Speaker 1: So you got a little Don Lemon update for you here.
Speaker 1: You all remember that there has been massive fallout at
Speaker 1: the network over his comments questioning when women are in
Speaker 1: their quote prime and telling people to google it. These
Speaker 1: are the facts something like that, as his female co
Speaker 1: hosts were like looking on in horror, and Bobby Harlow
Speaker 1: was like, maybe you want to clarify what exactly you
Speaker 1: mean by that. Anyway, he was forced to apologize. Chris,
Speaker 1: like the head of the network addressed it. Don Lemon
Speaker 1: then was off of the morning show on both Friday
Speaker 1: and Monday, and I presume Tuesday when we are recording this,
Speaker 1: we do have an update. Yesterday the work had come
Speaker 1: out that they were actually considering his future at the network,
Speaker 1: like his job was actually on the line. Now we're
Speaker 1: hearing he's going to return to CNN on Wednesday. Let
Speaker 1: me read you this from the New York Times. He'll
Speaker 1: return to his regular morning show role on Wednesday. They
Speaker 1: announced a late Monday night I'm sure to the chagrin
Speaker 1: of his female co hosts. In a terse seventy five
Speaker 1: word memo sent at seven pmc and as chairman Chris
Speaker 1: Lickz said, mister Lemon has quote agreed to participate informal
Speaker 1: training over his on air behavior and that the network
Speaker 1: took this situation very seriously. Quote I sat down with
Speaker 1: Don and had a frank and meaningful conversation, adding, it
Speaker 1: is important to me that CNN balance's accountability with fostering
Speaker 1: a culture in which people can own, learn and grow
Speaker 1: from their mistakes. His decision to address the matter in
Speaker 1: a memo and the waiting hours of holiday week and
Speaker 1: reflected just how large a shadow the episode had cast
Speaker 1: over the network. So I guess Don Lemon is sort
Speaker 1: of humiliatingly publicly being forced in some sort of sensitivity training.
Speaker 1: Is that the idea here couldn't have happened to a
Speaker 1: better guy, first of all, and secondly, reading between the
Speaker 1: lines of that, it sounds from my perspective like they
Speaker 1: couldn't get him out of his contract. Those contract negotiations
Speaker 1: are really difficult, especially when you have somebody as high
Speaker 1: profile and wealthy and powerful as Don Lemon, even against
Speaker 1: something an entity as powerful as CNN, it can be
Speaker 1: really difficult. I would assume, and we talked about this yesterday, Crystal,
Speaker 1: that this was almost an opportunity, an exciting opportunity, for
Speaker 1: Chris lickt to purge Lemon from the ranks of CNN,
Speaker 1: where he's sowing a lot of descent. You can see
Speaker 1: that in the tabloid leaks. He doesn't get along with
Speaker 1: his co hosts. His show is rated really poorly, and
Speaker 1: that's not just because of his co hosts. Obviously he
Speaker 1: plays a role in that. And he's totally out of
Speaker 1: step with the Licked brand. He's very much a holdover
Speaker 1: from the Zucker era of CNN that Licked is just desperately,
Speaker 1: furiously trying to scrub from CNN's new brand. So, especially
Speaker 1: when you cross a line on sort of like a
Speaker 1: sexual human resources question, you'd think that they would be
Speaker 1: able to get him out of his contract. Maybe they
Speaker 1: want to keep Don Lemon. Is there a good argument
Speaker 1: for them keeping Don Lemon from a business perspective, Not
Speaker 1: one I can see. I mean, I think he's very
Speaker 1: expensive and the show that he's on isn't doing well,
Speaker 1: So I mean, bottom line is the bottom line here?
Speaker 1: I thought this is interesting. The New York Times notes
Speaker 1: that the new morning show format was designed to be
Speaker 1: a quote mass appeal play New York Times I'm quoting from,
Speaker 1: but in its first few months on the air, it
Speaker 1: has been anything but its ratings have not kept up
Speaker 1: with competitors on MSNBC and Fox News. Tensions have bubbled
Speaker 1: up between the co anchors, and the executive producer has
Speaker 1: already been replaced. Chrys licked it comes from a morning
Speaker 1: show background. The whole idea was, Okay, this is him
Speaker 1: really putting his imprint on the network, and they've ended
Speaker 1: up by moving you know, deck chairs around here, they've
Speaker 1: ended up actually making the product much worse. And while
Speaker 1: I personally enjoy the like tense, uncomfortable moments that periodically
Speaker 1: get clipped out of the show that we see on
Speaker 1: Twitter of them like, you know, clearly despising each other,
Speaker 1: that's not comfortable for people to watch as like an
Speaker 1: actual morning show viewer. And then with regards to these comments,
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, your audience is exactly the women that
Speaker 1: you are offending. Such a good point. So that's why
Speaker 1: ultimately this was such a big problem, is not because
Speaker 1: you know, they really care about like, oh, this was
Speaker 1: a writer whatever. He just pissed off their entire audience
Speaker 1: basically with these remarks. So they had to do something
Speaker 1: to show that they took this seriously and they're like
Speaker 1: responding to it. But you know, we'll see how it
Speaker 1: all works out, because it's very hard if you have
Speaker 1: personalities that don't gell. There's no sensitivity training or whatever
Speaker 1: that you can force people to go through that's going
Speaker 1: to fix that. You've got personalities that you know that
Speaker 1: aren't working well together. It's not a good morning show vibe.
Speaker 1: The show doesn't know what it is, whether it's supposed
Speaker 1: to be just like a news show or whether they're
Speaker 1: trying to do some Today's show thing or whatever. It's
Speaker 1: very confused, and ultimately that's why it's not working. It's
Speaker 1: why I have to drink to get through shows with Ryan. Listen, girl,
Speaker 1: do what you gotta do. I support it, but no,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a really good point and Don Lemon
Speaker 1: is just so far from what CNN is trying to do.
Speaker 1: We were talking yesterday, like there's a time when Don
Speaker 1: Lemon was entertaining like just from a purely like the
Speaker 1: respective of theater, the theater of news broadcast. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he could do that, but he is just this what
Speaker 1: happened to Megan Kelly. By the way, NBC wanted to
Speaker 1: get rid of Megan Kelly. They used the fig leaf
Speaker 1: excuse of a PC infraction basically to get it out
Speaker 1: of the contract. So that's kind of what I expected
Speaker 1: to happen with Don Lemon. But it looks like he's
Speaker 1: safer now. He might be more interesting if he just
Speaker 1: was like unleashed. Yes, you know, more of this, don't
Speaker 1: make a bout of sense. Intimity training, get unplugged. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's just go and go for it. You let Don,
Speaker 1: I'm here for it. I'd watched the show. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: would be It would at least be more interesting, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at this Washington Post headline and
Speaker 1: of course the story that goes with it. The headline
Speaker 1: is perfect in and of itself. A I is starting
Speaker 1: to pick who gets laid off. This article is talking
Speaker 1: particularly about Google, the master of the algorithm. Imagine that
Speaker 1: their algorithm is now getting turned on employees, or their
Speaker 1: mastery of algorithms is getting turned on employees. So the
Speaker 1: Washington Post reports, days after mass layoffs trimmed twelve thousand
Speaker 1: jobs at Google twelve thousand, hundreds of former employees flocked
Speaker 1: to an online chat room to commiserate about the seemingly
Speaker 1: erratic way that they had suddenly been made redundant. All right,
Speaker 1: So there's a theory that quote, a mindless algorithm, carefully
Speaker 1: designed not to violate any laws, chose who was staying
Speaker 1: and chose who was leaving. Whether or not this actually
Speaker 1: happened at Google this time around, it is going to happen,
Speaker 1: and it's going to happen in more places than just Google. Amazon. Obviously,
Speaker 1: as we've reported here many times, uses really detailed tracking
Speaker 1: and looks at these things through algorithmic means and warehouses
Speaker 1: and elsewhere. We are beginning to turn people into quantities
Speaker 1: in ways that have happened sure in the past, but
Speaker 1: not like this. We are commodifying human beings as workers
Speaker 1: in ways that marks may have envisioned but maybe not
Speaker 1: would have predicted would have happened as quickly as it has.
