view good news as, yeah, okay, that's to be expected.
Violence is down.
You know, violent crime is down.
World terrorism, it's all down.
All these things are down.
And you can report on that, but it's not a singular explosive moment.
That's the big issue for many, many people.
For me, I see things that I view are bad, or that should be addressed, and I make videos about them.
So I fall basically into a very similar camp as these news organizations, and it is a problem.
I don't necessarily know what the solution is, because I feel a lot of the motivations of news companies are driven either by what an individual thinks is newsworthy, which can skew your perspective, what an activist thinks the world should be doing, or what someone thinks they can make money doing.
For me, I kind of just talk about what I think is important.
But again, I'm not going to act like I don't play a role in the media, but let's take a look at these stats.
Causes of death in the U.S.
Check this out.
We can see here's the actual data in 2016.
Cancer and heart disease are in the top.
Here's Google searches.
We can see that you can see violent crime and suicide are way bigger than they actually are, and cancer gets more searches than anything else.
Heart disease is not even really searched for.
Two percent.
Now here's the New York Times and the Guardian.
Take a look at this.
Terrorism accounts for less than 0.01% of all death.
Yet it's 35.6% of media coverage from the New York Times.
There's one simple reason.
It sells papers.
It really does.
I believe there's some nuance to discuss.
It's not black and white.
It's not like they're only doing it for this reason.
But we can see that violent crime and suicide are the predominant, you know, predominantly focused on, and they overlook completely drug addiction and kidney disease.
Actually, stroke is pretty appropriately represented, but even cancer and heart disease are not being represented in the media.
What ends up happening then is you end up with people demanding policy based on what they see from the news.
If the argument is that the news is supposed to protect us by informing us so we can make better decisions, they're not doing their job.
So no, I'm not going to act like journalists are somehow the bastions of truth, the heralds of knowledge.
That's not the case.
They focus on things that will sell papers.
Now, in terms of, you know, it not being so black and white, well, there's a reason why violent crime gets highlighted, because these are things that are hard to predict, and if you know about them, you can predict them.
So I do think it's fair to point out in some circumstances, you know, highlighting these issues is important.
If something is happening that could impact you, you need to know about it, especially if it's something that's unusual.
That makes sense.
However, it would seem that if they focused on cancer and heart disease more, they actually might save lives and allow people to better allocate their resources and energy into things that actually matter.
But, this is where we find ourselves.
Now, it is also true that the cause of death isn't simply I don't want to act like cause of death.
Issues like cancer need to be reported on because, as I mentioned earlier, it's not like they're a singular event that can be highlighted.
People die from these things all the time.
It's not going to inform anybody of anything.
They're not going to learn anything new.
It's like, yes, we get it.
These things happen.
How often can you really report on it?
These other instances are anomalous, and I would argue it's actually fair in some circumstances in that we can do things to stop these causes of death.
Cancer is much, much more difficult.
But interestingly, in a report from 2017, this is a story, well let me, let me scroll up to the top so you can see it.
This is the digital news project, Bias, BS, and Lies.
Audience perspectives on low trust in media from Nick Newman and Richard Fletcher, the Reuters Institute, and University of Oxford.
I don't think these are the best sources necessarily, but hey, it's Reuters and Oxford, what can you do?
They say in this, main reasons behind different attitudes of the news media and social media, all countries, The news media does a good job in helping separate fact from fiction.
40% agreed, saying journalistic process, good storytelling, depth, and trusted brands.
25% disagreed, saying bias, exaggeration, sensationalism, and low standards.
35% were in the middle.
The next question, social media does a good job in helping separate fact from fiction.
No way.
Only 24% agreed, saying that it was a broad range of sources, views, and authenticity.
41% said low-quality, unreliable, no-checks, agenda-driven, opinionated.
But in reality, what they need to consider in this is that social media is the driving force for news today.
That's what you need to realize.
People will look to these trusted brands, and they'll think it's okay.
But look what we saw from Jim Acosta.
He knows he's a grandstander, and he knows he's not neutral.
He's doing it because he gets the clicks.
News exists on social media.
Articles get shared on Facebook.
