Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 3: we have, Crystal, indeed we do so.
Speaker 2: We've got confirmation hearing set to start today. Pete Hegseth
Speaker 2: is up first, the nominee for Secretary of Defense. We're
Speaker 2: also taking a look at the way that some of
Speaker 2: Trump's nominees have changed their tune on key issues in
Speaker 2: an attempt to get across the finish lines. This very
Speaker 2: interesting stuff. There got a bunch of media news for you.
Speaker 2: Jen Rubin is leaving the Washington Post and starting a
Speaker 2: new venture with the very interesting launch video, so I'll
Speaker 2: show you that.
Speaker 4: The big news though.
Speaker 2: Is MSNBC Rachel Maddow is being put back in on
Speaker 2: a nightly basis, at least for the first hundred days
Speaker 2: of the Trump administration. I think an indication of how
Speaker 2: much MSNBC is struggling in the ratings and sort of
Speaker 2: trying to find regain their identity and planned for the future, etc.
Speaker 2: So really interesting development. There, huge potential news in the
Speaker 2: least maybe inching close to a Gaza ceasefire deal. The
Speaker 2: details on how that was all achieved. Obviously, the timing
Speaker 2: is Trump is set to re enter office. All of
Speaker 2: this very significant, very interesting, so we'll dig into that.
Speaker 2: Also have some updates for you on a potential TikTok sale.
Speaker 2: So there was a report that they might be looking
Speaker 2: at selling to Elon who knows, they're denying it, I
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 4: It's interesting.
Speaker 2: We've also got the leadst back and forth with Steve
Speaker 2: Bannon just absolutely torching Elon Musk in this continued sort
Speaker 2: of intra mega war. We are going to once again
Speaker 2: attempt to have Matt Stoller on today. We had some
Speaker 2: kind of technical issue. Yesterday, we wanted to get him
Speaker 2: to weigh in on Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on the Joe
Speaker 2: Rogan podcast and what he had to say there, in
Speaker 2: particular about the CFPP.
Speaker 4: So we're going to try for that again.
Speaker 2: I think we've got all the tech issues resolves, so
Speaker 2: it should be good to go this time. And James
Speaker 2: Fox has a new documentary out about the UFO program,
Speaker 2: so Soccer's going to talk to him about that.
Speaker 4: I'm sure that would be quite interesting.
Speaker 1: It will be interesting. Indeed. James one of my favorite
Speaker 1: UFO filmmakers.
Speaker 3: He's made some phenomenal films and documentaries in the past.
Speaker 3: Highly recommend you guys watch them and we will show
Speaker 3: you where you can, as well as talk to him
Speaker 3: a little bit about what we learned. But as Christal said,
Speaker 3: the hearings are off, we are off to the races.
Speaker 3: Pete Hegseth will be in the box today very shortly
Speaker 3: after we finished taping this show actually on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: Pete Hegseth will be the first of Donald Trump's nominees
Speaker 3: to appear before the United States Senate for him confermation
Speaker 3: hearings but quickly followed within the next week or so
Speaker 3: that you guys should pay attention to. So after Hegseth
Speaker 3: goes up, A Chirsty Nome is set to testify on
Speaker 3: Wednesday at nine am for DHS Secretary. Marco Rubio will
Speaker 3: be at ten am Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Speaker 3: Pam Bondi will also be up before the Senate Judiciary
Speaker 3: Committee this week on Thursday. You also have some hearings
Speaker 3: that have yet to be scheduled, which is kind of interesting.
Speaker 3: Those include RFK Junior for Health and Human Services, Cash
Speaker 3: Patel for FBI Director, Linda McMahon for the Secretary of Education,
Speaker 3: and Tulsey Gabbert. Now, the reason why those in particular
Speaker 3: have been held up is that you have some of
Speaker 3: these nominees who are going through the vetting process and
Speaker 3: the ones who appear to be a little bit more precarious.
Speaker 3: Although we'll talk about this, I think we both generally
Speaker 3: where they're probably all going to make it, it just
Speaker 3: could be more of a rocky road. One in particular
Speaker 3: has been Tulsa Gabbert, who has not been able to
Speaker 3: get a confirmation hearing scheduled and has herself come under
Speaker 3: a lot of pressure to change some of her past
Speaker 3: positions on FIZA, So let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 3: up there on the screen. This was a key signal
Speaker 3: from Tulsa Gabbert she was willing to play ball with
Speaker 3: the Republicans by completely reversing her past posisue a past
Speaker 3: position on section seven oh two of the Foreign Intelligence
Speaker 3: Surveillance Act. You guys have probably heard us talk about
Speaker 3: it in the past, but if what it all comes
Speaker 3: down to is it's section Section seven oh two. Reauthorization
Speaker 3: has been a key issue actually since the beginning of PISA,
Speaker 3: but in particular became a bipartisan issue after it was
Speaker 3: used to spy on Carter Page, the Donald Trump associate
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen is his key part of Russiagate lore. So Ever,
Speaker 3: since that happened, there's been kind of a maga push
Speaker 3: to try and to end section seven oh two.
Speaker 1: The deep State has fought tooth and nailed to keep.
Speaker 3: It and they've succeeded, And frankly, this is just more
Speaker 3: evidence of why they succeed Jenator James Langford of Oklahoma
Speaker 3: literally said he's like, I will not vote for her
Speaker 3: unless she reverses a position on seven oh two.
Speaker 1: And she was like, Okay, the only one and he
Speaker 1: was not the only one. He's the only one who
Speaker 1: said it out loud.
Speaker 3: We'll recall in the House of Representatives Mike Johnson who
Speaker 3: previously had said some interesting things on seven oh two,
Speaker 3: Mike Turner who's in the Intelligence Committee chair, and others
Speaker 3: significantly pushed and all of a sudden, miraculously seven oh
Speaker 3: two just sails through the House GOP. And I'm talking
Speaker 3: about hundreds of people in the House GOP have spoken
Speaker 3: against section seven oh two. Here again with Tulsia I,
Speaker 3: I don't think you can find a figure who is
Speaker 3: more emblematic of the at least bipartisan push. Originally she
Speaker 3: went from literally Democratic Republican. But I think we could
Speaker 3: say she's generally been skeptical of the deep state, etc.
Speaker 3: In the past, and for her to switch her position
Speaker 3: on this is really disheartening. I mean, it just means
Speaker 3: that even here, when you have people who have had
Speaker 3: this long time position and who want to get through
Speaker 3: the confirmation process, that is un you know, it's basically
Speaker 3: it's just not possible to be confirmed. And then also
Speaker 3: it just shows if you're willing to play ball on this,
Speaker 3: what are you going to play ball on next time?
