November 29, 2025 • 24 mins
The White House has just put up a new webpage of “media offenders” where it lists an offense, the truth, the reporter and the category of each offense. There’s even an offender hall of fame, a running leaderboard and a list of repeat offenders. Amy and T.J. talk about the impact of this latest attack on the press and why it could have far reaching effects.
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):
Hey there, folks. It is Saturday, November twenty ninth. Then,
just in time for the holiday season, President Trump has
put out his naughty List and who's on it. Nate Burleson,
Whoopee Goldberg, Joe Scarborough, the entire staff of CNN and
the BBC, you name it. And with that, welcome to
(00:23):
this episode of Amy and TJ Full Disclosure Robes. This
was not the episode we planned to do this morning,
but I when you got up, I said, babe, you
have got to see what the President put out, and
we switched things up.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
That is a true story. I woke up and you said, babe.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Overnight, or at least late last night, the White House,
the President put up basically a I don't know, would
it be their version of a wanted poster like media
offenders list. It basically lists who, what and what the
crime was basically.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And the criminals are all reporters and publications. I say
criminal in quotes there, but you get what I'm saying. Well,
I guess he probably has cues some of them of
being actual criminals. But this is just a continuation of
the ongoing assault that the President has had on the media,
on the fake news as he puts it in on
oftentimes the liberal media, but this roades it's messaging is
(01:14):
one thing. Responding is another thing. But this is this
seems targeted, It seems it seems a little I say,
it seems petty. But a lot of work put in this.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
This is a oh I was thinking the same thing.
How much time, resources, how much effort, and how much
of our tax dollars went to create this website that
basically is exposing, to use.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Their word, what they don't like.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
And who they think is against them, and who they
think is biased and misleading. But they're using government resources
to expose members of the media for coverage that they
don't agree with or like.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
They say agree with theike what they say is wrong.
They this is their argument. They're saying that these people
are putting out false stories, false narratives, they are not
giving a proper context to things, and their bias is
coming through. Fine, that is not new from what we
have heard from this administration. But this is new at
least I don't remember another administration or any point anybody
(02:20):
putting out what is essentially a list folks, a list
of offenders in the media every single week that they
claim are telling stories that don't they say accurately convey
what the President has either said or has done.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Do you worry what the reaction might be? Obviously, folks
can read this and say duh. If you are more
right leaning, you're gonna look at this and say, yeah,
I know, I agree, and you're going to yes, be
validated by what you feel the coverage is. And then
you see what the White House is also saying what
is wrong about the coverage. But I worry about the
(02:58):
fringe and just this whole concept of words matter and
naming people and pointing the finger and saying you're doing
this to us. You're going against the United States, You're
going against our government. And I worry about having a
list of names. It's not just outlets, but he goes after,
as you pointed out at the beginning, specific people, and
(03:19):
that worries me. With what we've seen in this country
in recent months.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Okay, so let's tell you what we've been seeing here, folks.
Is not a This isn't some secondary or website or
some new thing that was created. Whitehouse dot gov the
official White House web page that you go to. There's
a menu on the left and I drop down menu
and it'll show you things you can check on the news,
(03:48):
the administration. You has a whole bio on Donald Trump.
JD Van's Melania Trump. This is stuff we used to seeing,
the whole cabinet. Then the next section is media and
it has a gallery. It says live news, video library,
and media offenders. So this is on white House dot gov.
You don't have to try too hard, to go too
far to find this, and it comes up misleading, biased, exposed,
(04:10):
media offender of the week, and rogues. We had three,
I guess for the inaugural launching of this website, he
had three media offenders of the week, The.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Boston Globes exposed, CBS News exposed, the Independent exposed.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Okay, you made me think. Now you're making me see
this a little differently when you said you worry about
how the fringe right folks might see this in a
list of names, and they actually say on here that
the offense right, as if it was a crime. But
we're explaining here it's stamped all right, CBS News, Boston Club.
It has a stamp over it like you would see captured. Yes,
it's it's exposed. Wanted posters.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
That's the feeling and the image I got when I
looked at the specific choices they made for the art
they used, how to depict which media outlets they feel
like have gone a against them and therefore against the
country with that type of rhetoric, and that yes, it
looks like these people are wanted and need to be captured.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So they lay out here. So they have the video
first of all, and I guess that was the story
of the week with the president, the six members of
Congress who put out a video telling members of the
military that they do have the right to refuse illegal orders.
The President, of course got upset about that. It's called
it seditious and said it was punishable by death. He
put this out in social media. So this is the
(05:31):
basis for our offenders of the week. Now it lists
and the reasons they say these are your offenders, but
it says outlet, the offense, the reporter, the truth, the claim,
the key points, and the category of what they have
done wrong. Road's time went into this.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
This was I was my jaw dropped. You said, you
won't believe when you go onto this. You're like, I'm
not even going to explain it. You just need to
go on the website and see for yourself. And that
was one of my first thoughts. First I thought this
could be dangerous, and second I thought, my god, how
much time and effort and money went into putting this
list together. And by the way, this isn't a one off,
as it suggests media offender of the week. This is
(06:13):
now going to be an ongoing situation. In fact, they
have an offender Hall of Shame and at the bottom
of it they allow you to sign up so that
you can get alerts for basically, do you want the truth?
