May 31, 2025 • 56 mins
On our 5th episode, we are discussing journalistic integrity. We’re reviewing 2 case studies: Candace Owens leaving the Daily Wire and Tucker Carlson leaving Fox News. Their departure from these companies lead them to start their own shows on social media platforms and pursue independent journeys. Those events triggered a lot of questions for us: “What really happened?”, “Are we witnessing a new trend when it comes to journalism?”, and “Can journalists and news commentators still have their own opinion if it diverges from the ideological narratives of the companies that hired them?”. Follow us down this rabbit hole of personal opinions and thoughts and let us know what you think!
Credits for this episode:
Songs:
1. Intro: "Candy Cane" by Keagan Midas
2. Mid: “VENICE BID. DEMO” by Lucius.
3. Outro: “Taxi” by Rich Kiss
Thumbnail Artifact:
"professional-retro-microphone--dj-headphones-" by www.ilmicrofono.it is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I'm not going to be tricked again.
I think I told you that once before.
I'm not gonna be tricked again by God damn politician.
I'm not gonna be trippin by God damn journalist.
Alright, I'll listen to what youhave to say until you start to
show the signs. That cheated on nobody's gonna
ever my heart. That's what it sounds like, a.
(00:20):
Perfect analogy. It's a perfect analogy.
It's OK. I also want to take that
(01:31):
opportunity of you or reminding me about the music to reiterate
the two artists that we've showcased so far.
So Keegan Midas is the first one.
So I'll be playing a lot of thatmusic.
But also on our second episode, our outro was done by Rich Kiss
from Calgary. So that's another one of these
(01:54):
artists that we will be showcasing a little bit more as
you did. I love that.
So currently this is what we have, but the idea is to bring
more and more friends, musiciansthat we have, artists that are
local that are starting or you know, not Obviously we're not
(02:16):
going to be. This is not for us to showcase
popular artists, but like new people coming out there and.
I like the large of sound, like the conversation is sort of the
the bed of what we're doing, butlike the collage of sound,
you're inserting music, you're putting other things in.
(02:36):
It's like it's audio content, right?
Like we've sort of discussed before, like the idea of
possibly having like a video aspect too.
And that could come like, I don't mind doing something like
that as well. Eventually as I as I get more.
Comfortable right now? Totally.
Totally. As we both get more comfortable
and this, this product in general starts to take shape
(02:56):
more, I feel like it's already done quite a bit just based on
the recordings that we've done. But as we go forward, like it's,
yeah, just that wall of sound. I like a bunch of different
aspects. Like it makes the conversation
more listenable. Yeah, I think that's something
about just the audio part of it.Like I mean I do consume
probably more video podcasts or video content, but in the audio
(03:23):
you almost have to pay a little bit more attention I find.
You do. But that's not cool.
Like I, it's funny, I I use YouTube quite a bit just for the
content, does it? Or I'll use rumble or something
like that, but I'll find myself,my phones in my pocket.
Like I'm simply consuming it through YouTube, but I'm not
(03:44):
actually watching the video. Gotcha.
So I'm still consuming it in an audio fashion.
And then one of my favorite podcasts is No Agenda and they
don't even offer a video version.
Yeah, it's all audio and it's meant to be that way.
And they almost present it like it's a it almost seems like it's
radio, like that's truly the waythey're doing it.
But they're basically clip commentary and media
(04:07):
deconstruction, OK. And they do a value for value
model where it's like you offer time, treasure or talent.
So you can offer your time, you can create content for them, you
can offer treasure or well, waita minute, I messed that up.
Either way, it's basically like they offer, they accept
(04:27):
donations. OK.
Like they don't do ads? Ever donate for them to them?
Good. No, I'm a deadbeat.
I've never I've. I've been listening to them for
like for years and years and years almost to double digits.
I don't think it's been a decadeyet, but pretty close.
And I've never donated. OK, Yeah.
Good, though, because they're doing, they're doing God's work
(04:48):
over there. Truly.
Like, I'm, I'm not joking, Like my, my ability to parse
information that I receive on a daily basis has an awful lot to
do with what I learned from them.
Wow. Yeah.
OK, that's that's. That's a big deal.
And they they're kind of topicalgeopolitical, like they're based
(05:09):
in the United States. So they're talking more about
United States culture and politics, but still like they
they've got a broad scope of thecontent that they're willing to
comment on. So yeah, no agenda.
It's good one. Wow.
And they're straight audio. That was my original point.
Yeah, OK, Yeah, No, I I think that no one day we'll definitely
go video because I think it's just the extension to the.
(05:33):
Audio. I like the idea.
Yeah, but I also have to admit that why is it that I'm
uncomfortable with video? Do you like him?
Uncomfortable with myself? No, no, it's just like it's all
about. Angles.
It's all about angles with the camera, so.
It's like, not only do I have tothink about what I'm saying and
I have to think about it like what the way I look.
(05:53):
No, I. Almost like yeah.
I I imagined making a podcast before where it was just me and
I was like, maybe I'm in a room where it's like perfect lighting
where you can't see my face, butI could like almost lean in and
out of the shop where you could almost see.
My like anonymous. Yeah, I'm like, I'm smoking a
cigarette background. Like almost like, but I'm
talking. But you see me?
(06:14):
So you like the mystery of it? Yeah.
Well, I like the appeal of that type of this is the guy that's
telling you what's going on, butyou can't because.
You don't wanna. There's too much about them.
Right. But I'm saying mystery is kind
of appealing, a little bit of luring.
And I mean, I think we talked about like this whole set, that
guy, the Bitcoin guy, like I digthe fact that it's like, who is
(06:38):
it? Who is it?
Like I want to know. But also, I think it makes me
more interested in it because ofthat.
Yeah. Or even like.
An Incognito is cool word. Yeah, exactly.
It's very pretty I. Really like that word.
Also, I just, there's something about keep me on the suspense a
little bit. Like I don't want you to not
know everything about you. And I feel like today when you
(07:01):
look at like all these actors and people on TV, like we know
too much about their lives. Like, dude, I wanna see you in a
movie. I wanna see you in a show, but I
don't wanna know about your life.
Like, why are we talking like Justin Bieber?
Why are we talking about what's happening in his life like that?
Like. He kind of got thrown out there.
Yeah. OK.
So this is being agree. His association with it.
(07:23):
That's not cool. I get it.
But like right now, this whole situation with like his
relationship with his wife and and like, I mean, why am I
listening to this? It's on my feet, right?
YouTube, right? But like, why are we interested
in this guy's life when we're all struggling to make this
life? Work.
I think that's what it is, is people struggle.
(07:44):
Well, I'm saying like you find your the hypothetically, an
individual finds themselves in kind of a depressing state in
their life and they got nothing going on.
And all they see are all these beautiful people doing whatever
they want and they've got all this money and they do whatever.
And it's almost like the Facebook lifestyle that they
see, they only see snippets of these people, but they assume
that their lives are just so much better.
(08:04):
So sure, then when that depressed individual gets to see
one of these golden children allthen then they revel in it
because it's like, oh, you're coming down to my level.
OK, good. They they well, they revel in
the pain of somebody that falls.Yeah.
You know, and it's because they they'd rather people be at their
level as opposed to see somebodyon some kind of pedestal.
(08:26):
OK, that makes that makes them feel worse about themselves.
But when they see those people fall, then they're like, Oh,
yes, OK. Do you think that she need to 1
see them up first and then go down to your level?
Or are we like more into like the underdog mentality where you
wanna see people that came from nothing and go up?
Like what was the direction thatwe preferred?
I think, I think the function ofthat depressed individual kind
(08:47):
of finding the fall appealing isbecause they're depressed.
I think everybody naturally the human condition is to be like
root for the underdog. Yeah.
Like not to be like a hater and championing somebody's downfall,
but like you should be like pulling somebody up, like
helping somebody up, not pullingthe ladder up behind you type of
thing. But that's the way that
(09:09):
depressed person perceives theseelevated people is that they
pulled the ladder up and I couldnever get there.
So the idea of somebody topplingfrom a height, then they're
like, oh. That's great.
You just. Like I'm just speculating.
But also both direct, I guess it's both direction, Like you
wanna know that there's a possibility that you're up and
(09:30):
you go down and there's also a possibility that you're down and
you go up. Like both.
Part of that wave is kind of like you want to know that I'm
part of the plan. Like where I'm at is not unusual
because even rich people go downor popular people or whatever,
successful people, whatever is up really for you, they
(09:51):
eventually go down. Like I could be at that place,
that means that I could also go up because they go up sometimes,
right? Underdog.
Right. Yeah.
So I, I think that's, that's interesting to think about
because I always wondered why dowe, why do I care about his
personal life like that? Because it's all I mean, the
personal life is the best. Because he presented himself
(10:12):
publicly, first of all, because that was part well, when he came
out as a as a star, that was hisgolden ticket, like his public
image, right. And he was presented and
marketed and pumped out there asan image of a person with a
personality who's creating content for you to watch or
enjoy or listen to with music and stuff like that.
(10:35):
But like that's why we're interested in him now is because
he was presented to us as a product you.
Know, OK, I see what you're saying so, but isn't that the
case as well with Michael Jackson and.
For sure. A Prince and all these people.
I just wonder about the artists that actually do not present, do
(10:58):
not want their private life to be out there as are you.
Can you still be successful or Yeah for?
Sure. That's with that.
I was gonna say when you originally started talking about
this, the people that are out there and the the celebrities
that we take interest in and, and stuff like that.
I was thinking I'm I'm almost more interested in the people
that avoid the limelight. Like there's more mystery to
(11:19):
them. And it's like when something
does come out about them, then you're like, oh, I find that
very interesting. Like Johnny Depp is a pretty
decent example. I don't know how much the public
key sort of seems standoffish. Like you could probably find
information about it and I'm sure there's a better example of
a celebrity that avoids the public eye.
But yeah, he's a good example. Like you don't see a lot of
(11:42):
interviews with them and stuff like that.
Like and he is cool as fuck. Have you ever seen that?
And John Wick like he's got and even, oh, what's the one with
him and Patrick Swayze? Oh, the surf one.
Yeah. Where is the police?
Office. Point break, break, point,
break, break point. What's talking about celebrities
(12:04):
and all these things? I think I know you today.
You wanted to talk to me about some celebrities, right?
YouTube celebrities, right? I guess.
Are they YouTube? Well, the the common point
through these three case studiesthat I kind of thought that I
was going to present is that they're all currently
independent journalists. And all three of these current
(12:26):
independent journalists found themselves, um, leaving a larger
network under duress. Actually, I think all three of
them sort of were forced out of their position in, in one way or
another. They were either fired, left
under a controversy, or were pushed out in one case of a
(12:48):
company that they actually helped start.
