April 10, 2025 • 23 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Karol Markowicz discuss the latest developments in the trade war, focusing on tariffs and their implications for the U.S. economy. They also explore the influence of social media in shaping political narratives, particularly regarding Kamala Harris. The conversation shifts to the trust issues plaguing mainstream media and the need for transparency in influencer marketing. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
#tradewar #tariffs #China #socialmedia #influence #KamalaHarris #media #trust #politicalcommentary #economicpolicy
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, hey guys, we are back on normally, the show
that normals takes for when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I am Mary teth Him.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
I'm Carol Markowitz. I keep waiting for the news not
to be weird, but it's just weird every day.
Speaker 4 (00:15):
Mary Catherine, I'm a weird every.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Day, the upside of the tagline. And I'm having a
weird week because I'm working without a net. I have
no childcare, so we're recording during nap time and we're
crossing our fingers.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But we can do it.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Carol, it's gonna be a fast one. Let's do it.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Well, there's news in the trade war on the tariff front,
and that is that Donald Trump announced via Truth social
network that he is pausing for ninety days tariffs on
everyone else, the reciprocal tariffs, not the baseline ten percent,
which will still exist, all right, pausing the extra ones
(00:55):
for ninety days, except for on China.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Here's the truth.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Based on the lack of respect that China has shown
to the world's markets, I am hereby raising the tariff
charged to China by the United States of America to
one hundred and twenty five percent effective immediately. At some point,
hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the
days of ripping off the USA and other countries it
is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on
the fact that more than seventy five countries have called
(01:21):
representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury,
and the US Trade Representative's Office, to negotiate a solution
to the subjects being discussed relative to trade, trade barriers, tariffs, currency,
manipulation of non monetary tariffs, and that these countries have not,
at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape or
form against the United States.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I have authorized in ninety.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Day pause and substantially lowered reciprocal tariff during this period
of ten percent, also effective immediately.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Everyone's like glued to their television screen like.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
He has a way.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
He really does.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So the markets responded well to this idea of a pause,
as they did to the fake news about a pause
a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
That should show the president something I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Again, this is the problem with the whole structure of
this is that he can change his mind unless Congress
takes this power.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Back in a moment if he wants to.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
I like the idea of going after China, but being
chiller with people who are not involved in a bunch
of unfair practices. That seems good to me. Getting closer
to zero for zero tariffs seems good to me. Do
I think that was the plan here?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I'm not sure, but I'm glad we're here at the moment.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Well, that's the thing, right, What was the plan?
Speaker 4 (02:44):
Was there a plan? We'll never know?
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And I look again, you and I have been sort of,
I think, not cautiously optimistic, but just cautious in general
about this whole thing. And we're not surprised that it
ended up here for now. Again, it might start back
up again in ninety days.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
This is pretty much where we.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Predicted he'd be. Maybe we didn't see the China angle coming.
I thought maybe he would be across the board pose.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
It for ninety days. I'm not mad at this. I
think that China.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Does deserve some retribution for what they do to us.
And look, if this is where we end up, I
think that'll be okay.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Howard Lutnik, who is the Commerce Secretary, tweeted, I just
found this very funny. As a cabinet member for Trump,
Scott Besson and I set with the President while he
wrote one of the most.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Extraordinary tingh my god of his presidency.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
The world is ready to work with President Trump to
fix global trade, and China has chosen the opposite direction.
I have a feeling that Scott Bessont was like, this
looks like a win to me, sir, And here's how
we can tell that story.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Besson's quote is this was driven by the President's strategy.
This was his along.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
You might even say he go to China into a
bad position. They have shown themselves to the world to
be bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with
our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Again.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I think this is a reframing, but it's one that
I don't mind if it gets us.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yeah, let's declare victory and get the hell out of this.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yes, cutting the federal workforce please, right.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
I think things were going so well until this tariff thing.