Each week it asks sign up for the offender alerts
delivered to your inbox. So now you sign up, you
(06:34):
put your email address, and you get alerts every time
there is an outlet or a reporter that they that
does something or write something, or disseminate something that the
White House doesn't agree with.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
It's brilliant if just as a media strategy, brilliant. No,
I'm not taking any stand right wrong and who's got
the right messaging, But this dude is a media master.
Now I'm not. This is not a stance on any
policy or anything he has done, but as far as
(07:09):
media goes, he is fighting the media every sece. He's
putting them on notice. We are actually watching and we're
gonna call you out, and we are going to pump
this into the inboxes of all the people that support
us to reinforce once again, make sure they know not
to like you and don't believe anything you say, and
(07:30):
only believe us. It seems as if Robes we're in
a point in the country where someone has a monopoly
on the truth. It can only be this or that.
Either we have it or they have it. We're in
an argument now where CNN, CBA, We've worked all these places.
We know there's things that you don't get right. But
(07:50):
generally speaking, in newsrooms there are decent folks trying to
do a good job who are not in there having
a meeting, say, how are we gonna go after Trump today?
That's just not happening.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Is happening at least it wasn't happening when we were
in the media, and I doubt things have changed that
much in the last three years. But I will say
I do agree with you. I think most journalists want
to tell the truth. They want the public to know
the truth, and they want to let the public decide
given the information they disseminate without any leaning. Now do
(08:21):
we always get it right? Do certain reporters and certain
outlets perhaps have a leaning or a slant one hundred percent?
And look, I think we should take out certain cable
outlets that absolutely have agendas or are known to be
left leaning.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
They a lot of They're clear.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Fox and SNBC are not correct hiding that correct, So
I think that should be pointed out. Yes, Fox on
one side, MSNBC on the other end. Look, I worked
at MSNBC, so yes, that is all. And they don't
deny that. Well maybe Fox News does. They say they're
fair and balanced. I think MSNBC knows exactly who they are, okay,
but I think they would say that they're the ones
who actually do tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
From seven to eleven o'clock at night. I'm saying, it's okay,
we get it. You're a conservative leaning thing. Fine, and
what you're saying you believe to be the truth or
these are your beliefs. That is fine. That was funny
ro And.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
I know, I know I just want to fine in
defensive Fox News, But I do think that that that's
what is disturbing to me because I think everyone who
understands and we all get how democracies work. You need
a free press, and you need a press that is curious,
a press that presses further, that asks the follow ups,
(09:34):
that doesn't just take what the White House or whoever
is in charge gives you as the absolute truth. Corruption
exists on all levels, in the media and in the government,
and we have to be able to check one another.
So I get that they're saying, hey, we're checking you journalists.
Because you're checking us, We're gonna check you. I don't
think there's anything wrong with calling into questions this report,
because we do get things wrong, yep.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
And there are such things as media bias and sometimes
folks don't soar things the way they should. We've been
the recipient of that. So I get that, you get that,
and I acknowledge that, But is this the way to
go about doing it? Does this potentially lead to something dangerous?
That's my biggest issue. And then again, the time and
resources spent to this. It's just you know, we're paying
(10:18):
for this as taxpayers.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
None of this necessarily is new. The arguments being made
and all of these breakdowns or how this out they
did wrong and this reporter did wrong. Some of the
stuff's not new. We've heard the President call out and
complain about how the reporting is done. But yes, to
your point, to see a list, to see a list
of offenders every week kind of a wanted thing. It does,
(10:42):
and that is how it feels. I didn't take that
initially until you started saying then the exposed thing that
you just pointed out, it does. It does have that
kind of sense. So what you were just arguing there
about the truth is going to be the problem now.
So we're going to go through the offender of the
week here, and this is how they do it. One
section says outlet. So it lists CBS News, the Boston Globe,
and the Independent. Those are the ones who offended. Now
(11:03):
rope what their offense is. And this is immediately will
signal to everybody, Well, that's not necessarily the truth. It's
just your your feeling. You didn't like that they reported
what the fuck you said, exactly what it said. But
the offense is it's this hard to I don't know,
it's hard to argue that.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
So here's the offense.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
The media misrepresented President Trump's call for members of Congress
to be held accountable for inciting sedition by saying that
he called for their execution.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Okay, they said he called for their execution. Did they
say that he called for.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Them No, he said that they were guilty of sedition.
And remember, sedition is punishable by death.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's what he said, sedition. He posted this they are
they should be investigated for sedition and sedition is punishable
by death. Now, if you just report what the president said,
are you giving the wrong impression that that you're saying
the President wants them executed?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
And I think a lot of times we just read
his truth social posts and say.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Take that for what it is. How you interpret it,
that's on you.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
But he did specifically call for those six lawmakers to
be imprisoned. They should be in jailaid that.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
So in this section of the Offenders of the Week,
he says the truth. This is how they have it
listed the truth. The Democrats and fake news media subversively
imply that President Trump had issued illegal orders to service members.