So like, but all three of these individuals are now very
successful independent journalists who I personally
consider when they say somethingor when they interview somebody.
I consider their words to have weight.
OK, wait, did you consider that there were to have weight before
(13:11):
they got? Left when they when they were
apart yeah they exhibited signs well they all have long careers
right and not all three of them are the same as far as what I'm
about to say but they all towards the end of their
mainstream in air quotes media career they all exhibited signs
of this may be somebody that I could trust potentially now
(13:34):
that's my personal opinion OK just based on journalism
journalists journalistic integrity and whether or not I'm
going to even give them the timeof day with the information
that. They're gonna before you reveal
to us. So these three people are right.
I just want to understand how you determine journalistic
integrity. You know, you doing your own
(13:56):
research like out like I do, because they're very good
actors, like they're they're present very well on YouTube.
Or is it because what they say you've you've you've checked,
you've fact checked or how do you know?
So it's difficult and ultimatelyshort answer, I don't, I don't
know, regardless of what my. Opinion of journalistic
(14:18):
integrity. I think they do based on what
they've done up to this point. But they could still be wolves.
And she's closing. I have no idea how sheeped it.
There. So what makes you like them
then? What makes me like them is they
appear to speak in an authentic fashion.
Authenticity. Authenticity has.
So people have starved for authenticity nowadays.
(14:39):
People want to hear somebody saysomething that's actually their
opinion, not something that they've been propped up to say,
not something that they've been paid to say, not something that
they feel compelled to say underduress.
Like, oh, for fear of losing their job or for fear of being
like, alienated from their community or their lives in
general. You know, I don't wanna hear
(15:00):
somebody say something that's a packaged piece.
I wanna hear what their opinion is regardless of whether I agree
with it or not. And I guess there's an element
of courage in that because when you're speaking your truth,
right, Well, we're understandingis that that doesn't really
work. And most people.
But journalists and integrity means your desire to uncover the
(15:24):
truth isn't compromised by exterior factors.
OK, Yeah. So when you're pursuing a story,
yeah, you reveal it at all costs.
Yeah. You conceal your sources and you
reveal the story at all costs. You don't hear from some big
pharmaceutical company halfway down the line of investigation,
(15:44):
and they tell you all, you better nip that in the bud
because if you do that, you're probably going to lose your job
here. And then you say as a
journalist, OK, no problem. Like that isn't journalistic
integrity. OK, So what at work?
I want you to review with peoplein a few minutes and if there's
rush. But there's one question I do
have about what part of our society allow that possibility.
(16:09):
Like I was like, in my mind, I'mthinking is, is it YouTube that
made it possible where people could actually honestly still
make a living while being authentic?
Big companies, old school media does not allow you to do that.
But there's something in today'sage, I'm assuming like YouTube
that wants that, that is open tothat because without them, if
(16:33):
there was no YouTube, how would that work, worked.
Well, this is, this is interesting and it almost like
gives me ideas for like 3 other podcasts.
You're talking about how communication works.
And as soon as you started speaking about like YouTube, is
it what gives these people the ability to do that?
And short answer yes, long answer yes, but that well is
(16:56):
YouTube the ideal E town square because they.
Because it. Certainly is.
Well, that's what I'm saying. And YouTube is something that
five years on the surface to really want to inform people
like this is the E town square. Come on in.
And like anybody it's it gives everybody a digital pulpit, you
(17:16):
know, soapbox to stand up on andyell.
Whereas like 100 years ago you would have been literally
standing on a soapbox attemptingto yell your way across the the
promenade. You know what I mean?
And like, but here now even us, we are utilizing it like
Internet and our top tier moderncommunication system allows
(17:38):
anybody to essentially be an independent journalist.
Yeah, unless you decide to go against some of their rules that
will make you demonetized or. What I'm saying, but still you
can still do it. Yeah, you may not have monetary
compensation for it, OK, But youwill find yourself on YouTube
being demonetized for talking about the wrong things.
(18:00):
And you can look at as recently as some of the things that were
going on with regards to COVID. And even when I was looking for
these clips for this particular episode, I had to look at a
bunch of Wikipedia prompts at the bottom of the videos that
gave me the real definition of what I would be watching in this
(18:20):
video. Because that's like a compelled
thing that YouTube had to do. They had to start informing
people when they were like, thisis problematic material.
So if you'd like to look at whatwe really understand this to be,
then you can look at this quick Wikipedia thing under post and
underneath your video, and now you can watch your trash
(18:40):
propaganda. It's basically what YouTube is
saying, Yeah. Plus plus not to mention their
algorithms is going to essentially create an echo
chamber for you. Whatever you'd like that.
To be so, it's almost like we always have to innovate because
the innovation will allow for authenticity, for truth or
controversy to come out. But then eventually the longer
(19:03):
that stays, the longer it, the faster it gets into the old norm
of conservatism status quo, right?
The system that we were trying to leave.
And then again, somebody else will have to invent something
new and innovative and, and break that mold against we're
continuously having to break the, the, the culture that we're
(19:26):
in. But it's, it's almost like that
culture always want to go back to the days where they could
control everything. Like it's, it's like bringing
back order. It's a chaos order, Chaos order,
gas order. That is my problem with it.
Like YouTube can be a independent company and choose
to run its algorithm however it wants and choose to run whatever
(19:49):
snippets of actual information they they can.
They can demonetize people as much as they want.
That's not my problem. YouTube running their business
how they want is not my problem.YouTube being influenced by
outside factors as to how they should be.
Investors. Politicians.
But these are investors, these. Are people are.
Saying control how you're. That's my issue, Yeah, YouTube
(20:12):
doing whatever it wants and telling its customers we do it
this way. Yeah, take it or leave it is not
my problem. It's when it's when powerful
influencers start to lean on YouTube to be like you need to
start towing a party company or like ideological.
Line you would have to give people money for that like.
Some kind of company? Yeah, you can't just say hey,
(20:33):
you're you're forced to do this.No, it's like, hey, by the way,
I feed you, I give you money. And so now they own you.
So I need you to say what I wantyou to say, right?
Like it's like we always do that.
We always get into that loop, right?
Where I make you say what I needyou to say by forcing you with
money. That's what I don't like, the
(20:53):
undue influence of people who are pushing ideological
narratives. Let YouTube run it however it
wants. I think in a market where those
types of outside influences are cut off, I think the market
kinda regulates itself that way.I think people will either
consume things off of YouTube ornot based on YouTube's conduct
(21:14):
alone, not based on YouTube being influenced by some outside
force. It's a bit heady where I'm
getting to, but my concern is with the corruptive influence of
outside forces, not with YouTuberunning its business.
OK, no, I mean, so corruptive incentives there that you're
talking about. Let's let's jump into the one of
(21:35):
those clips like. Let's see how that connects
with. Everything alright?
So I think the first clip I sentyou was ace around Candace
Owens. OK, cool, let's get that one
started. Really.
There's no AD and that one. You know, being an addict.
Turning our attention now to a major feud that put an end to
(21:55):
Candace Owens platform on the Daily Wire.
The conservative commentator is out after an ongoing beef with
her boss Ben Shapiro over the Israel Hamas war.
Candace Owens confirming the news.
The rumors are true. I'm finally free.
It's not that I'm saying things that they don't like, it's that
I'm refusing to allow my voice to be controlled.
(22:17):
And her last segment, which premiered Tuesday, Candace Owens
made it clear why she felt she was being ostracized.
And if you do not step out and say things that are radically
pro Israel, or if you are too quiet on certain narratives and
they want you to be radically peripheral, you can lose
everything. In the past, Ben Shapiro had
come to the defence of Owens andher rhetoric.
(22:39):
He's the Jewish cofounder of thenews site Daily Wire, AKA
Candace's boss. Well, that friendship all
changed following the October. 7th Hamas LED attack on Israel.
It quickly turned into a very public battle between the two.
It makes me cry when I see the footage all over Twitter of
Palestinian children that are being bombed into oblivion and I
(23:00):
see their missing parts of theirbody and this implicit threat.
Don't say it's sad that you're not to say it is sad.
Owens has been one of the few far right pundits who has been
openly critical of Israel's handling of the war in Gaza.
Critics of Owen say that she hasspread anti-Semitism.
Then the question of Afghanistanis pink behavior during this
(23:21):
industry. Thank you.
Video speaks more to Ben's character that speaks to.
Mine and she texts you to apologize or explain or
anything. No, nothing.
I haven't heard a single word. It just was sort of something
that he said. Why did got nastier to the point
where Shapiro dared the star podcaster to quit?
Candace, if you feel that takingmoney from a daily wire some
(23:42):
outcomes between you and God, byall means quit.
I wrote a response. You have been acting
unprofessional and emotionally unhinged for weeks now and we
have all had to sit back and allow it and have all tried to
exercise exceeding understandingfor your raw emotion.
Leading us to today, the company's CEO taking to axe
writing Daily Wire and Candace Owens have ended their
relationship no further. Explanation was provided.
(24:04):
Genuinely I was sad when a bunchof innocent Israelis were
murdered and killed in horrific acts and genuinely I am sad when
a bunch of innocent Palestinians, and yes, they do
exist, Brian Mast, are now beingmade to endure bombing and all
sorts of other horrific things that we are all seeing on
Twitter. That is my crime.
(24:25):
Everybody can for that. It's it's ridiculous to pretend
that it's anything else. Daily Wires decision to end its
relationship with Owens was a surprise to many.
There was shock that the man whohas voiced his concerns with
cancel culture in the past. Like I know conservatives are
not interested in counseling other conservatives and they're
going to go along with. This has put an end to a fellow
right wing voice. Online.
(24:46):
I kind of want to say you can tell that this is a bias piece.
This is kind of something that was presented from Candace Owens
camp it. I'm not saying she influenced it
to be put out, but this person is obviously biased towards or
has sympathy for Candace Owens position.
(25:07):
That being said, the subject matter doesn't matter.
Obviously that was leaning into the whole of Gaza Israel thing.
That's not what I'm talking about here.
I'm more focusing on the idea that she was let go of a major
news production company, essentially where she was an
integral part and put out quality material.
(25:29):
Now she reached an impasse with Ben Shapiro in The Daily Wire,
and she left that institution orwas fired.
Either way, they cut ties, and that's my focus.
So Candace Owens as a case study, she's somebody who has
journalistic integrity in my eyes.
Agree with or disagree with whatshe says and what her ideology
(25:53):
is. I think she comes from an
authentic or what's she saying? She legitimately believes, for
better or worse, whether you agree with it or not.
So what? What if?
So you own a business, a company, and then you have
certain values that are really important for you.
(26:14):
What if before I hire you, I tell you what my values are,
what I believe, and because it'smy company and you're basically
an employee of my company, right?