Videos get presented on YouTube.
You can't really share a YouTube video on YouTube.
And Twitter is where people generate buzz for themselves.
Brian Stelter of CNN said journalists have an unhealthy relationship with Twitter.
They sit on Twitter all day, they grab tweets, they make stories about it.
They'll find one tweet, they'll make it a story.
And this is what's happening.
So this first question, I think, is kind of pointless.
It's the second question that matters.
41%, low quality, unreliable, no checks, agenda-driven, opinionated, and don't take my word for it.
Time magazine columnist, Trump quote went viral and then he admitted he made it up.
This is a story from the Daily Caller, but I have covered it in the past couple days.
Ian Bremmer made a fake quote where he quoted Trump as saying, Kim Jong-un is smarter and will make a better president than sleepy Joe Biden.
The only thing is, he never said that.
Trump never said this.
Ian Bremmer, who is a columnist for Time, made it up, and journalists parroted this quote uncritically, without fact-checking.
So this is where we start to see through the veil, and I think it's important to make this point.
It's not just about people like Jim Acosta writing books where they admit it, where they admit they grandstand and opt for the bait and confront the president and they're not neutral.
At least he admitted it.
But it's also when you can see someone like this.
Man, were they angry with this guy?
They were furious, saying, delete this.
How could you?
How could you do this?
It's dangerous.
You know what's dangerous?
The journalists who did not fact-check.
Who just assumed it was true.
This is our era of journalism.
People who grandstand and admit it, and people who just repeat lies they see, and there you go.
That's the state of media.
And yes, we can see this.
This is a story from February.
Trust in media hits bottom.
60% say sources pay for stories.
We can see that according to this Columbia Journalism Review poll, of all these institutions, military, law enforcement, universities, Supreme Court, executive branch, the press, and Congress, the press has the least amount of confidence, or more people say they have hardly any confidence at all in the press, more than any other group.
Even Congress, and I gotta say, that's impressive, and the executive branch.
So this is another really interesting metric, especially when you consider that you have the press repeatedly going after Trump.
Well, as far as it goes to the executive branch, sorry, they trust the press less.
Finally, we have this question that was raised by Neiman Reports.
Where does journalism end and activism begin?
Well, in today's day and age, unfortunately, journalism is over.
It is.
In fact, in this story, I mean, you can see exactly what these people do, what Brian Stelter does, Oliver Darcy at CNN.
They focus heavily on their political enemies, and worse still, their corporate rivals, targeting other businesses that are doing better and getting them shut down.
They do.
And I'm not just talking about Alex Jones.
Because if you listen to my show, you'll know I mentioned Mathic Media.
CNN targeted a news organization that did absolutely nothing wrong and broke no rules, and Facebook suspended them because CNN reached out.
It's a dirty little trick that these journalists do.
Journalism has been almost entirely replaced by activism.
And it's because of social media.
And that explains Jim Acosta's behavior.
It explains why these companies choose to report on certain issues.
Again, I mentioned the nuance.
It's not black and white.
But think about it.
Think about what's going to get shared on Facebook.
Shock content.
Rage content.
It's what works.
You can think about how people view social media.
There's no checks, it's agenda-driven and opinionated, but that's where news is being sourced.
So when these companies continue to go insane, I recommend you watch my video from yesterday where I talked a little bit about this too.
As these companies collapse, they're being driven insane, not because they're actually out of their minds, but because they're desperate to survive.
They're desperate so they say, you know what?
In this story, they bring up a quote.
I want to make sure I get the name right.
Rebecca Schneid, co-editor of the high school newspaper at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
She appeared on CNN saying, I see a lot of Parkland students becoming activists.
But you were all there as journalists.
I'm sorry, that was Brian Seltzer who said that.
Observed about Schneid and other students of the school paper.
The eagle-eye who were covering the protest.
The march drew more than 200,000 people to advocate for gun control less than six weeks after the event at Parkland.
Do you see a difference right now between journalism and activism in what you are doing?
She said, I think that for me the purpose of journalism is to raise the voices of people who maybe don't have a voice and so I think that in its own right journalism is a form of activism.