Every order President Trump has issued has been lawful. It
is dangerous for sitting members of Congress who incite in
subordination in the United States military, and President Trump called
(12:39):
for them to be held accountable. He says that's what
the truth is. He does not mention in there at
all that the president actually said that it is seditious
and that sedition is punishable by death. He said it,
I didn't. If he would have just said it was seditious,
I wouldn't have immediately jumped to I think that one's
punishable death.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
And he also reposted, let's just remind everyone some conservative
commentors who were talking about nooses and hanging folks, and
he reposted them so to act as if it was
some big leap or some big horrific offense that the
media jumped to the conclusion he breadcrumbed that and left
a trail heading straight to a noose.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
I mean, that is just.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
And he also, by the way, sorry, specifically lists the
names the reporters within the outlets. This is next to
the offense the truth, and he lists the reporter Alisa Vega,
and then there's a link and you actually can click
on her name. It's just Andrew Feinberg, Eric Garcia, Nancy Cordes.
I know Nancy Cordes. You know, we all are in
(13:41):
this community. And just to see these names singled out,
that is what's concerning to me.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Do you know what's going to happen. You're going to
have some reporters out there trying to make the list.
Trump has made stars of reporters. He has gotten people promotions.
I say he has gotten because when people take the
moment to say, let me go after this guy, let
me get him to talk about me, let him point
me out, I will be a star. I will get
an anchor job, I will get more followers. Oh. Absolutely,
(14:07):
you got some working every day trying to make this list.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
I know you're right, but I would be the opposite.
I would be feeling like I needed to get extra security.
I would be nervous if my name was on that list.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
You would feel absolutely targeted. Now down at the bottom,
where you talked about a Fender hall of shame? What
got me here? It says a Fender hall of shame.
It's essentially, I guess a database of all the past offenders.
But it has its four sections as to claim, the publication,
the reporter, and the category. The categories are the ones
that kind of were intriguing to me. One of the
categories was woke. You can classify some of the offenses
(14:40):
under just being woke.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Wow, because if you are thinking about someone other than
the community you live in. And if you're regarding how
someone else feels versus how you feel, you're too woke
and therefore you should be on the leaderboard.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
All right, But I thought this was a while that
on Black Friday, this thing come out when we were
starting to think about the Christmas holiday season, and he
has literally a naughty list. But when we come back,
I mentioned some of those on the naughty list, including
Joe Scarborough, you know, the whole CNN BBC staff, Nate
Burlson over at CBS, and also mentioned Whoopy Goldberg. What
in the world did Whoopby Goldberg do to get on
(15:17):
the list? Stay here, all right, folks, We continue now
with the President's naughty list of reporters. This was fascinating.
It did launch on Friday, the folks over at the
White House. There is on the White House Web, theofficial
(15:40):
white House dot gov page, there was a section for
media Offender of the Week. It was just launched yesterday
and it really is a collection I guess, of the
people the president and the organizations the President has taken
an issue with any of their reporting, yes.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
And he so he has the media Offenders of the
Week he actually picked three of them this week. But
if you go down to the offender Hall of Shame,
he has already won two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
And that's just on like there are how many pages.
I don't there was so much work.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Put into this, but he has gone through all of
these stories. He didn't like all of the reporters who
were attached to the stories, and then put them in
a category, as you mentioned, But this is tremendous and
Whoopy Goldberg does.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Stand down among them.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
She was upset that she made up a song to
slam Trump for building the White House ballroom. So it
says publication ABC News reporter Whoopy Goldberg.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Category left wing Lunacy.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That's one of my favorites.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
That's one of the categories.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
I like that one.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
In all of these, you can click on and the
presumption is in the days and weeks to come, when
you click on left wing lunacy, you'll have a list
of offenders and defenses.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
The other one listed under left wing lunacy. The only
other person that category is an Anabara over at the View.
I don't think he likes the show.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
No, I don't think he does either, but you have.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
We listed all the categories here because this is interesting.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
I just say I woke.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Okay, there's woke, there's misrepresentation, there's a mission of context, bias, malpractice. Uh,
there's another, Okay, I'm looking lie. There's just one that
just says lie. There's one that says false claim. There's
just bias.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
So those are all the different categories. And sometimes when
you have a story that he doesn't like, he'll put
you in multiple categories. So you can click on the
different categories and just see all the different stories that
fall into this.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
And his list of publications. I guess this is a
who's who. The ones that stand out at least people
have been talking about with CBS News, Fox News on
this list, those are at least Fox News of publication
that's very friendly to him, and then CBS News, of course,
is going a direction that maybe he likes. But he
did call out a couple of reporters, but no Fox
News and and CBS News don't appear a lot, frankly
(18:04):
on this list. He also has a list of repeat offenders,
and there's a little graphic the leader board. What is
that about?