Can is that now OK for some subjects to be taboo or not
talking discussed or whatever, like you know in this particular
(26:34):
case? You hit the nail on the head
because I was. I caveated this by saying that
this is obviously something somebody put out this piece who
was sympathetic towards Candace Owens position, but in this
particular case I totally understand why Ben Shapiro
fired. Her.
What do you mean? It's because he had certain
ideologies, yes, and he owns this company.
(26:55):
That's correct. We always.
His prerogative to hire or fire whoever he wants and he can run
his company however he. Wants.
Stuff provides you that clip that we listen to drags Ben
Shapiro, and it did like you didn't see it because there's no
video, but it shows stupid his face.
He's stupid. It freezes frames on his face
(27:15):
and it makes him to look like a fool.
But whether you agree with Ben Shapiro or not, I think he's
totally within his power to fireCandace Owens.
That's right. I like I agree.
I don't necessarily agree with his position, but I I agree with
his ability to do. It exactly and now the problem
would become if she was aware ofthose values that Ben Shapiro
(27:39):
had from the beginning and. Did that in spite of them.
And, and yeah, and at that point, it's like what?
No, there's no surprise here. Like you're literally going
against what the your boss wanted.
Like I like, for instance, I used to work for oil and gas
company. What if I have a problem with
the pipelines that are being putout there?
Yeah, disturbing all these native Canadians in here.
(28:01):
If I had a problem with that. But you decide that, yeah, I'm
going to make a living out of exploiting different
territories, so to get the oil here.
And you have to sleep. But exactly so like The thing is
that it's now I am aware that I have decided to make money out
of a situation that I'm not completely comfortable with.
No, look, I want to say that I actually appreciate this woman
(28:23):
again, this one. So I'm not necessarily saying
that I am not saying that everything she says or direction
is totally bad. I'm not saying that I wouldn't
have done exactly the same thingshe has done.
I just wonder about the the impact of the reaction that
people could have about this new, well, that was a while ago,
but this type of situation happening when you know already
(28:47):
that you're hired by a company, so you're a slave to that
company anyways. Well, that's the thing with
Candace Owens is it's on. It's almost like this is a
litmus test for her as somebody with journalistic integrity,
because she's looking into the face of losing her livelihood.
That's right. Being drug lost her job and then
(29:09):
being derided by a very powerfulnews organization.
And now you find yourself on your own essentially with the
potential to go in an individual, an independent
journalist route. Yeah, but now you are giving up
your guaranteed income and you're now at odds with this
media. Giant.
That's huge. Yeah, but but that gives her a
(29:31):
certain amount of authenticity. Now keep that in mind because
this is understood that when people throw away guaranteed
income based on the fact that they will not stop saying what
they're saying because they believe it to be true.
This is understood that this gives you a certain amount of
credibility. Understanding that this gives
you a broad base of credibility in the public eye.
(29:53):
Yeah, is utilized by notorious people and institutions to
essentially insert somebody intothe zeitgeist with a pre
industry plant. I'm saying, yeah, I'm not saying
Candace Owens is that, but she went through a process by which,
(30:15):
in my eyes, it gave her a certain amount of authentic
credibility. She lost her job because she
wouldn't stop saying what she knew to be true.
That's just something to consider.
It's just something to consider.So the the question becomes
then, who's producing her new material?
Because if it's someone. Else and what is he saying in
(30:36):
her new? Material what exactly?
So if she decides to be to have her authentic voice come out and
she's not directing and owning the material, that's a question.
That's something cause she's not.
I mean, I think you were tellingme that is she that I'm
producing or some other? Party, I believe now don't quote
(30:58):
me on this because she might have just been saying that in
passing, but I believe it's her husband that runs the production
crew behind the camera. OK, so he's the guy who's like
switch camera one switch camera 2 alright, who you're doing this
you're doing that he's got the goods.
You got Boom mic while working with her in and if you know
anything about him, because I watched her interview of him and
(31:19):
he's like a theologian essentially went to school for
the like. I believe from what I remember,
from what I remember from her interview of him is that he went
to school for religious studies.He converted to Catholicism from
Judaism. Don't quote me on that.
Maybe it might not be, it might be Protestant to Catholicism,
(31:40):
but he's a Catholic now and they're both Catholic.
They're in a Catholic marriage. And yeah, so, so they, they
definitely have an ideological bent.
OK. So, so I mean, so, so through
marriage, I guess she's somewhatin, in the production seat
through marriage, but it's stillnot a particularly that's
(32:02):
producing it or directing it, right.
Actually we're understanding andpotentially this is just us with
our opinion talking about what'shappening out there.
If people have more information about what's the details, they
can let us know. But really ultimately the point
I'm making is that to kind of counteract the whole idea of
potentially being an end industry plant.
(32:23):
Because I'm not even suggesting it.
I was like, I would it would be harder to believe that if I was
directing everything like opening the Prince when he
started, like when he decided toproduce his own music and do
everything and and when he started having this, this whole
(32:44):
disdain against the the music industry, he owned everything
after he decided I produce it, Imake it, I.
Write it the hard way. I do all this stuff.
Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
Eventually they didn't have to turn out very well for him.
But Candace Owen also talked about how many people do not
like her in the threats and stuff.
(33:06):
She talked about that many timesas well.
These people have large securityteams.
All three of these case studies that I'm about to mention have
large independent security teams, and they're required
because of the content matter that they find themselves
talking. About that's interesting.
Let's let's make sure we talk about that as well.
It's a common thread through thethree of them, and it definitely
is significant. It means.
(33:27):
Something it goes back to some of the things we were talking
about in our last. Episode, but they're talking.
About yeah and, and if you're going to be authentic and if
it's gonna resonate like the truth going on with people.
Building something? Yeah, yeah.
Not being able to handle the truth.
So that's it's, it's interestinghow this is kind of all
interconnected. I'd like to take a pause though
(33:48):
right now and then. The end I melted all my ice and
now we're going to Scotch neat so.
Said I was stuck up in the Impala.
Speakers fucking bumping. Blast bumping try to kiss him
cheese. I'll never pass it.
Watching this and melt and passing shit off this guys in a
(34:09):
drought underwater sky zone fold.
Check the amount and the time. Cold.
Yeah, 313. I said it's time.
Oh my work day. Same.
My fucking birthday. So I was catching it on the
client. Had a sword Lance other hand
versus soft pace no brisk painting the tread like I'm
Picasso shooting missiles. Yeah now flying through.
I don't miss towing soap. Christmas season, Grinch,
(34:31):
Because I'm brewing the way thatI'm moving in the way that I'm
moving. 3. I turned on whole black radio
horse shooting this gun pulled the printed pistol out of my
drawers come in the image I flipping out Realitos living now
never met her so I was living there.
(35:00):
Oh. Thank you.
Thank you, dear God, thank her for me.
Be sweet to her God. Make her happy.
Make her beautiful. Make everything she wants come
true. Make everyone love her.
(35:25):
No. Leave the somebody.
Yeah, don't wanna call you no more because I'm making Yes, it
was best to watch Tots and Men and my face in the picture.
We took the tracer loving livinghere anymore.
(35:45):
Your time took his fucking place.
Yeah, time took his fucking place.
What the fuck? Gotta do it.
Don't. OK, so let's get that clip.
(36:06):
You watching BBC News? And let's turn to another story
that has just broken in the lasthalf an hour or so that I
brought you, which is that the right wing US broadcaster Fox
News says it's parted company with Tucker Carlson, one of its
most popular and controversial presenters.
The statement said Mr. Carlson had made his last appearance on
(36:27):
the network already. It didn't say why or The
announcement comes days after Fox News ready to pay almost
$800 million to settle lawsuit over its coverage of the 2020
presidential election. Well, let's head to Michelle
Flurry. She has the latest there on this
breaking story. And Michelle, that is quite a
(36:47):
development. It certainly is, Matthew.
I mean, look, Fox is essentiallybreaking up with one of its
biggest stars. It issued a sort of boilerplate
statement thanking him, saying they've agreed to part ways and
thanking him for his service. If you look typically at how
these things play out on American television, often you
get stars of this stature being given a kind of farewell show.
(37:10):
But that doesn't appear to be the case because the statement
goes on to say that Mister Carson's last program was
Friday, April 21st. But when he closed out that
show, he said see you on Monday.So it's unclear what triggered
this. It's unclear whether Mr. Carson
knew that would be his last showor not.
The BBC is reaching out to him to try and find out what
(37:32):
comments he has to make about that and Fox's painting
reporters to the statement they have issued.
But as you say, it comes after this huge settlement in the
Dominion defamation lawsuit thatFox News reached just last week.
At the same time, the company's legal woes aren't over because
it faces another lawsuit from another election technology
(37:53):
company, Smartmatic. And there is another outstanding
lawsuit from a former Tucker Carlson producer called Abby
Grossberg, who sued the company and Mr. Carson, saying that it
was a hostile work environment. So whether that is connected to
this, at this point we just don't know.
It's really interesting because we've had there's a couple of
lines in the statement, but there is so much this story we
(38:16):
don't know. The fundamental question to be
answered is why? Now, of course, 1 remembers only
last week when that court case was ongoing and potentially it
was gonna see Rupert Murdoch andsome of its star hosts in the
dock giving evidence. Was he one of those people
behind the scenes, those emails or conversations about their
(38:38):
discomfort? Was he one of those people?
And he was certainly one of those.
And, and I don't know if you remember, we talked and there
was a lot of talk about emails and text messages from Tucker
Carlson that were revealed during the discovery process
that takes place typically aheadof trials like that in which
they revealed that while he was saying one thing publicly to his
(38:59):
viewers privately, he expressed disdain for former President
Donald Trump and it created embarrassment for the company.
But but certainly wasn't unique.I mean, there were other text
messages from other hosts and anchors that equally expressed
similar, if you like, incredulity at some of the
(39:20):
claims that they were broadcasting on the air.
And so it it's unclear whether it's related, but I mean, it's
worth pointing out that Tucker Carlson is one of its key stars.
He regularly brought in 3,000,000 viewers during the
kind of prime time slot. And so I think you can't
overestimate the dollar impact this could have on Fox News
(39:41):
going forward. It doesn't rely like other cable
networks so much on digital advertising revenue.
It relies on the fees it gets from the cable companies to
carry Fox News. Yes.
And will they be as attractive or proposition without Tucker
Castle? OK, she made an excellent point.
At the end of that clip. She makes a point that I was
(40:02):
actually thinking that I was going to attempt to make or
insert somewhere about. The fact that these major media
corporations that cut ties with these journalistic personalities
are doing it to their detriment.They're doing it at the cost of
(40:24):
proceeds that these major figures bringing for them.
