6-18-25 - 7am - It's Our Responsibility to Reign in Our Media Environment

Reign in our media environment? It's not the government's responsibility. It's ours, AOC.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Alexandria Cosci Cortes. I know, but you need to understand
what they think and why they think it, to understand
the environment that we're working in, and that there are
enemies both foreign and domestic. And people will say, well,

(00:21):
that's how like you. How can you call a member
of Congress a domestic enemy? Because what they believe, what
they pursue, what their ideology is, is absolutely in opposite
to what you and I believe in terms of how

(00:43):
our constitutional framework, how our republican form of government operates.
It's designed to protect our liberties. It's designed to allow
us to live in freedom with minimal interference by the government,
which is which is a football in space. When you
think about how far off track we've become, well, this

(01:06):
is what you're about to hear short forty seconds.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Is well, just take a listen.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
You know. I do think that several members of Congress
in some of my discussions have brought up media literacy
because that is a.

Speaker 4 (01:26):
Part of what happened here, and we're going to have
to figure out how we ran in our media environment
so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
It's one thing to.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
Have different opinions. But it's another thing entirely to just
say things that are false.

Speaker 3 (01:55):
And so that's something that we're looking into.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
Decide what the issue is for just a moment. But
she gives away their plan at the very end, because
that's something that we're looking into.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
Now.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
That amorphous day is what well, it's all of her,
it's her entire cohort, her entire fellow travelers, her party,
wrint large, the Democrat Party, all of those like minded
individuals who somehow believe that the problem with our way

(02:38):
of life is we got that pesky First Amendment and
people can say things that are just absolutely false, or
that are incorrect, or are misleading, or are whatever, or
or just inadvertently, I mean people say things all the

(02:59):
time that are just inadvertly incorrect. Somebody said on the
text line, for example, that I said, you know something
gorgeous like looking at the San Juan Mountains as you
go south as I travel south, Well, no, you cannot
technically see the San Juans from I twenty five. You
can see the Sangrad to Crystal Mountains. But you can
also depending on because sometimes I go to New Mexico

(03:22):
down through Middle Park, because I want to make that
route because I'm just I'm leisurely driving down there, whether
it's the San Juans or the Sangred to Crysto's Oh
Michael's misleading. I mean in the AOC worlds, that would
be the kind of disinformation wouldn't rise to her concern,

(03:44):
but would be the kind of disinformation that somehow they
have to control. So while they have almost literal absolute
control or a partnership with the cabal dominant media, she
still believes that we're going to have to figure out
how we rain in our media environment. Well what does

(04:08):
she mean by that? What is our media environment? A
Rod came in this morning, and A Rod does something
that I don't do. And I don't do it because
I just when I've never taken the time to do it.
But what A Rod was describing to me is the
reason that I don't do it to it because I

(04:28):
go down enough rabbit holes on my own without having
another rabbit hole to go down. And that's TikTok. And
A Rod comes in this morning and we're having our
pre production meeting and we're going through you. We're just
talking about stuff, and what were you what were you
looking at last?

Speaker 2 (04:46):
Night on TikTok.

Speaker 5 (04:48):
I've there is a trend right now, unsubstantiated, mind you.
I looked into more reliable sources to see anything. There
are a lot of people, did you testing that there
are active military who are receiving their yes, big steak
and crab dinner or of the sort that would suggest

(05:14):
deployment is on the is on the horizon.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
And what a Rod was describing was, you know, video
after a video after video. I mean, it's I'm not
put I don't want to put words in your mouth.
But it sounded like he must have watched twenty five,
thirty fifty, maybe one hundred videos all saying the same
thing over and over and over. But the difference is
between a Rod and AOC besides one having a brain

(05:38):
and the other one.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Not having a brain. And I'll leave that up to
you to figure out which is which.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
That he thought to himself, this is these are unsub
unsubstantiated videos, So let me look elsewhere. Oh my gosh,
that is dare I say, taking personal responsibility for the

(06:03):
information that you consume, trying to figure out whether it is.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Accurate or not.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
I have a story that has been in the pus
for a while that I may or may not do,
but I'll generally describe it to you this way. So
there are all of the artificial intelligence applications that we
can now use, and I've been known to use them
when I've been trying to verify something.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
But I also take even them with a grain of.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
Salt, because they are in essence a type of Google Search,
but rather than just returning you results, they instead return
you analysis about the results. So it's kind of like,