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So the leader board I was looking at that it
looks like it's a race to who's the worst, and
the Washington Post right now is first, it says, MSNBC
made it second, CBS News was third, CNN, New York Times, Political,
Wall Street Journal. Maybe that's just weekly, but yeah, it's
almost like you're watching a race to the finish line,
and he is the Washington Post at number one right now.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah, consider it just plays over and over. Really, folks,
it's a little graphic that shows all of the kind
of graphics of each of these publications, and they're racing
across the race to the bottom or.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
A race to the bottom. And then you have the
repeat offenders that he has them in circles, and the
bigger the circle, the worse you are. So right now again,
the Washington Post is number one. I'm curious do you believe,
because there have already been suggestions that because of all
of the lawsuits that he has been successful where he
sues any publication who he thinks did not give him
(19:03):
an accurate or a fair shake.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
It has been coming out on top.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Like wildly on top.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Do you think putting up this sort of web page
that folks are now going to subscribe to and read
and you're going to be called out with links to
your names, your reporters you're reporting. Do you think this
is going to change the way journalists do their jobs.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I think it already asked before this. I can't imagine
being in a root news room. People are running scared.
You're scared. You're so careful in what you say and
how you say it about this guy because it could
get you sued. I bet there are whole departments now
and people dedicated just to reviewing Trump coverage.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
I totally agree with you, because I know this, and
you know this, and every single journalist knows this.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
The biggest single obstacle to getting.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
A story on the air, even before Trump, before any
of this, was to get through the process of having
it legally reviewed so that the newsroom and the network
massively reduces their chances of getting sued.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And it has been a frustrating. It's been a frustrating
obstacle course to go through. Throughout the three.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Decades I've been reporting, I had stories that I pushed
to get on there that couldn't, that were valuable and
good because they were too afraid of getting sued. I
can't even imagine what isn't being told and how.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Carefully things are being reported.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Look, it's a good thing to make sure your sources
are checked and rechecked and validated and resourced. I applaud
that we shouldn't be putting out something we aren't absolutely
certain of.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I agree with that, But it's been the case though.
That hasn't changed. We just got somebody with the biggest
microphone on planet Earth, who happens to have maybe one
of the biggest personalities that we've ever seen, in the
White House, who doesn't give a damn, who will go
forward and do what he was. Yes, we got a
different do I don't think we haven't all of a
(21:01):
sudden started the industry, I mean started reporting poorly because
he's in the White House. No, we just got a
guy who wants to push back and he's not afraid
to do so in these bullying manners sometimes so, Yes,
that makes you change your change your stance, change how
you report, be a little careful tiptoe. Yes, it will
cause you to not go after and do your job
(21:22):
as aggressively as you would have. Maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe it call to you to check a third and
a fourth and a fifth and a sixth source before
you put that out there. Maybe it does push folks
to do a better job and be more accurate in
their reporting, or maybe it just.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Scares or maybe yes, they aren't going to be as
willing to go after or to follow sources down a
path that they think could put them in in the
line of fire.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
With the president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
You know what, I can't remember it. I'm only going
to mention this. I don't remember the story and it's
not connected to this one. But it was a guy.
It was I think it was a state lawmaker who
he was asked about going against Trump and why he
wouldn't do some simple thing. I'm sorry, I don't have
the accurate description of the story, but it was this
ropes he had. This was his response, I'd rather not
have my house fire bombed exactly. So that mindset is
(22:16):
not just a matter of this president's going to come
after me. There might be somebody crazy enough to execute
his orders, at least in their mind of what they're hearing.
That's scary, and this is not helping to your original point.
I first saw it, and I would I'll admit, I'm like, wow,
this is crazy. Almost you hold him to a different standard.
(22:37):
Oh it's chopped, done this thing again. But you you're right,
this stuff is dangerous and the way it looks doesn't
add It doesn't do what we need to be doing,
which is bring the temperature down.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
Yes, and again, if my name, if your name was
on this list, I would I would operate differently. I
would actually consider security. I would actually I would be
I would be worried and concerned. That's just I mean,
maybe that's me jumping, maybe I'm taking it too far,
but we've just seen enough. We've seen enough people take
(23:09):
the smallest of hints and or take him at his
actual word and think somehow that they're being personally called
to action.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
That makes me nervous.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, folks, it's there for you to see. Just go
to White House dot gov. It will take you seven
seconds to get to it. The media offender of the week.
And with that, folks, we always appreciate you spending some
time here with us. Rose. We had to work to
stay off this list.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Yeah, I would like to.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
I was actually just thinking, Yes, I fully agree, and
I don't think that we have. We've been very careful
to try and not be political. I will say things
about anything personally, or a choice or words. Those are
all things that it doesn't matter what side of the
alley on. You can still agree with someone's policies and
not like how they are speaking of them or talking
(24:03):
about other people in regards to them. But in terms
of politics, I think we've tried really hard to stay
in the middle of the road when it comes to
policy or party affiliation. You can still call people out
for scary or bad behavior regardless of what you think
about their politics.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Yes, we don't do politics. We don't endorse candidates other
than Sean Duffy for the next president of the United States.