Candace Owens was a big deal forthe Daily Wire.
She brought in a major demographic and I'm sure Brock
revenue towards Daily Wire. They cut her for ideological
differences. Once again.
She makes the point at the end of that clip that Tucker Carlson
was cut from Fox News, despite Fox News understanding that
(40:46):
Tucker Carlson brings in a largeshare of their revenue.
People believe that I actually don't need you to make all that
money. But they're cutting their nose
despite their face. Regardless, They, they're,
they're, they're fuck you rich. They're fucking rich.
Exactly. They're fuck me rich.
They'll fuck themselves. They're so rich.
Bit of a wolf. I heard myself a little bit.
(41:08):
It's not that. Deep.
No, the cut is not that deep. It doesn't need like stitches.
What I'm saying is it suggests an ideological bent towards
their motivation of getting rid of these people.
It has nothing to do with the revenue that most people bring.
Actually, these people are some of the top tier performers on
their platforms and they're still willing to get rid of
them. And I originally said when we
(41:30):
listened to that Candace Owens clip, like, don't mind the
subject matter, but I'll let thethe listeners make their own
judgment on the subject matter that these individual
journalists were talking about before they got fired from these
major platforms. That's interesting because I
mean we're talking about motivesand and people having ideologies
(41:51):
that go beyond the the money, like make it so their ideologies
could actually impact their monies.
You can see that with these two individual case studies, yeah,
that have been presented so far.So Candace Owens and Tucker
Carlson, they obviously have more than enough money.
It's interesting that they decide to continue to go sort of
(42:15):
against the grain, and it calls into question what their
motivations are. Like you said, it must be
ideological because after a certain monetary compensation,
people must start thinking there's got to be more.
But my main point was, what's the deal with the people who
(42:35):
already are millionaires but allow themselves to continue to
be manipulated for more and moremoney?
Is it about the accumulation of said money?
Don't they reach that certain point where they're like, hey,
OK, I've got enough money, you guys are going to pay me anymore
to say something that I disagree?
With what is their opinion is the same?
(42:55):
Perhaps the reason why they're not going against it is because
their opinion is the same as a sure or.
The producer, they're compromisein some other way.
That's where they're being there, being leveraged and said
you may not want to, but you will because check out these
pictures. You know what I mean?
Like, remember. And I think this is that part.
(43:17):
I think, I think that is is a little bit more common than
people want to actually give credits here and and it probably
speaks volumes to why we have such a problem with authenticity
in media in general. It's because a lot of these
figureheads or people that we look to for mainstream media are
probably compromised in some waybecause they're already
(43:39):
millionaires. So when does that ideological or
principled stance kick in? You know what I mean?
It's interesting to look at as like a factor when you're
considering where you're gettingyour news from, who those people
are. That's interesting because I
also wonder about the level of psychological lens, the level of
(44:03):
of security in themselves. Like if I think about a Candace
Owens, I don't, I don't know exactly her life.
I I think I probably heard it when a while ago, but it seemed
that she was very self assured for a very long period of her
life. Feels like that to me.
(44:23):
Of a black conservative. And not care what people think.
Well, that's what I'm saying, like to go against me LM like
Jesus established herself on theDaily Wire being controversial
before she started doing these controversial things after the
fact. And so that's the through line
then speaks to her credibility for authenticity that she hasn't
changed her tone. Exactly.
Why? I look for that in my media
(44:46):
sources, you know what I mean? It's important when you're
considering who is actually talking to you in a meaningful
or at least ideological way because you may not agree with
what she says, but at least you've been listening to her and
be like, she's telling the truth, what she believes the
truth to be. And she seems to be following a
(45:06):
methodology that's attempting toeliminate the possibility for
her to be wrong. She would rather be right.
She's grandstanding in a very confident way and it would be
quite a fall from grace if she was wrong about something,
right? Well, no, I mean, I think even
if she was wrong about something, she would admit it
because that's what the authenticity is advised, right?
(45:27):
Not about I'm always right is that I'm consistent with what I
believe and my actions and my words and my thoughts, they all
interconnect. It's not that I cannot change my
mind about something. It's about the fact that there's
integrity between my actions slash words and my beliefs.
And so and and and and and I andI love that about her, about the
(45:50):
fact that I don't always believein what you're saying, but I
will. I love that she's very
consistent and very aware that when she makes a mistake, she
made a mistake. I get the impression that you're
speaking to me honestly and, andI and I'm willing to admit that
I could be wrong about that either because like I said, that
(46:13):
credibility process that you go through when you kind of get
drug by that company who's trying to get rid of you, that
process of you believe the wrongthing, Therefore I'm firing you.
Therefore you have no more income, you're being left low
and now, hey, you're on your ownand whatever you do with that
(46:34):
afterwards is on you. But that kind of like break from
the main and now that credibility factor going
forward, I always consider that as like I understand that
notorious people can use that process too.
Yeah, I'm not for sure for sure,but but a woman like a person,
like her psychology psychologically is highly self
(46:57):
secure, self rare. And and and that is a critical
piece when it comes to anything that you do moving forward.
But then the people that are notthat will waiver.
It will it will literally you will lose integrity because
you're not you don't, you're notcomfortable with the fact that
she might be wrong. And when you write, you really
(47:19):
believe you're right and everything else about your life
and what you say. Right.
And that. Shouldn't be that scientific
method, the scientific method where it's like you can spend
your entire career espousing a particular scientific idea and
then some? Some like friends, like freshman
(47:39):
comes up with some idea that completely refutes her idea.
You're supposed to congratulate him.
You're not supposed to drag thatguy through the mud because it
it, it attacks your idea that you spent your life.
You supposed to be happy that science has advanced.
It's larger than the individual.Yeah, I know.
Exactly. So I think that when you think
you're larger than nature, hmm, which is obviously wrong.
(48:03):
You you right before your, your growth, but you can't grow
because everything has to be below you.
Yeah, right. And so now you're gonna protect
that and you're gonna push people down and fire them from
from how they because they have a different ideology.
That's you. Because because you're not big
enough. And I think Ben Shapiro, to be
honest, and this is my personal opinion, that that is a blind
(48:25):
spot that has and it speaks volumes to his motivations.
And I'm not going to speculate any further beyond that.
Yeah. But like, it speaks volumes to
his motivations, his desire to be an influential mouthpiece.
But listen to this. He actually shot himself in the
foot. Yeah.
Because if he hadn't have been done this reflexive, aggressive
(48:49):
action against Canvas because she disagreed with one of his
ideological ideas, he could haveessentially kept her in the
fold. He could have gone on talking
about exactly what he wanted talk about and essentially kept
her in the fold if he actually disagreed with what he what she
(49:10):
said. This would be a credit to him
and his idea behind free speech,that he would allow her to
remain on the platform saying whatever she wanted and at the
same time being able to speak his mind.
Because some people agree with Ben, some people agree with
Candace. It is.
It seems like it's one of those wedge issues where it's a
(49:31):
polarized position where people are influence to go in One
Direction or the other. But I'm saying Ben shot himself
in the foot by firing her doing an aggressive action against
somebody because he gave her more power.
He gave her more power in the act.
Don't you see what she's become?She's created the monster.
Imagine he did the opposite and Justice ignored her.
(49:53):
He could still said the exact same thing and still generally
spoken out against journalists who disagree with his ideology
based around Israel, Gaza, and he could have still kept her
under his thumb. Now look at her.
Now look at her. Look what he's created by his
reflex of action. I'm saying look what he's done.
(50:14):
Or when he should have just controlled her.
It actually speaks to his authenticity because he had a
reflexive reaction to something that he didn't like
ideologically. That means that whether you
agree with Ben Shapiro or not, he still acting in an authentic
manner, in a human manner. The whole point of this is not
that you focus on the subject matter of why they left their
(50:37):
position or why they were caughtfrom their positions.
It's about the fact that they were cut.
It's about that for them being the case studies is Candace
Owens finds herself in the same position that Tucker Carlson
finds himself in. You know what I mean?
And it's very interesting the similarities there, but it is
(50:57):
once again, like it's almost like the Barbra Streisand effect
where like I believe, I believe it's based around the fact that
Barbra Streisand at some point was complaining about the fact
that some pictures of her home or being put up in the tabloids.
And the fact that she complainedabout it made it big news, as
(51:19):
opposed to the fact that there were some piss Ant photos of her
home in the news. Nobody cared when it was all
look at that Barbara Servo givesa shit.
And then Barbara and then the news program puts out old Barbra
Streisand, complains about photos of her house in the
paper. And now everybody's looking at
it. It's the counterintuitive effect
of your reflexive action Ben Shapiro's counter intuitive
(51:42):
effect of his reflexive action is he creates a monster out of
pandas Owens when maybe if he had had had the the four
knowledge, he could have been like, I can keep her under my
thumb. I'll let her say whatever the
fuck she wants. I'll completely disregard her
and I won't give her any volume and I'll still say the same
things that I want to say, but she'll have to say her shit
(52:04):
under my banner. Yeah, but it turns his event.
In his idea. But I'm saying right now she
thinks she she does a lot more to tarnish his banner, Yeah.
Or at least his ideological movements at the moment.
This is a gamble, right? Yeah.
Because who knows, Maybe this approach would have worked
because there's time in this world where.
(52:26):
She felt like she needed to be punished.
Oh yeah, and then and. Platform.
What you gonna do now? This shit that's a very new
thing. And then the hashtag me too the
all these things were now it's like, oh, you can't do what you
were able to do a little bit a little while ago.
And that's, that's interesting to see how the world turns, how
(52:46):
things shift from if you are trying to stay in the status
quo, it's like, well, the world is turning, so it's not going to
be like that. The whole.
Time, baby. The world is changing rapidly at
the moment. You know, people who are paying
attention. I feel like I'm on the cutting
edge. Because of Candice.
Owen well, I'm just saying she'sone factor.
Yeah. Because they're keeping me
(53:07):
informed. Yeah.
And perhaps they're talking about things that other people
won't talk about. Yeah, like I think you were
saying in one of the episodes, something about good time makes
good. Men.
Yeah, Good times makes soft men.Soft men make hard times.
Hard times make hard men. There's a better way to say the
quote. You did it.
(53:28):
You did it. You actually benched it.
But you get the idea that it's like people need gravity.
Yeah. People need something to fight
against. Yeah.
Otherwise, if they don't have purpose in their life and they
don't have hardship, then they're not hard people.
Yeah. That's why so many fighters, so
many musicians, so many creatives come out of
(53:49):
hardscrabble times. Every needs.
At first series of work, whatever several people are
important in your. Life.
Well, actually, yeah, yeah, it'skind of interesting that.
It makes you grumble. Right.