The idea of bringing back manufacturing seems like a stretch,
but I'm open to hearing plans about it.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Look, all of this is heading.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Towards being automated anyway. So this idea of let's bring
back these amazing jobs and have manufacturing in the United
States probably isn't what's actually going to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
We'll see. I'm happy with this.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
If we could just say we won and leave it here,
that would be good in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, we have manufacturing jobs that go unfilled here, so
it's not that they don't exist. I think one of
the issues is that we need to do a better
job of training people or those type of jobs, which
is a skill we've lost over the years, maybe doing
little too much DEI teaching in the schools instead of.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Thought class, that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
And I do remain concerned about the uncertainty itself, and
that is just like the price of admission with Trump.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It so is, yeah, you're getting on a roller coaster.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Enjoy the ride, but it does have effects, you know,
in real time, because people will, like on the real markets,
because they people will get worried about investing their money,
and I don't want them worried about that.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Absolutely. I think this is a better track though, right.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
The uncertainty is obviously the key problem with the last
few days, but I will say that if we knew
that he was going to pause the tariffs, then I
have to imagine the people investing in the markets also
had in that that was going to happen, you know,
by the dip sell it when Trump pauses the tariffs,
(06:06):
that you know, that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Basically, one Robbie Swaby was was bragging about how he
had he had guessed.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
This almost with very hight, almost with.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The same language that the President presented. So he writes
for Reason magazine. So I appreciated that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Yeah, I get I think we guessed it. We basically
said that that was where he was going to end up.
I mean, again, this is not an ending, so we
don't know, but we felt like there was going to
be a pause.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
And look there's one. So follow us from more investing advice.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Well, I mean the thing is too like normis who
are not necessarily heavy investors.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
But have four O one case, Yeah, who are.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Watching the markets or hearing things while they're you know,
have CNBC on in the background, or you know, worried
about the impact it might have on grocery prices, which
is something that we should care about for regular people.
They're not maybe thinking through all the details of trade policy.
But they're concerned just like we are, and I think
(07:11):
it's good to give them some comfort.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
We'll be right back on normally.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
At Real Clear investigations, You're going to be so surprised
by this. Mary Catherine lee Fang has found that the
whole Kamala Harris Brat summer was actually astro turf. No, yes,
I know, I know, I too could not believe it.
Lee Wright's influencers flooded the web with Neon Macha Green
(07:40):
pro Harris videos sync to beats from Charlie XCX album
Bratt released last summer. Last year, The poppy ray videos
Gosh journalists showed that Harris embodied the confidently independent brat.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Vibe conveyed by the music.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Social media pages bubbled with memes celebrating Harris as the
voice of queer in black youth and contrast with the
Republican agenda of white supremacy. Now, this was a career
politician who was deeply entrenched in the Democratic Party's establishment,
and she was somehow rebranded as like the latest coolest thing.
(08:15):
It all seemed a bit suspicious at the time. Now
Real Clearer obtained internal documents and WhatsApp messages from Democratic
strategists behind the influencer campaign called Way to Win, one
of the major donor groups behind the effort. They spent
more than nine point one million dollars on social media
influencers during the twenty twenty four presidential election. Five one
(08:39):
hundred and fifty content creators published six six hundred and
forty four posts across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and x.
The thing is that we have no idea that any
of this goes on until after the fact. If then
the story has barely been hitting you know, any of
the main stiam news outlets. We felt like we had
(09:00):
to talk about it on this show because it's been
so undercovered. Let's listen to this clip from Lee about
what the problem is in getting kind of to the
truth of this sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
This whole thing raises ethical concerns about transparency in political campaigning.
Should there restrict disclosure requirements imposed on influencers for influencer
based political content?
Speaker 6 (09:24):
Look, we've had we've had rules for decades now where
you know, if you sponsor a billboard, a radio ad,
a television ad, the last few seconds of that message
has to show sponsored it. You know, on the billboard,
there's a disclosure at the bottom which pack or campaign
sponsored that message. No such rules exist for social media
(09:45):
for these influencers on Instagram, TikTok, and what have you.
It's really the wild West. At the end of twenty
twenty three, the Federal Election Commission proposed some influencer payola disclosures.
They deadlocked on the issue. There was no movement, so
right now, really anything could happen. And you know, we
were seeing this problem more and more on both sides,
(10:07):
both Republicans and Democrats have kind of got caught doing this.
This particular story that we're reporting this week, this is
the biggest I think effort of this type on either side,
Democrats spending ten million dollars just in this one kind
of organization. But it's a big problem, and it's a
big problem for disclosure. We haven't really resolved it.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, you know, you and I have talked about recently.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
When the Florida bill came up about immigration, influencers were
paid to praise a Florida politician. It was so obvious,
and then somebody found the actual payment structure of that.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
It is the wild West. We don't know who's getting
paid for what?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
These influencers are taking money for their opinion, And it's
sort of interesting because obviously you know, and again we've
talked about it on here, but like if they already
believe what they're saying, I guess the feeling is like,
why shouldn't I get paid for it?
Speaker 4 (11:00):
But everybody else has to disclose? I think they should
have to also.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Now I think it's it's tricky because it is in
this area, this gray area of election law, so you
don't really have to disclose this stuff.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
What worried me.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And by the way, I appreciate Lee's reporting often and
he's Lee Hfang on X if you want to follow him.