Speaker 3: You have a lot of talk about Epstein files, JFK files.
Speaker 3: People often they're like, why are you so pessimistic? Or
Speaker 3: whenever you know, I meet a lot of people, people
Speaker 3: are very excited. They're like, Oh, we're really going to
Speaker 3: get the files this time. Like, yeah, maybe you know,
Speaker 3: I would love to listen. Nobody would love it more
Speaker 3: than me. But you know, I've seen too much of
Speaker 3: this game here in Washington, and this is perhaps the
Speaker 3: most high profile example.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean Telsea has changed her political stripes in any
Speaker 2: number of ways and shifted her positions on any number
Speaker 2: of issues, but this is like the core of what
Speaker 2: she has like consistently stood for. And just as a
Speaker 2: reminder for people, I'm sure you have heard US and
Speaker 2: other programs talking about Section seven zero two. Effectively, this
Speaker 2: was you know, passed alongside the Patriot Act. The idea
Speaker 2: was that they could target foreign individual for surveillance.
Speaker 4: But in the context of.
Speaker 2: That, if that foreign individual happened to be talking to
Speaker 2: a US citizen, guess what, you're scooping up all their
Speaker 2: communications as well? Then not only does that occur, and
Speaker 2: we're talking a mass amount of US citizen communications getting
Speaker 2: swept up in this, then not only does that occur,
Speaker 2: but US agencies that are able to do these backdoor
Speaker 2: searches of that valance data that they have pulled without
Speaker 2: having to obtain a warrant. So this is effectively an
Speaker 2: end round around, an end run around.
Speaker 4: The Fourth Amendment.
Speaker 2: Allows what I view as a legal, unconstitutional searches and
Speaker 2: surveillance of Americans, again without a warrant. There was a
Speaker 2: huge fight during the Biden administration about the reauthorization. It
Speaker 2: ends up being reauthorized. There were claims that there were
Speaker 2: some reforms put into this reauthorization, which was set to
Speaker 2: last for only two years, so time to just sort
Speaker 2: of last out the Biden administration.
Speaker 4: Part of those reforms.
Speaker 2: Actually, what privacy advocates, civil liberties advocates, people like Tolzi Gabbertt.
Speaker 4: Herself said is that in reality, they.
Speaker 2: Actually because the wording on these quote unquote reforms was
Speaker 2: so loose, they actually expanded the capabilities under Section seven
Speaker 2: oh two. They opened it up, for example, to you know,
Speaker 2: requiring the collection of data coming through data service centers,
Speaker 2: and even the language is so loose that it could
Speaker 2: require someone who's like a janitor at a data center
Speaker 2: to pull data and spy on their fellow Americans.
Speaker 4: So that was the quote unquote reform.
Speaker 2: So anyway, Section seven zero two, it has not been
Speaker 2: dealt with, It has not been improved. There are no
Speaker 2: reforms that have made this any less damaging and any
Speaker 2: less concerning if you are a civil liberty's advocate. And
Speaker 2: yet that's exactly what Tulsi pointed to in this statement
Speaker 2: where she completely reversed this course announceays, now.
Speaker 4: I'm good with that.
Speaker 2: I don't really care, think that it's all fine and
Speaker 2: good now. She says that she was My prior concerns
Speaker 2: about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties,
Speaker 2: particularly regarding the FBI's misuse warrantless search powers on American citizens.
Speaker 2: Significant PISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress.
Speaker 4: To address these issues.
Speaker 2: So she says, reforms are passed, We're good to go now,
Speaker 2: don't need to worry about it. And our producer Griffin
Speaker 2: pulled a SoundBite of Tulsi just eight months ago. We're
Speaker 2: not talking years and years, we're talking just eight months
Speaker 2: ago after these supposed quote unquote reforms passed, saying that
Speaker 2: the reforms actually made everything worse. She decried the very
Speaker 2: reforms that she's now saying have alleviated all of her concerns.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 5: The bill that would reinstate or extend the PISA authorities,
Speaker 5: the Foreign Intelligence Security Act authorities for another two years.
Speaker 5: Section seven ZHO two of FAIZA gives our government the
Speaker 5: authority to surveil foreign actors, essentially to try to identify
Speaker 5: terrorist threats. But part of that is they have the
Speaker 5: ability to capture all of the conversations if you talk
Speaker 5: to somebody in another country that they're interested in, they
Speaker 5: can then go in and capture all of your information
Speaker 5: as an American citizen, and they can do this without
Speaker 5: a warrant. This has been in place for quite some time,
Speaker 5: but this legislation that was just passed recently expanded those
Speaker 5: authorities so they can go and actually look at like
Speaker 5: your your WiFi history, if you're connected to Wi Fi,
Speaker 5: they can look at everything that you did connected to
Speaker 5: that Wi Fi signal, and in some other ways, it's
Speaker 5: it took an already bad problem and made it many
Speaker 5: many times worse. And again they're just saying, well, it's
Speaker 5: for national security. The problem here is that's the thing
Speaker 5: they ow, That's the thing they always say. And it's like,
Speaker 5: you know, the I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said,
Speaker 5: if you know, if you are choosing security over liberty,
Speaker 5: you will neither be secure nor will you have liberty.
Speaker 2: So there she is saying those reforms that she's now saying, oh,
Speaker 2: they alleviated my concerns. She says that those reforms took
Speaker 2: an already bad problem and made it many many times worse.
Speaker 2: And you know, I like, obviously Tulsi completely flipping on
Speaker 2: this to get through the confirmation process. The cope on
Speaker 2: seeing is like, oh, she's saying what she needs to
Speaker 2: and then when she gets in there, she's gonna go
Speaker 2: return to form. Just tell me when that you've ever
Speaker 2: seen that happen before in Washington. Well, and I don't
Speaker 2: want to let Trump off the hook here either, because
Speaker 2: he has also said that Section seven zero two was
Speaker 2: a key priority. And you know, perhaps if Tulci is
Speaker 2: left there out on her own, as she kind of
Speaker 2: has been to get through the confirmation process, she's got
Speaker 2: to bend and twist to these senator's whims. If Donald
Speaker 2: Trump came in and said, no, this is a priority
Speaker 2: and this is happening, You're going to confirm Tulsi Gabbard,
Speaker 2: Tulsi Gabbard would get confirmed holding onto her previous principled
Speaker 2: position with regard to sections.