Conflict helps, yeah. I wouldn't be able to do what
I'm doing right now if I hadn't have ingested as much conflict
in my life as I had. Plus on top of that, it went
(54:12):
beyond and started hearing aboutother people's struggles because
I honestly, I've listened to hundreds of hours of like help
talk radio now. I'm not kidding.
It's like old school classic Loveline Adam Corolla, Doctor
Drew. It's a call in show people
calling in. I'm pregnant.
(54:41):
Make a huge call in Crown last forever.
By then you think of this Violetround.
I'm not going to be tricked again.
I think I told you that once before.
I'm not gonna be tricked again by God damn politician.
I'm not gonna be trippin by God damn journalist.
Alright, I'll listen to what youhave to say until you start to
show the signs. That cheated on nobody's gonna
ever my heart. That's what it sounds like, a.
(00:20):
Perfect analogy. It's a perfect analogy.
It's OK. I also want to take that
(01:31):
opportunity of you or reminding me about the music to reiterate
the two artists that we've showcased so far.
So Keegan Midas is the first one.
So I'll be playing a lot of thatmusic.
But also on our second episode, our outro was done by Rich Kiss
from Calgary. So that's another one of these
(01:54):
artists that we will be showcasing a little bit more as
you did. I love that.
So currently this is what we have, but the idea is to bring
more and more friends, musiciansthat we have, artists that are
local that are starting or you know, not Obviously we're not
(02:16):
going to be. This is not for us to showcase
popular artists, but like new people coming out there and.
I like the large of sound, like the conversation is sort of the
the bed of what we're doing, butlike the collage of sound,
you're inserting music, you're putting other things in.
(02:36):
It's like it's audio content, right?
Like we've sort of discussed before, like the idea of
possibly having like a video aspect too.
And that could come like, I don't mind doing something like
that as well. Eventually as I as I get more.
Comfortable right now? Totally.
Totally. As we both get more comfortable
and this, this product in general starts to take shape
(02:56):
more, I feel like it's already done quite a bit just based on
the recordings that we've done. But as we go forward, like it's,
yeah, just that wall of sound. I like a bunch of different
aspects. Like it makes the conversation
more listenable. Yeah, I think that's something
about just the audio part of it.Like I mean I do consume
probably more video podcasts or video content, but in the audio
(03:23):
you almost have to pay a little bit more attention I find.
You do. But that's not cool.
Like I, it's funny, I I use YouTube quite a bit just for the
content, does it? Or I'll use rumble or something
like that, but I'll find myself,my phones in my pocket.
Like I'm simply consuming it through YouTube, but I'm not
(03:44):
actually watching the video. Gotcha.
So I'm still consuming it in an audio fashion.
And then one of my favorite podcasts is No Agenda and they
don't even offer a video version.
Yeah, it's all audio and it's meant to be that way.
And they almost present it like it's a it almost seems like it's
radio, like that's truly the waythey're doing it.
But they're basically clip commentary and media
(04:07):
deconstruction, OK. And they do a value for value
model where it's like you offer time, treasure or talent.
So you can offer your time, you can create content for them, you
can offer treasure or well, waita minute, I messed that up.
Either way, it's basically like they offer, they accept
(04:27):
donations. OK.
Like they don't do ads? Ever donate for them to them?
Good. No, I'm a deadbeat.
I've never I've. I've been listening to them for
like for years and years and years almost to double digits.
I don't think it's been a decadeyet, but pretty close.
And I've never donated. OK, Yeah.
Good, though, because they're doing, they're doing God's work
(04:48):
over there. Truly.
Like, I'm, I'm not joking, Like my, my ability to parse
information that I receive on a daily basis has an awful lot to
do with what I learned from them.
Wow. Yeah.
OK, that's that's. That's a big deal.
And they they're kind of topicalgeopolitical, like they're based
(05:09):
in the United States. So they're talking more about
United States culture and politics, but still like they
they've got a broad scope of thecontent that they're willing to
comment on. So yeah, no agenda.
It's good one. Wow.
And they're straight audio. That was my original point.
Yeah, OK, Yeah, No, I I think that no one day we'll definitely
go video because I think it's just the extension to the.
(05:33):
Audio. I like the idea.
Yeah, but I also have to admit that why is it that I'm
uncomfortable with video? Do you like him?
Uncomfortable with myself? No, no, it's just like it's all
about. Angles.
It's all about angles with the camera, so.
It's like, not only do I have tothink about what I'm saying and
I have to think about it like what the way I look.
(05:53):
No, I. Almost like yeah.
I I imagined making a podcast before where it was just me and
I was like, maybe I'm in a room where it's like perfect lighting
where you can't see my face, butI could like almost lean in and
out of the shop where you could almost see.
My like anonymous. Yeah, I'm like, I'm smoking a
cigarette background. Like almost like, but I'm
talking. But you see me?
(06:14):
So you like the mystery of it? Yeah.
Well, I like the appeal of that type of this is the guy that's
telling you what's going on, butyou can't because.
You don't wanna. There's too much about them.
Right. But I'm saying mystery is kind
of appealing, a little bit of luring.
And I mean, I think we talked about like this whole set, that
guy, the Bitcoin guy, like I digthe fact that it's like, who is
(06:38):
it? Who is it?
Like I want to know. But also, I think it makes me
more interested in it because ofthat.
Yeah. Or even like.
An Incognito is cool word. Yeah, exactly.
It's very pretty I. Really like that word.
Also, I just, there's something about keep me on the suspense a
little bit. Like I don't want you to not
know everything about you. And I feel like today when you
(07:01):
look at like all these actors and people on TV, like we know
too much about their lives. Like, dude, I wanna see you in a
movie. I wanna see you in a show, but I
don't wanna know about your life.
Like, why are we talking like Justin Bieber?
Why are we talking about what's happening in his life like that?
Like. He kind of got thrown out there.
Yeah. OK.
So this is being agree. His association with it.
(07:23):
That's not cool. I get it.
But like right now, this whole situation with like his
relationship with his wife and and like, I mean, why am I
listening to this? It's on my feet, right?
YouTube, right? But like, why are we interested
in this guy's life when we're all struggling to make this
life? Work.
I think that's what it is, is people struggle.
(07:44):
Well, I'm saying like you find your the hypothetically, an
individual finds themselves in kind of a depressing state in
their life and they got nothing going on.
And all they see are all these beautiful people doing whatever
they want and they've got all this money and they do whatever.
And it's almost like the Facebook lifestyle that they
see, they only see snippets of these people, but they assume
that their lives are just so much better.
(08:04):
So sure, then when that depressed individual gets to see
one of these golden children allthen then they revel in it
because it's like, oh, you're coming down to my level.
OK, good. They they well, they revel in
the pain of somebody that falls.Yeah.
You know, and it's because they they'd rather people be at their
level as opposed to see somebodyon some kind of pedestal.
(08:26):
OK, that makes that makes them feel worse about themselves.
But when they see those people fall, then they're like, Oh,
yes, OK. Do you think that she need to 1
see them up first and then go down to your level?
Or are we like more into like the underdog mentality where you
wanna see people that came from nothing and go up?
Like what was the direction thatwe preferred?
I think, I think the function ofthat depressed individual kind
(08:47):
of finding the fall appealing isbecause they're depressed.
I think everybody naturally the human condition is to be like
root for the underdog. Yeah.
Like not to be like a hater and championing somebody's downfall,
but like you should be like pulling somebody up, like
helping somebody up, not pullingthe ladder up behind you type of
thing. But that's the way that
(09:09):
depressed person perceives theseelevated people is that they
pulled the ladder up and I couldnever get there.
So the idea of somebody topplingfrom a height, then they're
like, oh. That's great.
You just. Like I'm just speculating.
But also both direct, I guess it's both direction, Like you
wanna know that there's a possibility that you're up and
(09:30):
you go down and there's also a possibility that you're down and
you go up. Like both.
Part of that wave is kind of like you want to know that I'm
part of the plan. Like where I'm at is not unusual
because even rich people go downor popular people or whatever,
successful people, whatever is up really for you, they
(09:51):
eventually go down. Like I could be at that place,
that means that I could also go up because they go up sometimes,
right? Underdog.
Right. Yeah.
So I, I think that's, that's interesting to think about
because I always wondered why dowe, why do I care about his
personal life like that? Because it's all I mean, the
personal life is the best. Because he presented himself
(10:12):
publicly, first of all, because that was part well, when he came
out as a as a star, that was hisgolden ticket, like his public
image, right. And he was presented and
marketed and pumped out there asan image of a person with a
personality who's creating content for you to watch or
enjoy or listen to with music and stuff like that.
(10:35):
But like that's why we're interested in him now is because
he was presented to us as a product you.
Know, OK, I see what you're saying so, but isn't that the
case as well with Michael Jackson and.
For sure. A Prince and all these people.
I just wonder about the artists that actually do not present, do
(10:58):
not want their private life to be out there as are you.
Can you still be successful or Yeah for?
Sure. That's with that.
I was gonna say when you originally started talking about
this, the people that are out there and the the celebrities
that we take interest in and, and stuff like that.
I was thinking I'm I'm almost more interested in the people
that avoid the limelight. Like there's more mystery to
(11:19):
them. And it's like when something
does come out about them, then you're like, oh, I find that
very interesting. Like Johnny Depp is a pretty
decent example. I don't know how much the public
key sort of seems standoffish. Like you could probably find
information about it and I'm sure there's a better example of
a celebrity that avoids the public eye.
But yeah, he's a good example. Like you don't see a lot of
(11:42):
interviews with them and stuff like that.
Like and he is cool as fuck. Have you ever seen that?
And John Wick like he's got and even, oh, what's the one with
him and Patrick Swayze? Oh, the surf one.
Yeah. Where is the police?
Office. Point break, break, point,
break, break point. What's talking about celebrities
(12:04):
and all these things? I think I know you today.
You wanted to talk to me about some celebrities, right?
YouTube celebrities, right? I guess.
Are they YouTube? Well, the the common point
through these three case studiesthat I kind of thought that I
was going to present is that they're all currently
independent journalists. And all three of these current
(12:26):
independent journalists found themselves, um, leaving a larger
network under duress. Actually, I think all three of
them sort of were forced out of their position in, in one way or
another. They were either fired, left
under a controversy, or were pushed out in one case of a
(12:48):
company that they actually helped start.
So like, but all three of these individuals are now very
successful independent journalists who I personally
consider when they say somethingor when they interview somebody.
I consider their words to have weight.
OK, wait, did you consider that there were to have weight before
(13:11):
they got? Left when they when they were
apart yeah they exhibited signs well they all have long careers
right and not all three of them are the same as far as what I'm
about to say but they all towards the end of their
mainstream in air quotes media career they all exhibited signs
of this may be somebody that I could trust potentially now
(13:34):
that's my personal opinion OK just based on journalism
journalists journalistic integrity and whether or not I'm
going to even give them the timeof day with the information
that. They're gonna before you reveal
to us. So these three people are right.