He does a lot of interesting work along these lines,
and it takes a lot of work to track down
all these dms and all the easy financing. But he
notes that way to win, which is the organization that
did this stuff structure the funds through nonprofit corporations that
(11:35):
paid various influencer talent agencies firms such as Paltt Management
and Vocal Media, so it's all intertwined. But the nonprofit
groups struck me, like how much perhaps tax payer money
is going to various nonprofits that can get dumped into
electioneering and influencer campaigns. Although, like you said, Carol, we
(11:57):
weren't really tricked by this one.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
I think that this was entirely organic.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Regularly the brat, Kamala's bratt, so bratt, super bratt.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
You know, like pan.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Suit, I sort of.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I sort of enjoy when politics just kills a slang
term immediately, Like bratt was really like smothered in the crib.
That one went so fast, because once a politician takes it,
even though they're trying to tell you the politician's cool,
it's over.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
It's done.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Even even I can't kill it as quickly as Kamala
or Hillary Clinton can.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
So yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Mean once you start using it around your kids, I
think it's also usually pretty dead.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I did delight in that, by the yeah, the same skivity.
I delight in that. Oh my gosh, yes, ohio so much.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
But yeah, so back to this, I you know, I
think there have to be some guidelines. I don't know
how they can establish them.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
It's it's so tough, like what what if you.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Tweet something positive about whatever somebody and somebody hits the
tip jar that a lot of these influencers have, like
do they then have to disclose? I think it's not
quite as black and white as an AD and there
have to be some rules to this, like I've you know,
I'm sure you have. Also I've been accused of taking
money from various causes. However, open on the record like yes,
(13:21):
come pay me, but I'm mostly just kidding. I have
never taken any money from any cause ever. I have
foolishly done this all for free. And I think that
there has to be some level of trust between the
consumer of our information and us, and the way that
I think we established that trust is not taking money
(13:43):
to push any causes, even causes we already agree with,
and so there has to be some sort of policy
around this.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
I don't think this go on.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
There are ways that social media has made rules for this,
so it could come not necessarily from government regulation, but
from the social media entities themselves, where a lot of
them require tagging something as an AD or disclosing what
you're doing, and I don't see why dedicated posts couldn't
be treated that way as well. It may not be
(14:16):
forthcoming from the FEC, however, and like you said, could
cause a.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Bunch of other downstream unintended issues.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
As a result, we're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Jim Van de High, who now works at Axios, I believe,
was a founder of Politico. Yeah, that's correct, is that Axios?
And he was speaking with Barry Weiss on her Honestly
podcast about lack of trust in media not influencers this
time media, But aren't they sometimes the same? Weren't there
as well? I can remember there was one segment post
(14:55):
braught summer news cycle where a CNN anchor was wearing
the color like on perpose, saying like here we are.
That is a hazy memory, but I'm pretty sure that
happened at any rate. Anda he's talking to her, and
(15:17):
this is a longish clip, but it's worth listening to
the whole thing to get an idea from a guy
who's at the top of political media, who's being i
would say a little more introspective than many of them are,
to see what he diagnoses as the problem, and then we'll.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Talk about it.
Speaker 7 (15:34):
I feel like the trust really started to shatter over
the last decade, and I look at it in three phases.
The first was the creation of Twitter. What happened with
Twitter is people forget like now it's on a lot
of conservative voices, a lot of independent voices. It was
a hot bed of liberal group think for a long time.
(15:55):
And it was the first time since I've been in
this business that I would get on a fee and
I would see reporters who I had trusted, who I
had admired, making it crystal clear what their views were,
what side they were on. You could tell in what
they were tweeting, and you could tell in who they
were following and who was following them. So I thought
that was stage one, because at least before any bias
(16:18):
people had they hid from the public. Now it was
in a somewhat full view. Then came along kind of
the COVID defund, the police word policing, where I think
a lot of Americans were looking around and being like,
it doesn't sit right with me, and it doesn't in
the way it's being covered didn't sit right with them.
(16:41):
And then I think the final straw really was the
coverage of Joe Biden, when people were saying, hey, I
could see with my own two eyes that the guy
seems pretty old, probably doesn't seem capable of being the
President in the next term, and yet there's not a
whole hell of a lot of coverage of it. We
you know, Alex Thompson, our White House reporter, just won
the White House Reporting Award because he was one of
(17:02):
the few reporters to write about the decline of Joe Biden,
and he got the help exactly some of the very
reporters who may have you know who will applaud him
when he wins the award in a couple of weeks.