Speaker 4: That's always my opinion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's always the issue, and this is part of
Speaker 3: the problem that president cannot unilaterally just stop the seven
Speaker 3: oh two authority. And you can try in terms of
Speaker 3: how it works with the intelligence community, but as you
Speaker 3: see with congressional reauthorization specifically, that's why they always hang
Speaker 3: their hat on it, and it's the one thing they
Speaker 3: have always gone to war for. I remember reading like
Speaker 3: in the past former I think it's former NSA director
Speaker 3: being like, this greatest single threat to the US intelligence
Speaker 3: community is to not renew Section seven oh two.
Speaker 1: Now, I mean, look, let's take.
Speaker 3: Him at his word, and if you don't like the
Speaker 3: intelligence community and you don't like the current methods, maybe
Speaker 3: we should not reauthorize it. But that is certainly part
Speaker 3: of the problem here. And just for people who see
Speaker 3: this is how Washington works, guys, and I saw Glenn
Speaker 3: Greenwalley did a fantastic segment about this, about the problems
Speaker 3: with seven oh two, and exactly about how DC you know,
Speaker 3: have shaped people to shape people. Even the people who
Speaker 3: are outsiders, the total outsiders, who were you know, like
Speaker 3: Tulsi Gabbard, even they can be brought to heal. But
Speaker 3: I will say, you know, it's not just Tulsi. Let's
Speaker 3: go ahead and put a four please up on the screen.
Speaker 3: A lot of these people, again outsiders, are colliding with
Speaker 3: the legitimate political system, and you guys will see that
Speaker 3: that does not mean that they have the authority that
Speaker 3: we may necessarily want them to have. So as you
Speaker 3: guys saw with seven oh two, we just showed you.
Speaker 3: But RFK Junior actually on two key positions. One is
Speaker 3: saying that. One is saying he said, I'm quote all
Speaker 3: for the polio vaccine. This is despite some pass advocacy
Speaker 3: against that. I have seen some people say like he
Speaker 3: was talking about a previous version of the polio vaccine.
Speaker 3: I'm not one hundred percent certain on that, but what
Speaker 3: I do know is an absolute flip flop is abortion.
Speaker 3: Because he assured Senator James Langford that he, as the
Speaker 3: HHS Secretary, would not use any state or taxpayer funded
Speaker 3: resources to go towards organizations like Planned Parenthood or others,
Speaker 3: and that if there were some movement within the Trump
Speaker 3: bureaucracy like against the what is the abortion pill that's
Speaker 3: currently moving through the US mail system and others that
Speaker 3: which again the HHS, Secretary of the FDA and these
Speaker 3: other organizations have significant regulatory authority over that, he would
Speaker 3: not interfere. So that is one where he's previously a
Speaker 3: pro choice Democrat. You know, I'm a pretty key litmus
Speaker 3: test issue, I would say, but has changed. We also
Speaker 3: have here Pete Hegsath, who has previously opposed women serving
Speaker 3: in combat roles. By the way, today that is going
Speaker 3: to be the number one thing you guys are all
Speaker 3: going to hear about, So brace yourselves. I was just
Speaker 3: reading this morning that the Senate Armed Services Committee has
Speaker 3: seven Democratic women on it. Two of them one of
Speaker 3: them is Elizabeth Warren, but one Kirsten Gillibrand not a
Speaker 3: lot of people know this. Literally one of her key
Speaker 3: issues in the Senate is women in the military, and
Speaker 3: specifically adjudicated eating sexual assault in the military. She's previously
Speaker 3: tried to take it out of the hands of the U.
Speaker 3: Cmjan and make it like civilian thing. Terrible idea in
Speaker 3: my opinion, but whatever, well, fine, it failed.
Speaker 2: The concern was that oftentimes women were having to report
Speaker 2: sexual assault up the chain of command to people who
Speaker 2: you know, either may have had a close relationship with
Speaker 2: the abuser or may even be the abuser themselves, that
Speaker 2: there were problems with the previous system.
Speaker 1: We'll put out saying the previous system was perfect.
Speaker 3: But anyway, this just has all been adjudicated and it
Speaker 3: did not work or it did not pass. My point
Speaker 3: is is that those people, I think Maji Orono as well,
Speaker 3: who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are going
Speaker 3: to significantly press Pete hexeth on the women in combat roles.
Speaker 3: To one of them, Tammy Duckworth. Obviously, she was wounded
Speaker 3: in combat. I think she lost two of her legs,
Speaker 3: so that's going to be a set piece. And they're
Speaker 3: also going to be pressing him on previous allegations against him.
Speaker 3: There's some talk here about the FBI reports. So if
Speaker 3: there's anyone that's going to be explosive, spicy for media
Speaker 3: content and anothers, I think the Pete Hegseth one certainly today.
Speaker 3: I also think the RFK Junior one is a sleeper.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is still not one where you're one
Speaker 3: hundred percent on confirmation. But as I said at the top,
Speaker 3: I have a reasonable expectation that all these people are
Speaker 3: going to get confirmed. Trump has stuck by all of them.
Speaker 3: He brought Joni Hearnst Jonie Ernst to heel. She previously
Speaker 3: had been trying to, you know, stop Pete Hegseth's or
Speaker 3: Pete Hexets nomination. She is also a major proponent of
Speaker 3: women in combat, former veteran herself, and I believe she
Speaker 3: didn't she say she was previously. She's a sexual assault
Speaker 3: survivor anyway, So my point is that she had some
Speaker 3: objections to him, but and she also wanted the job herself.
Speaker 3: Now it seems that she's either endorsed him or she's like,
Speaker 3: I'm willing to hear him out in confirmation. Hexeth may
Speaker 3: have some of the biggest trouble, but you know, Tulsea
Speaker 3: Gabbard cash Betel and Tolsey Gabbard cash Betel and RFK
Speaker 3: Junior I think are going to have some of the
Speaker 3: toughest confirmation hearings, especially with the way that the Democrats
Speaker 3: are going to try and to create viral moments and
Speaker 3: more political increy and create political conditions to make them unconfirmable.
Speaker 3: But considering what we've seen so far, I don't see
Speaker 3: anything other than some crazy kind of black Swan event
Speaker 3: happening that would prevent any of them from being able
Speaker 3: to take their position.
Speaker 4: I think they're all likely to get through.
Speaker 2: I think Telsa is probably the one that is the
Speaker 2: most dicey because I don't think a single Democrat will
Speaker 2: vote for her. I mean, you know, these things are personal.
