Media LIES About Trump Jr. Being Heckled And Booed By His Own Supporters
Media LIES About Trump Jr. Being Heckled And Booed By His Own Supporters. At an event to promote his new book, Triggered, Donald Trump Jr was heckled and booed by far right people in attendance. Media outlets reported this as his own supporters booing him but in reality its part of a larger conflict between elements of the far right and mainstream conservatives.While the story itself is unremarkable what is upsetting is how the media frames the story. Instead of commending Trump Jr for refusing to allow a platform to bad people they mock him and make it seem like his supporters are turning on him.This dishonesty will have major consequences for Democrats and the left as they overwhelmingly trust these media outlets. If they start believing all of this fake news and media lies about Trump and the right they will not be prepared to deal with the political battles ahead.In the end it breeds a fringe far left whose world view is built upon insane nonsense and ragebait meant to drive traffic instead of inform. Its a great example of what creates new trump supporters not the opposite.Conservatives on the other hand don't trust media so are less likely to be impacted by the constant barrage of fake news.We learned from Project Veritas that ABC was covering up big stories of major national interest and now we can see the media playing games to generate traffic. Where do we go from here?I honestly don't know
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who only reads the news.
We have a story here.
Donald Trump Jr.
just got booed off the stage by his own supporters.
Really!
His own supporters.
First of all, I question whether or not they're supporters of his if they're booing him.
But the story's actually really, really complicated.
And Vice, The Washington Post, The Hill.
I actually like The Hill, but I'm disappointed.
They have no interest in doing the legwork to help you understand what actually is happening.
Why was Donald Trump Jr.
actually booed?
Well, they don't really get into the nitty-gritty.
They want to paint a picture in your head that Trump's supporters are turning on him, that they're booing, and it's bad news for Trump.
That's not at all what's happening.
In their quest for clicks, they are misframing stories, they are misleading you, they want you to click, and it's literally making Democrats go insane.
I'm not exaggerating.
I talked about this earlier today, at least in my opinion.
We know that according to a new poll released by Axios, Democrats are being angered by literally everything.
And the reason for it is that the news is lying to you.
I've got several instances I'm going to show you where they are lying, lying, lying.
But the big story that I really want to break down is what happened with Trump Jr.
and why was he being booed?
It's actually kind of nuanced.
There's a group of far-right and white nationalist individuals who are upset that even though conservatives say they're for free speech, they've been shutting down Q&A events, they've been barring some of these people from coming to these events, so they're angry.
And so they're booing Trump Jr.
for not taking questions.
It's actually a bit complicated.
They say they support Trump Jr., but I have to question that.
See, the challenge is, For someone like Trump Jr., who's overtly saying, he says to the effect, I don't want to give these people a platform because they're looking for a soundbite.
And many conservatives question whether or not these America first and white nationalist types actually support the president because all they're doing is generating negative press.
You see, it's complicated.
I'm not here to take sides.
I'm here to point out that you've got one side saying, we don't want you here, and the other side saying, stick to your principles, how dare you not allow free speech?
And that's a complicated battle.
Vice is not interested in telling you the actual controversy.
They just want to paint a picture that Trump Jr.
supporters are turning on him.
So I've got a couple stories I'm going to show you.
And then surprise, surprise, this is really crazy to me, it's the Daily Mail that actually breaks down better in their headline why this is happening.
While the Washington Post, which had some of the original reporting on this, does get into the more extreme political beliefs of these hecklers, the headline, which is mostly what people read, they don't read into the story, it's misleading.
So people are reading these stories and they're being told two different things at the same time and it's making people insane.
So this will kind of be like an offshoot of the video I did earlier this morning with this as the crux of the story.
So let's read this and try and figure out what happened with Trump Jr.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can help me out.
The best thing you can do is just share this video.
Because what I'm trying to do is take these mainstream stories with no context that don't inform you of what's actually happening and help shine a light on reality.
But I'll tell you this, man.
It's getting impossible.
It really is.
You know, I try my best every day to read the news and fact-check it.
So when I saw this story about Trump being booed by his own supporters, I said, let me look into this and figure out why his own supporters would be mad at him.
In reality, it wasn't his supporters.
It's people who like Trump to an extent.
They tacitly like Trump because it's the best they have, but they don't like Trump, so they booed him.
It's actually quite complicated.
And when I realized this, and saw all of these stories, I was kind of surprised.
Here's the big point.
When the left demands that white nationalists and far-right individuals be deplatformed, the media says, well, there it is, the principled left calling out the far-right.
When Trump Jr.
does it, they make fun of him, they mock him, they belittle him, and they make it seem like his own supporters are turning on him.
The media is simultaneously reporting two different things.
And there's the double standard.
Now, what I'm trying to tell you is, this morning when I saw that Politico report that contradicted another Politico report, I'm thinking to myself, how can I know, how can I fact check anything if the same outlet claims its own reporting is false?
You can't do it.
And we're getting to a point now where it's seriously mind-breaking, even for me.
I'm a journalist.
I read this.
I try to know the facts, but it is mind-breaking.
When I read two stories, the New York Times says Jack Posobiec lied when he claimed that Vindman was consulting Ukrainians.
Then they have a report saying Vindman consulted Ukrainians, and I'm like, Where's your editorial oversight?
What's real anymore?
Perhaps it's on purpose.
Perhaps they want to make sure that anybody who trusts the news is losing their mind.
Or perhaps they just want to make sure nobody trusts the media anymore because it must be real.
Journalism is an important factor in protecting democracy.
And it has been completely eroded by these companies.
Look at what ABC News did.
Thanks to Project Veritas, we know they spiked one of the biggest stories of our generation.
Epstein.
They said, no, shut it down.
We know they're not in it to tell the truth.
And so now they're putting out these stories.
Here's what I really think.
I think they put these stories out because it gets clicks.
They want you to view Trump as being booed by his own supporters.
It's not the case because you'll click it and they don't care if you're informed or not.
They just want the click.
So they will lie to you.
Let's read what vice says.
Donald Trump Jr.
abandoned the stage at a book signing at the UCLA campus Sunday after being ruthlessly heckled dot dot dot by his own supporters.
The problem apparently began after the president's son and his girlfriend said they wouldn't be doing a Q&A session at the event to promote Don Jr.' 's new book, Triggered, How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.
As Trump took the stage, chants of USA morphed into Q&A, and the crowd grew restless.
The event was scheduled to last two hours, but within about 20 minutes, Trump and his girlfriend left the stage, The Guardian reported.
While there were some liberal protesters at UCLA on Sunday, the disruption at the book event was apparently sparked by disagreements among conservative Trump fans.
Not true.
The Guardian reported the angry jeers began among far-right activists, some of whom were big fans of Nick Fuentes, the 21-year-old host of a podcast called America First.
And that's where they stop with Nick Fuentes.
They don't want to talk about his more extreme positions and white nationalist talking points.
I want to be careful about who I accuse of what, because I'm not trying to get into a political fight.
I'm trying to point out that people like Donald Trump Jr.
are trying to avoid conversations with people they view are acting Are being disingenuous.
So let's jump over to where the story originated.
Because Vice isn't interested in giving you the full context.
The Washington Post.
They say, Donald Trump Jr.
went to UCLA to decry triggered liberals.
He was heckled offstage by the far right.
They go on to talk about what we already know, and they say as first reported by The Guardian, a number of conservatives, some in MAGA caps and pro-Trump attire, began to shout at the president's son and political advisor 20 minutes into an event moderated by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk after learning a Q&A session had been cancelled.
Video from the event showed a chant that started out as USA, USA turning quickly into angry cries of Q&A, Q&A minutes later.
Trump Jr.
and Guilfoyle, sorry if I'm pronouncing your name wrong, stormed off the stage.
You can see that I highlighted Fuentes specifically to see if the Washington Post would be looking into him and talking about who he is and what he believes and what started this controversy.
They say the chaotic scene contradicted Trump Jr.' 's central thesis that liberals have grown so intolerant of dissenting voices, conservative politicians can no longer engage in civil discourse.
It also exposed an increasingly hostile fissure between conservative student groups like Turning Point USA and a hard-right faction of young Trump devotees who have flocked to self-professed American nationalist Nick Fuentes and his America First movement.
This is really complicated, and I can't tell you there's a simple solution.
It's fair to say that there are standard conservatives who are angry that Trump Jr.
would shut down a Q&A event.
Because while people may detest Nick Fuentes' views, the idea that he has a right to ask questions and you would shut down a Q&A or bar him from entry is antithetical to the idea of free speech.
In which case, yes, conservatives will actually absolutely be angry.
It also, there's another factor here in Ben Shapiro doing an event where he basically called out many people of the alt-right but conflated them with what's called the new right.
So there absolutely is a fissure here and I think it's unfair that they're trying to paint this as though Trump Jr.
is being heckled by his own supporters when in reality it is a fissure between Donald Trump Jr.
and the people he does not want to be allowed a platform.
So here's the complicated part.
As I mentioned earlier, when you look at what the left does and what they cheer for, you would think these media outlets would be celebrating Donald Trump Jr.' 's decision to agree with them.
Instead, they're not pointing out that the fissure is caused by Trump Jr.
saying I don't want to provide a platform to these people who hold white
nationalist views, they're making it seem like Trump's base is just fractured and
falling apart. Again, to an extent, that does make some sense, but you have to
understand that the white nationalist and more far-right groups are a minority
of a minority of a minority. Many people have conflated, like Sargon for instance,
talks about how Sargon of Aqab, the British YouTuber, the alt-right, and the
social justice left have very similar views on authoritarianism, on
restrictions of speech, and they're trying to use free speech
against Trump Jr.
and conservatives to be allowed to espouse some of their questions.