All right with that, we always appreciate you listening. We
will talk beyond
Hey there, folks. It is Saturday, November twenty ninth. Then,
just in time for the holiday season, President Trump has
put out his naughty List and who's on it. Nate Burleson,
Whoopee Goldberg, Joe Scarborough, the entire staff of CNN and
the BBC, you name it. And with that, welcome to
(00:23):
this episode of Amy and TJ Full Disclosure Robes. This
was not the episode we planned to do this morning,
but I when you got up, I said, babe, you
have got to see what the President put out, and
we switched things up.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
That is a true story. I woke up and you said, babe.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Overnight, or at least late last night, the White House,
the President put up basically a I don't know, would
it be their version of a wanted poster like media
offenders list. It basically lists who, what and what the
crime was basically.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And the criminals are all reporters and publications. I say
criminal in quotes there, but you get what I'm saying. Well,
I guess he probably has cues some of them of
being actual criminals. But this is just a continuation of
the ongoing assault that the President has had on the media,
on the fake news as he puts it in on
oftentimes the liberal media, but this roades it's messaging is
(01:14):
one thing. Responding is another thing. But this is this
seems targeted, It seems it seems a little I say,
it seems petty. But a lot of work put in this.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
This is a oh I was thinking the same thing.
How much time, resources, how much effort, and how much
of our tax dollars went to create this website that
basically is exposing, to use.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Their word, what they don't like.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
And who they think is against them, and who they
think is biased and misleading. But they're using government resources
to expose members of the media for coverage that they
don't agree with or like.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
They say agree with theike what they say is wrong.
They this is their argument. They're saying that these people
are putting out false stories, false narratives, they are not
giving a proper context to things, and their bias is
coming through. Fine, that is not new from what we
have heard from this administration. But this is new at
least I don't remember another administration or any point anybody
(02:20):
putting out what is essentially a list folks, a list
of offenders in the media every single week that they
claim are telling stories that don't they say accurately convey
what the President has either said or has done.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Do you worry what the reaction might be? Obviously, folks
can read this and say duh. If you are more
right leaning, you're gonna look at this and say, yeah,
I know, I agree, and you're going to yes, be
validated by what you feel the coverage is. And then
you see what the White House is also saying what
is wrong about the coverage. But I worry about the
(02:58):
fringe and just this whole concept of words matter and
naming people and pointing the finger and saying you're doing
this to us. You're going against the United States, You're
going against our government. And I worry about having a
list of names. It's not just outlets, but he goes after,
as you pointed out at the beginning, specific people, and
(03:19):
that worries me. With what we've seen in this country
in recent months.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Okay, so let's tell you what we've been seeing here, folks.
Is not a This isn't some secondary or website or
some new thing that was created. Whitehouse dot gov the
official White House web page that you go to. There's
a menu on the left and I drop down menu
and it'll show you things you can check on the news,
(03:48):
the administration. You has a whole bio on Donald Trump.
JD Van's Melania Trump. This is stuff we used to seeing,
the whole cabinet. Then the next section is media and
it has a gallery. It says live news, video library,
and media offenders. So this is on white House dot gov.
You don't have to try too hard, to go too
far to find this, and it comes up misleading, biased, exposed,
(04:10):
media offender of the week, and rogues. We had three,
I guess for the inaugural launching of this website, he
had three media offenders of the week, The.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Boston Globes exposed, CBS News exposed, the Independent exposed.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Okay, you made me think. Now you're making me see
this a little differently when you said you worry about
how the fringe right folks might see this in a
list of names, and they actually say on here that
the offense right, as if it was a crime. But
we're explaining here it's stamped all right, CBS News, Boston Club.
It has a stamp over it like you would see captured. Yes,
it's it's exposed. Wanted posters.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
That's the feeling and the image I got when I
looked at the specific choices they made for the art
they used, how to depict which media outlets they feel
like have gone a against them and therefore against the
country with that type of rhetoric, and that yes, it
looks like these people are wanted and need to be captured.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
So they lay out here. So they have the video
first of all, and I guess that was the story
of the week with the president, the six members of
Congress who put out a video telling members of the
military that they do have the right to refuse illegal orders.
The President, of course got upset about that. It's called
it seditious and said it was punishable by death. He
put this out in social media. So this is the
(05:31):
basis for our offenders of the week. Now it lists
and the reasons they say these are your offenders, but
it says outlet, the offense, the reporter, the truth, the claim,
the key points, and the category of what they have
done wrong. Road's time went into this.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
This was I was my jaw dropped. You said, you
won't believe when you go onto this. You're like, I'm
not even going to explain it. You just need to
go on the website and see for yourself. And that
was one of my first thoughts. First I thought this
could be dangerous, and second I thought, my god, how
much time and effort and money went into putting this
list together. And by the way, this isn't a one off,
as it suggests media offender of the week. This is
(06:13):
now going to be an ongoing situation. In fact, they
have an offender Hall of Shame and at the bottom
of it they allow you to sign up so that
you can get alerts for basically, do you want the truth?