(06:50):
you know, whether it's Grocker any of the others. You
might go online and ask the questions you might ask Google,
and Google would instead just end, you know, pages and
pages and pages of links that they think are relevant
to what your inquiry is, whereas the AI applications will

(07:11):
go in and they will look at all those results themselves.
They do they in essence do a Google search. That's
why you need such huge databases, and then they will
analyze all the results and return a analysis to you. Well,
a friend of mine that does a lot of writing

(07:31):
inside the Beltway did an experiment where they used a
I he didn't tell me which one it was, in
which he asked about some testimony to analyze testimony that
he had given before a senator or I forget senator,

(07:52):
House committee, and this app returned several pages of analysis
of his testimony. Guess what he had never testified. He
had never testified before that committee. Now he had provided
information to the committee. He had written to the committee.

(08:14):
He had written on his website information that was applicable
to what that committee's jurisdiction was. He is well known
for having written for a media outlet. Now I take
that back. Let me rephrase that for a think tank.
It's more like a think tank. He had written extensively
about it. But the AI application had just said that, boom,

(08:37):
here was your testimony. In fact, here's a PDF of
your testimony.

Speaker 2 (08:42):
He then.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
Read through it, went back to the AI and said,
I never did this testimony. And the response was, oh,
thank you for the clarification.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
So I mean, in.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
An almost human life voice, oh thank you for the clarification.
I put together this testimony based on everything else that
you had written. So it had made the assumption that
because he had asked for the testimony, that there was testimony.
I think our brains operate the same way sometimes too.

(09:21):
We are told that X Y Z, you know, I
testified before Congress that x y Z. I never testified
before Congress about x y Z. I may have had
conversations about x y Z, I may have written about
x y Z, I may have given a speech about
x y Z, but I never technically testified before Congress.
Yet the AI app took it and turned it into testimony.

(09:43):
He said, here's a PDF of your testimony.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Not true.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
We live in an age where we have to where
we have to really dig and not just again. I
know I I don't think I overused the phrase. I
think it's I'm trying to drive a point home, and
you got to drive the point home, you know, multiple
times for it to really sink in. And then the
audience changes all the time. There's always new people. So

(10:09):
I've got to make sure I keep repeating it. You
cannot be a drive by consumer of the news. You
cannot be that because they are lying to you. And
there's no doubt in my mind that some newsrooms are
probably be using AI to write their stories for them,
which is insane. Well, she wants remember her question is

(10:31):
we're going to have to figure out how we rain
in our media environment. No, we're not, because it's not
the government's responsibility to rain in the media. It is
our responsibility. Each and every one of us, individually, singly,

(10:52):
have that responsibility to rain in the media environment for
that which we are consuming and for that which we
know that maybe others are consuming, to make sure that
we have the facts as best as we can obtain them,
because as I said on X last night, X is
not a place to go for nuance. In fact, I

(11:13):
would argue that nuance in our society has died a
sudden death because we cannot nuance, and we cannot debate
or articulate nuances enough that we can recognize that one
several things can be that seemingly are opposite can be

(11:34):
true at the same time, and we tend to generalize
about issues. Take the Israeli Iranian conflict. Oh my gosh,
it's either world War three or it's as I. As
you know, Dan had left his text messages up, and
I've gotten some of the same text messages already this morning.

(11:55):
Something I don't even talked about in terms of what
is going to happen, Things like let me see if
I can find one real quickly. Uh oh, talking about
shock and all. One of the dumbest things we've ever done.

(12:23):
Now is the time to take care of the issue
with Iran, and then the very next one. No, now
is not the time to take care of the issue
of or of Iran. Well, maybe maybe both are right,
and maybe this is the tough decision that the person
that we elected to be the commander in chief is
going to have to make, and he is going to

(12:44):
get If he spent three and a half hours, which
I think is the number I've heard, see I may
be wrong about that, but he certainly spent more than
thirty minutes, and he didn't spend all day. But imagine
a three and a half hour meeting where you're sitting
in the White House situation room. You're at the head

(13:05):
of the table, head of the table. Marco Rubio is
sitting to your right, Pete Heggs is sitting to your left.
You've got the rest of your cabinet in front of you,
or at least let me rephrase that, you've got your
national security team in front of you. You're getting briefed
by the d n I, by the CIA director, you're
getting brief by NSSAY, by all the intel communities, and