But look, I'll put it this way, man.
I believe in free speech for bad opinions.
So I don't think you should... If someone's going to ask a question you don't want to hear, you got to do it.
You have to.
You have to be principled.
Even if they're going to ask you things that you don't want to answer, answer the question if you believe in what you say.
The problem, however, for Trump Jr., and again, what you're not going to get from these stories, is that they're trying to get soundbites.
The press.
And that's what he's worried about.
You see how they're framing this.
You know exactly what's going to happen.
They're going to take a Q&A from a white nationalist who's going to ask a question, and then they're going to say, Donald Trump's supporters at events said X. So Trump Jr.
says, I'm not having any of it.
People like Charlie Kirk are saying, you are not welcome here, we don't want to give you a platform.
And look, there's a big difference between Twitter, which is a monopolistic platform that people, there's nowhere else to go, and a private room of a couple hundred people, in my opinion.
If somebody puts on a private event and says you can't come in, well, that's too bad.
Twitter, however, is a monopoly on what it is.
There's nothing else that you can use like Twitter to engage in these conversations.
If you want to engage with the president, that's where you got to go.
That's a different story.
So I understand regulation of this is complicated, but there is a big difference between saying people should be allowed on social media platforms and you can't come to my event.
But here's the thing.
The Washington Post, down the line, eventually gets to the point where they say.
The host of an ultra-conservative podcast and YouTube show called America First, Fuentes has appeared on YouTube with bloggers who advocate for a white ethnostate.
He has used slurs and promoted anti-Semitism in his broadcast, which has put him at odds with Daily Wire editor Ben Shapiro.
Fuentes marched in Charlottesville with white supremacists during the deadly Unite the Right rally the Boston Globe reported.
Again, I gotta be careful because I know the media loves to smear anybody who's to the right of... Okay, I'm not going to make the joke, but they frequently smear anybody who pushes back on them.
But the fact is...
Shouldn't they be agreeing with this?
And shouldn't they be putting that front and center?
That white nationalists are heckling Donald Trump Jr.?
No.
Because what would that headline say to the left?
White nationalists don't like Trump Jr., don't like Charlie Kirk, don't like Ben Shapiro.
Now I'm going to give you some more context, the important bits.
Ben Shapiro conflated the new right, people who also don't like white nationalists, with the white nationalists, and that's caused a lot of Trump supporters to become angry at the Daily Wire.
So there's a rift, it is.
But it's not the far right versus, you know, Ben Shapiro or Trump Jr.
It is people who are angry that they're being smeared because everyone's getting lumped into this.
So I'll tell you what, man.
The media's insanity?
It hurts conservatives, too.
Because now you've got people confused to what's really happening.
You've got Ben Shapiro, who is a conservative, who made the mistake of conflating people who don't like white nationalists with them, same as the media has done for a long time.
When they say everyone on the right is alt-right, while Ben Shapiro's saying the new right is alt-right, was smearing standard old, you know, middle-of-the-road, like, conservatives.
Because they're trying to differentiate themselves from the old-school Republicans without a backbone.
Whether you like them or not.
Here's my goal here, okay?
With everything I do, it's not to besmirch the integrity of any individual.
It's to just explain to you why this is happening.
And all I see every day is just fake news.
I want to highlight some examples.
You know what, man?
Because I was thinking of making a video where I was just like, dude, I give up.
Seriously.
New York Times accuses Jack Posobiec of pushing a falsehood.
But he cited the New York Times.
They then claim they did not report what they clearly did report.
The article Jack cited even says they typically communicated in English, in reference to Vindman.
Clear as effing day, journalism is dead.
Here's the first story.
The lie from the New York Times.
They say Jack Posobiec, a well-known figure on the far-right internet, tweeted the falsehood that Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump's foreign policy goals.
Mr. Posobiec cited the New York Times as a source.
In fact, the Times reported no such thing.
And here's them reporting such thing!
They say Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom had already testified he was in a unique position.
Because he emigrated from Ukraine, along with his family when he was a child, and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
Giuliani was essentially running a back channel for Trump to push certain foreign policy goals Trump had.
Posobiec was saying, this is them interfering in foreign policy.
The New York Times, playing a semantic game, then says, we never reported that.
So here's the ultimate problem.
The media will put out whatever they can to generate traffic when there's no story.
Let me give you a better example, a better way to understand what's happening in media.
With the rise of the internet, you no longer needed sections.
The newspaper, you had the metro, you had sports, entertainment.
Well, those individual sections now become their own websites.
Many companies were fracturing these out and making a site dedicated to this, dedicated to that, because most people weren't going to go to websites... Actually, let me give you an understanding of news.
On YouTube, for instance.
Channels that do really well do one thing.
If every day you make a video where you say, I don't know, use a hydraulic press to crush something, people know they're going to get the same thing every day, and they click the video every day.
But what if you do news?
If you do news, and somebody who likes Hydraulic Press subscribes, tomorrow, we do Flaming Hot Nickel Ball, another channel on YouTube, and they don't like that, so they don't click.
YouTube then deranks you, saying your content isn't attracting viewership.
So the news companies started separating out their content.
Ultimately, what ended up happening was, gaming is the perfect example.
If a video game comes out, you can write a review on it, right?
What do you write tomorrow?
Video games only come out every so often.
So, in order for these writers to keep making stories, they had to find controversies.
Anger generates the most traffic.
This gave rise to political gaming.
If I write about World of Warcraft...
I've written about the game.
I've talked about what's happening.
What else are you going to click on?
Sure, there may be some events coming up.
So there's little stories here and there like, stay tuned, you know, World of Warcraft announcing a new epic event for the new patch.
So you can write about that.
But what about the daily?
What about the five articles per day you have to write?
Journalists, I'll do air quotes, then started searching desperately for any angle to make more articles because they needed to generate traffic to make money.
Then they started getting political because there's always something political.
And that's when we fell down the rabbit hole as a society.
The New York Times wrote two stories, one in which they claimed a Ukrainian official was seeking advice and they were communicating with Vindman because they were concerned about Trump's goals.
They then wrote another story about right-wing conspiracies to make more.
The New York Times is mostly generating revenue through subscriptions, but they need content.
They need to get you hooked.
So the next story they write is now they're claiming conspiracies.
Conspiracies sourced from you, dude!
This is the craziest world we're living in.
So I don't know how much longer I can actually do this.
I'll admit, This morning, when I saw the story from Politico, I was thinking, like, man, maybe, you know what?
Look, I got suspended the other day on Facebook for reporting the news.
I'm supposed to be doing, you know, I have people at YouTube I talk to regularly.
I'm going to be having a conversation.
We'll see what happens.
But I was thinking to myself, this is it.
You know, I facetiously said journalism is dead for a long time, but I got to tell you, man, One Politico story from the other day.
They say that Giuliani believes Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the DNC to help boost the Democratic nominee's campaign and damage Trump's candidacy.
No evidence has emerged to support that idea.
But this story from two years ago literally says that Ukrainian officials were working directly with a DNC consultant to funnel negative information and went in-depth.
So yes, evidence exists.
The people you're complaining about, who you're calling conspiracy theorists, are citing you!
So what do we do?
Where do we go from here?
I don't know.
I'm trying to break down and understand why Donald Trump Jr.
is being booed, but I think at a certain point you just have to ignore the news.
It's just not real anymore.
It is broken down to a point where I'm absolutely shocked.
You know, I think it was Ron Johnson was talking on MSNBC and he said, look at what happened with the DNC and Ukraine and them trying to dig up dirt.
Katie Turner, the anchor, says that's Russian propaganda.
It's a conspiracy theory.
No, it's a Politico story.
You can't even trust mainstream news anymore.
Listen, man.
For the longest time, what I've been breaking down for you is that the media will say something incorrect and I'll fact-check it.
But what am I supposed to do when Politico says Politico is wrong?
When the news outlets say their own reporting doesn't exist or is factually incorrect?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Do I just never use Politico again?
I honestly don't know.
I can tell you one thing.
As I mentioned in my video earlier this morning, it's making Democrats go insane.
Here's the data.
Republicans don't trust news.
So when they see the two stories from Politico, they say, yeah, whatever.
I don't care, because you're fake news.
But the Democrats believe it.
What happens when your brain is trying to believe two stories from the same source that say 1 plus 1 is 2, 2 plus 2 is 7?
1 plus 1 is 2, 1 plus 1 is 1.
Which one do you believe?
You're like, but you're telling me both the same time.
Well, the Democrats tend to trust the news.
So naturally, their confirmation bias defaults to whichever story fits their worldview.
That's what the media is doing.
They're making money off this.
So I don't know where we go from here.
I really, really don't.
It's smart, though.
Think about it.
I mentioned before, if you write a fake story, people will click it, you'll get a million views, the next day you retract, no one cares, you made the money in ad revenue.
It's lucrative.
But now they got an even better play.
Write a story that says Trump did a backflip, write a story that said Trump did a front flip, and people will click whichever one, you know, whichever one is gonna play to their biases.
You know what that means?
If I was going to make a video saying, trust the media or don't trust the media, I don't know which one's going to get more clicks.
In fact, the video I did yesterday didn't do too well, relative.
It was the worst I've done in a lot, worst my videos ever done in a long time.
But I don't, I don't, I'm not concerned about that.
It was an important video and I talked about it.
Imagine if a news organization could say, if people, you know, let's say someone's favorite color is blue, someone else's favorite color is green.
How do we know which one's going to generate the most traffic?
Do them both!
And most people will click their bias.
And that's what we're seeing now.