She went on to qualify her statement saying, there is a distinction for me as a journalist and also someone who wants to demand change.
But I think the partnership of the two is the only reason that we are able to make change.
People are outraged by this statement.
The story from Neiman says, Many people on Twitter erupted saying journalism is covering a story and giving us the facts and allowing us, the reader or viewer, to make up our mind.
People say that there's no objectivity in journalism, and again, I mention that's an excuse.
One of the arguments they have is that because I choose to highlight these things, you know, that's framing the narrative.
And that's fair to a certain extent, but it doesn't mean I'm not objective.
Unfortunately, this sentiment, you can hear from this young woman, is the sentiment we see from people like Jim Acosta, at the highest levels, who flat out says, neutrality for the sake of neutrality during the Trump era is, you can't do it.
He says it doesn't serve us in the age of Trump.
Unfortunately, he's not doing that job.
He's grandstanding and he knows it.
He's not challenging the president.
He's not challenging the executive branch.
He's wasting time and putting himself front and center so he can sell books.
And this is a better example of what journalists have become.
Joining in on the latest hot take.
Attacking people like Dave Rubin because it's just the trendy thing that other journalists are doing and it doesn't make sense.
In reference to Dave Rubin, they'll simultaneously complain he doesn't host enough people on the left, and then when Dave reaches out to someone on the left, they attack that individual and try and get the interview shut down.
And this should show you that at least... And these are journalists who are doing this.
And when we look at the fake quotes being paired, when we look at Covington, it should be plain as day.
When, you know, at this point, the veil has been lifted, and we know.
At least we should know.
We should know better.
I'm surprised that... Well, I should say this was two years ago.
In this PDF.
Two years ago, that people actually, you know, 40% had some trust in media.
But it's been going up and down.
And as I showed you, trust is down.
And that's not surprising.
It is unfortunate.
We do need people to inform us to the best of their ability.
But we're not getting that.
There are some great journalists.
There are many, many great journalists.
The industry doesn't support them anymore.
So I absolutely lament the demise of journalism.
I think it's sad and it's unfortunate.
But I will point out, these people, like Jim Acosta and these other activists, are wearing the mask of journalists and then demanding your sympathy.
They're saying, hey, our company is hurting, you should support us.
No, no, no, no, no.
Your company is hurting and you've started replacing real journalists with these people.
With people like this.
So, essentially, what I wanted to highlight in this video is, you know, when Jim Acosta comes out and says, you know what, I know what I'm doing, What else is there to say?
When we can see how real issues that affect us are not being covered with some caveats, then you know.
And when you see CNN straight up have this conversation where they talk about journalism as activism, well here we are today.
Journalism is activism and the veil is being lifted.
Thankfully we have social media to highlight this stuff, but you know what?
I'll leave it there.
You decide, I guess, right?
I would end by saying I know I play a role in media.
Absolutely.
I'm not perfect.
I try to be as objective as a human can be.
It exists.
But there is some responsibility on you to try and follow other sources and not just listen to me listen to other people.
Take it for what it is.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I'll have more videos coming up later today starting at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
For those listening on the podcast, more will follow shortly and I will see you then.
Ewan Lenihan apparently used to be some kind of like troll on Twitter.
I don't know much about it, but he was recently suspended, and it may have something to do with that.
But we have this story published in Quillette.
Uh, apparently having to do with his research on Antifa and their connection to journalists.
So I did cover this story before, but because he did a proper writeup, I wanted to go through it and talk about this again with always starting with a big caveat.
I recommend taking these with a grain of salt, these kinds of stories, because you've got like the crime web thing going on, all these different names connected to other names.
And they did the same thing to me and other people, you know, like Dave Rubin, where they tried connecting us all on these dots.
And I'll stress that part of what they did in mapping social interactions doesn't necessarily imply positive or negative interactions.
With that caveat being said, take it all with a grain of salt, we're going to read through this because I can speak some of this, and yes, many people actually are Antifa activists and far-left fringe extremists working in these media companies.
So this is a story from Quillette.