I just want to understand how you determine journalistic
integrity. You know, you doing your own
(13:56):
research like out like I do, because they're very good
actors, like they're they're present very well on YouTube.
Or is it because what they say you've you've you've checked,
you've fact checked or how do you know?
So it's difficult and ultimatelyshort answer, I don't, I don't
know, regardless of what my. Opinion of journalistic
(14:18):
integrity. I think they do based on what
they've done up to this point. But they could still be wolves.
And she's closing. I have no idea how sheeped it.
There. So what makes you like them
then? What makes me like them is they
appear to speak in an authentic fashion.
Authenticity. Authenticity has.
So people have starved for authenticity nowadays.
(14:39):
People want to hear somebody saysomething that's actually their
opinion, not something that they've been propped up to say,
not something that they've been paid to say, not something that
they feel compelled to say underduress.
Like, oh, for fear of losing their job or for fear of being
like, alienated from their community or their lives in
general. You know, I don't wanna hear
(15:00):
somebody say something that's a packaged piece.
I wanna hear what their opinion is regardless of whether I agree
with it or not. And I guess there's an element
of courage in that because when you're speaking your truth,
right, Well, we're understandingis that that doesn't really
work. And most people.
But journalists and integrity means your desire to uncover the
(15:24):
truth isn't compromised by exterior factors.
OK, Yeah. So when you're pursuing a story,
yeah, you reveal it at all costs.
Yeah. You conceal your sources and you
reveal the story at all costs. You don't hear from some big
pharmaceutical company halfway down the line of investigation,
(15:44):
and they tell you all, you better nip that in the bud
because if you do that, you're probably going to lose your job
here. And then you say as a
journalist, OK, no problem. Like that isn't journalistic
integrity. OK, So what at work?
I want you to review with peoplein a few minutes and if there's
rush. But there's one question I do
have about what part of our society allow that possibility.
(16:09):
Like I was like, in my mind, I'mthinking is, is it YouTube that
made it possible where people could actually honestly still
make a living while being authentic?
Big companies, old school media does not allow you to do that.
But there's something in today'sage, I'm assuming like YouTube
that wants that, that is open tothat because without them, if
(16:33):
there was no YouTube, how would that work, worked.
Well, this is, this is interesting and it almost like
gives me ideas for like 3 other podcasts.
You're talking about how communication works.
And as soon as you started speaking about like YouTube, is
it what gives these people the ability to do that?
And short answer yes, long answer yes, but that well is
(16:56):
YouTube the ideal E town square because they.
Because it. Certainly is.
Well, that's what I'm saying. And YouTube is something that
five years on the surface to really want to inform people
like this is the E town square. Come on in.
And like anybody it's it gives everybody a digital pulpit, you
(17:16):
know, soapbox to stand up on andyell.
Whereas like 100 years ago you would have been literally
standing on a soapbox attemptingto yell your way across the the
promenade. You know what I mean?
And like, but here now even us, we are utilizing it like
Internet and our top tier moderncommunication system allows
(17:38):
anybody to essentially be an independent journalist.
Yeah, unless you decide to go against some of their rules that
will make you demonetized or. What I'm saying, but still you
can still do it. Yeah, you may not have monetary
compensation for it, OK, But youwill find yourself on YouTube
being demonetized for talking about the wrong things.
(18:00):
And you can look at as recently as some of the things that were
going on with regards to COVID. And even when I was looking for
these clips for this particular episode, I had to look at a
bunch of Wikipedia prompts at the bottom of the videos that
gave me the real definition of what I would be watching in this
(18:20):
video. Because that's like a compelled
thing that YouTube had to do. They had to start informing
people when they were like, thisis problematic material.
So if you'd like to look at whatwe really understand this to be,
then you can look at this quick Wikipedia thing under post and
underneath your video, and now you can watch your trash
(18:40):
propaganda. It's basically what YouTube is
saying, Yeah. Plus plus not to mention their
algorithms is going to essentially create an echo
chamber for you. Whatever you'd like that.
To be so, it's almost like we always have to innovate because
the innovation will allow for authenticity, for truth or
controversy to come out. But then eventually the longer
(19:03):
that stays, the longer it, the faster it gets into the old norm
of conservatism status quo, right?
The system that we were trying to leave.
And then again, somebody else will have to invent something
new and innovative and, and break that mold against we're
continuously having to break the, the, the culture that we're
(19:26):
in. But it's, it's almost like that
culture always want to go back to the days where they could
control everything. Like it's, it's like bringing
back order. It's a chaos order, Chaos order,
gas order. That is my problem with it.
Like YouTube can be a independent company and choose
to run its algorithm however it wants and choose to run whatever
(19:49):
snippets of actual information they they can.
They can demonetize people as much as they want.
That's not my problem. YouTube running their business
how they want is not my problem.YouTube being influenced by
outside factors as to how they should be.
Investors. Politicians.
But these are investors, these. Are people are.
Saying control how you're. That's my issue, Yeah, YouTube
(20:12):
doing whatever it wants and telling its customers we do it
this way. Yeah, take it or leave it is not
my problem. It's when it's when powerful
influencers start to lean on YouTube to be like you need to
start towing a party company or like ideological.
Line you would have to give people money for that like.
Some kind of company? Yeah, you can't just say hey,
(20:33):
you're you're forced to do this.No, it's like, hey, by the way,
I feed you, I give you money. And so now they own you.
So I need you to say what I wantyou to say, right?
Like it's like we always do that.
We always get into that loop, right?
Where I make you say what I needyou to say by forcing you with
money. That's what I don't like, the
(20:53):
undue influence of people who are pushing ideological
narratives. Let YouTube run it however it
wants. I think in a market where those
types of outside influences are cut off, I think the market
kinda regulates itself that way.I think people will either
consume things off of YouTube ornot based on YouTube's conduct
(21:14):
alone, not based on YouTube being influenced by some outside
force. It's a bit heady where I'm
getting to, but my concern is with the corruptive influence of
outside forces, not with YouTuberunning its business.
OK, no, I mean, so corruptive incentives there that you're
talking about. Let's let's jump into the one of
(21:35):
those clips like. Let's see how that connects
with. Everything alright?
So I think the first clip I sentyou was ace around Candace
Owens. OK, cool, let's get that one
started. Really.
There's no AD and that one. You know, being an addict.
Turning our attention now to a major feud that put an end to
(21:55):
Candace Owens platform on the Daily Wire.
The conservative commentator is out after an ongoing beef with
her boss Ben Shapiro over the Israel Hamas war.
Candace Owens confirming the news.
The rumors are true. I'm finally free.
It's not that I'm saying things that they don't like, it's that
I'm refusing to allow my voice to be controlled.
(22:17):
And her last segment, which premiered Tuesday, Candace Owens
made it clear why she felt she was being ostracized.
And if you do not step out and say things that are radically
pro Israel, or if you are too quiet on certain narratives and
they want you to be radically peripheral, you can lose
everything. In the past, Ben Shapiro had
come to the defence of Owens andher rhetoric.
(22:39):
He's the Jewish cofounder of thenews site Daily Wire, AKA
Candace's boss. Well, that friendship all
changed following the October. 7th Hamas LED attack on Israel.
It quickly turned into a very public battle between the two.
It makes me cry when I see the footage all over Twitter of
Palestinian children that are being bombed into oblivion and I
(23:00):
see their missing parts of theirbody and this implicit threat.
Don't say it's sad that you're not to say it is sad.
Owens has been one of the few far right pundits who has been
openly critical of Israel's handling of the war in Gaza.
Critics of Owen say that she hasspread anti-Semitism.
Then the question of Afghanistanis pink behavior during this
(23:21):
industry. Thank you.
Video speaks more to Ben's character that speaks to.
Mine and she texts you to apologize or explain or
anything. No, nothing.
I haven't heard a single word. It just was sort of something
that he said. Why did got nastier to the point
where Shapiro dared the star podcaster to quit?
Candace, if you feel that takingmoney from a daily wire some
(23:42):
outcomes between you and God, byall means quit.
I wrote a response. You have been acting
unprofessional and emotionally unhinged for weeks now and we
have all had to sit back and allow it and have all tried to
exercise exceeding understandingfor your raw emotion.
Leading us to today, the company's CEO taking to axe
writing Daily Wire and Candace Owens have ended their
relationship no further. Explanation was provided.
(24:04):
Genuinely I was sad when a bunchof innocent Israelis were
murdered and killed in horrific acts and genuinely I am sad when
a bunch of innocent Palestinians, and yes, they do
exist, Brian Mast, are now beingmade to endure bombing and all
sorts of other horrific things that we are all seeing on
Twitter. That is my crime.
(24:25):
Everybody can for that. It's it's ridiculous to pretend
that it's anything else. Daily Wires decision to end its
relationship with Owens was a surprise to many.
There was shock that the man whohas voiced his concerns with
cancel culture in the past. Like I know conservatives are
not interested in counseling other conservatives and they're
going to go along with. This has put an end to a fellow
right wing voice. Online.
(24:46):
I kind of want to say you can tell that this is a bias piece.
This is kind of something that was presented from Candace Owens
camp it. I'm not saying she influenced it
to be put out, but this person is obviously biased towards or
has sympathy for Candace Owens position.
(25:07):
That being said, the subject matter doesn't matter.
Obviously that was leaning into the whole of Gaza Israel thing.
That's not what I'm talking about here.
I'm more focusing on the idea that she was let go of a major
news production company, essentially where she was an
integral part and put out quality material.
(25:29):
Now she reached an impasse with Ben Shapiro in The Daily Wire,
and she left that institution orwas fired.
Either way, they cut ties, and that's my focus.
So Candace Owens as a case study, she's somebody who has
journalistic integrity in my eyes.
Agree with or disagree with whatshe says and what her ideology
(25:53):
is. I think she comes from an
authentic or what's she saying? She legitimately believes, for
better or worse, whether you agree with it or not.
So what? What if?
So you own a business, a company, and then you have
certain values that are really important for you.
(26:14):
What if before I hire you, I tell you what my values are,
what I believe, and because it'smy company and you're basically
an employee of my company, right?
Can is that now OK for some subjects to be taboo or not
talking discussed or whatever, like you know in this particular
(26:34):
case? You hit the nail on the head
because I was. I caveated this by saying that
this is obviously something somebody put out this piece who
was sympathetic towards Candace Owens position, but in this
particular case I totally understand why Ben Shapiro
fired. Her.
What do you mean? It's because he had certain
ideologies, yes, and he owns this company.
(26:55):
That's correct. We always.