The New York Times, in a short period of time, putting out two stories that contradict each other, because the average person's going to click whichever one fits their bias.
In one, they say, here's a man who's subverting our foreign policy by consulting a foreign government.
Here's one saying, that's a big conspiracy, don't believe the right wing.
And the left is going to click that one, and the right is going to click that one, and then neither is going to understand what's really happening.
But New York Times doesn't care, because they got your money anyway.
So in the end, what can I tell you about Trump Jr.
and his book?
That it's complicated.
That not everybody booing him is a real supporter.
That some people are concerned about whether or not there will be principle, you know, people are going to uphold their principles.
Is Donald Trump Jr.
just bending the knee because he's scared of bad press?
You know what, man?
Maybe.
And maybe it's time we stopped caring about what the media said.
I think that's where I'm at at this point.
Because I don't know what to tell you.
I really don't.
Maybe none of it's true.
Maybe Politico's right.
Maybe they're wrong.
Which Politico story are you going to pick?
Which one are you going to think is the right one?
You're going to pick your bias.
And then we're all worse off for it.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you there.
Not Republicans.
Democrats.
And I think I know why.
For one, there's a group of people that are more likely to be triggered or angry, and there's a lot of reasons why you might claim that that's the case.
Sure.
But I think it really comes down to trust in media.
Republicans don't trust media.
That means when they see fake news, they go, I don't believe it.
They see another story that contradicts the fake news and they go, I didn't believe it in the first place.
How many bombshell stories were retracted?
Now you have Democrats.
Who trust the news and they go, wow, I didn't know that was true.
And they read another story.
Wait, what?
But that's, is that true too?
How can they both be true at the same time?
And their heads explode.
Let's read this story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
But of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
The only way that I'm going to survive, especially with the mass censorship that's been hitting, is if you guys share the video.
The other day I did a segment talking about how Facebook suspended me because I was reporting on the whistleblower.
I kid you not.
They suspended me.
It's now been lifted.
But I don't know how much longer I'll last anyway.
Nor do I care.
I'll get in my van, go drive down by the river, go fishing for the rest of my life.
But let's learn about why Democrats are crazy.
Axios says more than 70% of Democrats say politics is making them increasingly angry about America, leaving them feeling like strangers in their own land, according to an Axios on HBO poll conducted by SurveyMonkey.
I'll tell you why I think that part is, right?
Democrats feel like strangers in their own land, Because the news they're being fed is shock rage bait and they trust it.
This is my opinion on what's happening, right?
So think about it.
You have an ever-increasing escalation of insane far-left identitarian content that makes you feel like you're living in this, you know...
I don't know, like Trump is a fascist and, you know, white supremacy and all these things are happening all around you.
And you're like, this is not the world I grew up in.
Republicans don't trust the media.
And Republicans are saying it's all fake anyway.
And so they look around and they say the world is as it's been.
That's fake, not real.
I know the world I live in.
And the result is more than 70% of Democrats feeling like they're not in their own, they're strangers.
Democrats say nearly everything they watch, read, or listen triggers their anger, even the soothing voices of NPR.
The big picture?
Americans as a whole are just plain mad and feeling like strangers in their own land, though a lower percentage of Republicans describe themselves as angry.
57% compared to 74% of Democrats.
Or feeling like a stranger.
57% compared to 74% of Democrats or feeling like a stranger 52% to 71% other
people are getting angrier too.
58% report their friends, family, and coworkers seem angrier than five years ago.
Full stop, man.
Seriously, think about it.
I read this and I was like, dude, everyone I know is angry.
Like friendships are being tried and tested.
Now for me, for one, I have very few friends because I'm just a weird person who sits behind a camera all day.
Well, the friends I do have, I'm being somewhat self-deprecating.
I have many friends.
I just don't really hang out with them that often because I'm a workaholic.
But my friends, relatively normal people.
We're only getting mad at each other.
We have very different opinions.
Like, my friend's trying to get me to vote for Bernie again.
Like, she's sending me all these messages about why it's right, and I'm like, dude, never gonna happen.
Like, come on, man.
I think he's crossed that line.
But anyway, we're still friends.
I'm not mad at her because she likes Bernie.
I respect that she likes Bernie.
I just think she's wrong.
You know what I mean?
But I started thinking about, you know, there are some people I know who aren't particularly good friends.
My neighbors, even.
Man, these conversations are getting...
Crazy!
You know, I was talking to someone recently, and they started getting angry when I was telling them, like, basic news facts.
And that's what I want to get into, because I think I know why the Democrats are going nuts.
It's really simple.
Democrats trust media, and the media contradicts itself, so their worldview is fractured by things that can't click together.
You can't simultaneously trust the media and then believe the same outlet publishing two different stories.
I kid you not.
I've got an example of Politico writing two stories that say both stories are wrong.
Well, I don't trust the press, right?
So I look at them and I just laugh.
I'm like, okay, dude, whatever.
Y'all are crazy.
Both stories must be fake.
I have no idea.
Or the first story might be real.
But let's read more.
Let's read more.
They say those who talk about politics the most are also the angriest.
83% of Americans who discuss politics several times a day report feeling angry at least once a day over something they heard or read in the news.
That falls to 56% among those who discuss it once a week, and 39% for those who discuss it about once a month.
Don't discuss it at all and you'll be happy!
The bottom line.
The Republican anger that animated the Trump rise and presidency gets most of the media attention.
Turns out, this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics.
A civil war has never been fought by the lazy or the majority.
What's happening is the people who vote are being pushed further and further away from each other.
Social media is drowning out centrist voices and the fringes of the left and the right are getting louder.
Now Republicans have absolutely no problem tearing down the fringes of the far right, conservatives.
But the left embraces it, and this means there's not gonna be... It's untenable, okay?
Me as a moderate, I can see my moderate friends just bowing out and saying, you know, there's very few of them, you know, for the most part, they're just like, I don't know, man, we're playing video games.
But I look to the far left, and I see them openly embracing Antifa, and then I'm just like, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna support you, because you're violent lunatics.
So here's the thing.
Let me now show you the best example possible as to why this happens.
I posted a Twitter thread this morning.
I know, I know, it's a Twitter thread, but it's the most succinct way to show you exactly what went down.
I tweeted, ha ha ha ha ha, okay, okay, I'm so done.
These people are insane.
Journalism is dead.
You guys can duke it out.
And that was to Politico, Natasha Bertrand, and Ken Vogel.
Natasha writes for Politico.
Ken wrote for Politico and is now at the New York Times.
Here's the story from Natasha.
According to Giuliani, Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to help boost the Democratic nominee's campaign and damage Trump's candidacy.
No evidence has emerged to support that idea.
Oh heavens, Politico!
No evidence has ever emerged to support this idea.
Well, Politico, I would like to show you Politico.
What?
I thought Politico just told me there was no evidence to support this idea.
Oh, but wait, you say.
officials are scrabbling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working
to boost Clinton.
What?
I thought Politico just told me there was no evidence to support this idea.
Oh, but wait, you say.
They were quietly working to boost Clinton.
Perhaps the distinction here is that Giuliani thinks they actually conspired with the Clinton
campaign.
Well, it says Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors, a Politico investigation found.
Now, you may be saying, no, no, Tim.
Clinton's allies does not mean the DNC or the campaign.
Okay, okay, okay.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the DNC met with top officials in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
How about a DNC consultant meeting at the Ukrainian embassy to dig up dirt on Trump?
Is that not DNC collusion?
Then you might say, no, Tim.
A consultant does not mean it came from the top down.
Okay, fine.
Nothing I say will convince you.
I get it.
But let me just end by saying this.
Natasha wrote, no evidence has emerged to support that idea, not prove it, if Giuliani really believes Clinton colluded with the DNC.
Okay.
You said support.
I tell you this.
The first story from Politico does support the idea.
Does it prove it?
No.
Does it support it beyond a reasonable doubt?
No.
But support does not mean prove definitively.
So I see how you worded this.
So that support can be, you know, nebulous.
Whoa, no, really, it's a little vague.
Also, the characterization of what Giuliani thinks.
According to Giuliani, is that a quote from Giuliani?
Did you ask him?
Did you call him and say, Giuliani, what do you think?
Or is Giuliani being hyperbolic and saying the DNC, referencing a paid consultant for the DNC, helping the Clinton campaign?
Or are you stretching what Giuliani's actually said to make it seem more extreme than he really is?
I'll tell you this.
Let me tie this to the first story.
What is a regular person supposed to believe?
When you see this news, imagine you're a Democrat, and this story pops up.
And you're like, Ukraine efforts to sabotage Trump?
Whoa, that's weird.
But it never goes anywhere.
Well, then a few years later, you read this.
How can you trust Politico?
So here's what I think happens.
You see, the people who realize what's happening, don't become Democrats.
Or they might walk away.
They might see this and say, they're lying to me.
Endlessly!
You can't trust the press.
So let me show you this poll.
More than 9 in 10 Republicans and Conservatives say their trust in the news media has decreased in the past 10 years.
Yes.
But I'll tell you this.
While it's been known for a long time Republicans are less likely to trust news media, many of them, and Democrats are more likely to trust news media, that might actually be what causes someone to be a Democrat or a Republican.
If you read the news and they say Trump is a bad man and you believe it, you'll probably identify as a Democrat.
If you read the news and they say Trump is a bad man and you're like, nah, the economy is good, I don't believe that, then you might then become a Republican.
The Reuters story I love citing said that if you watch Fox News, you think the economy is good.
If you watch MSNBC, you think the economy is bad.
But I tell you this, why are Democrats so angry?
Because most media outlets, the BBC, the New York Times, even Moody's Analytics, they're saying the economy is good.