Speaker 1: And as just Jericronian in the Dacronian lengths that it's
Speaker 1: happened so quickly. Yeah, Well, they report here at January
Speaker 1: survey of three hundred human resource leaders at US companies
Speaker 1: reveal that ninety eight percent of them say that software
Speaker 1: and algorithms are going to help them make layoff decisions
Speaker 1: this year. So I mean this is already basically an
Speaker 1: industry wide or economy wide practice. And to your point, Emily,
Speaker 1: there was already this level of dehumanization that was common
Speaker 1: for blue collar workers like the warehouse workers at Amazon,
Speaker 1: who have all of their steps in their movements tracked,
Speaker 1: and yes they get fired by a notification on an
Speaker 1: app like auto notification on an app. And service workers
Speaker 1: also treated with that level of dehumanization. Well that's now spreading.
Speaker 1: It's not just service workers and blue collar workers, it's
Speaker 1: now white collar tech workers as well, who receive this
Speaker 1: type of really distant robotic treatment where they are just
Speaker 1: another number or another quantity, another line on a balance sheet. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think this is it's not the future,
Speaker 1: it's already basically here, and it really reveals just the
Speaker 1: way that our economy is not set up to serve
Speaker 1: human beings. Ultimately, I think is kind of the bottom
Speaker 1: line here. Our economy and our tech sector are just
Speaker 1: they're advancing on a rapid clip. Advancing is not even
Speaker 1: the right word. That's actually a word that's like euphemistic
Speaker 1: and papers over what's happening, which is not an advancement.
Speaker 1: There is no forward progress. It may be new technology
Speaker 1: but it's taking us backwards. And that's why it's important
Speaker 1: for politicians, especially ascendant politicians who want to, you know,
Speaker 1: make a popular splash, to look at laws that are
Speaker 1: already on the books that came out of an era
Speaker 1: of the Industrial Revolution when people were being commodified in
Speaker 1: new ways. We have laws, for instance, that should make
Speaker 1: certain surveillance capitalistic technologies regulated in the workplace. At Davos
Speaker 1: this year, there was a lecture about brain wave monitoring
Speaker 1: that employers will be able to use to tell when
Speaker 1: somebody is focused or not. And that's just the tip
Speaker 1: of the iceberg. So imagine you're feeding that data into
Speaker 1: an algorithm. I mean, just imagine maybe somebody is grieving
Speaker 1: and they're not focused, and that data is getting fed
Speaker 1: into an algorithm that determines who stays and who goes
Speaker 1: in a way that in the past a boss may
Speaker 1: have had a conversation and realize, hey, this person is
Speaker 1: going through something tough. I'm not going to do that
Speaker 1: right now because they live in my community and they
Speaker 1: go to church with me, or they're in my bowling
Speaker 1: league or whatever it is. We are so far removed
Speaker 1: from that. When you have computers on a global scale,
Speaker 1: making decisions about people they only know as numbers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's happening very fast. Well, and that's part of
Speaker 1: the problem with how big everything is. I mean, in
Speaker 1: the scenario you're envisioning where it's like, oh, I know
Speaker 1: this person, they're in my community, were a lot more
Speaker 1: businesses that were located in the local communities where it
Speaker 1: was like you actually cared what happened there, and these
Speaker 1: were your friends and your neighbors, and so you know,
Speaker 1: you couldn't go and just like destroy people's lives heartlessly
Speaker 1: because you knew these people and they were connected to you,
Speaker 1: and you actually cared about what happened there. But the
Speaker 1: more that industries become these giant conglomerates and giant monopolies,
Speaker 1: the more distant they are from the actual human beings
Speaker 1: who are doing the labor that are creating all the profits,
Speaker 1: by the way, for the executives and the shareholder class.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's troubling to think about because it's so impersonal,
Speaker 1: it's so cold, it's so lacking any sort I think
Speaker 1: there's also something here about exposing the lie of the
Speaker 1: idea of like the meritocracy that if you do the
Speaker 1: right thing, and you work hard, because this is just
Speaker 1: going through very cold, cold bloodedly and like analyzing whether
Speaker 1: you're redundant, and it doesn't really matter whether you're a
Speaker 1: good worker or smart work or a hard worker, a
Speaker 1: nice worker, a good team player or whatever. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: so it also kind of cuts to the core of
Speaker 1: our ideas about ourselves and the way that our society
Speaker 1: should function. But does it heighten the contradictions as people
Speaker 1: realize that they're being turned into numbers. There's a question
Speaker 1: to be asked there. I mean, the numbers we all
Speaker 1: know that don't tell the full story. Maybe somebody is
Speaker 1: a really good leader in the warehouse. Maybe somebody is
Speaker 1: a really good leader, you know, in their work team,
Speaker 1: whatever it is, maybe even at Mackenzie and they're a
Speaker 1: really good leader. They are good for the working environment,
Speaker 1: they bring up morale, whatever it does. The algorithm is
Speaker 1: not picking up on that. No matter how high tech
Speaker 1: we get, the algorithm is not picking up on that.
Speaker 1: It's human human interaction. That's what makes people's lives meaningful, purposeful, fulfilling.
Speaker 1: And the more the further we stray from that, and
Speaker 1: we're just doing it so fast it's kind of terrifying.
Speaker 1: To think of where this goes in one year, let
Speaker 1: alone ten. Yeah, very dystopian stuff. Horrifying revelation from federal authorities.
Speaker 1: They found more than one hundred kids that we're working
Speaker 1: in slaughterhouses, cleaning slaughterhouses, was in plants across the country.
Speaker 1: That's gone and put this up on the screen. That's
Speaker 1: from the Guardian. The headline here is over one hundred
Speaker 1: children illegally employed by US slaughterhouse cleaning firm. Labor Department
Speaker 1: investigation finds Packers Sanitation Services employed children between the ages
Speaker 1: of thirteen and seventeen in eight different states. Some of
Speaker 1: the details here are truly horrifying. So they found kids
Speaker 1: were working with hazardous chemicals, they were cleaning processing equipment
Speaker 1: including backsaws, brisket saws, and head splitters. At least three
Speaker 1: minor suffered injuries while working for this company. And this
Speaker 1: is one of This is not some little side organization.