It's not your imagination that journalists writing about Antifa are often their cheerleaders.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There are multiple donation options you can choose from.
Of course, just liking and commenting is one of the best things you can do.
The engagement is really, really good.
Subscribe if you haven't already.
But let's read the story.
A1 writes, on February 1st, 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a talk about free speech at the University of California, Berkeley, but he was prevented from speaking by a group of 150 or so masked black-clad members of a then-obscure movement calling itself Antifa.
The protesters caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus and injured six people as they threw rocks and Molotov cocktails.
Nine months later, again at Berkeley, an anti-Marxist rally descended into violence as approximately 100 masked Antifa members harassed journalists and beat rally organizers and attendees.
Berkeley was where Antifa rose to national attention, but it hasn't been the only place where the group has engaged in sustained acts of violence.
At a Washington, D.C.
Unite the Right rally in August 2018, Antifa members hurled objects at police and assaulted journalists.
In Portland, Oregon, violent street clashes involving Antifa have become regular events.
Notwithstanding claims that Antifa is a peaceful, anti-fascist community defense group, it has adopted tactics that often are more violent than those of the right-wing movements that the group opposes.
Now, I want to stress, because most of you probably already know this, you know, we've got a video here of Andy Ngo getting pepper sprayed.
It's not so much that they are violent, it's that they're delusional.
And I mean this, I don't mean this to be a dick or to be disrespectful.
They literally believe they're fighting like, you know, fringe far-right.
They really believe that run-of-the-mill Trump supporters and regular Americans are the fringe far-right extremists.
Sometimes they do, right?
And you often see their cheerleaders and media saying they use, you know, these direct conflict to challenge Fringe far-right groups.
Sometimes.
Unfortunately, the issue that I want to make sure is highlighted is when they target innocent regular people and accuse them of being, you know, NAZI, if you get what I'm saying.
So it's actually that they're kind of... They're delusional, right?
They're out of their... They don't see the world correctly.
Their view of the world is skewed to such an extreme degree, they think they literally are the revolution fighting against the empire and stormtroopers.
They're quite literally out of their minds.
He writes, "...and yet Antifa often receives media coverage that is neutral or even favorable, with its members' violence either being ignored by reporters or vaguely explained away as a product of right-wing provocation.
What's more, anecdotal evidence has suggested that many of the mainstream reporters who are most active in covering Antifa also tend to enthusiastically amplify their claims, especially at The Guardian."
In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media.
We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.
We created a dataset of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts.
Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 585,000 I will also add, some of these people regularly campaign to cause damage to career rivals.
of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed
Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified Twitter accounts of journalists,
of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national level news outlets. I will also
add some of these people regularly campaign to cause damage to career rivals. I don't want to
see political, right? I don't want to call anybody out specifically, but they'll try and de-platform
certain independent creators.
and moderate individuals on social media who they will accuse of being fringe,
and they'll smear, and they'll promote lies, etc.
It should be stressed that a journalist's close social media engagement
with any particular group should not be seen as incriminating per se.
Many journalists follow and even interact with all manner of figures online,
either out of personal curiosity, professional interest, or even as a means of developing sources.
In identifying this group of 15 journalists whose engagement with Antifa is especially intense,
our goal was not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study so as to
determine if there was any overall correlation between the level of
their online engagement with Antifa and the manner by which these journalists treated Antifa in
their published journalism.
Now some of these people, I think, have been, uh, they mentioned Jack Smith IV, but I'm pretty sure his career is over.
He's been accused of impropriety with his girlfriend or whatever.
I don't know much about it, but I don't think he works anymore.
They do include some people who are overt activists, who have always been activists.
I want to make sure that's clear.
But then they do include some people who have worked with Vice and The Guardian and other outlets.
So, they say, um, the correlation turned out to be quite pronounced.
Of all 15 verified national-level journalists in our subset, we couldn't find a single article by any of them that was markedly critical of Antifa in any way.
In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying Antifa while advancing their talking points, and in some cases, quoting the extremists as if they were impartial experts.
I can attest to this being true!
I mean, I've seen it.
However, they do, he does mention Kit O'Connell.