Each week it asks sign up for the offender alerts
delivered to your inbox. So now you sign up, you
(06:34):
put your email address, and you get alerts every time
there is an outlet or a reporter that they that
does something or write something, or disseminate something that the
White House doesn't agree with.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
It's brilliant if just as a media strategy, brilliant. No,
I'm not taking any stand right wrong and who's got
the right messaging, But this dude is a media master.
Now I'm not. This is not a stance on any
policy or anything he has done, but as far as
(07:09):
media goes, he is fighting the media every sece. He's
putting them on notice. We are actually watching and we're
gonna call you out, and we are going to pump
this into the inboxes of all the people that support
us to reinforce once again, make sure they know not
to like you and don't believe anything you say, and
(07:30):
only believe us. It seems as if Robes we're in
a point in the country where someone has a monopoly
on the truth. It can only be this or that.
Either we have it or they have it. We're in
an argument now where CNN, CBA, We've worked all these places.
We know there's things that you don't get right. But
(07:50):
generally speaking, in newsrooms there are decent folks trying to
do a good job who are not in there having
a meeting, say, how are we gonna go after Trump today?
That's just not happening.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Is happening at least it wasn't happening when we were
in the media, and I doubt things have changed that
much in the last three years. But I will say
I do agree with you. I think most journalists want
to tell the truth. They want the public to know
the truth, and they want to let the public decide
given the information they disseminate without any leaning. Now do
(08:21):
we always get it right? Do certain reporters and certain
outlets perhaps have a leaning or a slant one hundred percent?
And look, I think we should take out certain cable
outlets that absolutely have agendas or are known to be
left leaning.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
They a lot of They're clear.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Fox and SNBC are not correct hiding that correct, So
I think that should be pointed out. Yes, Fox on
one side, MSNBC on the other end. Look, I worked
at MSNBC, so yes, that is all. And they don't
deny that. Well maybe Fox News does. They say they're
fair and balanced. I think MSNBC knows exactly who they are, okay,
but I think they would say that they're the ones
who actually do tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
From seven to eleven o'clock at night. I'm saying, it's okay,
we get it. You're a conservative leaning thing. Fine, and
what you're saying you believe to be the truth or
these are your beliefs. That is fine. That was funny
ro And.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
I know, I know I just want to fine in
defensive Fox News, But I do think that that that's
what is disturbing to me because I think everyone who
understands and we all get how democracies work. You need
a free press, and you need a press that is curious,
a press that presses further, that asks the follow ups,
(09:34):
that doesn't just take what the White House or whoever
is in charge gives you as the absolute truth. Corruption
exists on all levels, in the media and in the government,
and we have to be able to check one another.
So I get that they're saying, hey, we're checking you journalists.
Because you're checking us, We're gonna check you. I don't
think there's anything wrong with calling into questions this report,
because we do get things wrong, yep.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
And there are such things as media bias and sometimes
folks don't soar things the way they should. We've been
the recipient of that. So I get that, you get that,
and I acknowledge that, But is this the way to
go about doing it? Does this potentially lead to something dangerous?
That's my biggest issue. And then again, the time and
resources spent to this. It's just you know, we're paying
(10:18):
for this as taxpayers.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
None of this necessarily is new. The arguments being made
and all of these breakdowns or how this out they
did wrong and this reporter did wrong. Some of the
stuff's not new. We've heard the President call out and
complain about how the reporting is done. But yes, to
your point, to see a list, to see a list
of offenders every week kind of a wanted thing. It does,
(10:42):
and that is how it feels. I didn't take that
initially until you started saying then the exposed thing that
you just pointed out, it does. It does have that
kind of sense. So what you were just arguing there
about the truth is going to be the problem now.
So we're going to go through the offender of the
week here, and this is how they do it. One
section says outlet. So it lists CBS News, the Boston Globe,
and the Independent. Those are the ones who offended. Now
(11:03):
rope what their offense is. And this is immediately will
signal to everybody, Well, that's not necessarily the truth. It's
just your your feeling. You didn't like that they reported
what the fuck you said, exactly what it said. But
the offense is it's this hard to I don't know,
it's hard to argue that.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
So here's the offense.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
The media misrepresented President Trump's call for members of Congress
to be held accountable for inciting sedition by saying that
he called for their execution.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Okay, they said he called for their execution. Did they
say that he called for.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Them No, he said that they were guilty of sedition.
And remember, sedition is punishable by death.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's what he said, sedition. He posted this they are
they should be investigated for sedition and sedition is punishable
by death. Now, if you just report what the president said,
are you giving the wrong impression that that you're saying
the President wants them executed?
Speaker 3 (12:00):
And I think a lot of times we just read
his truth social posts and say.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Take that for what it is. How you interpret it,
that's on you.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
But he did specifically call for those six lawmakers to
be imprisoned. They should be in jailaid that.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
So in this section of the Offenders of the Week,
he says the truth. This is how they have it
listed the truth. The Democrats and fake news media subversively
imply that President Trump had issued illegal orders to service members.