(13:30):
everyone has a different point of view, and everybody has
their pros and cons of their particular position that they have, well,
whatever the issue might be. And by the way, as
I'm thinking, as I'm visualizing those meetings that I've been in,
I misspoke because to his right is not going to

(13:50):
be either Rubio or Hexath, but.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
It's going to be jd Vance who was in the meeting.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Now, sometimes he will the vice president will sit at
the other end of the table. But in a meeting
like this where you want to be able to see
the screens, the vice President's probably going to sit to
the president's right so they can see the screens as
they're looking outward from the head of the table in
the situation room. So they're getting all of this nuanced,

(14:19):
all of this, you know, little minute details upon which
a decision is going to have to be made. Anytime
we make decisions, they're based upon all of the nuances
that are in our brain about the pros and cons
of do I do it this way, or do I
go this direction, or I don't make this decision, or

(14:40):
do I go this direction or make that decision or
go this way? All of that is based on all
these nuances, and we don't seem to be able to
process nuances in our brain anymore because, and I think
there are several reasons for that. One is because we're inundated.
We're absolutely inundated. So many different sources, all the social

(15:05):
media applications, all of the twenty four hour, seven day
a week news cable channels, talk radio both, you know.
I mean there's still a few liberal talk stations or
talk liberal talk hosts around conservative talk show hosts, and
even among conservative talk show hosts. There is the host

(15:27):
spectra of conservatism from the right wing nut jobs to
those that are you know, pure libertarians. But on that
right side of the political spectrum, you have all of
that nuance.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
And here is.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
A Marxist telling us that we've got to figure out
how to reign in the media environment.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
No, we do not.

Speaker 1 (15:53):
You see what she wants is she wants to take
away your personal responsibility for understand nuance and trying to
discern what is factual, or to discern for that matter,
because there may be several facts that are contradicting but
are nonetheless factual, and for you to figure out what

(16:13):
is your belief what is your value system applied to
those contradictory facts.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
So what is your.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Conclusion, what is your position? She doesn't want you to
do that, she wants someone to do that for you.
I think that is inherently dangerous because it will ultimately
be somebody that is unaccountable to anyone. I think Congress
is fairly unaccountable to the American people right now. I

(16:45):
know we have elections to you every two years, but
so many people are uninformed.

Speaker 2 (16:52):
Voters and just rely on Oh, you know.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
I saw a really horrible ad about you know, that
Michael Brown's running for Congress, and they said some really
bad things about him, and then they showed a really
ugly picture of him. But then the guy that's running
against him, or the lady running against him, was really nice,
had a nice voice, and said some really wonderful things
about how she loves Godmother and apple ply. Well, I'm
going to vote for her because that Brown guy just

(17:17):
came across as kind of crass, kind of cross and
you know, use his foul language, call somebody a jackass
one time on the air.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
Wow, watch out for people like that.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
I do think that several members of Congress, and some
of my discussions have brought up media literacy because media literacy.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
Yes, are you media literate?

Speaker 1 (17:44):
I hope you are, But I hope you're not becoming
literate from the likes of her barely a year ago,
I'd have to I don't remember these it was.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
I think it was in June.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
That Joe Biden, he was like a Buddhist monk of
some sort. He just set himself on fire on that
debate stage in Atlanta. It was a cringe worthy meltdown.
It was a eye opening, at least for many in

(18:25):
the media, not for those of us who had actually
been observing him. It was a cringe worthy meltdown that
then set off a chain of events that, in hindsight,
led to a really dramatic and honestly for me anyway,
and exciting presidential election, probably one of the most exciting

(18:45):
in my lifetime. But what transpired after that debate night
June twenty seven, What transpired after that night is a
timeline that even the best fiction writers probably couldn't have
come up with. You get a near fatal assassination attempt

(19:08):
against Donald Trump, You get the replacement of Joe Biden
with a even less popular vice president, Kamala Harris, and
then you get another assassination attempt against Donald Trump on
the golf course, and then the.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
Supreme Court mostly ruled.