Kit O'Connell is an Occupy activist who once invited me to Austin and I did a training on technology.
He has since been extremely radicalized.
You know, we had a conversation like a couple years ago, a year or two, and he was like, not that crazy.
He has gone off the rocker, essentially sending me what I would take to be a death threat to me.
Saying something, I can't remember exactly what it was because he blocked me and then deleted it, but it was something about how like, His people want to end my life, to put it simply.
It wasn't like a direct, but it was a set, it was veiled, right?
They say he's proudly, uh, identified as a proudly anti-fascist gonzo journalist, whose work often reads like an FAQ that one might find on an Antifa website.
In one piece, for instance, he wrote that protesters wear masks so that they may create a sense of unity and common purpose as they protect other activists from police and fascists.
He brings up, uh, I'm not gonna read through all of this and all the justifications, but he, he mentions one guy who's, uh, with A.J.
Inglis, formerly of A.J.
English, uh, So, oh wow, look at this.
Okay, we'll do this.
In another column for The Guardian, this one about the 2018 Occupy Ice protests in Portland, he talks about, oh, let me go back, sorry.
He says, a more prominent example is Jason Wilson, a Portland-based writer for The Guardian.
One of his recent articles focused on a U.S.
regional intelligence report whose author concluded that Antifa and the far-right share responsibility for, you know, street escalation.
One of Wilson's main experts in the piece was none other than Antifa handbook author Mark Bray, who predictably denounced the report's contents as ludicrous.
In fact, Bray makes regular appearances in Wilson's articles, so does fellow Portland resident and eco-extremist Alexander Reed Ross, who regularly writes for Antifa publications, such as It's Going Down Anarchist News.
And this is the guy who also falsely claimed that I went to Iran to speak at a Holocaust deniers conference.
So that's the level of, uh...
Yeah, the credibility these people have.
In fact, my understanding is he was fired from the Southern Poverty Law Center as a writer, or contributor, or whatever, and they deleted all of his articles for posting that complete nonsense, and I got an apology from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
So these are the people who are infiltrating and writing for these organizations, and they don't seek to inform you, or better, help you understand the world.
They seek to manipulate you, so you bend the knee and stand behind them as they throw flaming garbage at people they don't like.
Welcome to 2019.
He goes on to talk a bit more about Jason Wilson, but I'm not super concerned.
I don't want to target specific individuals for their specific things they're doing, more so highlight the phenomenon of these people working for news outlets and that being allowed.
He goes on to mention Christopher Mathias, a senior reporter for the Huffington Post, also applies the same cynical approach, like Wilson.
Mathias' byline seems to pop up whenever Antifa stages violent protests, and he always can be counted on to deliver a play-by-play that favors Antifa.
In fact, Christopher Mathias—I could be wrong, but it's been a while—his reporting, because I was in Portland for a couple of these events, is less credible Believe it or not, then Right Wing Watch, Jared Holt wrote an account of some event in Portland that was damn good journalism.
It was impressive because Right Wing Watch is essentially like a marketing arm for a progressive political organization called like the, I forgot what it's called, like a Progressive Way or something.
But they produce articles because it serves the nonprofit's interests.
And it was actually spot on.
I read through it and I'm like, yep, Jared Holt basically got it right.
And a lot of people were shocked at my assessment because they were like, but this guy works for an activist organization.
Sure.
The Huffington Post did a worse job.
It was nuts how bad their writing was.
He says, unlike Wilson, Matthias actually doxes individuals whom he suspects of being right-wing extremists.
His doxing sources for an article about suspected people in the U.S.
included Unicorn Riot, an anarchic anti-FUD journalist collective, Who have since gone nuts and published fake news, mind-blowingly fake news, and recently published all of the comments from my Discord server, which have damaging information such as Tim Pool saying all racists are bad, and how dare Vox entertain race realism.
Oh, but they published it all, public information, and they try to smear me with it.
They're nuts, and I know one of the founders.
He says, uh, the Anarchist Journalist Collective and other shady sites that exist as a sort of in-house 4chan for the Antifa movement.
Matthias cited similar sources when he published identifying details of a Texas schoolteacher.