If you go back and look at their Twitter feeds,
there's a lot of people dunking on him and saying, oh,
that's not actually true. And we're on the other ends
(17:23):
of the calls from the White House saying that you
guys are out on a limb, you're wrong, you're crazy,
blah blah blah. And so I think those three things
in totality really cemented the distrust that a lot of
people have in media, and it breaks my heart. I
hate that. I love journalism. I am a fierce, fierce,
dependent defender of journalism. I believe that most reporters at
(17:47):
most institutions actually do try to get to the closest
approximation of the truth and achieve it most of the time.
I think it's a couple of bad apples who make
it look bad for everyone.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
I mean, the idea that it was somebody else, you know,
it's it's that whole the meme of the guy in
the hot dog costume, where he's like, we're looking for
the person who did this and not taking any responsibility.
I think that's actually problem number one.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
The things that he diagnoses. He's right, he's.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Right, stones are correct, yes.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yes, but the blame placing of some vague other journalists
is a little bit too rich.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, I got a couple problems with this one. At
the risk of my reputation. I am a fourth generation
newspaper journalist. I know, shame upon my whole family line.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
You're so awesome, Come on, that's amazing.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So my great grandfather owned a newspaper in Georgia, and
then my grandfather worked for him as a sports writer,
and then my dad was an editor, and then I
was at a newspaper before newspaper sail. So I am
sort of like coming from a family of inkstained wretches,
and I've always been part of media in a sort
of like help me, help you kind of way. Like
(18:59):
I want you to do the job you're supposed to
do now. That has been a seriously uphill battle, and
I found that I was ideologically an outlier, even in
a small newsroom in rural North Carolina, right because journalists
are just very, very left, and there are so many
of them that are very left, and I would argue
they're more left now than they've ever been, and more
(19:20):
elite and elite dist than they've ever been, and at
least to all these blind spots.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
The idea that it started with Twitter.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
That we didn't know before, Like friend, I knew before
two thousand and seven or nine or whenever it was,
so that was what I was not shocked. I actually
prefer it to be crystal clear what their biases are
(19:49):
because I knew before.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Stop hiding it from me. One of the reasons that we.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Do what we do the way we do it is
to be able to say, like, this is where I stand.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
You can judge.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
I will try to get to the true, but you
can judge my motivations how you wish.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Sure, that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
The COVID and defund the police and the you know,
woke stuff all slammed together in that very short mention.
It really doesn't even begin to get to the crazy,
really does they endorsed? I mean doesn't even begin, right.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You didn't mention things like Kavanaugh, for example, which he
was particularly involved in pushing specifically him, and you know
things like that are just get left off the list.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
And then there's Joe Biden, where it's like, oh, the
slings and arrows. I appreciate it is true that Thompson
reported when others did not, as did the Wall Street
Journal reporters who first wrote the formal story in this,
But the rest of us were just like, Hi, guys,
we can see this.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Right with our eyes.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
There are no awards forthcoming for that.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I love the idea that the White House was like,
you're really out on a limb here, buster like am
I I can see you wandering through field. I don't
think I'm that on a limb. And then the idea
that it's just a few of them.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Is you got animals, right, the group think?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Why does the group think exist that he that he
identifies at the beginning of Twitter.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's because they all think the same thing, right, And
I think.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
That they were surprised to find that that's identified as
group think, or that that's even leftism. To them, that's
just normal. And what do you mean, we're not leftists,
We're just mainstream journalists who all think the same way.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Why is that weird to you?
Speaker 1 (21:34):
It's just neutral, good, right, like all the things we think.
But all the things we think became defund the police
and stay in your home for two years, and toddlers
should wear masks, and schools should be closed, and you
should never say any of the words we say.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
You can't say.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Nina Jenkowitz should be in charge of all of it.
And Biden is great for another four years. I mean,
come on, how can they be surprised the people don't
trust them?
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Yeah, they can't be. And I don't know if there's
a way back from it. I you know, we'll see
what happens.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
Maybe there's enough resistors to.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Make the failing mainshoe media relevant again, but it's hard
to see how that's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Yeah, As I always say, this country is desperate for
a reliable narrator, and the media absolutely refuses.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
To be one.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and for that reason, they have lost tons of power.