Speaker 1: This is one of the country's largest food safety sanitation
Speaker 1: service providers. They were working at plants owned by Cargill
Speaker 1: Tyson Food JBS, which is a gigantic meat processing company.
Speaker 1: They were the largest company that they had the most
Speaker 1: number of kids that were working in their plants, but
Speaker 1: given packing Greater Omaha Packing, Maple Leaf Farms, Turkey Valley Farms,
Speaker 1: George's Inc. Tyson Food, among others. So horrifying discovery here.
Speaker 1: And part of what they say, Emily is, you know,
Speaker 1: some of these kids they were obviously they're working like
Speaker 1: the middle of the night while these meat packing plants
Speaker 1: are closed, and so they're falling asleep in school. Some
Speaker 1: of them suffered chemical burns. Just unbelievable that this is
Speaker 1: going on in America right now. Yeah, and here's a
Speaker 1: quote actually from the report from the Department of Labor.
Speaker 1: They say, quote, our investigation found Packers Sanitation services systems
Speaker 1: flagged some young adult or some young workers as miners,
Speaker 1: but the company ignored the flags. When the wage and
Speaker 1: our division arrived with warrants, the adults who had recruited, hired,
Speaker 1: and supervised these children tried to derail our efforts to
Speaker 1: investigate their employment practices. So the system, the company system
Speaker 1: worked because obviously they're asking for people's ages when they're
Speaker 1: being hired. Obviously that fails, and they ignore the flags. Yes,
Speaker 1: and that's crazy. I mean it's so like obviously our system,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent that it worked. They were
Speaker 1: fined one point five million dollars in civil penalties. That's
Speaker 1: what this announcement is based on. The big it's a
Speaker 1: big fine, not huge for a company of that size
Speaker 1: at all, but it's amazing because the Department of Labor
Speaker 1: describes this as a quote systemic violation. It's across eight
Speaker 1: different states, lots of different kids involved, but you can
Speaker 1: see when you really zero down that their investigation found
Speaker 1: that they were flagged as children. Yeah, and the company
Speaker 1: just didn't care. I mean, there's a couple things that
Speaker 1: could be relevant in this situation. I mean, one thing
Speaker 1: is the rise of contractors to do work within companies.
Speaker 1: And what happens is, you know, the big company, let's
Speaker 1: say Tyson Food, they put a lot of pressure on
Speaker 1: these subcontractors in order to come in with the lowest price,
Speaker 1: and then it allows them to kind of keep their
Speaker 1: hands clean from having to do like the horrifying child
Speaker 1: labor recruitment, and the lowest possible, the lowest bidder ends
Speaker 1: up getting the gig and they engage in all of
Speaker 1: these flagrant labor law violations, and it sort of protects
Speaker 1: the bigger company from dealing with any of the chargers.
Speaker 1: Who knows if Tyson Foods or these other giant corporations
Speaker 1: had any inkling of what was going on with the
Speaker 1: sanitation company. It's certainly possible that they did. So that's
Speaker 1: one piece of this. The other piece that I think
Speaker 1: is relevant here is we're in a situation where, you know,
Speaker 1: people are not doing well economically because wages are still
Speaker 1: low and inflation is still high, but the unemployment rate
Speaker 1: is very low, and so a lot of companies are
Speaker 1: struggling at least at the wages they want to pay
Speaker 1: to get workers in. So, guess what you have unscrupulous
Speaker 1: I would say evil actors like this company, who in
Speaker 1: order to get around that, what do they do they
Speaker 1: push for? You know, it may be undocumented immigrants, It
Speaker 1: may be children you know, who are un or the
Speaker 1: legal age where they could work in an environment like this.
Speaker 1: And in fact, there is a trend across the country
Speaker 1: right now in a number of different legislatures to loosen
Speaker 1: up the rules regarding child labor law. I was probably
Speaker 1: the most egregious example. Their Republican legislators introduced a bill
Speaker 1: in January that would expand the types of work fourteen
Speaker 1: and fifteen year olds could do as part of quote
Speaker 1: approved training programs, they would extend allowable work hours and
Speaker 1: wait for it, exempt employers from liability if these kids
Speaker 1: are sickened, injured, or killed on the job. That's nice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So not only are we going to make more kids
Speaker 1: available to put into the workforce and lengthen the extend
Speaker 1: the amount of hours that they can work if they
Speaker 1: get hurt or sickened or killed on the job, we're
Speaker 1: going to make sure that the companies bear no cost
Speaker 1: of that. Amazing, unbelievable right, And to your point, actually,
Speaker 1: this is another thing to think about like this, This
Speaker 1: is going to happen more and more and more because
Speaker 1: I'm actually sort of tempted by the libertarian argument that
Speaker 1: some child labor laws are too far that they prevent
Speaker 1: young kids from being able to start saving for college,
Speaker 1: which is insanely expensive, et cetera, et cetera. But that
Speaker 1: aside these questions, we are going to see them pop
Speaker 1: up more and more because we have a completely broken
Speaker 1: immigration system, because we have so many people sitting on
Speaker 1: the sidelines of our workforce, and totally over educated people
Speaker 1: who have they were sold a false bill of goods
Speaker 1: about their college educations. They're now looking for good jobs
Speaker 1: because they paid tens of thousands of dollars to go
Speaker 1: to college. They want to be working in a job
Speaker 1: that matches their degree so that the money wasn't a
Speaker 1: waste and they're looking for jobs. And in their absence,
Speaker 1: as they're waiting for a better for our workforce to
Speaker 1: match their skill sets. Well, who can we bring in
Speaker 1: the local children who can clean the meat packing factory
Speaker 1: from five to eleven pm after school? Yes? Who can
Speaker 1: we abuse and exploit within the system? Is basically what's
Speaker 1: going on. So horrifying revelation, but it's important to know
Speaker 1: that these sorts of things are happening in America every
Speaker 1: single day. Bernie's and is coming out with a new book,
Speaker 1: and he has been doing some interviews with regards to that,
Speaker 1: and this one really caught our eye where he is
Speaker 1: calling out corporate media. To the face of corporate media,
Speaker 1: let's take a lesson. And the question of the book
Speaker 1: again is that how come we have so many people
Speaker 1: who are struggling. We have a dysfunctional healthcare system, our
Speaker 1: childcare system is in disarray. We got millions of elderly
Speaker 1: people who have nothing in the bank, as they face retirement,
Speaker 1: and yet the people on top of doing phenomenally well.
Speaker 1: And Margaret, what the book is about is saying that
Speaker 1: we have more income and wealth and equality tape than
Speaker 1: we have, that we have more concentration of ownership in
Speaker 1: sector aft the SEPPA than we have ever had. We
Speaker 1: have a political system which is increasingly corrupt because as
Speaker 1: a result of citizens United billionaires can put enormous amounts
Speaker 1: of money into it to elect their candidates. And we
Speaker 1: have eight major media conglomerates, corporate media conglomerates that control
Speaker 1: about what ninety percent of the American people see here
Speaker 1: and read. Those are really issues that we need to discuss.