Matthias' apparent modus operandi is to gather doxes of individuals whom Antifa or Antifa-friendly groups suspect, suspect, He, at Huffington Post, then reaches out to the target's employer, asking for comment, leveraging the media outlet's name to ensure the individual is called out.
Then Matthias posts the doxes in his column while investigations are ongoing.
With Emily Gorsenski's first vigil site, Matthias broadcasts detailed personal information, whose release seems designed to destroy the reputation of the accused.
No matter the results of any subsequent investigation, it's unclear how this behavior differs from ordinary, everyday Antifa-style online activism.
He ends by saying, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the individuals targeted by anti-patrols and protesters do indeed harbor noxious, hateful, bigoted, and even fascistic opinions.
But the intellectual dishonesty and disreputable methods being used to target these individuals is an example of the cure being as bad as the disease.
Final thought on this, because I did cover it before, but it's like when you have an autoimmune disorder and the white blood cells start attacking healthy cells or just running amok and, you know, look, Fascism is horrifying and dangerous and bad, and yes, we should oppose it at every step.
We have civil rights and we have to abide by the rules on purpose, but we can defeat those, you know, we can defeat the fascists and the evil, awful people and the racists and the bigots, but we're not going to do it by being evil, awful, like these people are.
That's the important point.
They're running wild and they're causing damage, but I'll leave it there.
I've got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
For those on the podcast, it's starting now.
We need to talk about the differences in men and women and in their lives, because in many ways men absolutely do have what I would call a male privilege.
It's not some socially constructed nonsense, however.
I would call a male privilege being that men don't get periods, men don't have to bear children, and men can have kids way later in life than women can.
This doesn't mean... I'm not trying to say that men or men have it better or worse, but certainly there are some things you could consider to be a male privilege.
You could also contend that because of certain biological things, society has developed around protecting women in many, many ways and thus there are certainly female privileges.
Of course, feminists would argue with you, but the reality is...
There's pros and cons.
It's hard to say that men have it better or worse.
I think it's unfair to.
Certainly there are many instances where you could make that claim.
And certainly there are many instances where you could counter that claim.
And of course then, you have certain men's rights activists claiming that men actually have it worse.
You have certain feminists saying women have it worse.
You actually have most feminists saying that.
I think there are some good feminists and good men's rights activists who point out that there's nuance to the discussion.
It's not black and white.
There are some things, you know, I've had some conversations with feminists who have said that they understand women certainly have benefits and privileges, but they want to solve problems women face.
And I say, that's absolutely fine.
I respect that.
And there are men's rights activists who say, absolutely, men have it better in a lot of ways, but there are some things that, you know, problems men face that need to be resolved.
And I'm like, hey, that's a good thing too.
Egalitarianism, equality, and fairness, right?
So we have this story that I find fascinating.
Taylor Swift deems question about motherhood sexist and refuses to answer.
She was asked if she would like to be a mother someday and have children.
I guess if that's just the question, I don't see why that's offensive.
Because it's a normal question to ask anyone, no matter how old they are.
Unless you're like 70, I guess.
But she responded, I really do not think men are asked that question when they turn 30.
So I'm not going to answer that now.
Later in the interview, Swift said that young men and women in their 20s are looking to gain experience, try things out, fail, and make mistakes.
I definitely plan to try and fail at things in my 30s as well, but I expect that in our 30s, we feel a little better of who we are.
The closer I get to it, the more I feel it happens.
So, they mentioned that Swift was largely apolitical.
And then, I don't want to... Well, she said, I've learned that society is constantly sending very loud messages to women, that exhibiting the physical signs of aging is the worst thing that can happen to us.
These messages tell women that we aren't allowed to age.
It's an impossible standard to meet.
Two things.
Maybe she was asked if she wants to be a mom as she approaches 30.
And if that was the case, it could be because women do have a biological flock that men mostly don't.
So here's the thing.
At a certain point, women can't have kids.
And there's a certain age at which women are Healthier, and can have kids.
Because of natural biological functions, evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology, social norms evolve around our actual biology.