Speaker 2: Are a lot of these way like she used the
Speaker 2: turncoat in terms of the Democratic Party, So they're not
Speaker 2: going to be excited to vote for her, and then
Speaker 2: they worry about her different foreign ties, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But and Republicans are going to be the hawks in
Speaker 2: the Republican Caucus are also going to be somewhat skeptical
Speaker 2: of her, which is why this section seven two thing
Speaker 2: was so significant. Her changing her stripes on this one
Speaker 2: is so significant in an attempt to get herself across
Speaker 2: the finish line, because I think she felt that especially
Speaker 2: without you know, again, I think if Trump came in
Speaker 2: and said, Tulsi's my Tulsi is my pick. I wanner through.
Speaker 2: I will punish anyone who doesn't vote for her. Section
Speaker 2: seven oh two is a key priority for me. You
Speaker 2: are not going to block her nomination over something that
Speaker 2: I support and is my agenda, the will of people.
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: I think he could get her over the finish line
Speaker 2: without her having to change her stripes, but that's obviously
Speaker 2: not the way that things are playing out. So again,
Speaker 2: I think she'll get through. I think hers might be
Speaker 2: the one that has the biggest question mark.
Speaker 4: And then you never know, you know, what could come
Speaker 4: up in an.
Speaker 2: FBI report that causes the problem, you know, that sort
Speaker 2: of wild card situation. Is there something that we don't
Speaker 2: know about these various picks that could ultimately come out.
Speaker 2: But given the fact that number one, the Republicans have
Speaker 2: really you know, when Trump said vote for Mike Johnson,
Speaker 2: and they all fell in line.
Speaker 4: They voted for Mike Johnson.
Speaker 2: Right when he called up Jony Ernst and said you're
Speaker 2: gonna behind Pete Haigsath, I'm assuming is what happened. She
Speaker 2: was like, all right, fine, I'm going to be behind Pete.
Speaker 4: Hegseth.
Speaker 2: So I think the Republicans are going to fall in line,
Speaker 2: and some of the Democrats are going to vote for
Speaker 2: I think the Democrats are going to vote for more
Speaker 2: of these picks than they voted for Trump's picks back
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen, because they have decided a good number
Speaker 2: of them have decided that they're not really going to
Speaker 2: resist the Trump administration in the way that they.
Speaker 4: Did last time around.
Speaker 2: There's just less of a desire to fight on some
Speaker 2: of these things. So yeah, I think these picks are
Speaker 2: all probably going.
Speaker 3: To get through, Which brings us now to one of
Speaker 3: the most hilarious parts of all of this is, as
Speaker 3: you said, the fall apart of the resistance. That's a
Speaker 3: good transition, so perfect example and how different this all is.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: The Washington Post editorial board has now issued endorsements for
Speaker 3: all of the Trump cabinet nominees, and hilariously, they endorse
Speaker 3: all but four of those nominees Pete Hegseth, are FK Junior,
Speaker 3: Russ Vout for the Office of Management and Budget, and
Speaker 3: the d n I Tulsey Gabbert. Now, I think why
Speaker 3: this is ironic and kind of hilarious is just that.
Speaker 3: It shows you how the Washington Post under Bezos is
Speaker 3: trying to strike this balance of resistance audience with respectability
Speaker 3: Washington institution politics. Now you can have one, you cannot
Speaker 3: have both. And as we'll show you soon with their
Speaker 3: traffic numbers, they're actually getting neither. But some of the
Speaker 3: most hilarious ways that they endorse people you can just read.
Speaker 3: For example, Marco Rubio. Here's why they endorse him. The
Speaker 3: son of immigrants. Rubio is respected by Senate colleagues and
Speaker 3: understands the vital importance of American leadership.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's the that's their entire.
Speaker 3: Jeff Bezos tune on why you should confirm him. For example,
Speaker 3: on Pete Hegseth or RFK Junior, they just say with Hegseth,
Speaker 3: the former Fox who's anchored, lacks the temperament and moral
Speaker 3: fiber required to lead the Pentagon. He persuaded Trump to
Speaker 3: pardon accuse war criminals, and as a well documented history
Speaker 3: of womanizing and heavy drinking, though he says he'll give
Speaker 3: up the bottle if he gets one of the most
Speaker 3: sensitive and powerful jobs in the world. So they're switched
Speaker 3: between like incisive things that they want to criticize others
Speaker 3: on and for those though, like Doug Bergham, they say
Speaker 3: the outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a
Speaker 3: successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's that's the only thing that they write for.
Speaker 3: So the reason why this is funny is you have
Speaker 3: to pair this endorsement and all of that with what
Speaker 3: is also going on over at the Washington Post. So
Speaker 3: let's move on to the next one, shall we. Washington
Speaker 3: Post traffic from semaphore has gone from twenty two point
Speaker 3: five daily active users in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4: Just out January sixth, that was the piece right.
Speaker 3: Just after January sixth, to about three million, three million,
Speaker 3: So you guys can do the math on what that
Speaker 3: means daily active users down to two point five to
Speaker 3: three million, So that means that they have had a
Speaker 3: sixty percent decline now currently in the overall traffic numbers,
Speaker 3: just month over months since they decided not to do
Speaker 3: that endorsement. And then The Wall Street Journal has previously
Speaker 3: reported that the Post revenue fell from one hundred and
Speaker 3: ninety million in twenty twenty three to one hundred and
Speaker 3: seventy four million just last year. Keep in mind, both
Speaker 3: the one hundred and ninety and one seventy four figure
Speaker 3: are not enough to cover.
Speaker 1: Their bills, and Bezos is still losing.
Speaker 3: Some one hundred million dollars or so per year operating
Speaker 3: the paper.
Speaker 1: Now they've done significant.
Speaker 3: Layoffs and all of that, but part of the problem
Speaker 3: behind all of this is that the only time they
Speaker 3: were ever in the green and profitable is by highlighting
Speaker 3: the very resistance figures like Jennifer Rubin and others who
Speaker 3: were plot Twist has decided to leave. The paper will
Speaker 3: show you in a second, but all of their democracy
Speaker 3: dies in the darkness branding, et cetera. It might have
Speaker 3: made Bezos a little uncomfortable and at odds with Trump,
Speaker 3: but it was the only market based success that they
Speaker 3: could ever achieve. By ditching that, they both have gone
Speaker 3: from a paper that just, I mean breaks some news,
Speaker 3: not a ton great journalist. Obviously, we have Jeff Stein
Speaker 3: here on the show, but it's not an institution in
Speaker 3: the same way the New York Times is at all.
Speaker 3: But also by ditching the Resistance and then trying to
Speaker 3: find this like almost like journal esque medium, they just
Speaker 3: have no identity.
Speaker 1: So it's a good.
Speaker 3: Example of whenever you're just constantly moving your principles around,
Speaker 3: especially your customers and others, you're going to find yourself
Speaker 3: in a position like this.