Speaker 1: That's what the book does. Do worry when you talk
Speaker 1: about the corporate media that you are targeting journalists when
Speaker 1: you say that, no, Donald Trump talks about fake news,
Speaker 1: and that's simply to the attention from the fact that
Speaker 1: he's a pathological lie. My experience one on one with media,
Speaker 1: they work on the very rarely mind, miss Quothy. But
Speaker 1: what I am talking about, Margaret, is that corporate media
Speaker 1: limits the kind of debate that we have in this country.
Speaker 1: You tell me you know more about it than I do.
Speaker 1: How often do we talk about incoming wealthy quality we're
Speaker 1: talking about right now center. Yeah, but how often that
Speaker 1: everybody is Ernie Sanders on your show? How often do
Speaker 1: you talk about concentration of only show? How often do
Speaker 1: you talk about the fact that we are the only
Speaker 1: major country on Earth not the guarantee health kettle, and
Speaker 1: yet we spend twice as much money. How often do
Speaker 1: you talk about that? If somebody has a baby in Finland,
Speaker 1: they get it nine months off to ten months off,
Speaker 1: paid family meet I will talk to you about paid
Speaker 1: leave for families any day of the week. They also
Speaker 1: have like a fifty six percent tax rate in Finland,
Speaker 1: though it's a very different system, but let's talk about it.
Speaker 1: What do they get for that? They get free healthcare, right,
Speaker 1: free higher education. That's the kind that's exactly what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. Yeah, that's the debate I want, and that's
Speaker 1: the debate we really don't have on the corporate media.
Speaker 1: That was great, Yeah, what do you think of that?
Speaker 1: So satisfying when she asks the question about whether he's
Speaker 1: targeting borrowing journalist, But the implication of that question is
Speaker 1: that there's a legitimate argument to be made that when
Speaker 1: you criticize media in a substance of way, as Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders has done for decades, by the way that it
Speaker 1: is a threat to journalists, that in some way that
Speaker 1: undermines the safety of journalists. Right. The fact that that
Speaker 1: question sees the light of day in an interview with
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, I think is an embarrassing. It's so such
Speaker 1: a great point. Yeah, the idea that you can't critique
Speaker 1: corporate journalism without like, oh, you're yeah, you're creating a
Speaker 1: safety risk from aren't you targeting journalists? Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: I mean, they use so much of what Trump did
Speaker 1: to justify like insulating themselves from any criticism. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you know, let Julie Nasans and actual fighters for press
Speaker 1: feed freedom twist in the wind and very little coverage there. Finally, belatedly,
Speaker 1: the New York Times and other outlets did put in
Speaker 1: out a letter calling for him to you know, for
Speaker 1: the charges to ultimately be dropped. There is one thing,
Speaker 1: though about it that irritates me, which is, if you
Speaker 1: are a critic of corporate media, I don't have a
Speaker 1: problem like, go do the interviews, because reality is, you're right,
Speaker 1: they still dominate everything but where's your independent media interviews? Yeah,
Speaker 1: And one thing that I have noticed very clearly and
Speaker 1: in fairness, Senator Sanders has, you know, set for interviews
Speaker 1: with me and a few other independent journalists a number
Speaker 1: of times. But overall, left figures in the Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: part of the Democratic Party, they don't engage with independent
Speaker 1: media nearly as much as Matt Gates and the right
Speaker 1: quote unquote populist wing of the Republican Party, who are
Speaker 1: all the time on independent media outlets. And there's so
Speaker 1: much more connectivity between their independent media brands and like
Speaker 1: the mainstream conservative pipeline Fox News, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And that's reflected the politicians' choice of where they sit
Speaker 1: for interviews as well. So if you have a critique
Speaker 1: of the corporate media and you want to boost truly
Speaker 1: independent media, then you have a lot of power and
Speaker 1: a lot of cachet, and you could help with that
Speaker 1: process of legitimizing them. Because if left wing political figures
Speaker 1: don't take their independent media outlets seriously, then how is
Speaker 1: anyone else going to such an important point? And it
Speaker 1: reminds me of a problem that also exists on the right.
Speaker 1: In one sense until the populist movement on the left
Speaker 1: that Bernie Standards himself helped catalyze. Until that really took off,
Speaker 1: I don't think the left had the ability or even
Speaker 1: the need. I think it had the need, but people
Speaker 1: didn't recognize the need for alternative left media because on
Speaker 1: the cultural issues you got a lot of that from
Speaker 1: the corporate press, not on the economic issues, as Bernie
Speaker 1: Standers just talked about. But on the right, it's the
Speaker 1: same thing with like the Trump White House whining every
Speaker 1: single day about the fake news media and then giving
Speaker 1: all of their scoops to the New York Times or
Speaker 1: to Politico or to the Washington Post and leaking only
Speaker 1: to them. And listen, this is actually not sound grapes.
Speaker 1: But I think it's an important point that if you
Speaker 1: are a populist politician, whether you're left or right, it's
Speaker 1: not even just about sitting down for interviews. It's about
Speaker 1: like giving information to be reported out to those outlets.
Speaker 1: And one place that's really good at doing that, the Intercept,
Speaker 1: gets a lot of that. But like, if you're Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: like looking at the Intercept, looking at breaking points, like
Speaker 1: looking at these places is so so important and it's not.
Speaker 1: I think it's not just about interviews, but it's also
Speaker 1: about when you have news to break, go to them
Speaker 1: and let them do a better job reporting the story out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let you know, let the Washington Examiner do a better
Speaker 1: job reporting the story out, then the Washington Post will.
Speaker 1: Even though the Washington Post has this veneer of prestige
Speaker 1: that you agree is totally unearned. So why are you
Speaker 1: taking your information to them and not to the places
Speaker 1: that you could empower and build up their brand and
Speaker 1: their power by bringing it to them. Yeah, stupid and
Speaker 1: full disclosure. I have been trying to get an interview
Speaker 1: with Bernie about his new book. There's a possibility that
Speaker 1: may happen. I'm, you know, hoping, crossing my fingers. Whatever.
Speaker 1: We'll see if it ultimately comes through. But listen, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of ways to boost independent media. Some
Speaker 1: of those ways are through legislation, you know, things that
Speaker 1: are focused on tech companies, things we've been covering here
Speaker 1: as well. But some of them are really simple. Just
Speaker 1: actually show up with them. Like, whatever prestige and eyeballs
Speaker 1: you are able to generate as a prominent politician, you
Speaker 1: can bring credibility, Yes, and more eyeballs and new eyeballs
Speaker 1: and pull people from the mainstream to support a better
Speaker 1: ecosystem of journalism by engaging with them and you know,
Speaker 1: treating them as legitimate news sources. So that's my one
Speaker 1: that's my one beef with the way to approach that.
Speaker 1: I totally get that. And it's not even just about
Speaker 1: like the journalists, it's not about It's definitely not about us.