So how can a Democrat function with a fractured worldview?
Many people who might have been Democrats, people like me, I don't function with a fractured worldview.
I look at the stories and say, wow, the media's fake.
And then my worldview is based on media lying to me.
So I don't trust them.
And then I look around me and I'm like, everything here makes sense.
Everything here doesn't.
The Democrats, or the people who can't see through that veil, Stay Democrats.
They end up voting for mainstream candidates.
They have Trump derangement syndrome.
And yes, let me break down the moderate difference, because I know I'm supporting Tulsi and Yang, but it's complicated.
I mean, they smear Tulsi as a Russian asset and all that stuff, and I think it's obvious she does not fall into that same camp.
But the people who just believe the news, it's like imagine living in two different realities at the same time.
One where Trump was the victim of a conspiracy and one where he wasn't and they're lying about it.
You can't.
So what the Democrat then has to do is choose which narrative must be correct.
Now the same is true.
For Republicans.
But here's the way I'll put it.
When a story comes out, Ken Vogel says he stands by... Oh, not Vogel.
One of the reporters who wrote this, because it's David Stern as well.
I think Stern maybe said this.
They stand by their report.
I did reach out for comment.
They didn't get back.
I know it's kind of silly because it's not like, you know, a couple hours is enough time to respond.
But They stand by their reporting.
This is a Politico report.
It's certified.
What am I supposed to do?
Who am I supposed to believe?
Well, what Natasha wrote has no evidence.
She just said no evidence exists.
I went and found evidence.
You were wrong.
Evidence exists.
Now, if you want to dispute your own story and you write, we are disputing a previous report from Politico, then I would be like, interesting.
But no, that's not what she did.
It seems like Natasha and... There's another writer on this, I don't know.
It seems like they didn't do any journalism.
It seems like they literally did no work to look into why this is.
Because I tell you this, there certainly is other evidence.
Ukrainian embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016.
Oh, but it's John Solomon.
Oh, you can't trust him.
Just, you know, the former head of investigative reporting for the Washington Post.
But now he's a conservative and a right-wing guy because he's saying things you don't want to hear.
John Solomon didn't start the story.
Ken Vogel did.
David Stern did.
John Solomon then corroborated it.
But you're gonna call John Solomon the conspiracy guy?
I'm sorry, Politico.
This all wraps back into this point I'm making.
I kind of feel like, look at it, moderates don't trust the news either.
And you know what this, look at this, it says the green is not changed and the purple is decreased.
So they're asking change in media trust.
I think it's actually fair.
I think if you were to break that percentage down into my view, I still do trust many media outlets to a certain extent.
I check them though.
Trust but verify.
And for the most part, my trust has gone down significantly.
Many, many outlets have lost my trust, okay?
Particularly Politico.
Because, like, I don't know what you guys are doing.
But I'm looking at this critically.
Republicans have bowed out.
Here's the point I'm trying to make.
Why are Democrats so angry?
These are the people who are trying to stay in a fractured world of politics and news.
They specifically outline how news makes them the angriest.
As I said, if you're somebody who's reading Politico and two stories pop up that contradict each other, Your brain will break.
If you're somebody who sees that and says, wow, the only conclusion I can come to is that Politico is BS because both stories can't be true.
Well, then you might find yourself saying, I don't trust the media.
And then you might start questioning whether or not the orange man is actually bad.
If you're somebody who says they're both true, you might find out that you're going to believe that the orange man is bad because you just trust every single story that comes out.
And if you're a moderate like me, you distrust a lot of what the media says about Trump, but you still trust some of it.
And there you go there.
It is true.
You know, it's look, there are stories about Trump.
Trump has done bad things.
Trump ordered a commando raid in Yemen, which killed an eight-year-old American girl.
I know I rag on Obama for it all the time, but I've said repeatedly, Trump's foreign
policy is too similar, and that's one of the biggest no-nos for me, plus his soldiers in
Saudi Arabia.
But for the most part, I end up falling more in line against the left, because the orange
man is not that bad, especially compared to Obama.
There's a lot of things Trump has done that I do not agree with, wanting to have Trump
derail the military staying at the golf resorts.
I'm not saying that's on Trump specifically, but come on, man, we've got to set hard lines
here.
I think, hey, yeah, in a year I'll vote for somebody else, and if Trump wins again, because the economy is good, then he'll be out in four.
It's that simple.
But the people who read the news all day are being driven insane, believing stories that can't possibly be true, that contradict each other.
Think about it this way.
Imagine reading this story, and only this story, that Giuliani believes insane conspiracy theories.
You're probably going to get really angry, you know, oh my god, Donald Trump, what's he doing?
And then imagine you're a moderate who read both, you're going to be like, they're lying.
If the Democrats are only being fed the fake news and not checking it, they're going to go insane.
And that's what's happening.
So let me say one more thing.
Rage bait generates traffic.
Making people angry generates traffic.
We know it's true.
The people who don't fact-check their sources, the people who are not online very often, or who just watched, say, Brian Stelter, who praised Facebook and YouTube taking down journalism, They're only getting a skewed view of the world because the intent of someone like Brian Stelter or Oliver Darcy is to make you angry, not to inform you.
And you know, I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but I have to say, Brian Stelter recently said to tune out Fox News.
Anybody who tells you to not listen to as much as possible is a dangerous liar.
Or they're trying to manipulate you.
Because I will tell you this, as I often do.
I'm not always right.
You absolutely should watch Brian Stelter.
You absolutely should read Oliver Darcy.
You should watch me.
You should watch Tucker Carlson, Steven Crowder, and David Pakman.
You should watch as much as you can.
I really do like telling people to... I like promoting David Pakman a lot, because I disagree with him on a lot of things.
But what they say about what the right says about him, the left says about me.
And I thought that's a perfect example.
So there was one instance where we both published videos about a week apart.
Where David said Trump's approval all-time low, mine said approval all-time high, and I argued why I thought my position made more sense.
And then I said, specifically, go watch David, though, because you might actually find I'm wrong about it.
It's just my opinion, right?
I'm looking at the data.
Here's what I think.
What do you think?
Do you agree with me or do you agree with David?
If you want to have a healthy worldview and really understand what's happening, you need to watch as much as possible.
Brian Stelter, however, says don't!
Don't watch them!
Tune them out!
Stop!
Nah, that's weird.
That's a dangerous manipulation.
And so now you have people, and the reason they do it is the point, is they want to get you angry, so you watch more, so you click more, so you become addicted to the anger.
They are purposefully driving people mad.
And the people on the left, the Democrats, who don't fact check, are becoming angrier and angrier because the rage bait is working on them.
Republicans less so because many Republicans reject the media.
And there it is.
So I don't know.
Check out this Twitter thread I wrote.
It's kind of funny.
We'll see if anything comes of it.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
And I will see you all then.
New terms of service for YouTube.
Spell the end.
Now, this is a complicated story.
A lot of people are freaking out because in the new terms of service going into effect December 10th, YouTube says that they can ban you if your channel is not commercially viable.
That's right.
If you're frequently demonetized, YouTube, they'll get rid of you.
Now, let me tell you exactly what's going on.
These changes are not going to have a massive impact.
There's also another change, something called, I think, a law called COPPA.
I don't know exactly, you know, too much about it, but the basic idea is you're gonna have to mark on your videos whether or not they could be for kids, and there's a lot of criteria of what makes something for kids, and if it is, you lose a ton of advertisements, meaning your revenue's gone.
Guess what?
Then your channel's not commercially viable anymore, and then you're out.
What's happening is YouTube is narrowing what is going to be allowed on the platform.
And what's happening is not political.
It's not, you know, even though there's many political channels getting demonetized.
Let me just tell you something.
You know Uber, the car service, operates at a huge loss?
YouTube also operates at a huge loss.
Most of these companies operate at a huge loss.
The reason they do it is they're trying to dominate the market and create a monopoly, and then once they control the space and no one can compete, they start making the company more profitable.
So YouTube for a long time was operating at a loss, allowing Google to own online digital video.
Name a competitor.
Sure, you got Vimeo.
Nah.
No one can really use it.
No one's gonna see your video, but it does what it does.
I mean, you can upload your video and you can share it.
You've got BitChute now, which is fantastic.
So, for the most part, there are other companies, but everybody knows YouTube's the big dog.
They're the biggest.
Here's what happens.
Now YouTube wants to start making money, and that means if you upload, like, Water Bottle Drinking Challenge or Bottle Flipping, and they don't sell ads on it, then YouTube is losing money by allowing you to host that video.
The original owners of YouTube couldn't sustain it because video hosting is ridiculously expensive.
Google subsidized it, dominated the market, got in early, and now that they have it?
All of you smaller YouTubers who make a small amount of money?
YouTube's gonna say, listen man, if you only make five bucks on a video, not commercially viable, gone.
Let's read the story, and I do wanna push back a little bit, cuz I gotta be real here.
YouTube has always, always reserved the right to ban you for literally any reason.
What I think is happening is YouTube is trying to do these changes very slowly.
The reason why they're announcing these changes now is so that everyone hears about it and then thinks it's normal in a year or two from now when someone gets a notice saying your commercial is no longer commercially viable, so we're banning you, people are going to be like, yeah, but we all knew that for two years it was going to happen.
If they just did it outright, people would panic.
And that would cause a huge uproar in the YouTube community.
It would be very disruptive to their platform.
They need the Logan Pauls.
They need the Casey Neistats.
And to an extent, me, the milquetoast fence-sitters in politics, to maintain commercially viable products that aren't too crazy and make money.
And I'll say this for myself.
They've deranked me.
