December 17, 2025 • 21 mins
Is the American media just a mouthpiece for political power, or have we lost the truth in a sea of partisan propaganda? In today’s episode of The Rant Network, we expose how news outlets—left and right—have abandoned honest reporting for narrative control, weaponizing facts and trashing the presidency for clicks. If the White House keeps granting interviews to those who distort and deceive, are we complicit in the erosion of democracy itself? It’s time to demand accountability, transparency, and real consequences for media misconduct—because the truth belongs to the people, not the institutions.
#freedomofthepress #truthmatters
#podcast #therantnetwork #podcasting #opinion #podcaster #podcastshow #live #business #discussion #economics #politics #discussion #sports #racism #socialmedia #education #conservative #education #antiwoke #GoWokeGoBroke #DonaldTrump #PoliticalAnalysis
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:01):
Oh, childish.
Hey everybody, welcome back.
Yeah, hump day, ladies andgentlemen.
And as we approach the year end,Stuart and I will be recording
our year end in the review verysoon.
So stay tuned, folks.
As we are two weeks, I can'tbelieve I'm saying this, two
(00:22):
weeks away from the year end of2025.
And as I can't say it enough, Ican't wait for it to be over.
And I think that the Trumpadministration in itself is
looking to the end of this 2025and is hoping to finish this on
a high.
Because as we know, sinceJanuary 20th, 2025, left-wing
(00:44):
media has been taking shots atTrump.
Midnight, those late-night talkshows have been taking nothing
but shots at Trump.
The idea of trying to createbalance in information, news,
non-existent.
What we're seeing is obviouslyvery polarized media houses
where you'll have Fox News beingthe cheerleader on the sideline
(01:05):
for Donald Trump and otherleft-wing media being the
downplayers, the ones who aretrying to trip Donald Trump to
make sure that in 2026 he losesthe Senate and the House.
And of course, in 2028, theRepublicans get thrown out.
This is the agenda.
This has all been the agenda fora long, long time.
And yet, why, knowing this, doesthe White House continue to
(01:28):
allow left-wing media tointerview people in the Trump
administration?
Where's the advantage if youknow that every piece is going
to come out is going to be downdownplay, not only downplaying,
but simply finding a way to hurtthe Republicans, the Trump
administration, and byextension, the American people.
Hey everybody, welcome back tothe Rant Network.
(01:50):
My name is David Solomon.
He is Stuart Brisgale.
What we do every Monday,Wednesday, Friday, noon, Eastern
is this thing all we call theRant Network.
If you haven't seen us before,check us out.
We do all these kinds of rantson politics, culture, society,
and so much more.
There's an absurdity out there,ladies and gentlemen, and we're
calling it out.
We bring this to the table.
(02:10):
Yes, we might be a little moreright-wing, right-leaning.
Yes, we might be moreconservative leaning, but we
love to argue even in thatpoint.
Right, wrong from society.
So sit back and relax today aswe dive into yet one more of
these absurd topics.
Stuart Vanity Fair, writer ChrisWhipple, meant a two-piece story
that ran in the in the magazinebased on 11 interviews with uh
(02:34):
White House Chief of Staff SusieWiles.
And apparently, it was of coursea hit piece.
It was one of those ways to finda way to simply damage the Trump
administration.
Nothing positive.
And Susie Wiles in her in an expost said once again, it's
another one of thoseopportunities that it was
(02:56):
disingenuously framed hit pieceon me and and of course Donald
Trump.
Significant context wasdisregarded, and much of what I
and others said about the teamand the president was left out
of the article.
And yet, once again, this iswhat we seem to see from media
house after media house aftermedia house.
How can we turn a positive intosuch a negative?
(03:20):
Stuart, should the White Houseput a policy out saying you're
either honoring and respectingthe office of the president or
you're out of here?
SPEAKER_00 (03:31):
Okay, you know, let's say the quiet part is out
loud.
There's no obligation to thetruth.
Modern media political elitesdon't believe they are
responsible for any truth.
They believe they're responsibleto a narrative, a political
(03:52):
party, motive, an underlyingundertone.
And once you understand that,everything you're watching,
David, suddenly makes sense.
This is something that you and Ihave been ranting about for five
years.
Because if the truth were thepriority, we wouldn't see the
(04:13):
story after the stories quietlycorrected weeks later, long
after the damage is done.
If the truth really mattered, wewouldn't see selectivity, edited
clips, anonymous sources,treated as gospel and outright
(04:33):
stories pushed that collapseunder just the basic scrutiny,
and nothing more.
But that's not how the systemworks anymore.
The media class doesn't even seeitself as a watchdog for the
people, it's a partner withpolitical power, cocktail
(04:54):
parties, donors, pocket lining,the same revolving door between
cable news, government agencies,you know, think tanks, political
campaigns, lobbyists.
They don't ask, is this true?
(05:15):
They don't ask, does this helpour side?
Let's be honest.
Say the word out loud.
We're told we're attackingdemocracy.
But democracy only works ifvoters have access to honest
both sides of the information.
(05:36):
What they're actually attackingis a monopoly on narrative
control.
And like I always say, David, Ibring up my good old news buddy
that I never met but grew upwatching, Walter Cronkite.
Let's look at immigration justfor a second.
For years, Americans were toldthe borders were secure, long
(06:00):
before Trump was ever in office.
You know, where Obama had cagesat the border.
Anyone who said otherwise waslabeled an extremist, more
modern terms, xenophobic orunserious.
Then suddenly, when theconsequences became impossible
(06:20):
to hide, the same outletsquietly changed their language.