Speaker 1: It's about the viewers and the listeners who you agree
Speaker 1: have good reason for tuning out of. If you agree
Speaker 1: that they have good reason for tuning out of corporate press,
Speaker 1: then show the respect that they deserve and come to
Speaker 1: meet them where they are. Yeah, do your face listen,
Speaker 1: engage with the system as it exists. I have no
Speaker 1: problem with that totally. But hey, be on face the
Speaker 1: nation and be like hey, and by the way, you
Speaker 1: can see me on this independent outlet or give them
Speaker 1: the first interview so that it again brings a lot
Speaker 1: more eyeballs and helps to build up the ecosystem. So
Speaker 1: but in any case, it was satisfying to watch that exchange.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it very much. Oh my gosh, it was
Speaker 1: so good when and like imagine the advertisers that face
Speaker 1: the nation, it's probably like BP and Fire Yeah, and
Speaker 1: Coke Well, and when she's like, we're talking about inequality
Speaker 1: right now, and he's like, yeah, but you're not talking
Speaker 1: to Bernie Sanders. Yes, And she was like, oh, I'll
Speaker 1: gladly talk to you about paid leave. I'm glad And
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, easy enough to say, but you will
Speaker 1: never make that. You'll never make a sort of populist
Speaker 1: focus point of your show day in and day out,
Speaker 1: no matter how much you say like, oh, we gave
Speaker 1: it ten seconds here and there. Yeah, they love the
Speaker 1: horse race. That's the easiest thing for them to ultimately cover.
Speaker 1: Of brick and mortar, retail apocaly retail sales. It's literally
Speaker 1: got off. There's something strange to me about the reporting
Speaker 1: on the death of retail, the decline of fed bathroom
Speaker 1: beyond share price. The focus isn't on job losses. That
Speaker 1: would be one thing. Makes's is closing another one hundred
Speaker 1: stores concerning Yes, the focus usually isn't on what happens
Speaker 1: to a community when a big retailer closes. That would
Speaker 1: be another thing. We hope to bring back a workforce.
Speaker 1: But the e comm side of things those people who
Speaker 1: have bet on e comm are surviving because they just
Speaker 1: have lower fixed costs with some of these brands, or
Speaker 1: just we can run a with twenty or thirty good
Speaker 1: programmers what they might have had three hundred, you know.
Speaker 1: And if we don't care about the affected employees or
Speaker 1: what happens to an area when a mall shuts down,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why we should care at all that
Speaker 1: these places are closing or losing ground to online sales
Speaker 1: from Amazon, because, after all, big box stores and malls
Speaker 1: are kind of the original Amazon. Anyway, jobs be walking
Speaker 1: in and just finding where malls and stores we ever
Speaker 1: got way off because of going on into stores, and
Speaker 1: that's all you've got here, folks, mile left, a mile
Speaker 1: of mall left to mall, many many malls, major malls,
Speaker 1: and many malls they put the main malls in between them.
Speaker 1: My name is Spencer Snyder, and welcome to breaking points.
Speaker 1: As America was becoming a huge driving nation, using highways
Speaker 1: to access places that otherwise would have been inconvenient or inaccessible,
Speaker 1: you had people trying to capitalize on this new access.
Speaker 1: So imagine we have this huge plot of land on
Speaker 1: the edge of town. It used to be way out
Speaker 1: of the way. But now that there's a highway running
Speaker 1: right by it, it's kind of convenient to get to.
Speaker 1: What do we do? We could make parks, or schools
Speaker 1: or community centers. Well, how exactly would any of those
Speaker 1: things pay off for a developer. No, let's make some
Speaker 1: cash instead. Enter the architect of the modern mall, Victor Groen.
Speaker 1: He imagined essentially a plan shopping town in which the
Speaker 1: anarchy and ugliness of American cities would not be found.
Speaker 1: Guards would keep people safe, There would be a single,
Speaker 1: uniform aesthetic. Even the street noise would be replaced with
Speaker 1: pleasant music. The preponderance of chains and franchises over local stores,
Speaker 1: required by big investors such as insurance companies, brought shoppers
Speaker 1: the latest national trends in products and merchandising techniques. Not
Speaker 1: only were these places in competition with the already existing
Speaker 1: downtown shopping areas, since they were located away from other
Speaker 1: shopping and had every type of shop you could want,
Speaker 1: people were more likely to do all of their shopping
Speaker 1: at the mall. In nineteen fifty seven, New Jersey opened
Speaker 1: two malls, and in nineteen fifty eight, four hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty five families were asked about how those malls had
Speaker 1: affected where they shop. They found that a majority of
Speaker 1: families had already changed their buying patterns, and five percent
Speaker 1: of families had completely abandoned their old shopping areas. That's
Speaker 1: after just one year people understood this was happening. There's
Speaker 1: been legislation trying fruitlessly to level the playing field between
Speaker 1: big business and small businesses since the eighteen hundreds, but
Speaker 1: the mall is a new thing, and it has some
Speaker 1: people a little freaked out. So big stores in downtown
Speaker 1: areas organize National Downtown Week Incorporated. They're trying to steal
Speaker 1: some of the business back from these malls. In nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty nine, two hundred and fifty cities participated in National
Speaker 1: Downtown Week. It was serious enough that the Shopping Center Reporter,
Speaker 1: which I'm assuming was some kind of mall oriented trade publication,
Speaker 1: warned these malls that this was coming and they needed
Speaker 1: to take whatever action they could to get ahead of this.
Speaker 1: But it didn't matter anyway, because in the long run,
Speaker 1: National Downtown Week was going to be as effective at
Speaker 1: bringing people to shop at independent businesses as when American
Speaker 1: Express encourages you to do the same Small Business Saturday
Speaker 1: by American Expresses, November thirtieth. By the seventies and eighties,
Speaker 1: malls were all across the country. An anchor store like
Speaker 1: a Macy's or Sears or J. C. Penny would draw
Speaker 1: people in, and then people would do the rest of
Speaker 1: their shopping there at the mall because they were there anyway.
Speaker 1: But obviously the issue is not just malls, because the
Speaker 1: same principles that allow malls to do so well also
Speaker 1: apply to big box stores. The Walmart effect is when
Speaker 1: Walmart comes to town, drives down wages and causes businesses
Speaker 1: to close. On average, within fifteen months of a new
Speaker 1: Walmart store's opening, as many as fourteen existing retail establishments close. Now,
Speaker 1: Walmart's one of the biggest employers in the country, So
Speaker 1: not every big box store has the same power to
Speaker 1: disrupt a community as Walmart, but they're on the same spectrum.
Speaker 1: Because the point is, why would you ever go to
Speaker 1: your locally owned store where they might have what you need,
Speaker 1: when you could go to a big box store where
Speaker 1: they will have what you need. Hey, where would lighting
Speaker 1: fixtures be? Okay? Conversely, I think the country has become
Speaker 1: so conditioned to the convenience of the giant shopping center
Speaker 1: that it's become an object of nostalgia and mourning. Channels
Speaker 1: devoted to dead malls feature tours of these shopping centers
Speaker 1: that killed downtowns and enriched developers and sold us on
Speaker 1: the idea that hanging out with your friends in proximity
Speaker 1: to both a hot topic and a panda express is
Speaker 1: somehow culture. But the culture and the community thing with
Speaker 1: regard to the mall is completely immateial anyway, it was
Speaker 1: always about offering shopping that was so convenient and so
Speaker 1: cheap that it just couldn't be refused even if you'd
Speaker 1: like to. And for half a century that was malls
Speaker 1: and big box stores. But the way the Highway made
Speaker 1: it more possible for a mall to monopolize regional shopping.