And I think actually the losing of their power and
the dispersal of viewpoints. Yes, makes it's hard sometimes to
figure out what information you're getting and how and what
is real and what is not, but also means that
they can't create fake narratives the way that they used to.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
We're going to tell you the truth on this show
whether or not you like it, so stay tu enjoy.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
Yeah. Thanks for joining us on normally.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
Get in touch with us.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
At normallythepod at gmail dot com.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
Thanks for listening, and when things get weird, act normally
Well, hey guys, we are back on normally, the show
that normals takes for when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I am Mary teth Him.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
I'm Carol Markowitz. I keep waiting for the news not
to be weird, but it's just weird every day.
Speaker 4 (00:15):
Mary Catherine, I'm a weird every.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Day, the upside of the tagline. And I'm having a
weird week because I'm working without a net. I have
no childcare, so we're recording during nap time and we're
crossing our fingers.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But we can do it.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Carol, it's gonna be a fast one. Let's do it.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Well, there's news in the trade war on the tariff front,
and that is that Donald Trump announced via Truth social
network that he is pausing for ninety days tariffs on
everyone else, the reciprocal tariffs, not the baseline ten percent,
which will still exist, all right, pausing the extra ones
(00:55):
for ninety days, except for on China.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Here's the truth.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Based on the lack of respect that China has shown
to the world's markets, I am hereby raising the tariff
charged to China by the United States of America to
one hundred and twenty five percent effective immediately. At some point,
hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the
days of ripping off the USA and other countries it
is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on
the fact that more than seventy five countries have called
(01:21):
representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury,
and the US Trade Representative's Office, to negotiate a solution
to the subjects being discussed relative to trade, trade barriers, tariffs, currency,
manipulation of non monetary tariffs, and that these countries have not,
at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape or
form against the United States.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I have authorized in ninety.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Day pause and substantially lowered reciprocal tariff during this period
of ten percent, also effective immediately.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Everyone's like glued to their television screen like.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
He has a way.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
He really does.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So the markets responded well to this idea of a pause,
as they did to the fake news about a pause
a couple of days ago.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
That should show the president something I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Again, this is the problem with the whole structure of
this is that he can change his mind unless Congress
takes this power.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Back in a moment if he wants to.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
I like the idea of going after China, but being
chiller with people who are not involved in a bunch
of unfair practices. That seems good to me. Getting closer
to zero for zero tariffs seems good to me. Do
I think that was the plan here?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I'm not sure, but I'm glad we're here at the moment.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Well, that's the thing, right, What was the plan?
Speaker 4 (02:44):
Was there a plan? We'll never know?
Speaker 3 (02:47):
And I look again, you and I have been sort of,
I think, not cautiously optimistic, but just cautious in general
about this whole thing. And we're not surprised that it
ended up here for now. Again, it might start back
up again in ninety days.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
This is pretty much where we.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Predicted he'd be. Maybe we didn't see the China angle coming.
I thought maybe he would be across the board pose.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
It for ninety days. I'm not mad at this. I
think that China.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Does deserve some retribution for what they do to us.
And look, if this is where we end up, I
think that'll be okay.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Howard Lutnik, who is the Commerce Secretary, tweeted, I just
found this very funny. As a cabinet member for Trump,
Scott Besson and I set with the President while he
wrote one of the most.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Extraordinary tingh my god of his presidency.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
The world is ready to work with President Trump to
fix global trade, and China has chosen the opposite direction.
I have a feeling that Scott Bessont was like, this
looks like a win to me, sir, And here's how
we can tell that story.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Besson's quote is this was driven by the President's strategy.
This was his along.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
You might even say he go to China into a
bad position. They have shown themselves to the world to
be bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with
our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Again.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I think this is a reframing, but it's one that
I don't mind if it gets us.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yeah, let's declare victory and get the hell out of this.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yes, cutting the federal workforce please, right.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
I think things were going so well until this tariff thing.
The idea of bringing back manufacturing seems like a stretch,
but I'm open to hearing plans about it.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Look, all of this is heading.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Towards being automated anyway. So this idea of let's bring
back these amazing jobs and have manufacturing in the United
States probably isn't what's actually going to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
We'll see. I'm happy with this.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
If we could just say we won and leave it here,
that would be good in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, we have manufacturing jobs that go unfilled here, so
it's not that they don't exist. I think one of
the issues is that we need to do a better
job of training people or those type of jobs, which
is a skill we've lost over the years, maybe doing
little too much DEI teaching in the schools instead of.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Thought class, that kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
And I do remain concerned about the uncertainty itself, and
that is just like the price of admission with Trump.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
It so is, yeah, you're getting on a roller coaster.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Enjoy the ride, but it does have effects, you know,
in real time, because people will, like on the real markets,
because they people will get worried about investing their money,
and I don't want them worried about that.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Absolutely. I think this is a better track though, right.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
The uncertainty is obviously the key problem with the last
few days, but I will say that if we knew
that he was going to pause the tariffs, then I
have to imagine the people investing in the markets also
had in that that was going to happen, you know,
by the dip sell it when Trump pauses the tariffs,
(06:06):
that you know, that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Basically, one Robbie Swaby was was bragging about how he
had he had guessed.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
This almost with very hight, almost with.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The same language that the President presented. So he writes
for Reason magazine. So I appreciated that.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Yeah, I get I think we guessed it. We basically
said that that was where he was going to end up.