Speaker 1: Now Bezos is filthy rich and he probably just doesn't care.
Speaker 3: But you know, if you run the paper, this is
Speaker 3: still like this is a what, second largest newspaper in
Speaker 3: the United States, one of the most nationally known papers
Speaker 3: in the entire world, and it's basically collapsing in front
Speaker 3: of our eyes, Like it's not inconceivable that this revenue
Speaker 3: drops below one hundred million this year with all of
Speaker 3: these crazy cuts and things they're trying to do over there,
Speaker 3: and that more and more of their star journalists and
Speaker 3: others who are the only ones who brought in traffic
Speaker 3: are just gonna leave. So okay, I mean that seems
Speaker 3: to be the case. All the top reporters I know
Speaker 3: of then sign are gone.
Speaker 1: They all left. Yeah, I just decided they don't want
Speaker 1: to deal with it anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, so the just to go back for
Speaker 2: a second, the cabinet endorsement thing, which is not a
Speaker 2: thing I've ever seen any paper do before, and it's
Speaker 2: just like wo weird exactly, and that the analysis.
Speaker 1: Is so shallow, like form immigrants.
Speaker 2: For Christino dog jokes aside, she's served in Congress in
Speaker 2: two terms as governor of South Dakota, so we give
Speaker 2: her a thumbs up. It's like, okay, but like, what
Speaker 2: does she believe and does that qualify her to be
Speaker 2: a homeland securities I got have to go to.
Speaker 1: Population is less than one million, by the way, so
Speaker 1: just so.
Speaker 6: We're all aware.
Speaker 2: But the other thing that's ironic too is five seconds
Speaker 2: ago they were like, we don't do indiments.
Speaker 1: Yes, we had good point.
Speaker 4: People decide.
Speaker 2: Oh now suddenly when you're going to endorse almost all
Speaker 2: of Trump's nominees, suddenly you're back in the endorsements game.
Speaker 2: Low and behold. So yeah, they've destroyed their brand. They
Speaker 2: built a brand very explicitly around Trump resistance. Unlike you know,
Speaker 2: the New York Times really bought a bunch of businesses
Speaker 2: and tried to make it more than even just the
Speaker 2: news at all. They have all these other verticals that
Speaker 2: I think in many ways are more profitable even than
Speaker 2: the main news business that they engage in. Bezos really
Speaker 2: went all in on Trump resistance, and by the way,
Speaker 2: there's still a market for that a dramatically underserved market
Speaker 2: at this point, given the fact that the Post is
Speaker 2: out of the game. You know, MSNBC has Joe and
Speaker 2: Mika making their lull sojourn to mar A Lago, and
Speaker 2: we'll get back to them in the second. CNN the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party themselves like bending the knee in many instances,
Speaker 2: all of these tech oligarchs, et cetera. Remember, I mean, yes,
Speaker 2: Trump won the popular vote for the first time Republicans
Speaker 2: have a mandate, but he also only won the popular
Speaker 2: vote by one point five percentage points. There are still
Speaker 2: a lot of people in this country who don't are
Speaker 2: not excited about him being president, are critical of him
Speaker 2: and want to see that reflected in their media consumption.
Speaker 2: So yeah, the brand is completely destroyed. As you said, Soccer, like,
Speaker 2: who is this for at this point, because it's certainly
Speaker 2: like MAGA is not looking to the Washington Posts for
Speaker 2: their directions, And I think it's very clear that, you know,
Speaker 2: for Bezos, the Washington Post is like a little blip
Speaker 2: on his bottom line. It doesn't matter whether it's profitable
Speaker 2: or not. What's much more important to him is how
Speaker 2: Amazon does his larger and like the cloud computing business
Speaker 2: that he has as well, which is a huge part
Speaker 2: of his bottom line. Under the first Trump administration, he felt,
Speaker 2: I think correctly that he was blocked from a significant
Speaker 2: government contract because of an adversarial posture Pisa VI Trump
Speaker 2: and he is not going to repeat that mistake again.
Speaker 2: So you know, that's where his bread is buttered, and
Speaker 2: that's you know what he is going to shift the
Speaker 2: paper in the direction of you Also recently think we
Speaker 2: covered this while you were away soccer. There was a
Speaker 2: cartoonist who had been at the paper for years and
Speaker 2: years to award winning, surprize winning whatever, who had submitted
Speaker 2: an editorial cartoon that had Bezos and Mickey Mouse and
Speaker 2: the La Times owner and some other oligarchs. Zuckerberg I
Speaker 2: think was I think was one of them, basically like
Speaker 2: bending the knee to Trump, and the cartoon was blocked,
Speaker 2: and so she decided like, Okay, that's it, I'm out
Speaker 2: of here. And that's actually what Jen Rubin also cites
Speaker 2: that cartoon being blocked and that cartoonist departure for a
Speaker 2: part of her justification for why she was ultimately going
Speaker 2: to move on. So yeah, I think, you know, as
Speaker 2: a business obviously it's already a catastrophe, and I wouldn't
Speaker 2: look to them for any like really serious critical reporting
Speaker 2: because Bezos is only going to let that critique go
Speaker 2: so far because of his other business interests and not
Speaker 2: wanting to get crosswise with this company.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which is why it's hilarious. Let's put this up
Speaker 3: there on the screen about Jennifer Rubin. She has announced
Speaker 3: her departure from The Washington Post and has decided to
Speaker 3: join us in the independent sphere, starting a startup publication
Speaker 3: called The Control not owned by any hilarious Yeah, could,
Speaker 3: it's just crazy. There is nobody less contrarians of those
Speaker 3: like Perveros.
Speaker 2: I don't know if people know that she was like,
Speaker 2: you know, a mid Romney published a rock War supporting
Speaker 2: like neo Khon conservative and then you know, she makes
Speaker 2: this transition in the Trump era, which okay, fine, but
Speaker 2: you know oftentimes too she's one of these Obviously Magga
Speaker 2: hates her because she doesn't support Trump, But I mean,
Speaker 2: where is she even really politically is a really open question,
Speaker 2: because she seemingly has completely flipped a lot of views
Speaker 2: in the Trump era, which is convenient for a Washington
Speaker 2: Post audience, where she is and was like very popular,
Speaker 2: So it actually is kind of a blow to them
Speaker 2: that she is leaving.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, business wise, she's number one every time.
Speaker 4: It's crazy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but anyway, who are you she?
Speaker 4: Yeah, she has a big audience there.
Speaker 2: So the fact that she's leaving, I mean it really
Speaker 2: genuinely is a significant development for them.
Speaker 4: And you know, I mean, on the one.