Speaker 1: The Internet makes it possible for Amazon to monopolize shopping
Speaker 1: in general. Amazon makes up thirty eight percent of online retail.
Speaker 1: In second place is Walmart with only six percent. Amazon
Speaker 1: is doing exactly what malls were doing sixty years ago
Speaker 1: by creating a cheap, one stop shopping center. But what
Speaker 1: is especially scary Amazon is so massive and monopolistic. They
Speaker 1: don't simply put smaller businesses out of service, Amazon absorbs them.
Speaker 1: Sixty percent of the sales on Amazon are actually small businesses.
Speaker 1: Many small businesses find it impossible to go without using
Speaker 1: Amazon's platform, and occasionally, because Amazon has a hand in
Speaker 1: manufacturing as well, a small business will find that their
Speaker 1: biggest selling item is now an Amazon Basic, killing off
Speaker 1: their own sales. After all, Amazon refers to these small
Speaker 1: businesses that use them as internal competitors. And for the
Speaker 1: dead malls that Amazon no doubt had to hand in closing,
Speaker 1: Amazon is buying them too, and turning them into fulfillment centers.
Speaker 1: But for all the cooing about small businesses being the
Speaker 1: backbone of the country, we've never actually cared to observe this.
Speaker 1: All you need to do is compare how many headlines
Speaker 1: there are about small businesses getting iced out because of
Speaker 1: rent to how many headlines there are about big box
Speaker 1: stores losing ground in the e commerce game. The idea
Speaker 1: of having a little shop and employing your kids and
Speaker 1: being self sufficient is a great story, but being satisfied
Speaker 1: and content is mutually opposed to the infinite growth that
Speaker 1: big businesses are absolutely committed to. So the decline of
Speaker 1: Mommo pop shops doesn't get headlines because they were never
Speaker 1: the points. They were just the pretty image on the
Speaker 1: packaging of America, and for that matter, the impact on
Speaker 1: workers when big retailers come into town and then leave town,
Speaker 1: that doesn't get much attention because they're not the point either.
Speaker 1: I think the real reason the closing of retail gets
Speaker 1: attention is that some people are truly surprised that the
Speaker 1: unprecedented concentration of retail that we saw in the twentieth
Speaker 1: century is beginning to collapse under the weight of the
Speaker 1: unprecedented concentration of retail in the twenty first century. But
Speaker 1: that will do it for me. I'm Spencer Snyder. If
Speaker 1: you found this video interesting, make sure you are subscribed
Speaker 1: to Breaking Points. You can also check out my YouTube
Speaker 1: channel where I talk all about media and politics and
Speaker 1: some other interesting things. Link in the description Liking and
Speaker 1: sharing always helps. Thank you to Breaking Points. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for watching, and I will see you in
Speaker 1: the next one. Pete Boudaget just can't catch a break.
Speaker 1: He was walking around here on Gassy Reporter at my
Speaker 1: ow Old employer. The Daily Caller happened to notice him
Speaker 1: and said, Hey, maybe I'm going to do my job
Speaker 1: with the mainstream media is due. I'll just be like,
Speaker 1: when are you going to go to East Palestine? Ohio?
Speaker 1: He didn't take it so well, in fact, so badly.
Speaker 1: He took a picture of her in a form of
Speaker 1: intimidation for having the gall just to ask him a question,
Speaker 1: and kept saying he was on personal time. Hi, how
Speaker 1: are you Jenny Tair at the Daily Calor News Foundation.
Speaker 1: What do you have to say to the folks in
Speaker 1: Ohio East Palestine who are suffering right now? Well, I've
Speaker 1: referred about a dozen interviews I've given today, and if
Speaker 1: she'd like to read a conversation, I'm reach out for
Speaker 1: press had that conversation with you. You don't have a
Speaker 1: message for them. I do, and I shared it with
Speaker 1: the press many times today. I'd refer you to those comments.
Speaker 1: Are mind sharing that with us? No, I'm going to
Speaker 1: refer you to the comments that I made to the press,
Speaker 1: because right now I'm taking some personal time. Man, I'm
Speaker 1: walking down the street. Are you going down there? Are
Speaker 1: you going down there at all? Yeah? Yea, when are
Speaker 1: you going? I'll thank you? Photo? Can I take a
Speaker 1: photo of you? She's like, yeah, sure, I mean clearly
Speaker 1: that is an act of intimidation. He's taking the photo,
Speaker 1: so you could send to the press office and be like,
Speaker 1: make sure that we never ever work with this person again,
Speaker 1: as if he was being harassed. First of all, you're
Speaker 1: walking down a public street, dude. I actually have seen
Speaker 1: Buddhaj edge around a couple of times whenever he's like walking.
Speaker 1: There is absolutely nothing that stops you from questioning a
Speaker 1: public official. And then two, just the you know, the
Speaker 1: gall of like I would refer you to the press office.
Speaker 1: I'm taking some personal time. I'm sure the people who
Speaker 1: are during contaminated water care about your personal time, Like,
Speaker 1: why can't you just say something about like, look, of
Speaker 1: course I have a message he thought. You know, clearly
Speaker 1: he just wanted to get off the hook. And the
Speaker 1: fact that he's willing to act that way shows you
Speaker 1: also that people in the press don't actually question him
Speaker 1: in a confrontational manner all that much. Well, he just
Speaker 1: wanted to, you know, only have his interviews with thea
Speaker 1: approved media gook keepers that he feels comfortable with. Yes
Speaker 1: and so, and her questions were not I mean, look
Speaker 1: daily callers are right wing outfit. But her questions were
Speaker 1: he didn't do anything really fair and like not hostile
Speaker 1: or aggressive. They they should be easy questions for him,
Speaker 1: like hey, when are you going? Why haven't you gone yet,
Speaker 1: Like he should have already been there and then none
Speaker 1: of this would be an issue for him. But you know,
Speaker 1: he since he popped on the national scene, he's had
Speaker 1: this sort of like Cinderella run, you know, and the
Speaker 1: media loved him and he was the future of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and oh my good Nancy was like this
Speaker 1: boy wonder figure that elites the donor call, like they
Speaker 1: all just loved him. He hasn't really had this kind
Speaker 1: of actual scrutiny, and not only from Republicans. There have
Speaker 1: been a number of Democrats, from left wing Democrats like
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omer to Joe Manchin who were saying, dude, you
Speaker 1: know you need to step up and you need to
Speaker 1: actually do something about this. So he really hasn't faced
Speaker 1: this before. And I think he can just see in
Speaker 1: real time his like policeical hopes and aspirations sort of
Speaker 1: withering on the vine. Whereas we covered. Ye know, there's
Speaker 1: some speculation maybe Biden won't run this time, which I
Speaker 1: am doubtful of, but you never know. If that had
Speaker 1: come to pass that sort of speculation just a month ago,
Speaker 1: there would have been it would have been, Oh, Pete
Speaker 1: will be the you know, heir apparent. They're going to
Speaker 1: do everything they can. That's a much different calculus at
Speaker 1: this point. It's when he actually has been put in
Speaker 1: a position where he has power, where he needs to act,
Speaker 1: where he needs to do a job that is actually
Speaker 1: critical to people. No interest, no ability, just total failure.