Speaker 1 (19:29):
In the President's favor on questions of presidential immunity from
criminal prosecution. All that was related to Special Counsel Jack
Smith's indictment about Trump's involvement in that insurrection on January sixth,
and then just a few weeks after that, a Florida
judge dismisses the other federal indictment that was brought by

(19:53):
Jack Smith in what I always referred to as the
class everybody referred to as the Class Document's case. Then
the richest man in the world, once the the darling
of the left, Elon Musk. He endorses Trump and hits

(20:18):
the campaign trail almost as if they were conjoined twins.
And in his Asperger's you know, hyper dramatic, uh kind
of bipolar, you know, bounces around on the stage all
over the place, campaigning in what's truly a hyper energetic fashion.

(20:41):
Every day of that election was like a roller coaster,
and it ended with one of the greatest have made
you know, history may market down is the greatest political
comeback in US history, and and that may be at
least from today's perspective, it may indeed be the greatest political.

Speaker 2 (20:57):
Comeback in US history when you think.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
About all of the law fair the assassination attempts everything
that I mean, even within the Republican Party itself, a
desire to have any you know, anybody but Trump. But
what everybody forgot about was the voters. So Trump, written

(21:24):
off for you know, or written off as politically dead,
decisively won the presidency. And I use the word decisively
on purpose because there will be people say, well, it
was only you know, one percent here, Well, but you know,
he won the popular vote, and as I've often said
about other races, it's you know, all you need is

(21:45):
that fifty percent plus one. So it was a decisive victory,
a story that for those of us, as Republicans conservatives
on the winning side, we still boast that. You know, yeah,
I remember when we had a guy that you know,

(22:06):
was president lost and came back to win again.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
But that's not the end of the story.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
Then the Republicans win the House in the Senate, and
as I commented on this program, the cabinet picks indicated
that Trump forty seven was not going to be anything
like Trump forty five. So instead of filling the White
House with Beltway you know, the consultant class, the people

(22:37):
that never leave d C. Instead, he selects hardcore Magan
loyalists to populate his administration, and that emboldened Trump's supporters
and signaled a playbook that was, you know, if you're
going to try to submarine controversial picks, if you're going

(22:59):
to try to submarine you know. He may have taken
Pete Hagges's to the woodshed and talked to me about
things he's saying and to quit talking out a turn
and to get off the signal app But Trump made sure,
and I think the selection of Susie Wiles as his
chief of staff, as I've also said before, I think

(23:22):
indicated that I'm in charge and I'm going to run
this and I have a limited amount of time. And
while I may troll you about Trump twenty twenty eight,
I know my time is limited and I'm going to
get everything done than I can. And then, what was

(23:43):
kind of ironic, he ended up taking the oath of
office in the very building the Democrats, the media, and
even members of the Republican Party insisted with the scene
of an insurrection back on January sixth of twenty twenty one,
right in that same rotunda people just walked through. And

(24:03):
then came Inauguration Day and Trump started issuing all these
executive orders, which guests some settled scores with those who
tried to destroy him during all the lawfare. He pardoned,
you know, which surprised me, which I freely admit. I
wish he had not pardoned all the January six ers.

(24:24):
I think some who actually did engage in some vandalism
should have served some time, but he pardoned all of them.
But that's his right to do so. So while I
may have disagreed with it, he did it, and so okay, done,
I'm not going to argue about it. And then he
started issuing directives all trying to undo all of the

(24:46):
damage done by Joe Biden or at least somebody under
his name, all the damage inflicted on this country over
the course of the short four years, climate change, DEI transgend,
the strength of the military, the border, I mean everything.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
So the MAGA movement was that it was.

Speaker 1 (25:09):
Like a drunken holiday. It was a it was a
marijuana Colorado weed induced high. Certainly, I think the high
the vendor certainly surpassed the surprise victory that Trump had
in twenty sixteen, but as always, reality set sin. Republicans

(25:35):
in Congress, particularly the Senate, gave off first term Trump vibes.
Federal judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents unofficially declared
their role as the new Trump resistance, sabotaging even the
most common sense initiatives, such as deporting illegal Venezuelans tied
to a dangerous South American crime racket that we talked

(25:57):
about in the first hour this morning. He's just ugly
ahead again in Colorado, or simply halting gender reassignment surgeries
for people in federal prison. I mean, it doesn't get
much more common sense than that you violated the law,
you're in federal prison, taxpayers are not going to pay

(26:18):
for your transgender reassignment surgery. And then the media now
they're focused on Musk because what did he do? Oh
he wanted to start this, And I scoffed a little
bit about DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, because I
was like, okay, here we go again. Yes I was,

(26:40):
I freely admitt I was cynical, but holy cow, now
did they accomplish? I mean if he set the goal,
and I've got my arm extended as high as I
can extend it. If the goal was up here, they
actually accomplished down here where my console lives.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
But nonetheless, that's more than ever has ever been done before.