I mean, again, this is not an ending, so we
don't know, but we felt like there was going to
be a pause.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
And look there's one. So follow us from more investing advice.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Well, I mean the thing is too like normis who
are not necessarily heavy investors.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
But have four O one case, Yeah, who are.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Watching the markets or hearing things while they're you know,
have CNBC on in the background, or you know, worried
about the impact it might have on grocery prices, which
is something that we should care about for regular people.
They're not maybe thinking through all the details of trade policy.
But they're concerned just like we are, and I think
(07:11):
it's good to give them some comfort.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
We'll be right back on normally.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
At Real Clear investigations, You're going to be so surprised
by this. Mary Catherine lee Fang has found that the
whole Kamala Harris Brat summer was actually astro turf. No, yes,
I know, I know, I too could not believe it.
Lee Wright's influencers flooded the web with Neon Macha Green
(07:40):
pro Harris videos sync to beats from Charlie XCX album
Bratt released last summer. Last year, The poppy ray videos
Gosh journalists showed that Harris embodied the confidently independent brat.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Vibe conveyed by the music.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Social media pages bubbled with memes celebrating Harris as the
voice of queer in black youth and contrast with the
Republican agenda of white supremacy. Now, this was a career
politician who was deeply entrenched in the Democratic Party's establishment,
and she was somehow rebranded as like the latest coolest thing.
(08:15):
It all seemed a bit suspicious at the time. Now
Real Clearer obtained internal documents and WhatsApp messages from Democratic
strategists behind the influencer campaign called Way to Win, one
of the major donor groups behind the effort. They spent
more than nine point one million dollars on social media
influencers during the twenty twenty four presidential election. Five one
(08:39):
hundred and fifty content creators published six six hundred and
forty four posts across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and x.
The thing is that we have no idea that any
of this goes on until after the fact. If then
the story has barely been hitting you know, any of
the main stiam news outlets. We felt like we had
(09:00):
to talk about it on this show because it's been
so undercovered. Let's listen to this clip from Lee about
what the problem is in getting kind of to the
truth of this sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
This whole thing raises ethical concerns about transparency in political campaigning.
Should there restrict disclosure requirements imposed on influencers for influencer
based political content?
Speaker 6 (09:24):
Look, we've had we've had rules for decades now where
you know, if you sponsor a billboard, a radio ad,
a television ad, the last few seconds of that message
has to show sponsored it. You know, on the billboard,
there's a disclosure at the bottom which pack or campaign
sponsored that message. No such rules exist for social media
(09:45):
for these influencers on Instagram, TikTok, and what have you.
It's really the wild West. At the end of twenty
twenty three, the Federal Election Commission proposed some influencer payola disclosures.
They deadlocked on the issue. There was no movement, so
right now, really anything could happen. And you know, we
were seeing this problem more and more on both sides,
(10:07):
both Republicans and Democrats have kind of got caught doing this.
This particular story that we're reporting this week, this is
the biggest I think effort of this type on either side,
Democrats spending ten million dollars just in this one kind
of organization. But it's a big problem, and it's a
big problem for disclosure. We haven't really resolved it.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Yeah, you know, you and I have talked about recently.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
When the Florida bill came up about immigration, influencers were
paid to praise a Florida politician. It was so obvious,
and then somebody found the actual payment structure of that.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
It is the wild West. We don't know who's getting
paid for what?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
These influencers are taking money for their opinion, And it's
sort of interesting because obviously you know, and again we've
talked about it on here, but like if they already
believe what they're saying, I guess the feeling is like,
why shouldn't I get paid for it?
Speaker 4 (11:00):
But everybody else has to disclose? I think they should
have to also.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Now I think it's it's tricky because it is in
this area, this gray area of election law, so you
don't really have to disclose this stuff.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
What worried me.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And by the way, I appreciate Lee's reporting often and
he's Lee Hfang on X if you want to follow him.