They've put pressure on this channel, specifically my main channel, some road bumps.
But you know why they like my main channel?
Why I actually have people at Google who call me on the phone?
Because I do mainstream politics, I push back a bit on some of these stories, but I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter.
It's commercially safe.
That's what matters.
Hey, Tim Pool talks politics.
He doesn't swear, he doesn't condone hate speech, and his opinions aren't particularly strong.
He does push back on a lot of the media narratives, but it's not too controversial, no one really talks about him, and it makes us money.
But you look at other political commentators.
Steven Crowder, for instance.
Oh, wait.
He's been removed from the Partner Program.
His channel's no longer commercially viable.
Will they get rid of him?
I don't think so.
That's too big of a channel, but I will say that commercial viability could also be, you know, creating new users.
And I'd imagine someone like Crowder is going to bring in non-YouTubers onto YouTube, which will then make them money in other ways.
But it basically means, if you produce, I don't know, avant-garde art and strange content that gets relatively low views, and you're trying to build a brand, you're out.
What this really means is moving forward, only those who are already famous will be able to use YouTube.
Because think about it.
You start a new channel, and then what?
Nobody watches, your videos are expensive to host, and YouTube says, sorry, that's not commercially viable.
The you in YouTube is going bye-bye.
And it's been going away for a long time.
Let's read the story from The Verge.
YouTube is rolling out updated terms of service on December 10th, and a new line acts as a reminder that a company doesn't have to keep any video up if it doesn't want to.
YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve content.
It's another way of saying that just because YouTube is a relatively open platform, it doesn't mean that the company is required to keep videos up.
YouTube has faced criticism from all sides over its video removal process.
Some critics argue that YouTube could do more to take down videos that butt up against the company's rules but don't outright violate them.
Others argue that YouTube ought to be a fully open platform and shouldn't control what remains up and what doesn't.
Executives have long defended the platform as a champion of free speech, but have started to clamp down on the type of videos allowed to circulate.
So here's the story, but let's do this.
Check this out.
Here we have the terms of service as of July 22nd in Europe.
This is Great Britain.
And this says specifically, let me make sure I can, account suspension and termination.
They say YouTube may terminate your access or your Google account access to all or part of the service if YouTube reasonably believes that its provision to the service to you is no longer commercially viable.
Now, everybody's freaking out over this line.
Listen, it's been in effect in the UK, and there are many political creators who are not commercially viable, who have not been banned.
So I want to make sure it's clear.
Right now, you don't got a whole lot to worry about.
It's the new creators.
YouTube knows if they ban someone big, it'll create a big press storm, and it's bad for them.
But putting this in place now means they can start nipping the buds before they become PewDiePie.
You see, PewDiePie got really big, and for a while YouTube was loving it, up until the media started to use PewDiePie to attack them.
And PewDiePie made some mistakes.
So I believe, based on what I've seen, who I've talked to, YouTube does not want YouTube famous people.
When someone gets famous because of YouTube, the responsibility is then on YouTube.
And then people say, look at the platform and look what they've done.
What YouTube wants is already famous people like Jack Black and Will Smith to use the platform so that YouTube can say, hey, they're just famous people who use our hosting service.
They don't want the responsibility.
So the commercially viable line made everybody angry.
But here's why I showed you this specific terms of service.
It's from July 22nd, okay?
It's long since passed.
Have there been great problems in the UK?
For the most part, not really.
We then have this.
This is the current terms of service for YouTube.
The current terms of service straight up say, we can ban you for any reason.
So, here's the thing.
I think the reason they're going to be adding that line in has nothing to do with the ability of them to ban people.
I don't believe it'll have big changes to anybody who's already on the platform.
The intent is to seed the idea so that in the next wave of new creators in the future, they'll just tell you, like, hey, we appreciate that you applied for the partner program, but your channel is not commercially viable, and therefore we are not going to move forward with you at this time.
And they're going to say, aw, that's so sad.
Whereas five years ago, and later, you could literally start a channel, put up as much content as you wanted, and then start making money.
The other thing they're gonna do, here's another prediction I have.
Channels that upload long-form content with low viewership.
So if you do a podcast that's two hours long, and you're getting 100, 200 viewers, you're out.
That's really expensive to host.
Nobody's watching it.
They don't wanna pay for it.
There's also channels that do, like, ASMR, as well as, like, white noise channels that will play, like, thunderstorms, you know, on a rainy- like a rainy day outside, you know, on the beach or something.
And those videos will be, like, two hours long.
YouTube's gotta pay for that.
They gotta- and are they gonna make money on ads?
Probably not.
So YouTube is gonna start culling all of this stuff, but they're gonna do it very slowly.
And they're gonna start from the bottom.
So the bigger channels don't notice.
I'll tell you what, man.
I'd be willing to bet there's gonna be a ton of people, YouTube creators, who are doing really, really well, making a lot of money, and they're gonna keep their mouth shut.
YouTube's gonna say, hey, you know, they're not gonna say it explicitly, but basically, if you don't toe the line, your career is done.
Now here's what's scary.
YouTube roped everybody in.
They said, come, come, start a business.
Start a business with us.
Here are the rules.
And then what happened?
Now they're changing the rules retroactively.
You made a video last year, a prank video?
Banned.
But you say, wait, wait, wait, I would have taken the video down.
Too bad.
You're gone.
We don't care.
Machine learning.
You're out.
So, let me tell you, there's a story that I really like in terms of what, the easiest way to explain this.
For one, we all know that Facebook periodically changes how Facebook works.
Everybody always gets mad.
So Facebook learned to roll out changes very, very slowly and only to some people.
The famous story about this is eBay.
When eBay first started, the website was yellow, and apparently people didn't like it, or like, you know, new users had a problem with it, the company wanted to change it.
So one day they made it white, and everybody flipped out, saying, oh no, I hate it, I can't stand it, it's different, it's weird, I can't understand it.
So they changed it back due to the backlash, but then every day slowly incremented the color of yellow towards white, and nobody realized it because the changes were so subtle, that about a year later the site was totally white.
Nobody cared.
There was no backlash.
You do it slowly.
Fast changes make people angry.
I'm seeing a ton of people complain, saying, this is it, I'm gonna get banned, my channel's over.
No, no, no, no, no.
If you're already on YouTube, you're fine.
But there are some small channels, particularly news channels, that are not commercially viable.
There are a lot of channels that are not commercially viable for several reasons.
They could be, but YouTube doesn't want them.
And I will tell you this.
My channels are commercially viable because I'm a milquetoast defense hitter.
Steven Crowder, on the other hand, he's risky.
And that's where the real danger comes in.
I do not believe someone like Crowder will be banned.
I believe Steven will be fine, and he may even get back into the partner program.
You know, we'll see what happens.
Maybe he already is.
I don't know.
I don't keep track of what he's doing.
But let's say there's somebody who's younger.
Who has the exact same opinions as Crowder, and launches a channel in the exact same format, YouTube will stop them immediately.
Not right now, it's gonna be gradual and slow, but I tell you this, in five years, you will not see channels like mine.
You will not.
New creators who try doing this are going to get the purge.
YouTube knows if they ban me, people will panic and flee the platform because their businesses are being threatened.
So the strategy in my opinion right now is do not let the seeds grow.
The plants that are already growing, we can't trim them otherwise people will panic.
But those new buds that are popping up, we gotta cut them off.
YouTube is making sure everyone knows that.
YouTube wants to be Netflix.
I've known this for years because YouTube people told me this.
YouTube wants to be fun adventures, showing you beautiful landscapes.
They want to be a video platform.
They don't want it to be something where someone turns on the video and then clicks to a different tab and goes about their business while they listen.
That's an audio platform.
YouTube doesn't want to do that.
But guess what?
YouTube dominated everything.
The way YouTube works, the partner program, the way the system is, even podcasters would rather be on YouTube than these other websites.
And so then what ends up happening?
Well, YouTube has unintended consequences of their actions.
YouTube faces them.
You know, they didn't want to make PewDiePie.
PewDiePie was just the algorithm that worked.
There's that other van host woman who got, like, two million followers in a couple days or in a couple weeks because she just so happened to hit the algorithm precisely as, you know, as needed.
She was the right person at the right time.
YouTube doesn't have the intention of making celebrities.
They want to make money.
They want to prevent celebrities who can cause them damage.
This is step one.
So is it the end of YouTube?
Right.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Thanks for hanging out.
I hope you enjoyed it.
In a few years, I won't be here.
We'll see what happens.
But it's not going to be overnight.
They are going to slowly be changing this.
The shoreline is slowly pulling back.
But eventually, you'll leave.
You'll go to the beach, you'll see all the beautiful shoreline, everything you love, and it'll slowly be receding without you noticing.
And then one day, you know, decades from now, there'll be some little kid asking you why you hang out on the sandy dunes, and you're gonna be like, we've always hung out here.
We used to surf.
Man, we don't surf anymore.
The water's all gone.
Now it's just a big sand desert or something.
Sand desert, yeah.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you all- I'm sorry.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
I will see you all there.
Employees of Vice and BuzzFeed are worried their equity is worthless as digital media's fortunes fade.
But you know whose fortunes are not worthless?
The people at the top who sold out at the right time and made themselves very wealthy while convincing you to work for low wages because we were cool, we were the best, and we're gonna hook you up with some equity.
But guess what happens?
That equity is eventually worth nothing.
Once again, This is actually a story from a couple weeks ago, but there's more and more news about the troubling times faced by media.
And while I have no beef with Shane, you know, I've known him, I haven't talked to him in a while, maybe here and there on the internet.