His prerogative to hire or fire whoever he wants and he can run
his company however he. Wants.
Stuff provides you that clip that we listen to drags Ben
Shapiro, and it did like you didn't see it because there's no
video, but it shows stupid his face.
He's stupid. It freezes frames on his face
(27:15):
and it makes him to look like a fool.
But whether you agree with Ben Shapiro or not, I think he's
totally within his power to fireCandace Owens.
That's right. I like I agree.
I don't necessarily agree with his position, but I I agree with
his ability to do. It exactly and now the problem
would become if she was aware ofthose values that Ben Shapiro
(27:39):
had from the beginning and. Did that in spite of them.
And, and yeah, and at that point, it's like what?
No, there's no surprise here. Like you're literally going
against what the your boss wanted.
Like I like, for instance, I used to work for oil and gas
company. What if I have a problem with
the pipelines that are being putout there?
Yeah, disturbing all these native Canadians in here.
(28:01):
If I had a problem with that. But you decide that, yeah, I'm
going to make a living out of exploiting different
territories, so to get the oil here.
And you have to sleep. But exactly so like The thing is
that it's now I am aware that I have decided to make money out
of a situation that I'm not completely comfortable with.
No, look, I want to say that I actually appreciate this woman
(28:23):
again, this one. So I'm not necessarily saying
that I am not saying that everything she says or direction
is totally bad. I'm not saying that I wouldn't
have done exactly the same thingshe has done.
I just wonder about the the impact of the reaction that
people could have about this new, well, that was a while ago,
but this type of situation happening when you know already
(28:47):
that you're hired by a company, so you're a slave to that
company anyways. Well, that's the thing with
Candace Owens is it's on. It's almost like this is a
litmus test for her as somebody with journalistic integrity,
because she's looking into the face of losing her livelihood.
That's right. Being drug lost her job and then
(29:09):
being derided by a very powerfulnews organization.
And now you find yourself on your own essentially with the
potential to go in an individual, an independent
journalist route. Yeah, but now you are giving up
your guaranteed income and you're now at odds with this
media. Giant.
That's huge. Yeah, but but that gives her a
(29:31):
certain amount of authenticity. Now keep that in mind because
this is understood that when people throw away guaranteed
income based on the fact that they will not stop saying what
they're saying because they believe it to be true.
This is understood that this gives you a certain amount of
credibility. Understanding that this gives
you a broad base of credibility in the public eye.
(29:53):
Yeah, is utilized by notorious people and institutions to
essentially insert somebody intothe zeitgeist with a pre
industry plant. I'm saying, yeah, I'm not saying
Candace Owens is that, but she went through a process by which,
(30:15):
in my eyes, it gave her a certain amount of authentic
credibility. She lost her job because she
wouldn't stop saying what she knew to be true.
That's just something to consider.
It's just something to consider.So the the question becomes
then, who's producing her new material?
Because if it's someone. Else and what is he saying in
(30:36):
her new? Material what exactly?
So if she decides to be to have her authentic voice come out and
she's not directing and owning the material, that's a question.
That's something cause she's not.
I mean, I think you were tellingme that is she that I'm
producing or some other? Party, I believe now don't quote
(30:58):
me on this because she might have just been saying that in
passing, but I believe it's her husband that runs the production
crew behind the camera. OK, so he's the guy who's like
switch camera one switch camera 2 alright, who you're doing this
you're doing that he's got the goods.
You got Boom mic while working with her in and if you know
anything about him, because I watched her interview of him and
(31:19):
he's like a theologian essentially went to school for
the like. I believe from what I remember,
from what I remember from her interview of him is that he went
to school for religious studies.He converted to Catholicism from
Judaism. Don't quote me on that.
Maybe it might not be, it might be Protestant to Catholicism,
(31:40):
but he's a Catholic now and they're both Catholic.
They're in a Catholic marriage. And yeah, so, so they, they
definitely have an ideological bent.
OK. So, so I mean, so, so through
marriage, I guess she's somewhatin, in the production seat
through marriage, but it's stillnot a particularly that's
(32:02):
producing it or directing it, right.
Actually we're understanding andpotentially this is just us with
our opinion talking about what'shappening out there.
If people have more information about what's the details, they
can let us know. But really ultimately the point
I'm making is that to kind of counteract the whole idea of
potentially being an end industry plant.
(32:23):
Because I'm not even suggesting it.
I was like, I would it would be harder to believe that if I was
directing everything like opening the Prince when he
started, like when he decided toproduce his own music and do
everything and and when he started having this, this whole
(32:44):
disdain against the the music industry, he owned everything
after he decided I produce it, Imake it, I.
Write it the hard way. I do all this stuff.
Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
Eventually they didn't have to turn out very well for him.
But Candace Owen also talked about how many people do not
like her in the threats and stuff.
(33:06):
She talked about that many timesas well.
These people have large securityteams.
All three of these case studies that I'm about to mention have
large independent security teams, and they're required
because of the content matter that they find themselves
talking. About that's interesting.
Let's let's make sure we talk about that as well.
It's a common thread through thethree of them, and it definitely
is significant. It means.
(33:27):
Something it goes back to some of the things we were talking
about in our last. Episode, but they're talking.
About yeah and, and if you're going to be authentic and if
it's gonna resonate like the truth going on with people.
Building something? Yeah, yeah.
Not being able to handle the truth.
So that's it's, it's interestinghow this is kind of all
interconnected. I'd like to take a pause though
(33:48):
right now and then. The end I melted all my ice and
now we're going to Scotch neat so.
Said I was stuck up in the Impala.
Speakers fucking bumping. Blast bumping try to kiss him
cheese. I'll never pass it.
Watching this and melt and passing shit off this guys in a
(34:09):
drought underwater sky zone fold.
Check the amount and the time. Cold.
Yeah, 313. I said it's time.
Oh my work day. Same.
My fucking birthday. So I was catching it on the
client. Had a sword Lance other hand
versus soft pace no brisk painting the tread like I'm
Picasso shooting missiles. Yeah now flying through.
I don't miss towing soap. Christmas season, Grinch,
(34:31):
Because I'm brewing the way thatI'm moving in the way that I'm
moving. 3. I turned on whole black radio
horse shooting this gun pulled the printed pistol out of my
drawers come in the image I flipping out Realitos living now
never met her so I was living there.
(35:00):
Oh. Thank you.
Thank you, dear God, thank her for me.
Be sweet to her God. Make her happy.
Make her beautiful. Make everything she wants come
true. Make everyone love her.
(35:25):
No. Leave the somebody.
Yeah, don't wanna call you no more because I'm making Yes, it
was best to watch Tots and Men and my face in the picture.
We took the tracer loving livinghere anymore.
(35:45):
Your time took his fucking place.
Yeah, time took his fucking place.
What the fuck? Gotta do it.
Don't. OK, so let's get that clip.
(36:06):
You watching BBC News? And let's turn to another story
that has just broken in the lasthalf an hour or so that I
brought you, which is that the right wing US broadcaster Fox
News says it's parted company with Tucker Carlson, one of its
most popular and controversial presenters.
The statement said Mr. Carlson had made his last appearance on
(36:27):
the network already. It didn't say why or The
announcement comes days after Fox News ready to pay almost
$800 million to settle lawsuit over its coverage of the 2020
presidential election. Well, let's head to Michelle
Flurry. She has the latest there on this
breaking story. And Michelle, that is quite a
(36:47):
development. It certainly is, Matthew.
I mean, look, Fox is essentiallybreaking up with one of its
biggest stars. It issued a sort of boilerplate
statement thanking him, saying they've agreed to part ways and
thanking him for his service. If you look typically at how
these things play out on American television, often you
get stars of this stature being given a kind of farewell show.
(37:10):
But that doesn't appear to be the case because the statement
goes on to say that Mister Carson's last program was
Friday, April 21st. But when he closed out that
show, he said see you on Monday.So it's unclear what triggered
this. It's unclear whether Mr. Carson
knew that would be his last showor not.
The BBC is reaching out to him to try and find out what
(37:32):
comments he has to make about that and Fox's painting
reporters to the statement they have issued.
But as you say, it comes after this huge settlement in the
Dominion defamation lawsuit thatFox News reached just last week.
At the same time, the company's legal woes aren't over because
it faces another lawsuit from another election technology
(37:53):
company, Smartmatic. And there is another outstanding
lawsuit from a former Tucker Carlson producer called Abby
Grossberg, who sued the company and Mr. Carson, saying that it
was a hostile work environment. So whether that is connected to
this, at this point we just don't know.
It's really interesting because we've had there's a couple of
lines in the statement, but there is so much this story we
(38:16):
don't know. The fundamental question to be
answered is why? Now, of course, 1 remembers only
last week when that court case was ongoing and potentially it
was gonna see Rupert Murdoch andsome of its star hosts in the
dock giving evidence. Was he one of those people
behind the scenes, those emails or conversations about their
(38:38):
discomfort? Was he one of those people?
And he was certainly one of those.
And, and I don't know if you remember, we talked and there
was a lot of talk about emails and text messages from Tucker
Carlson that were revealed during the discovery process
that takes place typically aheadof trials like that in which
they revealed that while he was saying one thing publicly to his
(38:59):
viewers privately, he expressed disdain for former President
Donald Trump and it created embarrassment for the company.
But but certainly wasn't unique.I mean, there were other text
messages from other hosts and anchors that equally expressed
similar, if you like, incredulity at some of the
(39:20):
claims that they were broadcasting on the air.
And so it it's unclear whether it's related, but I mean, it's
worth pointing out that Tucker Carlson is one of its key stars.
He regularly brought in 3,000,000 viewers during the
kind of prime time slot. And so I think you can't
overestimate the dollar impact this could have on Fox News
(39:41):
going forward. It doesn't rely like other cable
networks so much on digital advertising revenue.
It relies on the fees it gets from the cable companies to
carry Fox News. Yes.
And will they be as attractive or proposition without Tucker
Castle? OK, she made an excellent point.
At the end of that clip. She makes a point that I was
(40:02):
actually thinking that I was going to attempt to make or
insert somewhere about. The fact that these major media
corporations that cut ties with these journalistic personalities
are doing it to their detriment.They're doing it at the cost of
(40:24):
proceeds that these major figures bringing for them.
Candace Owens was a big deal forthe Daily Wire.
She brought in a major demographic and I'm sure Brock
revenue towards Daily Wire. They cut her for ideological
differences. Once again.
She makes the point at the end of that clip that Tucker Carlson
was cut from Fox News, despite Fox News understanding that
(40:46):
Tucker Carlson brings in a largeshare of their revenue.
People believe that I actually don't need you to make all that
money. But they're cutting their nose
despite their face. Regardless, They, they're,
they're, they're fuck you rich. They're fucking rich.