He does a lot of interesting work along these lines,
and it takes a lot of work to track down
all these dms and all the easy financing. But he
notes that way to win, which is the organization that
did this stuff structure the funds through nonprofit corporations that
(11:35):
paid various influencer talent agencies firms such as Paltt Management
and Vocal Media, so it's all intertwined. But the nonprofit
groups struck me, like how much perhaps tax payer money
is going to various nonprofits that can get dumped into
electioneering and influencer campaigns. Although, like you said, Carol, we
(11:57):
weren't really tricked by this one.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
I think that this was entirely organic.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Regularly the brat, Kamala's bratt, so bratt, super bratt.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
You know, like pan.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Suit, I sort of.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I sort of enjoy when politics just kills a slang
term immediately, Like bratt was really like smothered in the crib.
That one went so fast, because once a politician takes it,
even though they're trying to tell you the politician's cool,
it's over.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
It's done.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Even even I can't kill it as quickly as Kamala
or Hillary Clinton can.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
So yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Mean once you start using it around your kids, I
think it's also usually pretty dead.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I did delight in that, by the yeah, the same skivity.
I delight in that. Oh my gosh, yes, ohio so much.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
But yeah, so back to this, I you know, I
think there have to be some guidelines. I don't know
how they can establish them.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
It's it's so tough, like what what if you.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Tweet something positive about whatever somebody and somebody hits the
tip jar that a lot of these influencers have, like
do they then have to disclose? I think it's not
quite as black and white as an AD and there
have to be some rules to this, like I've you know,
I'm sure you have. Also I've been accused of taking
money from various causes. However, open on the record like yes,
(13:21):
come pay me, but I'm mostly just kidding. I have
never taken any money from any cause ever. I have
foolishly done this all for free. And I think that
there has to be some level of trust between the
consumer of our information and us, and the way that
I think we established that trust is not taking money
(13:43):
to push any causes, even causes we already agree with,
and so there has to be some sort of policy
around this.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
I don't think this go on.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
There are ways that social media has made rules for this,
so it could come not necessarily from government regulation, but
from the social media entities themselves, where a lot of
them require tagging something as an AD or disclosing what
you're doing, and I don't see why dedicated posts couldn't
be treated that way as well. It may not be
(14:16):
forthcoming from the FEC, however, and like you said, could
cause a.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Bunch of other downstream unintended issues.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
As a result, we're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Jim Van de High, who now works at Axios, I believe,
was a founder of Politico. Yeah, that's correct, is that Axios?
And he was speaking with Barry Weiss on her Honestly
podcast about lack of trust in media not influencers this
time media, But aren't they sometimes the same? Weren't there
as well? I can remember there was one segment post
(14:55):
braught summer news cycle where a CNN anchor was wearing
the color like on perpose, saying like here we are.
That is a hazy memory, but I'm pretty sure that
happened at any rate. Anda he's talking to her, and
(15:17):
this is a longish clip, but it's worth listening to
the whole thing to get an idea from a guy
who's at the top of political media, who's being i
would say a little more introspective than many of them are,
to see what he diagnoses as the problem, and then we'll.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Talk about it.
Speaker 7 (15:34):
I feel like the trust really started to shatter over
the last decade, and I look at it in three phases.
The first was the creation of Twitter. What happened with
Twitter is people forget like now it's on a lot
of conservative voices, a lot of independent voices. It was
a hot bed of liberal group think for a long time.
(15:55):
And it was the first time since I've been in
this business that I would get on a fee and
I would see reporters who I had trusted, who I
had admired, making it crystal clear what their views were,
what side they were on. You could tell in what
they were tweeting, and you could tell in who they
were following and who was following them. So I thought
that was stage one, because at least before any bias
(16:18):
people had they hid from the public. Now it was
in a somewhat full view. Then came along kind of
the COVID defund, the police word policing, where I think
a lot of Americans were looking around and being like,
it doesn't sit right with me, and it doesn't in
the way it's being covered didn't sit right with them.
(16:41):
And then I think the final straw really was the
coverage of Joe Biden, when people were saying, hey, I
could see with my own two eyes that the guy
seems pretty old, probably doesn't seem capable of being the
President in the next term, and yet there's not a
whole hell of a lot of coverage of it. We
you know, Alex Thompson, our White House reporter, just won
the White House Reporting Award because he was one of
(17:02):
the few reporters to write about the decline of Joe Biden,
and he got the help exactly some of the very
reporters who may have you know who will applaud him
when he wins the award in a couple of weeks.