Speaker 2: Hand, it's like, all right, you are standing by your principles.
Speaker 2: You don't want to be controlled by you know, Bezos
Speaker 2: or bend Anita Trump or whatever.
Speaker 4: Okay, but it is funny to call it.
Speaker 2: The contraryan when like, if you want to know what
Speaker 2: Beltway conventional wisdom is, just go and read a Jennifer
Speaker 2: Ruven post and you will be well schooled. And what
Speaker 2: the like conventional wisdom of this town is at this point.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, That's why I'm excited for these people to get
Speaker 3: into the independent sphere, because they have no idea truly
Speaker 3: what it actually means to cultivate an audience.
Speaker 1: You have to build a sustainable business to.
Speaker 3: Be able to operate without Jeff Bezos cutting you w
Speaker 3: two income every year, be totally insulated from what it
Speaker 3: means to actually like fend for yourself so welcome, Jen.
Speaker 3: We're happy to have you here in the sphere. Let's
Speaker 3: check in in a year, shall we.
Speaker 2: Know what I actually think they might be successful. I
Speaker 2: to be honest with you, I actually because this.
Speaker 1: Market is a video first, take care.
Speaker 2: But I mean this market of like Trump resistance, is
Speaker 2: really underserved at this point, and she is a known
Speaker 2: quantity in that space, and so I.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't write it off.
Speaker 1: I think it could be.
Speaker 2: I think it could be. From a business perspective, I
Speaker 2: think it could be a successful mentor.
Speaker 1: I think it's possible.
Speaker 3: But I mean, look on the independent side, it's not
Speaker 3: like it isn't saturated either.
Speaker 1: You got the Bulwark. You got that.
Speaker 3: Lady what's her name, Heathercox Richardson something like that.
Speaker 1: She's huge.
Speaker 3: I mean she she is one of the top substacks
Speaker 3: in the country. Yeah, these Midas touch dudes. Look, yeah,
Speaker 3: my not my cup of tea, but they're big, Like
Speaker 3: here's my thing. I don't like it, but I know
Speaker 3: that they're at the I mean, I'm pretty sure they
Speaker 3: are funded by Democratic super PACs and all that. So
Speaker 3: let's it's not one hundred percent legit, but but but
Speaker 3: anybody who can command a million views of video. I
Speaker 3: pay attention, you know, I mean, somebody's out there. I've
Speaker 3: actually met Boom. Actually I was in La and I
Speaker 3: was no San Diego and I was in an uber
Speaker 3: and this guy was like, he's like, you look familiar,
Speaker 3: you know whatever. And then he's like, it's I think
Speaker 3: I've seen before on the Midas Touch, and I was like, no,
Speaker 3: that's not me, no idea. But then he's just telling
Speaker 3: me about how much he loves the Midas Touch and
Speaker 3: how they've they've really opened his mind as to how
Speaker 3: Donald Trump is the next Hitler.
Speaker 1: Here's what I was like, Hey, you know, here's what
Speaker 1: I respect.
Speaker 2: Someone is there not too like self serious to dig
Speaker 2: into the like diaper Donna.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely like they will.
Speaker 4: They will chase every rabbit hole and so bad. Listen.
Speaker 4: That's what's allowed them to build it on.
Speaker 2: And I think that, like, there is a lot of
Speaker 2: churn in the liberal media space right now, and a
Speaker 2: lot of people who are very dissatisfied with the Post,
Speaker 2: with the Times, and with MSNBC and CNN, and who
Speaker 2: are totally radically changing their media consumption habits right now.
Speaker 2: So that's why I think there is an opening, like
Speaker 2: if you're a liberal in that lane and you're starting
Speaker 2: something new, I do think that they're as an audience
Speaker 2: there to potentially, you know, capture and become part of
Speaker 2: their daily media diet.
Speaker 4: Now you know, there are no.
Speaker 2: Bad ideas, there's only bad execution, and they may well
Speaker 2: suffer from pad executionists we're about to see in this
Speaker 2: launch video, which we've now teased extensively. But but you know,
Speaker 2: I'm just saying like, I do think if they do
Speaker 2: a good job with it and fill that market need,
Speaker 2: I do think there is an audience out there for them.
Speaker 4: It would not surprise me successful.
Speaker 3: As we said as to their chops self. Though, here's
Speaker 3: the launch video that they had.
Speaker 1: Take a listen, do politics.
Speaker 6: We're gonna do law, but we know that any successful
Speaker 6: pro democracy movement also has to be very vocal about culture.
Speaker 6: We'll have a humor column, we'll even have a cooking column,
Speaker 6: but we're gonna sprinkle in a little bit of pro
Speaker 6: democracy flavor.
Speaker 1: What is energy?
Speaker 2: I love that energy to see you want to find out?
Speaker 2: You gotta subscribe?
Speaker 4: Fine? Ounce are all right?
Speaker 1: Jen? What was she the best?
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and move over to MSNBC
Speaker 2: where there are very interesting doings and put this big
Speaker 2: blockbuster news up on the screen. So you guys probably
Speaker 2: know Rachel Mattow had taken a step back from the network.
Speaker 2: She was focusing on her own, like you know, longer
Speaker 2: form productions and only hosting the show once a week plus.
Speaker 2: They would bring her in for any like big breaking
Speaker 2: news and she would sit at the desk with all
Speaker 2: the other you know, primetime anchors whatever. Alex Wagner had
Speaker 2: been brought back in to fill her a belief nine
Speaker 2: pm slot on those other nights when she's not hosting. Well,
Speaker 2: they are bringing Rachel back in to host five nights
Speaker 2: a week and sending Alex Wagner out into the field
Speaker 2: for Trump's first at least first one hundred days, is
Speaker 2: what the plan is. They say it's a broader move
Speaker 2: by MSNBC to draw viewership to its coverage for.
Speaker 4: That first one hundred days.
Speaker 2: And they talk about the numbers in this variety piece
Speaker 2: and just how catastrophic they have been for MSNBC after
Speaker 2: Trump's re election. They see between the election and the
Speaker 2: end of twenty twenty four, their primetime audience between the
Speaker 2: age of twenty five and fifty four. That's the only
Speaker 2: thing that matters. By the way, the key demographic is
Speaker 2: the only thing that matters, because that's what advertisers pay
Speaker 2: for ads based on dropped by sixty five percent. Sixty
Speaker 2: five percent according to data from Nielsen. They're making a
Speaker 2: couple other new moves. Jensaki is going to launch a
Speaker 2: podcast called The Blueprint with Jensaki that's going to look
Speaker 2: at the future for the Democratic Party, like she's the
Speaker 2: one to tell us what direction to go. And Chris
Speaker 2: Hayes is going to debut a new recurring segment called
Speaker 2: here is What Is True that will scrutinize misinformation tied
Speaker 2: to news coming out of Washington and how it affects
Speaker 2: political discourse. But this whole direction saga, it just smacks
Speaker 2: of utter desperation because and I do, actually, I mean,
Speaker 2: I do think that Rachel may be their only host
Speaker 2: a laugh, who really has that kind of like trust
Speaker 2: and credibility with the audience, especially after that Joe and
Speaker 2: Minkavis a Tomorrow lago.