But what we're seeing now, Vice employees, BuzzFeed employees, who were made promises about getting equity and getting shares and some other things, I don't know what is private or isn't, but basically, you know, you're gonna get rewarded if the company succeeds, and then the investment dries up, the company's evaluation goes down, and now what you were promised is worthless, and you invested so much of your life.
Some people, when it comes to shares, I'm not gonna name anybody specifically, Well, let's say you work for BuzzFeed.
And they offer you shares.
And if you leave, you lose those shares.
You have to invest at a certain point.
Or, you know, their stock rights.
Complicated, complicated.
There are circumstances where they tell you, we're going to give you this.
It'll be worth a million dollars.
But you can't leave for three years.
What happens then three years later, when the company is worth nothing?
Congratulations, you took a bet and you lost.
So, as we're seeing this downfall of digital media, this is the ramifications.
Let's read the story from Business Insider.
They say, Vice Media has had a reputation for paying low salaries, but co-founder Shane Smith reportedly used to go around telling people they'd get rich from their stock options someday.
Quote, A lot of people built up their equity on the promise of something happening, and it still hasn't happened.
It happened for Shane!
Dude's got a massive mansion in Santa Monica.
Said a former Vice employee, a lot of people there feel really stuck.
These employees aren't alone.
A number of fast-growing digital startups gave options or other equity compensation to employees to convince them to help build media companies of the future, and in some cases, leave established media outlets to do it.
According to interviews with seven current or former employees of these companies, there was a sense among early-stage employees that one day, their companies would have a big exit and their hard work would be rewarded with an amount big enough to finally pay off their student loans, maybe even make a housing payment.
Now employees of these startups are seeing their hopes of getting rich off shares fading.
We had a story about, it was exposé on Mike.com, woke social justice outrage.
They were manipulating social justice activists for rage clicks.
Once again, we can see another story about these young individuals with no experience being made all of these promises and ending up with nothing.
So you know what, man?
I feel for these people.
I got out.
I quit.
I said, I know what's up.
I'm not gonna play this game.
I'm gonna go do my own thing.
But I'll tell you what, man, you know, Everybody's gotta have responsibility for their own decisions.
And I understand that you were convinced and you believed in these companies.
Well, now, you know, maybe you should have started your own company.
Maybe you should have taken something more tangible.
Always take the cash, right?
Don't take the promotion, take the cash.
It depends, but let's read.
Digital media companies have been squeezed.
John Chan joined BuzzFeed in 2011, when the company was only around 30 people.
Wow.
Everybody was working on a mission, said Chan, who went on to co-found Native Lyft.
We were at the cusp of the social web blowing up.
There was just massive potential.
As a publisher, we were the internet darling.
Advertisers were knocking at the door.
There was an outspoken, shared feeling that this is something big we're a part of.
U.S.
VC funding in digital media nearly doubled from 2013 to 2014 to more than $206 million, according to PitchBook.
Some companies, including HuffPost, Bleacher Report, and Business Insider, sold for high prices, and lots of jobs were created, though many were also lost.
Fast forward to today.
Three of the most heavily funded digital media companies, BuzzFeed, Vice, and Vox, are still independent but have laid off staff and had to diversify to get ongoing profitability as their core digital advertising business has gotten squeezed.
Many employees told Business Insider they assume the stock options they got in these companies are largely worthless at this point, although it's hard to say what their actual value is.
And because the companies are private, it's difficult to trade in those options or convert them to cash.
This is amazing.
They tell these young people, these idealistic young people, you gotta write the story, you gotta make the rage bait.
But don't worry!
We're part of something big here.
We're gonna give you a piece of the company.
And then when they never go public, you can't sell it!
So what do you get?
You get stuck.
They've convinced these young people to keep working in the mines, churning out anger-inducing social justice content, while they make all the profits, buy big ol' mansions and disappear, and then everything comes crashing down.
Man!
I'm going to avoid saying certain things because I don't want to get sued.
I was going to say an insult.
Don't worry, I'm not withholding information I know about Vice or anything.
No, I was going to say something rather insulting, but I'll stop myself.
In general, people who are early hires could have done well if they exercised their options at a price well below the height of the company's valuation, often at a time of the last fundraising round.
But for more recent hires who are still holding their options at a much higher exercise price, it's unclear if their options will ever amount to much.
The general rule is, the earlier you get in, the better.
If you were employee number five, you may have a decent payday if you're a common shareholder, said Adam Augustiak-Boro.
A senior research analyst at EquitiesN, a secondary market, okay, yeah, okay.
He says common shares come in last to get paid, there at the bottom.
In general, the options these companies issue to employees are on common shares.
That means if these companies sell at a discount to the peak evaluation their investors gave them, any debt holders and investors with preference will be paid in line, will be first in line to get paid, and common shareholders are dead last.
And the more people choose to exercise their option, the less money there is to distribute among all of them.
To quote the Simpsons, it was my retirement, Greece, said an early BuzzFeed exec.
I'm still probably between a down payment and a kid's college education, but that's me.
And a lot of people don't even have that.
This is a BuzzFeed exec basically saying he's got what?
I am going to give my personal opinion about some digital media companies that will remain unnamed and in no way is in reference to any particular organization.
A full disclaimer.
What I'm about to say is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with any company and anybody who assumes otherwise is making an assumption and any reference to an existing company or potential.
It's a coincidence.
I'm just going to say, when you hear stories about companies that make you all these promises, bring in all this investment and then it deflates.
That sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
In reference to no one individual.
I'm just saying.
It's what it sounds like, right?
Not saying it is.
Because you will get sued for that kind of stuff.
Seriously.
There were other catches for a period.
At Vice, the price to convert options to shares was in the five figures for a period.
Making them cost prohibitive for many, the former exec there said.
That means they would have to spend a lot of money they didn't necessarily have to buy shares whose value will still be largely in question until the company exits or goes public.
On paper, it would amount to over $1 million after vesting four years.
So if you're getting paid $45,000 a year, you feel like you've made it.
But there was no way you could buy it.
Vice eventually offered to buy back options from people who were interested in unloading them, the person said.
To be sure, these employees made the choice to work at these companies.
It's also possible that some employees were uninformed about how to make the most from options and had unrealistic expectations, fed by their company's leaders or not, about their potential winnings.
These companies also stress that they pay competitive benefits and salaries.
Vice, for its part, has increased retirement benefits And set a goal of fixing pay disparity after settling a pay disparity lawsuit.
I will say, you know, the reference earlier, I think Vice actually, I think Shane really did try to make sure he was taking care of people.
I know it's not perfect.
There's a lot of people who are really mad at the company.
But I think of all the places I've worked, maybe people don't realize this, pay was low.
There was a mission.
But I do think, you know, there was no intention to like ruin someone's life and exploit them to an extreme degree.
Though, I must say, on a scale of 1 to 10, they're not a 10.
Vice is not notorious for being, you know, generous benefactors who are here to save the little guy.
No, no, I think for the most part, it's business.
But I do think Vice did a bit better than a lot of places I've worked at or seen.
Not for everybody.
There are a decent amount of people at Vice who are very unhappy.
But yeah, you know, I don't think Shane could help everybody.
Does anyone want to buy VICE stock today anyway?
Yes!
So here's what ends up happening.
All of those things you promised people at VICE is worthless.
Nobody's going to buy it.
They go on to say that VICE reportedly raised... Wait, what?
Wow, $1.4 billion?
That's how much they raised?
They say founded in 2006, BuzzFeed raised nearly $500 million.
400 million from Comcast at a 1.7 billion valuation to grow to 1,450 employees by the end of 2018.
BuzzFeed expects to be profitable for the second half of this year having laid off staff.
Now we're making money!
Vice, founded in 94, reportedly raised $1.4 billion in funding on the promise of speaking to young people disaffected by traditional media.
Then the company was the subject of a New York Times expose about Me Too problems.
It had raised $250 million in debt.
And Disney wrote down its Vice stake this year, effectively valuing its stake at virtually nothing.
Vice's evaluation is down to $4 billion after acquiring Refinery for $29, which is really bad.
They say Vox, founded in 2011 and raised more than $300 million, including $200 from Comcast, reportedly turned a small profit in 2018.
It acquired New York Media this fall with the hope of leveraging its media, entertainment, luxury, and beauty advertising and e-commerce business.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'll wrap it up.
BuzzFeed sells cookware at Walmart.
So they found a way to make money, I guess.
But here's the thing.
You know what, man?
Take what you can get now.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if someone offers you a lump sum versus, like, you know, paying you out over time, take the lump sum.
You can do something with it now.
I have people constantly telling me, like, what are you gonna invest in?
And I'm like, myself.
You know, when I make money, we grow, okay?
That's the mission.
I feel like, you know, all these people who are taking, like, look, I took nothing from Vice.
I did not take any stock or anything like that.
I don't want it!
What do you think?
You think I'm here to work on your ship for the rest of my life?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No.
I'm here to work on your ship, and then I have plans for building my own boat.
And that's what I did.
So, I think, there's a lot of people at Vice I really like.
I can talk about really offensive things and risk being banned, but you say one name, banned.
Now what do we learn?
Oh, once again, they're playing dirty games.
Google's secret project Nightingale gathers personal health data on millions of Americans.
Search Giant is amassing health records from Ascension facilities in 21 states.
Patients not yet informed.
Man, I love it.
You know what really bothers me?
I was hoping that when we made it to the Nightmare Dystopia, we'd at least have flying cars and hoverboards.
I was really hoping there could be, like, you know, like, wrist computers that could, like, project holograms?
Maybe?
You know, it'd be cool, like, maybe you could have, like, a bionic arm with a grappling hook, and there would be an adventure, maybe, like, a resistance fighting ba- Nah.