Men can have kids way, way late in life.
Because even if their reproduction fails 80%, they just need one of those little sperms to make it through and they can have kids.
So yes, they can do it.
Women can't.
Women have a finite amount of eggs.
It's my understanding.
I'm not a biologist.
I know there's going to be some nuance I'm going to get wrong.
Some great... Well, nuance is not the right word.
But there's going to be some little facts and details I misunderstand.
So the point is, Men and women have different bodies, different strengths, and they age differently.
Therefore, they will likely be asked different questions.
I don't think it's fair.
Necessarily.
I think, look, if you want to get offended, you can get offended at whatever you want.
Fine.
But then, if you do, I will criticize you.
So I think, if someone wants to ask a woman who's becoming 30 if she wants to have kids or not, it's not an unfair question simply because men don't get asked the same things.
Because I think, where like, Sylvester Stallone had a kid when he was like in his fifties.
A lot of guys do.
It's, you want to call it unfair?
Fine.
Absolutely call it unfair, but you can't change it because it's just literally biology unless, you know, they do propose really weird things.
Some woman tweeted something about Literally, like, for every child a man has, they should remove a quarter inch of his you-know-what?
Like, I kid you not, some verified Twitter user said that.
Here's what's interesting.
There was an op-ed piece written in the Washington Examiner by Suzanne Venker that says, Taylor Swift just proved my point about feminism's harm on millennials.
She says, Taylor Swift... My last... I must get that point.
She said it.
My last post was about feminism's harmful influence on millennials, and less than 24 hours later, a friend sent me this USA Today article that highlights an interview Taylor Swift gave on a promotional tour in which a German reporter asks Swift if she has children or family on her mind since she turns 30 this year.
They say, she responded with, I don't think it's fair.
Suzanne writes, here's a news flash for Swift and other young women who didn't get the memo.
No one asks men that same question because men don't have a biological clock, women do.
I know you've grown up believing since the day you were born that men and women are or should be sexual equals and should thus be treated as identical beings, but equality is a bogus mission.
Because it's inextricably tethered to a progressive political movement that has no basis in reality.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything she's saying, I will point out, you have a different body.
You have different bone mass, different muscle mass, different organs.
There's so many biological differences between men and women.
It exists.
Is it fair that men have more muscle mass?
No, I guess.
But you could also argue that perhaps some men are upset that they can't bear children, and many people point out that it is the greatest privilege that women actually can do that.
It's a philosophical argument.
It's an argument of perspective.
Along with having more muscle mass and men being able to have kids at a later age, also comes male disposability.
This is also a scientific fact.
If you have 100 men and 100 women, and 99 men die, your society can survive because that one man can impregnate all these women, thus making men less valuable as individuals.
The same isn't true if you invert it.
If all but one woman dies, you are in serious trouble.
The women must be protected.
You could argue that is one of the greatest privileges, making women substantially more important than men.
And thus, men absolutely do feel disposable.
Why do you not see men arguing that's not fair?
So the point is, what I end up seeing from all of this is that Femininity and motherhood is pushed down and considered less desirable.
I think that's absolutely unfair to mothers and to femininity.
Taylor Swift is not having a family in her 20s.
She's now about to become 30, and she's saying it's not fair to ask that question.
I think it is fair to ask that question.
I think you'd ask the question to anybody.
You could ask a young man if he's, why is he not married yet?
Well, marriage is becoming less prominent as time goes on, partly because if you think about the roles men and women played throughout history, and I'm not defending them in any way, I'm not saying they should stay the same.
No, they probably should change with technology and as society evolves, of course they do.
But you'll see that there was a traditional feminism, I'm sorry, a traditional femininity and a traditional masculinity.
And so far, the change in society is moving everything much, much closer to masculinity.
Certainly, masculinity itself is being attacked and more masculine men are being called toxic and things like that.
So there is a move towards this more androgynous middle, but for the most part, what's associated with cultural femininity is being wiped away, and what's being associated with cultural masculinity is being maintained, though dampened.
My point is, women are being told to do careers and do more masculine traditional roles.
They're not ending gender roles, the feminists.