Speaker 1: It is funny that the two chosen successes to buy
Speaker 1: Buddha Jeedge and Kama have both been public humiliations while
Speaker 1: in office at you know, look, vice president is the
Speaker 1: easiest job in the world. You don't have anything to do,
Speaker 1: and she's still somehow more hated than Joe Biden. And
Speaker 1: then number two is Budhajeg. Like Buddha, Jeedge has humiliated
Speaker 1: himself on the national stage over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: showed a lack of being politically adapt but even more importantly,
Speaker 1: being a terrible manager, and then freaking out and being
Speaker 1: publicly entitled like this. Also, you know, flying private while
Speaker 1: the rest of us flights are literally getting canceled. So look,
Speaker 1: I have no sympathy. I'm really enjoying kind of watching
Speaker 1: the political demise of him. But it's pathetic the way
Speaker 1: that he acts whenever he's just getting asked a very
Speaker 1: basic question. Yes, indeed, there you go, and Louis de
Speaker 1: Angelus of Status qu joins us. Now, Grace Cie lewis Man,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. So I understand you have some
Speaker 1: new reporting about the water tests which were conducted, in
Speaker 1: which we're used as the basis for telling residents it's
Speaker 1: all good, you can drink the water, there's going to
Speaker 1: be no problems. Tell us what you've learned. Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: so in you know, reporting from several other folks as
Speaker 1: well up until this point. You know, I actually ran
Speaker 1: into the governor the other day asked him a couple
Speaker 1: of tough questions that he was not necessarily excited to
Speaker 1: have asked, and did his best to dodge them. And
Speaker 1: basically the tests that have been done initially up until
Speaker 1: basically the last forty eight hours, we're all from contractors
Speaker 1: hired by either Norfolk Southern or contractors hired by the
Speaker 1: e PA. These two contractors are companies called Tetra Tech
Speaker 1: and c T e H. Both of these companies have
Speaker 1: histories of mishandling results and information they've you know, false
Speaker 1: some of in some cases falsifying test results. This you know,
Speaker 1: these companies were being used. One of them was during
Speaker 1: the deep Water Horizon incident. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: remember back in twenty ten, The New York Times reported
Speaker 1: on that one and the other one. Let me pull
Speaker 1: it up here just because I want to make sure
Speaker 1: I have it all accurate for you all. The other
Speaker 1: incident as well was from the let's see the Hunter's
Speaker 1: Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. So both of these
Speaker 1: companies are giving residents more reason to question the results
Speaker 1: and the answers that their government officials are giving them
Speaker 1: or frankly more you know more realistically not giving them.
Speaker 1: So with that information, you know, up until forty eight
Speaker 1: hours ago, again, these are being provided by these two companies,
Speaker 1: one of them being hired directly by the railroad, which
Speaker 1: has no incentive here to necessarily put out the accurate information. Right,
Speaker 1: these guys are trying to cover their butts in a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff. And it gets a little bit
Speaker 1: worse because as we looked into this, I've been on
Speaker 1: the ground talking with residents since over the last weekend
Speaker 1: establishing trust with these folks and actually giving them the
Speaker 1: time of day to talk to them and build trust.
Speaker 1: And the children of one of the parents that I've
Speaker 1: established a good relationship with asked if he could do
Speaker 1: an interview. Some of his friends wanted to as well.
Speaker 1: We got permission to do this interview with the children,
Speaker 1: and one of the kids mentioned that the water fountains
Speaker 1: in their school, so not the part that you can
Speaker 1: go down and get a sip from, but the part
Speaker 1: that you can fill up your water bottle in is
Speaker 1: actually open to use inside of their school. And I mean,
Speaker 1: my heart just dropped when I heard that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've got little nieces, you know. The kids did say
Speaker 1: there is bottled water in school, But again, these are children.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the fact that they can go fill
Speaker 1: up their water bottle in the school because officials are
Speaker 1: telling them that the water is fine when we're relying
Speaker 1: on again predominantly tests that are being contracted out by
Speaker 1: the railroad. It's unconscionable to me to hear that happen,
Speaker 1: and it you know, it's it's a it's a tough
Speaker 1: it's a tough story. And I mean, these folks are
Speaker 1: going through so much here, it's it's tough to talk about.
Speaker 1: These conversations that I'm having with residents are are hard
Speaker 1: ones to have. These folks are being put in absolutely
Speaker 1: impossible positions. Lewis the piece about these contractors, it's the
Speaker 1: first time learning about it. Can you give us a
Speaker 1: little bit more detail about their involvement that was, you know,
Speaker 1: revealed to be fraudulent in the past, falsifying records. What
Speaker 1: was uncovered there, just so we know some of the specifics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I know more about the deep Water Horizon incident,
Speaker 1: and in the article from the New York Times, essentially
Speaker 1: they do a good job with this. I encourage folks
Speaker 1: to find it. We can get you the link to
Speaker 1: post in the description or something like that. But in
Speaker 1: that incident, the New York Times essentially found that the
Speaker 1: deep Water Horizon incident, the company had every incentive to
Speaker 1: essentially make these folks be feeling okay and getting them
Speaker 1: back to work and all of this sort of thing.
Speaker 1: So it's really the the incentives that were being placed.
Speaker 1: We're obviously incorrect in all of these instances. There should
Speaker 1: be independent testing being done. And again, if you want
Speaker 1: residents here in East Palestine or in any other incidents,
Speaker 1: you know, across the country where this to happen. Again,
Speaker 1: let's make sure that we're using a company that does
Speaker 1: not have a history of any of this kind of
Speaker 1: fraudulent information. Yeah, So can you expand then in the
Speaker 1: context of the general kind of corporate influence and cover
Speaker 1: up that's been going on here that you've been able
Speaker 1: to witness on the ground, because it just seems like
Speaker 1: the latest in a series of things that's been happening. No,
Speaker 1: it is, and you know, everything from initially you know,
Speaker 1: the railroad burying contaminants underneath the railroad tracks, right, residents
Speaker 1: have been very unhappy about that, and essentially even even
Speaker 1: with the evacuations, right, there's a lot of speculation. Again
Speaker 1: I can't confirm any of this necessarily, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot of speculation that the reason the town was deemed
Speaker 1: safe again was because the railroad is not able to
Speaker 1: run trains through the town while there's still an evacuation
Speaker 1: notice ordered if no one's allowed back into town, you know,
Speaker 1: railroad conductors that sort of thing aren't going to be
Speaker 1: able to be going through this area because it's unsafe.
Speaker 1: So there's added pressure to get folks back into town,
Speaker 1: tell them everything is fine, everything is safe, so that
Speaker 1: they can get the railroad moving again. And I can
Speaker 1: tell you after being here for several days, that railroad
Speaker 1: is busy. I mean, in some times a day it's
Speaker 1: every ten minutes a train going by. Oftentimes right now,
Speaker 1: the trains are actually being double stacked the shipping container ones.