What'd we get?
We get whiny, Whiny YouTubers complaining about big companies while other people watch people on YouTube whine.
You know what the real vision of the Nightmare Dystopia is?
Some dumb glasses beanie-wearing idiot complaining about how all these companies are evil, but continually sitting in his room using said platforms to complain about these companies.
Man, that sounds like a dystopia to me.
I gotta admit, I honestly don't know what else to do.
I feel like telling you is helpful, right?
But let's be real.
I mean, I completely recognize, here I am, going like, oh, blast!
I mean, I've advocated for some kind of regulation on these companies.
But listen, you know, Google, Facebook, Amazon, they're so massive.
I don't know everything Google's doing.
This is why you need good journalism.
The Wall Street Journal is pretty good.
The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal are the only newspapers I actually subscribe to.
But here it is.
We know they're evil.
I mean, dude, listen.
Google is destroying the news industry, okay?
They absolutely are.
I understand a lot of journalists are angry, but it's creating this low class of vulture, withered, addicted people scraping at the ground for stories because Google search is dominating.
And there's a lot of problems that Google has created.
And YouTube has monopolized the space, they've taken all the money, and once they own it, They shut down news.
Like I said, I can't say a name.
But now this is scary, right?
Why are they taking your health records, man?
You don't take my health records.
You know what?
What I tell my doctor is my business.
And if you want to take my records, you get permission.
Nah, but we get it.
Google's evil!
So, you know, what else are you gonna do about it?
The Wall Street Journal says Google is teaming with one of the country's largest healthcare systems on a secret project to collect and crunch the detailed personal health information of millions of Americans across 21 states, according to people familiar with the matter and internal documents.
The initiative codenamed Project Nightingale appears to be the largest in a series of efforts by Silicon Valley giants to gain access to personal health data and establish a toehold in the massive healthcare industry.
Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are also aggressively pushing into healthcare, but they haven't yet struck deals of the scope.
Now let's stop.
There's some good news.
It's actually kind of a good thing.
Let's be rational.
If these big systems and artificial intelligence have your history, they might be able to find, you know, cancer well before you even realize it.
So there's stories about how AI discovered certain women were pregnant, you know, because they started looking at certain products and the AI put two and two together.
Or they started, like in Facebook's instance, Facebook knows when you go to the bathroom.
So what happens if they take all your healthcare data?
A human being might see chest discomfort.
It's a chest cold.
Take ibuprofen or whatever.
There's another record that says, like, you know, trouble breathing, or like, you know, bladder problems.
They might see those individually, and a lot of doctors can see signs and correlate, hey, these things line up with this potential disease.
A computer's gonna do it better.
A computer's gonna be like, we tracked the records of everyone who ever got leukemia, now we can predict leukemia the day those cells start forming, and we can get rid of it immediately.
How amazing would that be?
Imagine this.
You're minding your own business.
There's stories like this.
People, you know, all of a sudden one day feel sick.
They go to the hospital and they say, yep, it's cancer, I'm sorry.
We're too late.
If only we found it sooner.
Imagine this.
You're sitting in your room, you're playing video games, and all of a sudden your phone boops and it says, your behaviors and records indicate a high probability of leukemia.
And you're like, whoa, I feel fine.
You go to the doctor and they say, yep, there it is, wow, it's a good thing we caught it literally the day it started, you know, we can treat it now and you're good to go.
That's the good news about this.
The bad news about this is that, well, listen.
If we're being purists and assuming all of the benevolent corporations are here to help us, yeah, it's a good thing.
The bad, in my opinion, is where things start getting substantially worse.
People who you don't know are going to have access to your private information.
We know human beings will be behind the screen.
They'll be abusing it.
So I guess the question then comes, first, if you want to ask for my permission to take my data, I actually might be willing to share that with you because I don't really care.
You know, if I told people, like, I broke my hand when I was 16 or something, yeah, by all means, I wear glasses.
Some people think the glasses are new.
It's like, you realize I was wearing contact lenses before.
I just switched because I'm reading screens so often.
It's a blue light filter.
It's better.
It's right.
Anyway, the point is...
I wouldn't care.
It's an issue of privacy invasion and the erosion of our rights and massive corporations thinking they have a right to take from you without your permission.
We've already seen how Facebook abused data with Cambridge Analytica.
We know that behind the scenes at the NSA, people are spying on you.
People can weaponize this with access to it and have power over you and know things about you they shouldn't know.
The question that arises, should we allow them to do it?
In my opinion, no.
If Google wants to ask, They can ask.
And they should.
And you've got the data laws in the UK now.
And I think the potential for what AI could do in terms of healthcare is amazing.
I'm totally for it.
Everything I just described to you, it sounds really, really awesome, right?
You're probably thinking, Tim, why is this bad?
How is that evil?
They're going to save lives.
It's authoritarianism.
We have to make sure we never erode down the path of allowing individuals behind the scenes control things about us, lest they use that power in ways that are bad for us.
And then all of a sudden someone delivers them to your workplace, you open it up and...
That's a crazy scenario, right?
That's not likely going to happen.
What's really going to happen is someone's going to laugh at you.
They're going to see, you know, images or x-rays or who knows what kind of data they're taking and they're going to laugh about it and they're going to share it with their friends and that's not their right and they shouldn't be able to do it.
There's also the potential that the government and bad actors and corporations want to stop you from doing something they don't like.
This is another big problem with mass data collection.
Let's say... I know it may also be a little bit of a stretch, but let's say you're doing something that government doesn't like, but it's totally legal.
Okay, there are bad actors in government.
Let's be real.
They get arrested all the time for corruption, like the governors in Illinois.
Do you want those people to be able to go to a private corporation and get records?
What if, then?
Like, look at what happened with the DNA stuff.
People were submitting their DNA for a fun little hokey, like, oh, I'm gonna get my DNA, and turns out law enforcement started tracking it.
Never consented to this.
So I think we're headed for... We're in the nightmare dystopia, okay?
We're in it.
This is it.
It's boring.
I'm kind of upset.
At least if we were going to be in a dystopia, at least I could get like a bionic grappling hook, you know, and like swing around and have like robotic legs and like there's fighting and stuff.
Nah.
Nah, it turns out we're all just sitting at our houses eating pizza and these crazy companies are stealing our data and using it in ways we don't know about.
They say Google launched the effort last year with St.
Louis-based Ascension, the country's second largest health system.
And how do they have the rights to this?
Look at this.
The data involved lab results, doctor diagnosis, and hospitalization records, among other categories, and amounts to a complete health history, including patient names and date of birth.
Neither patients nor doctors have been notified.
They're stealing our information.
At least 150 Google employees already have access to much of the data on tens of millions of patients, according to a person familiar with the matter and documents.
Look at what happened with Cambridge Analytica.
That was a huge scandal, where they had access to data they shouldn't have had, and it was used to create voter profiles, and a lot of people are angry about it.
Now, I think the Trump supporters are probably, like, turning the other way, like, eh, you know, he got Trump elected, it helped him out.
But certainly the left is angry.
Perhaps it's an issue where we can say, hey, Google is evil!
They shouldn't be stealing our health records.
Some Ascension employees have raised questions about the way the data is being collected and shared.
According to documents, but privacy experts said it appeared to be permissible under federal law.
That law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, generally allows hospitals to share data with business partners without telling patients, as long as the information is used only to help the covered entity carry out its health care functions.
Wow!
What about doctor-patient confidentiality?
Gone!
Dude, there's reasons for this.
I don't want strangers to know.
I mean, actually, personally, I don't care.
You know, ask me, I'll tell you.
I'd barely go to the doctor.
I broke my hand once.
Um, I had a kidney stone, uh, five years ago.
Is it five years?
Yeah, about five years ago.
Yeah, whatever.
You know, I don't think it's a big deal.
But hey, man.
Some people have very private matters they don't want to talk about.
Some people would be very self-conscious about telling strangers about them.
Well, now you're part of a massive database.
Google in this case is using the data to design new software underpinned by advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning that zeroes in on individual patients to suggest changes to their care.
Staffers across Alphabet Inc., Google's parent, have access to the patient information documents show.
Okay, okay, listen.
I actually like the idea.
I wish they were doing it in a more libertarian fashion.
Which means getting permission, telling people, or like explicitly saying to them, I'm sick of these things where it's like, sign here if you agree, and there's buried things in it.
No, Google should go to the individuals and say, hey, with your data, we might be able to help you and predict illnesses in advance.
I'd be like, dude, do it to it.
Appreciate you coming and getting my permission.
This is corporate, is corporate, is, is, is.
Corporations continuing to harvest our data with no regard to what we believe we should have access to, what we believe should be private.
And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of people, some religious people for instance, who are going to be shocked and angered by this.
You know, we have a right to our lives and our privacy and it's eroding every day.
But yeah, we get it.
Google's evil.
A Google spokesman said the project is fully compliant with federal law.
I don't care about law.
I care about ethics and morality.
And I think you taking data, my data or anyone else's without permission, is wrong.
Because people have a right to choose, right?
My data, my choice.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
And I will see you all shortly.
Moderates and conservatives are facing asymmetrical warfare in the media industry.
How many activist organizations have targeted Rachel Maddow to get her shut down after her insane Russiagate conspiracy nonsense?
None?
How many activists targeted Tucker Carlson and got ads pulled from his show?
Many.
And they keep doing it.
And it's going to keep happening.
Asymmetrical warfare.
Project Veritas smeared, slammed, and lied about relentlessly.
Okay?
They make up a story.
And James had to sue.
And he's got the wall of retractions.
It's a very funny thing he does.
Why are they smearing and slamming Veritas so much?