Speaker 1 (27:07):
So the promise of the Department of Government Efficiency became
fully embraced by the megabase. But then it got bogged
down in bad press, got bogged down in litigation judges
starting to saying you can't do that, saying the executive
can't act as the executive. And then we had the breakup,
the nasty breakup, and then the divide starts within the base.

(27:35):
And I think unreasonably so when the new leadership at DOJ,
when Pam Bondy and Cash Ptel FBI did not immediately
purp walk the biggest Trump villains despite doing aggressive Now
they did aggressive house cleaning in their departments, don't get
me wrong, they absolutely did. But then they engage in

(27:56):
stupid and I do believe was that publicity stuff that
Pam Bondi did about the Epstein files that was stupid.
So impatient for retribution for the law fair against the president,
the president's allies and his voters influential corners of the
MAGA social media space even started suggesting that somehow Pam

(28:21):
Bondi and Cash Battel and Dan Bongino are somehow compromised. Well,
I don't know Pambondi, I know a record. I seriously
doubt she's compromised. Cash Battel, good grief, No one's paying attention.
Cash Battel is the one that blew the lid on
how false and utterly baseless the Russia collusion hoax was.

(28:47):
He's got his credentials, but somehow people that supported the
president suddenly began to question on Cash's paper tiger, he's
not really going to do anything. And then even the
President stepped in a little bit, sending mixed signals about
the deportation of illegals, which is probably the singular issue

(29:10):
that got him elected, that maybe we need to be
a little more circumspect when it comes to the hospitality
or to the ag sector, And of course that raised
eyebrows and people started screaming about that. In other words,
the divide inevitable in any administration, but I think is

(29:31):
more highlighted in this administration because expectations were so high.
But nothing compares to what's going on in the Middle East.
Deportation of illegals, the issue that I said, I really
believe is the issue that elected him, in addition to
the economy. So after stating that he would revisit to

(29:57):
put a plight word on it, he visits the removal
of illegals that are working in hospitality and ag an
announcement that almost immediately resulted in a huge backlash on
social media.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Trump relented.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
Now, fortunately for US, Democrats do what they always do,
and they jump to shark, as they do on a
daily basis, by attacking law enforcement and confronting the administration,
you know, somehow defending the illegal aliens against American citizens.
You know Alex Padilla, the the unknown US senator from California,
or the stupid guy running for mayor in New York.

(30:43):
I mean, they always jumped to shark. How many these
people are idiots? Tim Walls, you know, calling Trump a
dictator two weeks before the shooting in Minnesota. But it's
the Israeli Iranian conf licked that's pitting Trump supporters against

(31:04):
Trump supporters, and that bugs me. Both sides have good arguments,
both sides have valid arguments. None of the people. I
mean literally, none of the people on social media, including yours,
truly has the intelligence that and by intelligence, I don't

(31:30):
mean IQ, I mean the intel. None have the intel
that President Donald J. Trump has. So, whether it's Tucker
Carlson or now Marjorie Taylor Green has come out, I mean,
she's got my head like, what's your name in the

(31:51):
extrescist spinning around in circles. I'm not quite sure where
Marjorie Taylor Green's coming from. Is she supporting Tucker Carlson?
Is she attacking Carlson? And you got Steve Bannon, all
just searching for relevance, all searching for you know, the
glory days or something. I don't know what they do.
Congressional Republicans, the media, social media influencers, who will rule

(32:16):
out engagement, who won't rule out some sort of engagement,
all making.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
I shouldn't say all.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
Sometimes they're all making cogent arguments, because I believe there
are coaching arguments both for and against any number of
options that the president has before him.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
But that's the point. The president has options.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
And we elected him. Who remember that Bush decided? When
Bush announced that he was going to be the decider
and he said, well, I'm the decider, and everybody mocked
him and laughed at him. I didn't laugh. I thought
it was kind of funny using the word, but I
thought to myself that that's what we elected him to do.