Exactly. They're fuck me rich.
They'll fuck themselves. They're so rich.
Bit of a wolf. I heard myself a little bit.
(41:08):
It's not that. Deep.
No, the cut is not that deep. It doesn't need like stitches.
What I'm saying is it suggests an ideological bent towards
their motivation of getting rid of these people.
It has nothing to do with the revenue that most people bring.
Actually, these people are some of the top tier performers on
their platforms and they're still willing to get rid of
them. And I originally said when we
(41:30):
listened to that Candace Owens clip, like, don't mind the
subject matter, but I'll let thethe listeners make their own
judgment on the subject matter that these individual
journalists were talking about before they got fired from these
major platforms. That's interesting because I
mean we're talking about motivesand and people having ideologies
(41:51):
that go beyond the the money, like make it so their ideologies
could actually impact their monies.
You can see that with these two individual case studies, yeah,
that have been presented so far.So Candace Owens and Tucker
Carlson, they obviously have more than enough money.
It's interesting that they decide to continue to go sort of
(42:15):
against the grain, and it calls into question what their
motivations are. Like you said, it must be
ideological because after a certain monetary compensation,
people must start thinking there's got to be more.
But my main point was, what's the deal with the people who
(42:35):
already are millionaires but allow themselves to continue to
be manipulated for more and moremoney?
Is it about the accumulation of said money?
Don't they reach that certain point where they're like, hey,
OK, I've got enough money, you guys are going to pay me anymore
to say something that I disagree?
With what is their opinion is the same?
(42:55):
Perhaps the reason why they're not going against it is because
their opinion is the same as a sure or.
The producer, they're compromisein some other way.
That's where they're being there, being leveraged and said
you may not want to, but you will because check out these
pictures. You know what I mean?
Like, remember. And I think this is that part.
(43:17):
I think, I think that is is a little bit more common than
people want to actually give credits here and and it probably
speaks volumes to why we have such a problem with authenticity
in media in general. It's because a lot of these
figureheads or people that we look to for mainstream media are
probably compromised in some waybecause they're already
(43:39):
millionaires. So when does that ideological or
principled stance kick in? You know what I mean?
It's interesting to look at as like a factor when you're
considering where you're gettingyour news from, who those people
are. That's interesting because I
also wonder about the level of psychological lens, the level of
(44:03):
of security in themselves. Like if I think about a Candace
Owens, I don't, I don't know exactly her life.
I I think I probably heard it when a while ago, but it seemed
that she was very self assured for a very long period of her
life. Feels like that to me.
(44:23):
Of a black conservative. And not care what people think.
Well, that's what I'm saying, like to go against me LM like
Jesus established herself on theDaily Wire being controversial
before she started doing these controversial things after the
fact. And so that's the through line
then speaks to her credibility for authenticity that she hasn't
changed her tone. Exactly.
Why? I look for that in my media
(44:46):
sources, you know what I mean? It's important when you're
considering who is actually talking to you in a meaningful
or at least ideological way because you may not agree with
what she says, but at least you've been listening to her and
be like, she's telling the truth, what she believes the
truth to be. And she seems to be following a
(45:06):
methodology that's attempting toeliminate the possibility for
her to be wrong. She would rather be right.
She's grandstanding in a very confident way and it would be
quite a fall from grace if she was wrong about something,
right? Well, no, I mean, I think even
if she was wrong about something, she would admit it
because that's what the authenticity is advised, right?
(45:27):
Not about I'm always right is that I'm consistent with what I
believe and my actions and my words and my thoughts, they all
interconnect. It's not that I cannot change my
mind about something. It's about the fact that there's
integrity between my actions slash words and my beliefs.
And so and and and and and I andI love that about her, about the
(45:50):
fact that I don't always believein what you're saying, but I
will. I love that she's very
consistent and very aware that when she makes a mistake, she
made a mistake. I get the impression that you're
speaking to me honestly and, andI and I'm willing to admit that
I could be wrong about that either because like I said, that
(46:13):
credibility process that you go through when you kind of get
drug by that company who's trying to get rid of you, that
process of you believe the wrongthing, Therefore I'm firing you.
Therefore you have no more income, you're being left low
and now, hey, you're on your ownand whatever you do with that
(46:34):
afterwards is on you. But that kind of like break from
the main and now that credibility factor going
forward, I always consider that as like I understand that
notorious people can use that process too.
Yeah, I'm not for sure for sure,but but a woman like a person,
like her psychology psychologically is highly self
(46:57):
secure, self rare. And and and that is a critical
piece when it comes to anything that you do moving forward.
But then the people that are notthat will waiver.
It will it will literally you will lose integrity because
you're not you don't, you're notcomfortable with the fact that
she might be wrong. And when you write, you really
(47:19):
believe you're right and everything else about your life
and what you say. Right.
And that. Shouldn't be that scientific
method, the scientific method where it's like you can spend
your entire career espousing a particular scientific idea and
then some? Some like friends, like freshman
(47:39):
comes up with some idea that completely refutes her idea.
You're supposed to congratulate him.
You're not supposed to drag thatguy through the mud because it
it, it attacks your idea that you spent your life.
You supposed to be happy that science has advanced.
It's larger than the individual.Yeah, I know.
Exactly. So I think that when you think
you're larger than nature, hmm, which is obviously wrong.
(48:03):
You you right before your, your growth, but you can't grow
because everything has to be below you.
Yeah, right. And so now you're gonna protect
that and you're gonna push people down and fire them from
from how they because they have a different ideology.
That's you. Because because you're not big
enough. And I think Ben Shapiro, to be
honest, and this is my personal opinion, that that is a blind
(48:25):
spot that has and it speaks volumes to his motivations.
And I'm not going to speculate any further beyond that.
Yeah. But like, it speaks volumes to
his motivations, his desire to be an influential mouthpiece.
But listen to this. He actually shot himself in the
foot. Yeah.
Because if he hadn't have been done this reflexive, aggressive
(48:49):
action against Canvas because she disagreed with one of his
ideological ideas, he could haveessentially kept her in the
fold. He could have gone on talking
about exactly what he wanted talk about and essentially kept
her in the fold if he actually disagreed with what he what she
(49:10):
said. This would be a credit to him
and his idea behind free speech,that he would allow her to
remain on the platform saying whatever she wanted and at the
same time being able to speak his mind.
Because some people agree with Ben, some people agree with
Candace. It is.
It seems like it's one of those wedge issues where it's a
(49:31):
polarized position where people are influence to go in One
Direction or the other. But I'm saying Ben shot himself
in the foot by firing her doing an aggressive action against
somebody because he gave her more power.
He gave her more power in the act.
Don't you see what she's become?She's created the monster.
Imagine he did the opposite and Justice ignored her.
(49:53):
He could still said the exact same thing and still generally
spoken out against journalists who disagree with his ideology
based around Israel, Gaza, and he could have still kept her
under his thumb. Now look at her.
Now look at her. Look what he's created by his
reflex of action. I'm saying look what he's done.
(50:14):
Or when he should have just controlled her.
It actually speaks to his authenticity because he had a
reflexive reaction to something that he didn't like
ideologically. That means that whether you
agree with Ben Shapiro or not, he still acting in an authentic
manner, in a human manner. The whole point of this is not
that you focus on the subject matter of why they left their
(50:37):
position or why they were caughtfrom their positions.
It's about the fact that they were cut.
It's about that for them being the case studies is Candace
Owens finds herself in the same position that Tucker Carlson
finds himself in. You know what I mean?
And it's very interesting the similarities there, but it is
(50:57):
once again, like it's almost like the Barbra Streisand effect
where like I believe, I believe it's based around the fact that
Barbra Streisand at some point was complaining about the fact
that some pictures of her home or being put up in the tabloids.
And the fact that she complainedabout it made it big news, as
(51:19):
opposed to the fact that there were some piss Ant photos of her
home in the news. Nobody cared when it was all
look at that Barbara Servo givesa shit.
And then Barbara and then the news program puts out old Barbra
Streisand, complains about photos of her house in the
paper. And now everybody's looking at
it. It's the counterintuitive effect
of your reflexive action Ben Shapiro's counter intuitive
(51:42):
effect of his reflexive action is he creates a monster out of
pandas Owens when maybe if he had had had the the four
knowledge, he could have been like, I can keep her under my
thumb. I'll let her say whatever the
fuck she wants. I'll completely disregard her
and I won't give her any volume and I'll still say the same
things that I want to say, but she'll have to say her shit
(52:04):
under my banner. Yeah, but it turns his event.
In his idea. But I'm saying right now she
thinks she she does a lot more to tarnish his banner, Yeah.
Or at least his ideological movements at the moment.
This is a gamble, right? Yeah.
Because who knows, Maybe this approach would have worked
because there's time in this world where.
(52:26):
She felt like she needed to be punished.
Oh yeah, and then and. Platform.
What you gonna do now? This shit that's a very new
thing. And then the hashtag me too the
all these things were now it's like, oh, you can't do what you
were able to do a little bit a little while ago.
And that's, that's interesting to see how the world turns, how
(52:46):
things shift from if you are trying to stay in the status
quo, it's like, well, the world is turning, so it's not going to
be like that. The whole.
Time, baby. The world is changing rapidly at
the moment. You know, people who are paying
attention. I feel like I'm on the cutting
edge. Because of Candice.
Owen well, I'm just saying she'sone factor.
Yeah. Because they're keeping me
(53:07):
informed. Yeah.
And perhaps they're talking about things that other people
won't talk about. Yeah, like I think you were
saying in one of the episodes, something about good time makes
good. Men.
Yeah, Good times makes soft men.Soft men make hard times.
Hard times make hard men. There's a better way to say the
quote. You did it.
(53:28):
You did it. You actually benched it.
But you get the idea that it's like people need gravity.
Yeah. People need something to fight
against. Yeah.
Otherwise, if they don't have purpose in their life and they
don't have hardship, then they're not hard people.
Yeah. That's why so many fighters, so
many musicians, so many creatives come out of
(53:49):
hardscrabble times. Every needs.
At first series of work, whatever several people are
important in your. Life.
Well, actually, yeah, yeah, it'skind of interesting that.
It makes you grumble. Right.
Conflict helps, yeah. I wouldn't be able to do what
I'm doing right now if I hadn't have ingested as much conflict
in my life as I had. Plus on top of that, it went
(54:12):
beyond and started hearing aboutother people's struggles because
I honestly, I've listened to hundreds of hours of like help
talk radio now. I'm not kidding.
It's like old school classic Loveline Adam Corolla, Doctor
Drew. It's a call in show people
calling in. I'm pregnant.
(54:41):
Make a huge call in Crown last forever.
By then you think of this Violetround.
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!