Every order President Trump has issued has been lawful. It
is dangerous for sitting members of Congress who incite in
subordination in the United States military, and President Trump called
(12:39):
for them to be held accountable. He says that's what
the truth is. He does not mention in there at
all that the president actually said that it is seditious
and that sedition is punishable by death. He said it,
I didn't. If he would have just said it was seditious,
I wouldn't have immediately jumped to I think that one's
punishable death.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
And he also reposted, let's just remind everyone some conservative
commentors who were talking about nooses and hanging folks, and
he reposted them so to act as if it was
some big leap or some big horrific offense that the
media jumped to the conclusion he breadcrumbed that and left
a trail heading straight to a noose.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
I mean, that is just.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
And he also, by the way, sorry, specifically lists the
names the reporters within the outlets. This is next to
the offense the truth, and he lists the reporter Alisa Vega,
and then there's a link and you actually can click
on her name. It's just Andrew Feinberg, Eric Garcia, Nancy Cordes.
I know Nancy Cordes. You know, we all are in
(13:41):
this community. And just to see these names singled out,
that is what's concerning to me.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Do you know what's going to happen. You're going to
have some reporters out there trying to make the list.
Trump has made stars of reporters. He has gotten people promotions.
I say he has gotten because when people take the
moment to say, let me go after this guy, let
me get him to talk about me, let him point
me out, I will be a star. I will get
an anchor job, I will get more followers. Oh. Absolutely,
(14:07):
you got some working every day trying to make this list.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
I know you're right, but I would be the opposite.
I would be feeling like I needed to get extra security.
I would be nervous if my name was on that list.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
You would feel absolutely targeted. Now down at the bottom,
where you talked about a Fender hall of shame? What
got me here? It says a Fender hall of shame.
It's essentially, I guess a database of all the past offenders.
But it has its four sections as to claim, the publication,
the reporter, and the category. The categories are the ones
that kind of were intriguing to me. One of the
categories was woke. You can classify some of the offenses
(14:40):
under just being woke.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Wow, because if you are thinking about someone other than
the community you live in. And if you're regarding how
someone else feels versus how you feel, you're too woke
and therefore you should be on the leaderboard.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
All right, But I thought this was a while that
on Black Friday, this thing come out when we were
starting to think about the Christmas holiday season, and he
has literally a naughty list. But when we come back,
I mentioned some of those on the naughty list, including
Joe Scarborough, you know, the whole CNN BBC staff, Nate
Burlson over at CBS, and also mentioned Whoopy Goldberg. What
in the world did Whoopby Goldberg do to get on
(15:17):
the list? Stay here, all right, folks, We continue now
with the President's naughty list of reporters. This was fascinating.
It did launch on Friday, the folks over at the
White House. There is on the White House Web, theofficial
(15:40):
white House dot gov page, there was a section for
media Offender of the Week. It was just launched yesterday
and it really is a collection I guess, of the
people the president and the organizations the President has taken
an issue with any of their reporting, yes.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
And he so he has the media Offenders of the
Week he actually picked three of them this week. But
if you go down to the offender Hall of Shame,
he has already won two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
And that's just on like there are how many pages.
I don't there was so much work.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Put into this, but he has gone through all of
these stories. He didn't like all of the reporters who
were attached to the stories, and then put them in
a category, as you mentioned, But this is tremendous and
Whoopy Goldberg does.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Stand down among them.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
She was upset that she made up a song to
slam Trump for building the White House ballroom. So it
says publication ABC News reporter Whoopy Goldberg.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Category left wing Lunacy.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That's one of my favorites.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
That's one of the categories.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
I like that one.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
In all of these, you can click on and the
presumption is in the days and weeks to come, when
you click on left wing lunacy, you'll have a list
of offenders and defenses.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
The other one listed under left wing lunacy. The only
other person that category is an Anabara over at the View.
I don't think he likes the show.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
No, I don't think he does either, but you have.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
We listed all the categories here because this is interesting.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
I just say I woke.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Okay, there's woke, there's misrepresentation, there's a mission of context, bias, malpractice. Uh,
there's another, Okay, I'm looking lie. There's just one that
just says lie. There's one that says false claim. There's
just bias.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
So those are all the different categories. And sometimes when
you have a story that he doesn't like, he'll put
you in multiple categories. So you can click on the
different categories and just see all the different stories that
fall into this.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
And his list of publications. I guess this is a
who's who. The ones that stand out at least people
have been talking about with CBS News, Fox News on
this list, those are at least Fox News of publication
that's very friendly to him, and then CBS News, of course,
is going a direction that maybe he likes. But he
did call out a couple of reporters, but no Fox
News and and CBS News don't appear a lot, frankly
(18:04):
on this list. He also has a list of repeat offenders,
and there's a little graphic the leader board. What is
that about?