Because there is asymmetrical warfare going on.
At the same time, you have ProPublica, a 501c3 that writes anti-Trump pieces.
Why?
Where is anybody calling them fringe, conspiracy, dishonest, or whatever?
It doesn't exist.
Let's be real.
The media is absolutely biased in favor of the left.
And I'll tell you this.
It's no one's fault but the right.
You know, in Virginia, all the Democrats, like, won the state?
Yeah, Republicans weren't even running.
These Democrats were running unopposed.
And then everyone's shocked the Democrats went, yeah, well, maybe you need to get up and go do something.
But I'll tell you what, man, the inherent flaw of the right in this country is individualism.
Shocking, isn't it?
Because I'm a pretty individualist.
Thing is, I was in front of Trump Tower once, and I saw a Trump supporter while there was a protest going on, and I said, will you protest?
And he's like, no, no, no, no, not me, not me.
And that's it.
Collectivists are gonna form collectives, and in the media, they're predominantly left, and there is no powerful right-wing media machine on par with what the left has.
There is right-wing media.
Fox News is the biggest channel, but come on, we know all of these other channels are dominated by left-wing voices.
That brings me now to the story.
Judd LeGum.
I believe I'm pronouncing his name correctly.
Maybe I'm not.
LeGum?
Facebook's top news executive is Campbell Brown.
She's in charge of Facebook's new Facebook News tab.
Brown also co-founded her own media outlet, The 74, where she maintains an active role.
In recent weeks, she's been savaging, Elizabeth Warren.
It's the outlet has.
Brown's media outlet, The 74, has recently described as the second coming of Karl Marx, a millionaire who raves about socialism and another tired politician.
According to The 74, Warren is not a straight shooter and lacks a moral center.
I actually agree with all of that.
Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton, and she put on a Bernie Sanders mask to convince the progressives on the far left that she's on their side, but come on, she's an establishment player all the way.
Now, why does it matter?
Why does it matter that a Facebook top news exec is on the board of this media company?
I certainly don't care.
But the journalists are freaking out.
2,000 retweets.
Harumph, I say!
Facebook is protecting conservatives.
Dude, Facebook is barely working with conservatives.
You found one person and you're outraged.
How many people can I point to?
Here's what they do.
They say mainstream media is no liberal bias.
There is.
But because they are the dominant voice, they just keep saying it, and everyone just believes that they're the dominant voice.
He says, The 74 was founded with support from Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
After DeVos' nomination, Brown praised her as a born decision-maker, a thick-skinned and impervious to hostile criticism.
The 74 has been effusive about DeVos' tenure.
Wouldn't Facebook object to this dual role for Brown?
Quite the opposite.
Zuckerberg donated $600,000 this year.
You see, you read too fast.
I'm sorry, Zuckerberg donated $600,000 this year.
You see, you read too fast.
Facebook will have a massive influence on the 2020 election.
You can stay informed by signing up for my newsletter.
Yeah, Facebook will.
And one way they'll do it is by suspending me because I said a name.
You want to play games?
How about that?
How about the people who want to call out this individual and expose potential malfeasance being told they can't do it?
In regards to myself, I'm not even playing the same game as the conservatives, okay?
When the conservatives say, this person is, you know, worked for Biden and all that stuff, I hear that.
It's true.
But my main issue is, you cannot shut down public debate.
You want to argue about some woman who started a company?
Please, dude, conservatives exist everywhere.
This is ridiculous.
I don't see you going to complain about ProPublica using 501c3 status but writing overtly political stories, which have a huge impact on the election.
I thought they weren't supposed to do that.
I don't know.
Look, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe ProPublica is 501c4.
I have no idea.
Let's read.
Brown maintained an active role at the 74, accepting her position with Facebook.
According to documents filed with the IRS, Brown spent five hours per week, the equivalence of 1.5 months of full-time work, on the 74 in 2017.
Five hours a week?
Come on, chill, dude.
I'm freaking out.
2017 is the most recent year IRS docs are available.
Facebook did not accuse about her current role but made no effort, did not answer questions about her current role, but made no effort to downplay her involvement.
Brown reported spending the same amount of time on the 74 in 2016 when she was editor-in-chief.
So you mean she has a minor consulting role and she pops in from time to time?
Brown has defended the inclusion of Breitbart, the noxious right-wing site known for laundering white nationalism and publishing a slew of inaccurate information as a trusted source in Facebook News.
Yeah, so does NewsGuard.
See, here's the problem.
When you actually look at real journalism, they're going to be a bit more balanced.
They're going to say, look, I understand, I probably disagree with these outlets, we're going to use them anyway.
I read Vox, I read BuzzFeed, I read the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, and I say, look, they're probably going to disagree, but I try to make sure I read everything.
And I will tell you to do the same.
Read as much as possible from left, right, center, up, down, whatever.
But it's funny how they're furious!
Breitbart!
Why is Breitbart being allowed?
Why is the Daily Beast being allowed?
The Daily Beast pumps out fake news.
I've gone through several stories that they've overtly made up.
The Washington Post has made up stories.
They misframe things.
You want to play games?
We'll play games.
Let's be real.
Just because you don't think they're right doesn't mean they're not right.
I mean, now you got Politico claiming Politico is wrong.
I don't even know what's going on half the time.
Because news outlets contradict themselves.
He then goes on to link this story about Republican political operatives who call the shots at Facebook.
Seriously, dude?
You realize that there are people at these companies of all political backgrounds, and they're predominantly left-wing?
And conservatives at Google and Facebook have been raising a stink about this.
Well, Ms.
Ms. Brown, she came out and said, the 74 is not part of Facebook News,
and the FB News team does not and has not supported the 74 in any way.
I still care deeply about the issues the 74 covers, so I remain on the board of directors
with no editorial role, and make personal donations to non-profit.
He says, Campbell Brown dismisses the pieces savaging Warren because they are opinion pieces.
Oh, this is correct.
And the 74 exclusively features opinion that are highly critical of Warren.
That's a choice.
So is CNN's.
Should CNN be removed from Facebook now?
CNN savages Donald Trump.
That shouldn't be allowed.
News organizations can't publish opinion pieces that are angry with politicians.
Okay, we'll start with yours, dude.
You're literally doing what you're complaining about.
This is what I'm sick of.
The hypocrisy.
See, I'm not here for the left, the right, whatever.
I'm here for facts.
And guess what?
There are many stories the right has covered, I've checked, and have been correct.
The left, completely ignored.
How about ABC News?
Where's CNN at?
Did CNN talk about the Epstein story on ABC News?
Nope!
Guess who picked it up?
Right-wing media.
This is predictable.
There are so many stories where you'll Google it and you'll get nothing but like the DC Examiner, the Daily Caller, the Daily Wire.
The only people reporting on these things will come from the right.
And I'm thinking to myself, why aren't they reporting on it?
Because you know what?
Conservatives do report on the same things as the left.
This brings me back to a bigger point.
That has changed a bit.
But when I was doing that interview with Jack Dorsey on the Rogan podcast, they mentioned that left-wing journalists only follow left-wing journalists, conservative journalists follow both.
And there it is.
This guy is shocked because outside his bubble, people believe different things than him.
And he's furious that they would run opinion pieces negative about Elizabeth Warren.
Okay, dude, I invite you to go to CNN.com right now and go to opinion and just see, eh, I'll let your orange man bad.
What about Brian Seltzer's show?
It's always the same thing.
He wants to complain that Trump's rhetoric towards the press is wrong.
We can't allow this.
But it's certainly responsible of gigantic, unaccountable tech companies to censor information that has a huge political effect.
Man, these people, I tell you what, it's hypocrisy at its finest.
But in the end, it's only the fault of the Republicans and the right.
Oh, I know.
And they'll be mad and they'll say, what do you mean?
It's not our fault?
It was pointed out by, I can't remember who, but it was a conservative who pointed out, conservatives do commentary and liberals do journalism and commentary.
And there's your big problem.
There are outlets that are conservative that do source news, but a lot of them are like small blogs.
I mean, there are good ones for sure.
You know, you've got like The Examiner, you've got, you've got, what's another good example?
Well, I can name the examiner for now.
Not perfect, okay?
Because the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are very much commentary.
Here's what happens.
The left will produce a story, and the right will take the story and then comment on it.
It's to an extent similar to what I'm doing as well, though I'm a bit moderate.
I recognize that.
However, I am funding journalism.
I am working to grow and expand journalism.
I think you've got to realize that a lot of these commentators and a lot of these right-wing sources are just taking the news on the left and then riffing on it.
And here's the problem with that.
You're playing in their narrative.
So there, look, there are a ton of right-wing outlets.
You know, Fox, the Wall Street Journal's opinion section is a bit more to the right.
They exist.
And when they set a story, they control the narrative.
Vox would have you believe that Fox, it's a V-O-X, would have you believe that Fox News controls the narrative.
That's not true, man.
They comment on other stories.
So it's like, it's like the question of when did you stop beating your wife?
What ends up happening is the left will write a story saying, we asked when, you know, Mr. Smith stopped beating his wife.
And then the right will make a video talking about Mr. Smith beating his wife and arguing against it, saying, no, listen, because the narrative was set by the establishment.
You see the game?
Anyway, the point of this video is, I gotta wrap things up because I got a phone call right now, but they're so angry that Facebook is actually trying to make sure they're doing something that's of balance.
They're furious about it.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised because they live in a bubble.
Perhaps they could get out of that bubble and realize that while the 74 may rag on Elizabeth Warren, you can open up any one of these other sites and see them ragging on literally every Republican.
So are we going to play that game?
Or are you going to accept that other people have different opinions?