Speaker 1: Residents tell me that that was not the case beforehand,
Speaker 1: but it was mostly single stacked, and they're trying to
Speaker 1: catch up on the railroad being closed from before with
Speaker 1: these double stacked trains, which I don't need to tell
Speaker 1: you this. The double stack trains are to be heavier
Speaker 1: than singles tracked one tracked ones. It's it's uncomfortable again, Lewis,
Speaker 1: we actually have you interviewed residents who voiced exactly the
Speaker 1: fear and suspicion you were laying out that basically the
Speaker 1: all clear call was rushed in order to get back
Speaker 1: to business as usual. Guys, this is the second SOT
Speaker 1: that we have. I believe it's labeled to see five
Speaker 1: Control room. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1: They had that thing cleaned up and the train running
Speaker 1: through within forty eight hours. They laid those tracks right
Speaker 1: over top of that, and there is no way that
Speaker 1: they hauled any of it out. They laid it right
Speaker 1: over top. And you know the fire department when when
Speaker 1: this initially happened, it's a fire, they're trying to put
Speaker 1: it out. There's brandon What where'd that water go? You know,
Speaker 1: it's right in the ground, in the soil. And they
Speaker 1: laid those railroad tracks over people. And the thing is
Speaker 1: they weren't allowed to run the train through an evacuated area.
Speaker 1: So soon as the train tracks were done, the evacuations lifted.
Speaker 1: People that came home the night they we didn't come
Speaker 1: up to the next morning, but there were people that
Speaker 1: came home that night. They had videos they had to
Speaker 1: wait on the train because the train was already up
Speaker 1: and run and before they could get back in their houses. Now,
Speaker 1: is that a coincidence that they weren't allowed to run
Speaker 1: through an evacuated area and all of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: train's ready to go and the evactually vac you know,
Speaker 1: the evacuation was lifted. You know, I think not so.
Speaker 1: Residents very fearful that their health and safety was put
Speaker 1: at risk in order to make sure that the rail
Speaker 1: companies could get back to operating a maximum capacity and
Speaker 1: get back to making the profit margins they're used to.
Speaker 1: Absolutely and I mean again Stella and Darren there, I
Speaker 1: talked to them for forty five minutes. They've got foster children,
Speaker 1: young kids, some of them with pre existing conditions. And
Speaker 1: you know that house that we were interviewing them in there,
Speaker 1: that's been in their family for one hundred years. This
Speaker 1: is you know, they're like, what are we going to
Speaker 1: pass on to our kids? Our house is worth nothing.
Speaker 1: Now that's a major concern from a lot of folks
Speaker 1: in town. Is you know, there's folks who are looking
Speaker 1: to retire, they want to sell their house. What are
Speaker 1: they going to do now? Norfolk Southern's not talking about
Speaker 1: buying people's houses at the value that they were beforehand,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm sure they're not looking into doing
Speaker 1: that at any point. But again, even for renters, I
Speaker 1: mean I mentioned earlier on in this parents are being
Speaker 1: put in an absolutely impossible situation here right I'm talking
Speaker 1: to people with I'll give you some of the symptoms
Speaker 1: that we're hearing. And this isn't just from like one
Speaker 1: or two people. I'd say roughly half of the people
Speaker 1: I'm talking to are dealing with some of these symptoms here.
Speaker 1: So we've got rashes, bloody noses, the bloody noses, especially
Speaker 1: with kids like every night in some cases right sore throats,
Speaker 1: dry and stinging eyes, vomiting, breathing problems, diarrhea, and again,
Speaker 1: some of this stuff is hard to necessarily show on camera,
Speaker 1: but I can tell you from being invited into many
Speaker 1: of these people's homes, going into some of the businesses here,
Speaker 1: these people are not bsing you into trying to believe
Speaker 1: this sort of thing. It's frustrating to see, you know,
Speaker 1: folks online saying, oh, you know, folks are looking for
Speaker 1: a handout. These people are in the most impossible situation ever.
Speaker 1: You walk into some of these places and you can
Speaker 1: feel it in your eyes, you can smell it's it's
Speaker 1: an absolute shame that this is going on. And as
Speaker 1: a result of this, to talk a little bit more
Speaker 1: about some of the you know, corruption, gaslighting, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it going on here, the state of
Speaker 1: Ohio set up a clinic in the town for folks
Speaker 1: to go to. I asked Governor DeWine. I was like,
Speaker 1: you know, I talked to all of these people on
Speaker 1: this street. Last night. We ran into them on the
Speaker 1: street because a local resident tipped me off that he
Speaker 1: was there. I was like, I talked to all these
Speaker 1: folks on this street. They're experiencing all of these symptoms
Speaker 1: that I just listed off for you. Where should they go?
Speaker 1: He goes, they should go to the clinic that the
Speaker 1: state of Ohio is set up. So we went to
Speaker 1: the Ohio state you know, the clinic that they set
Speaker 1: up in town. And this clinic isn't even providing actual
Speaker 1: medical services here, right, the clinic is essentially providing folks
Speaker 1: to talk to. Right, So you go, you get you
Speaker 1: you you know, can can talk to an expert, I guess,
Speaker 1: and then they'll refer you to go to your doctor.
Speaker 1: Hopefully you've got health insurance. Hopefully you have a plan
Speaker 1: that doesn't have a high deductible or else you're on
Speaker 1: the hook or emergency room bills. That's unbelievable. And that's
Speaker 1: one more point on this, if I can make it
Speaker 1: a lot of the other you know, local journalist in town,
Speaker 1: and obviously there's exceptions to the rule, and even some
Speaker 1: of the national media. We were there reporting from in
Speaker 1: front of the medical center and they're out there essentially
Speaker 1: reading the press release saying this medical clinic is now open.
Speaker 1: Members of the public should come here for for you know,
Speaker 1: services and whatnot. Meanwhile, I've got residents texting me saying
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. This is no real services here. There's
Speaker 1: no real services. And fortunately, you know, we're able to
Speaker 1: actually be here to do it because nobody you know, again,
Speaker 1: there is exceptions to the rule, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm I'm not an expert journalist. I
Speaker 1: don't have a journalism degree, right, but I feel like
Speaker 1: I'm out here asking the questions that a lot of
Speaker 1: these other folks aren't, which is a shame that I
Speaker 1: have to be in that position to try to do
Speaker 1: it well. We find ourselves in that position sometimes we're
Speaker 1: very happy to help support your work down there. So yeah,
Speaker 1: we appreciate you being there and let us know continue
Speaker 1: if you ever need any more resources or anything. Yeah, thanks,
Speaker 1: lewis great to have you. If we're able to as well, folks,
Speaker 1: we're going to be posting a lot of content on
Speaker 1: Status qu If you're not a Status Quo subscriber already,
Speaker 1: that would be fantastic. If you can come follow some
Speaker 1: of our work there. Yeah, they've been on this from
Speaker 1: the beginning. Thanks guys, appreciate it.