Speaker 4: It was devastating to them. It was devastating in the morning.
Speaker 2: Joe numbers immediately in that same day that they announced
Speaker 2: that they did that their numbers dropped some forty percent
Speaker 2: hour over hour. That's in a morning show, and audience
Speaker 2: share is supposed.
Speaker 4: To build hour over hour.
Speaker 2: And I really think that that stench of Trump capitulation
Speaker 2: has damaged the entire network. Not to mention just normal,
Speaker 2: like okay, the other team one, like this is really depressing.
Speaker 4: We don't really want to watch news right now.
Speaker 2: Like that's a common dynamic, and potentially they could rebuild
Speaker 2: from that they did last time that Trump won as well.
Speaker 2: But also last time they had Rushi Gate, which you
Speaker 2: know was oversold and you know this elaborate conspiracy theory,
Speaker 2: but it made for That's part of why they indulged
Speaker 2: in it so heavily. It made for compelling viewing because
Speaker 2: every night it was like, oh my god, what's what
Speaker 2: piece of the puzzle is Rachel Maddow going to unfurl
Speaker 2: and explain for us and help to fill this in?
Speaker 2: And what's going to be the dramatic conclusion, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera, all this cast of characters, and that's really
Speaker 2: how they made their comeback in the Trump era. It's
Speaker 2: not clear what would serve that same role this time around.
Speaker 2: Democrats in general are in disarray there's no coherent view
Speaker 2: of how to oppose Donald Trump this time around either
Speaker 2: so they're not all you know, or is they're not
Speaker 2: all rowing in the same direction. So the only thing
Speaker 2: they can think to do is basically bring back in
Speaker 2: the one person that they know still has the trust
Speaker 2: of the audience and see if she can write the shit.
Speaker 1: But the problem is with this strategy is she already left.
Speaker 3: So you're I mean, they probably had to pay a
Speaker 3: boatload of money to come back for this one hundred days.
Speaker 1: What about after that?
Speaker 3: You know, are do they is the plan that, oh,
Speaker 3: they'll find their footing. I mean, I'm assuming that's literally
Speaker 3: what it is. They're like, Oh, we'll figure it out.
Speaker 3: We'll see what the peg is.
Speaker 4: To rebuild those viewership habits.
Speaker 3: That's because you know, it's really important to know the
Speaker 3: media was not the creator of the resistance.
Speaker 1: It was like a dual pathway where.
Speaker 3: Yes, MSNBC and all these other people invented Russia Gate
Speaker 3: to feed the resistance, But the resistance was a thing.
Speaker 3: I was here in d C. There were people marching
Speaker 3: up and down the streets after Donald Trump won. The
Speaker 3: day after Trump won, I was at the Trump Hotel
Speaker 3: for a work thing, and the entire place was flooded
Speaker 3: with protesters. I remember the Women's March. It was impossible
Speaker 3: to even get around to this. What was it four
Speaker 3: million people showed up here in Washington, d C. Remember
Speaker 3: all those videos of the ladies in their hats on
Speaker 3: the planes.
Speaker 1: It was big. It was big, all right, cringe but big.
Speaker 3: But you know, it was the thing, and there was
Speaker 3: clearly like a demand for that type of content. That's
Speaker 3: part of where it came from. This time, I don't
Speaker 3: see it as much, not at all. I'm not saying
Speaker 3: that there aren't a lot of people out there don't
Speaker 3: like Trump or they won't to see it something a
Speaker 3: little bit different, but they're not. It's not like an
Speaker 3: nine to eleven style event to them, and they're tired
Speaker 3: or they have just been they've.
Speaker 1: Heard it all before.
Speaker 3: So that level of engagement, the illegitimacy that they viewed
Speaker 3: him as because he didn't win the popular vote, a
Speaker 3: lot of the arguments are just gone. And at this
Speaker 3: point everything they possibly could have done has been tried,
Speaker 3: you know, arrest, you know, the core cases. Michael Lavnati
Speaker 3: com even they are probably rolling their eyes at this point. No,
Speaker 3: they just have to say, I can't take this shit anymore.
Speaker 2: I think I think it is that exhaustion. It's not
Speaker 2: that they are any less depressed about his victory. It's
Speaker 2: like we tried everything, Like we were in the streets,
Speaker 2: we marched.
Speaker 4: We protested, like we didn't watch Rachel Mattow every night.
Speaker 2: You know, we tweeted about drump We did we you know,
Speaker 2: he got arrested, he got charged, he did January sixth,
Speaker 2: and you know, people saw with their own eyes the
Speaker 2: you know, the extremism, and there was this mass revulsion
Speaker 2: against the actions that he took, in the actions he
Speaker 2: didn't take on that day. And I think the sense
Speaker 2: is like, yeah, we did all that and like it,
Speaker 2: none of it worked. And even we you know, managed
Speaker 2: to get Joe Biden out of the way and have
Speaker 2: a better chance at least at being able to succeed.
Speaker 2: So I think this time, and there's also in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: he really felt like an aberration, especially because he didn't
Speaker 2: win the popular vote, and they're always you know, Russia
Speaker 2: and Komi, and there were all these like, oh well,
Speaker 2: and Hillary runs a bad campaign and maybe she was
Speaker 2: a uniquely bad candidate and so there was this sense
Speaker 2: of this was a blip, and that's not the sense now. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: there's not the same grassroots movement against him, and there's
Speaker 2: certainly not a media that's orienting itself in order to
Speaker 2: you know, help to build up that grassroots energy movement
Speaker 2: of resistance, et cetera. And so yeah, and then the
Speaker 2: other thing we haven't even mentioned is Comcast is selling
Speaker 2: MSNBC like they're being cut loose along with other cable
Speaker 2: news properties that are under the Comcast brand, and they're
Speaker 2: being like launched down into the ether as effectively a
Speaker 2: startup in the coming years. They're being cut loose from
Speaker 2: NBC where that you know, provided them with some news
Speaker 2: gathering and some like legitimate news gathering ability.
Speaker 4: So they're really at sea.