They're actually just pushing everything towards patriarchal roles.
It's a fascinating phenomenon.
Again, you want to argue it's right or wrong, by all means, go and do so.
But I want to point out this story from 2014 to highlight the issue with what's not fair and can't be changed.
Now, you can certainly argue that culture should change, but there's certain biological facts that make this data point true.
Guys like women in their early 20s, regardless of how old they get.
Someone recently posted this on Twitter, a feminist, and she said it wasn't fair.
I would say you're right.
It's not fair.
The world isn't fair.
The world is cruel and unusual.
Here we can see a man's age versus the age of the woman who looks best to him.
And there's a dotted line going up from 20 to 50.
A 50-year-old man thinks 22-year-old women look the best.
No matter how old they get, they still view the same age as the most attractive.
What's even more fascinating is, I don't know if Business Insider actually has the data on this, What's fascinating, and actually in my opinion kind of gross, is that when they rated women based on physical appearance alone and didn't know anything about them, men were actually rating 15 and 16 year olds as the most attractive.
And I actually think that's shocking and gross, but then you have to consider...
When you look at models in like perfume ads, people don't realize those girls are like 15 or 16.
I think the whole thing's gross.
Because you build a culture that props up really young girls, don't be surprised when you see this data.
It may just be that humans naturally are attracted to that.
Not me personally, I think it's weird.
But looking at this data, one of the reasons that they elaborate on this as to why the most attractive age, it's not so much about looks, it's about cultural understanding that a teenage girl is not a good mate, right?
So, the point I'm trying to make is physical attractiveness for women, according to a study, peaked in their mid-teenage years, which I'm kind of like, whoa.
But men also do take into account cultural behavior and intelligence.
And that meant that they found 20 to 22 to be the most desirable age.
Because it means that the woman is still really young, but she's an adult who can understand the world.
Women, on the other hand, want guys at or around their age, which is incredible.
Now, women tend to want older men.
We can see that a 20-year-old man wants a 23— I'm sorry, a 20-year-old woman wants a 23-year-old man.
But as they age, they actually do get to a point where they want people at or around their age.
Now, older men do want slightly younger men, just because, you know, youth is important for surviving, and as you get older, your survivability goes down.
The point I'm trying to make is, I saw this story from Taylor Swift, and I thought it was kind of amazing to me that Women are going on a male career track.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's a traditionally patriarchal role.
The man would work and then retire.
The woman would raise a family.
Over time, women are now working and not having families.
That's traditionally what men would do.
We are not seeing feminism promote femininity.
We're seeing it tell women to follow the male career track.
If you want to argue that's fine, I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
I'm saying that's literally what's happening.
There are certain things that will always be unfair.
You can't change that.
Whether or not Taylor Swift wants to have a family is entirely up to her.
She's free to choose whatever she wants.
But don't be surprised when you look at data points and you have people saying, are you going to have a family?
There's something that people refer to as the wall.
I think that's kind of offensive.
But at a certain age, women become less desirable for having a family because there absolutely is data to point out that the health of the baby is connected 100% to the age of the mother.
So, for biological reasons, men are attracted to certain ages.
It's just the way it is.
And if women want to say it's unfair, you gotta find a guy who doesn't agree and thinks you're attractive at whatever age.
But for women who say they don't want to have a family because it's not fair, well, you're arguing that God should change the world, right?
And I mean that somewhat facetiously.
Obviously, it's not God.
It's just the way the dominoes fell.
There are certain things about me and my body that I think are unfair.
I grow facial hair.
Shaving sucks.
I hate shaving.
That's unfair.
Women don't gotta shave their faces.
But you can argue women gotta shave their legs.
They don't have to shave their legs.
They don't gotta show their legs to anybody.
You can argue that men lose their hair.
I lost my hair.
That's not fair.
I'm not gonna complain about it.
I'm just gonna carry on my life and do the best I can.
And so I think the most important lesson out of all of this is to realize, once again, life is not fair.
Men and women are different.
And I'll probably title the video something like that.
So anyway, thanks for hanging out.
I'll have more segments starting tomorrow at 10 a.m.