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So the leader board I was looking at that it
looks like it's a race to who's the worst, and
the Washington Post right now is first, it says, MSNBC
made it second, CBS News was third, CNN, New York Times, Political,
Wall Street Journal. Maybe that's just weekly, but yeah, it's
almost like you're watching a race to the finish line,
and he is the Washington Post at number one right now.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah, consider it just plays over and over. Really, folks,
it's a little graphic that shows all of the kind
of graphics of each of these publications, and they're racing
across the race to the bottom or.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
A race to the bottom. And then you have the
repeat offenders that he has them in circles, and the
bigger the circle, the worse you are. So right now again,
the Washington Post is number one. I'm curious do you believe,
because there have already been suggestions that because of all
of the lawsuits that he has been successful where he
sues any publication who he thinks did not give him
(19:03):
an accurate or a fair shake.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
It has been coming out on top.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Like wildly on top.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Do you think putting up this sort of web page
that folks are now going to subscribe to and read
and you're going to be called out with links to
your names, your reporters you're reporting. Do you think this
is going to change the way journalists do their jobs.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I think it already asked before this. I can't imagine
being in a root news room. People are running scared.
You're scared. You're so careful in what you say and
how you say it about this guy because it could
get you sued. I bet there are whole departments now
and people dedicated just to reviewing Trump coverage.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
I totally agree with you, because I know this, and
you know this, and every single journalist knows this.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
The biggest single obstacle to getting.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
A story on the air, even before Trump, before any
of this, was to get through the process of having
it legally reviewed so that the newsroom and the network
massively reduces their chances of getting sued.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And it has been a frustrating. It's been a frustrating
obstacle course to go through. Throughout the three.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Decades I've been reporting, I had stories that I pushed
to get on there that couldn't, that were valuable and
good because they were too afraid of getting sued. I
can't even imagine what isn't being told and how.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Carefully things are being reported.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
Look, it's a good thing to make sure your sources
are checked and rechecked and validated and resourced. I applaud
that we shouldn't be putting out something we aren't absolutely
certain of.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I agree with that, But it's been the case though.
That hasn't changed. We just got somebody with the biggest
microphone on planet Earth, who happens to have maybe one
of the biggest personalities that we've ever seen, in the
White House, who doesn't give a damn, who will go
forward and do what he was. Yes, we got a
different do I don't think we haven't all of a
(21:01):
sudden started the industry, I mean started reporting poorly because
he's in the White House. No, we just got a
guy who wants to push back and he's not afraid
to do so in these bullying manners sometimes so, Yes,
that makes you change your change your stance, change how
you report, be a little careful tiptoe. Yes, it will
cause you to not go after and do your job
(21:22):
as aggressively as you would have. Maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe it call to you to check a third and
a fourth and a fifth and a sixth source before
you put that out there. Maybe it does push folks
to do a better job and be more accurate in
their reporting, or maybe it just.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Scares or maybe yes, they aren't going to be as
willing to go after or to follow sources down a
path that they think could put them in in the
line of fire.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
With the president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
You know what, I can't remember it. I'm only going
to mention this. I don't remember the story and it's
not connected to this one. But it was a guy.
It was I think it was a state lawmaker who
he was asked about going against Trump and why he
wouldn't do some simple thing. I'm sorry, I don't have
the accurate description of the story, but it was this
ropes he had. This was his response, I'd rather not
have my house fire bombed exactly. So that mindset is
(22:16):
not just a matter of this president's going to come
after me. There might be somebody crazy enough to execute
his orders, at least in their mind of what they're hearing.
That's scary, and this is not helping to your original point.
I first saw it, and I would I'll admit, I'm like, wow,
this is crazy. Almost you hold him to a different standard.
(22:37):
Oh it's chopped, done this thing again. But you you're right,
this stuff is dangerous and the way it looks doesn't
add It doesn't do what we need to be doing,
which is bring the temperature down.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
Yes, and again, if my name, if your name was
on this list, I would I would operate differently. I
would actually consider security. I would actually I would be
I would be worried and concerned. That's just I mean,
maybe that's me jumping, maybe I'm taking it too far,
but we've just seen enough. We've seen enough people take
(23:09):
the smallest of hints and or take him at his
actual word and think somehow that they're being personally called
to action.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
That makes me nervous.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, folks, it's there for you to see. Just go
to White House dot gov. It will take you seven
seconds to get to it. The media offender of the week.
And with that, folks, we always appreciate you spending some
time here with us. Rose. We had to work to
stay off this list.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Yeah, I would like to.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
I was actually just thinking, Yes, I fully agree, and
I don't think that we have. We've been very careful
to try and not be political. I will say things
about anything personally, or a choice or words. Those are
all things that it doesn't matter what side of the
alley on. You can still agree with someone's policies and
not like how they are speaking of them or talking
(24:03):
about other people in regards to them. But in terms
of politics, I think we've tried really hard to stay
in the middle of the road when it comes to
policy or party affiliation. You can still call people out
for scary or bad behavior regardless of what you think
about their politics.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Yes, we don't do politics. We don't endorse candidates other
than Sean Duffy for the next president of the United States.
All right with that, we always appreciate you listening. We
will talk beyond
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.