Speaker 2: And I do, like I said, at the word that
Speaker 2: comes to mind for me looking at this bringing Rachel
Speaker 2: back in for the first hundred days is just desperate.
Speaker 2: It's the only thing they could figure to do to
Speaker 2: try to rebuild something so that when that sale, when
Speaker 2: that spinoff does occur, they have you know, something of viewership,
Speaker 2: something that could even theoretically makes sense as a business possibility,
Speaker 2: because right now, given these numbers. It's not looking good
Speaker 2: and they pay their remember huge overhead, I mean the
Speaker 2: amount that they pay these hosts.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I was just like absolutely, he sets financial disclosure.
Speaker 3: This guy only works weekends. He's getting paid two point
Speaker 3: two million a year to only.
Speaker 1: Work two days, two days a week. Nice, jag must
Speaker 1: be nice.
Speaker 6: Nice.
Speaker 1: You know that's the word Fox News.
Speaker 3: Obviously it's probably a little bit higher over there, but
Speaker 3: I mean, what cut it in half a million?
Speaker 1: I mean, Rachel's pulling.
Speaker 2: A million unt of money and Joe Amica make that
Speaker 2: kind of money. They make a million easy, Yeah, huge
Speaker 2: dollar figures. I mean every every primetime host is making
Speaker 2: at least a million a year. Rachel's making way more
Speaker 2: than that. Joe Amica make way more than that. I
Speaker 2: mean that's if you're if you're a startup, like even
Speaker 2: they said they'd be a well funded startup, Well, even
Speaker 2: a well funded startup can't handle that kind of overhead
Speaker 2: when you're not bringing in the viewers. So yeah, the
Speaker 2: future not looking great over there. Another this is not
Speaker 2: totally unexpected, but some of four broke the news and
Speaker 2: can put this up on the screen. Chuck Todd has
Speaker 2: been meeting with Washington media organizations. He is going to
Speaker 2: leave NBC at the end of his contract, you'd already
Speaker 2: been take it off meet the press, So not all
Speaker 2: that surprising.
Speaker 4: That he is looking to move on.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't surprise me, Sager if he also tries to get
Speaker 2: into the like independent media game because of the yeah,
Speaker 2: the hot hot spots to be and these people all.
Speaker 4: Think that they can make it in our world.
Speaker 2: And I don't know, some of the ways that he's
Speaker 2: been talking recently have seemed to me to be an
Speaker 2: attempt to transition into more of like an independent media space,
Speaker 2: giving some creedence to Bernie Sanders, that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: where you know, it's very different from the way that
Speaker 2: he used to approach these topics.
Speaker 3: Also fancies himself into intellectual like big history takes, so
Speaker 3: I could also see him trying to write some Bill
Speaker 3: O'Reilly style history books. That is, by the way, is
Speaker 3: a book guy so depressing. Whenever you check the top
Speaker 3: ten books in the United States, number eight is always
Speaker 3: some fucking.
Speaker 1: Killing so and so by Bill O'Ryan.
Speaker 3: Who are you buying this?
Speaker 1: I just don't understand it.
Speaker 3: I think it's like grandma's who buy them as gifts
Speaker 3: for their grandsons.
Speaker 4: They've got ripped.
Speaker 1: Like, oh no, no, look, put the accurate there.
Speaker 3: It's mostly the killing books are just like aggregators. It's
Speaker 3: like reading a BuzzFeed article about an event like killing Lincoln, right,
Speaker 3: and it's like narrative style, basically narrative style aggregation. I
Speaker 3: actually tried to read Killing Lincoln once because I was like, Okay,
Speaker 3: what's all the fuss about. It was one of the
Speaker 3: top selling books in the country. It's incomprehensible and bad.
Speaker 1: I just don't get it.
Speaker 3: But you know, for for Chuck, there's a well trotten
Speaker 3: path out there, there's a well trotten path.
Speaker 2: He doesn't have to juice the estill a riots. Obviously
Speaker 2: I don't share his politics, right. He really is kind
Speaker 2: of the goat of like the cable news format.
Speaker 4: That man really made, you know.
Speaker 2: Cable news, what it is like the format and his
Speaker 2: style and you know, his command of the audience and
Speaker 2: all that stuff, Like he really was you have to
Speaker 2: I have to respect the game.
Speaker 3: I have to resct absolutely ice to watch growing up
Speaker 3: what was you know, the debate segments and that these
Speaker 3: have I mean, listen, it was at one point I
Speaker 3: think O'Reilly was commanding like ten million viewers a night
Speaker 3: whenever there, whenever we were in the lead up to
Speaker 3: the Iraq war. I mean, honestly has a lot of
Speaker 3: responsibility for that. For a lot of the problems with
Speaker 3: the Bush administration. It was a different moment in time.
Speaker 3: It was almost twenty years ago, it feels like forever,
Speaker 3: but at one point in time like these people were
Speaker 3: the kings of American politics. So at the very least,
Speaker 3: thank god that that time is over.
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed, we've got one last piece here, which is
Speaker 2: more on the dismal television ratings and a new poll.
Speaker 2: It can put B three up on the screen here.
Speaker 2: Americans exhausted by political news TV ratings and a new
Speaker 2: poll show they are tuning out. So about two thirds
Speaker 2: of American adults say they have recently felt the need
Speaker 2: to limit media consumption about politics and government because of overload.
Speaker 4: You should probably do that. It's probably good for your health.
Speaker 2: Smaller percentages of Americans are limiting their intake of about
Speaker 2: overseas conflicts, economy, or climate change. Seven and ten Democrats
Speaker 2: say they're stepping back from political news. Percentage isn't quite
Speaker 2: as high for Republicans who have reason to celebrate Trump's victory,
Speaker 2: but still about six and ten republicans say they felt
Speaker 2: the need to take some time off too, and the
Speaker 2: share for independence is similar.
Speaker 4: Maybe I don't know.
Speaker 2: People are bad at really describing like what they should
Speaker 2: do versus what they are doing, et cetera. The fact
Speaker 2: that cable news ratings are at CNN and MSNBC in
Speaker 2: particular are massively down doesn't necessarily mean that news conception
Speaker 2: overall is massively down, because, as we've discussed before, you know,
Speaker 2: a bunch of like left independent channels are actually seeing
Speaker 2: a huge surge right now, Kyle's obviously being one of them.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I think there's a real I'm sure there's
Speaker 2: some fatigue after an election, there already is, but it
Speaker 2: also seems to me like what we're seeing is more
Speaker 2: of a reshuffling of media habits than a desire to
Speaker 2: completely step away.
Speaker 1: Yeahquestion, I totally agree with that.