If you go back and look at their Twitter feeds,
there's a lot of people dunking on him and saying, oh,
that's not actually true. And we're on the other ends
(17:23):
of the calls from the White House saying that you
guys are out on a limb, you're wrong, you're crazy,
blah blah blah. And so I think those three things
in totality really cemented the distrust that a lot of
people have in media, and it breaks my heart. I
hate that. I love journalism. I am a fierce, fierce,
dependent defender of journalism. I believe that most reporters at
(17:47):
most institutions actually do try to get to the closest
approximation of the truth and achieve it most of the time.
I think it's a couple of bad apples who make
it look bad for everyone.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
I mean, the idea that it was somebody else, you know,
it's it's that whole the meme of the guy in
the hot dog costume, where he's like, we're looking for
the person who did this and not taking any responsibility.
I think that's actually problem number one.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
The things that he diagnoses. He's right, he's.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Right, stones are correct, yes.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yes, but the blame placing of some vague other journalists
is a little bit too rich.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, I got a couple problems with this one. At
the risk of my reputation. I am a fourth generation
newspaper journalist. I know, shame upon my whole family line.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
You're so awesome, Come on, that's amazing.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So my great grandfather owned a newspaper in Georgia, and
then my grandfather worked for him as a sports writer,
and then my dad was an editor, and then I
was at a newspaper before newspaper sail. So I am
sort of like coming from a family of inkstained wretches,
and I've always been part of media in a sort
of like help me, help you kind of way. Like
(18:59):
I want you to do the job you're supposed to
do now. That has been a seriously uphill battle, and
I found that I was ideologically an outlier, even in
a small newsroom in rural North Carolina, right because journalists
are just very, very left, and there are so many
of them that are very left, and I would argue
they're more left now than they've ever been, and more
(19:20):
elite and elite dist than they've ever been, and at
least to all these blind spots.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
The idea that it started with Twitter.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
That we didn't know before, Like friend, I knew before
two thousand and seven or nine or whenever it was,
so that was what I was not shocked. I actually
prefer it to be crystal clear what their biases are
(19:49):
because I knew before.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Stop hiding it from me. One of the reasons that we.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Do what we do the way we do it is
to be able to say, like, this is where I stand.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
You can judge.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
I will try to get to the true, but you
can judge my motivations how you wish.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Sure, that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
The COVID and defund the police and the you know,
woke stuff all slammed together in that very short mention.
It really doesn't even begin to get to the crazy,
really does they endorsed? I mean doesn't even begin, right.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You didn't mention things like Kavanaugh, for example, which he
was particularly involved in pushing specifically him, and you know
things like that are just get left off the list.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
And then there's Joe Biden, where it's like, oh, the
slings and arrows. I appreciate it is true that Thompson
reported when others did not, as did the Wall Street
Journal reporters who first wrote the formal story in this,
But the rest of us were just like, Hi, guys,
we can see this.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Right with our eyes.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
There are no awards forthcoming for that.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I love the idea that the White House was like,
you're really out on a limb here, buster like am
I I can see you wandering through field. I don't
think I'm that on a limb. And then the idea
that it's just a few of them.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Is you got animals, right, the group think?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Why does the group think exist that he that he
identifies at the beginning of Twitter.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's because they all think the same thing, right, And
I think.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
That they were surprised to find that that's identified as
group think, or that that's even leftism. To them, that's
just normal. And what do you mean, we're not leftists,
We're just mainstream journalists who all think the same way.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Why is that weird to you?
Speaker 1 (21:34):
It's just neutral, good, right, like all the things we think.
But all the things we think became defund the police
and stay in your home for two years, and toddlers
should wear masks, and schools should be closed, and you
should never say any of the words we say.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
You can't say.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Nina Jenkowitz should be in charge of all of it.
And Biden is great for another four years. I mean,
come on, how can they be surprised the people don't
trust them?
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Yeah, they can't be. And I don't know if there's
a way back from it. I you know, we'll see
what happens.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
Maybe there's enough resistors to.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Make the failing mainshoe media relevant again, but it's hard
to see how that's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Yeah, As I always say, this country is desperate for
a reliable narrator, and the media absolutely refuses.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
To be one.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Yeah, and for that reason, they have lost tons of power.
And I think actually the losing of their power and
the dispersal of viewpoints. Yes, makes it's hard sometimes to
figure out what information you're getting and how and what
is real and what is not, but also means that
they can't create fake narratives the way that they used to.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
We're going to tell you the truth on this show
whether or not you like it, so stay tu enjoy.
Speaker 4 (22:48):
Yeah. Thanks for joining us on normally.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
Get in touch with us.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
At normallythepod at gmail dot com.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
Thanks for listening, and when things get weird, act normally
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!