No apology, no accountability,just a new headline on the next
talking point, which they keepchanging each and every single
week, trying to find a they'rethere against the current
president of the United States.
(06:42):
Another note, David.
Let's look at inflation.
While the Biden administrationwas in power, people used to
call it transitory.
Then it was Putin, the pricehike.
Never mind policy decision,never mind spending, never mind
energy restriction, never mindtruths that were inconvenient
(07:04):
and so burdensome to hearingpeople in the United States.
This isn't an accidentaldiscovery that we're about to
expose.
It's the structural foundationalproblem that the political elite
don't want the truth.
They want compliance.
Truth invites debate, truthempowers voters, truth creates
(07:29):
consequence.
A managed narrative keeps powerwhere it already is.
And the key point is why theywant to destroy religion in the
United States.
You know, Fox News is sopro-Christianity, at some points
I find it nauseating.
(07:49):
However, conversely, MSNBC, alack of any religious moral
values, has gone off the deepend.
There is a key point.
I don't think they owe youhonesty.
And that's why they are nolonger news networks.
They are editorial trash TV.
(08:12):
They think you owe them trust,trust their experts, trust the
institutions they rely on, truston their fact checkers, trust
their process, don't ask anyquestions, or you will be what?
Tossed into the turd.
They attack your character.
First thing they do.
(08:34):
You are Islamophobic, you're uhxenophobic, you're everything.
They label you, they dismiss youbecause they can't handle you
questioning their authority.
It's an illusion.
Like the crazy squad or thecracker barrel Texas monster
potty mouth.
(08:54):
This is why voters areskeptical.
Not because we reject facts, butbecause we've been watching
facts being weaponized,withheld, distorted for
political gain.
We're told to follow scienceunless the science changes the
policy outcome.
We're told to respectjournalism, unless journalists
(09:15):
get some catastrophically wrong.
We're told to protect democracy,unless voters choose their wrong
candidate.
That's not truth.
That's power-seekingpreservation.
So where do we believe truthbelongs?
Does it belong to institution ordoes it belong to the people?
(09:38):
I believe peach shouldn't bemanaged.
I believe dissent isn'tdangerous.
And I believe censorship is.
I believe accountability matterswhen uncomfortable.
When a politician speaks, sir,will you swear and affirm that
the statements you are givingare true and correct?
So help me, God.
(10:00):
Failing to add that line intoanything these people say,
whether left, right, liberal,conservative, it is literally
irrelevant.
They have no morals or valuesand no respect for you, the
voter.
Media doesn't fear you.
They fear losing control.
(10:22):
Because once America realizesthey don't need permission to
ask a question, the researchthey do independent is great
info for debate.
The entire manufactured systemfalls to pieces.
And that's why, David, I've beendoing this with you for the last
(10:43):
five going on nearly six years.
Because the truth isindependent, the truth will not
be managed, the truth doesn'tvote the way anyone wants it to,
and that's why it still matters.
Well, Stuart, great rant.
SPEAKER_01 (11:01):
Love it.
Oh, the question that I'm askingis based on what you just said,
should the White House grantinterviews to media that you
know are going to lie, distort,trash?
Should we let them in?
And I'll tell you the truth is Iand I and I there's Clay Travis,
(11:22):
who's very interesting.
He made a comedy, he says, youknow what?
Yeah, except it must be live.
Because then they don't have achance to edit it.
Which means bye-bye magazines,bye-bye newspapers, because you
can't trust them.
It has to be a live interview.
And I'll tell you something.
Even when it's live or live totape, as they like to call it,
you could see they're trying tocatch Trump even in a half a
(11:46):
sentence.
Look, I'm I'm I'm gonna say thisvery, very bluntly.
I'm not a big fan of thepresident.
There are things he's done thatI'm really against, and there
are things he's done that, sure,has really been good.
Take it the spectrum.
But you can't.
This is the office of thepresident of the United States,
and you can't play both sides.
(12:06):
You can't decide that when theBiden administration, you lied.
You lied when the Bidenadministration, you claimed
Biden was fully healthy, youlied.
You claim there was no auto pen,you lied.
You claim there was no laptop,you lied.
You've been caught in a lieafter lie after lie after lie.
And even your own journalistsadmit that they're lying.
(12:29):
Because they need to control thepeople.
So if that's the case, if you'regonna give an article to Vanity
Fair, okay.
You know, it's Stuart, it'sinteresting because the First
Lady has almost always been onthe cover of a variety of
different magazines, exceptMelania.
So why should you give Melaniaanything?
Right?
First, they criticize her as animmigrant, then they criticize
(12:52):
her.
You just don't stop finding waysto trash the office of the
president of the United Statesand his family.
It hasn't stopped since 2015,and yet they're continuing to
say we as the media have theright to do so.
What Barry Weiss is doing in atCBS by cleaning out house, by
(13:15):
getting rid of theseagenda-based journalists, is
really to try to bring them, asyou said, Stuart, to try to
bring the media as much to thecenter as possible.
Now, I've watched CBS news, Isee it with that they're they're
they're struggling with thisbecause that means you actually
have to give an honest meetingand uh uh sorry, interview with
(13:35):
the president and and his andhis entourage.
And you could see they can't doit.
You could see that it killsthem.
You could see the hate, and it'sa visceral hate towards
Republicans, towards Trumpadministration.
And any which way you can paintthem as evil, racist,
(13:56):
xenophobic, you name it.
Now, I understand that woke hasinvaded media.
I completely understand based onwhat you've seen in
universities.
You could see how thesejournalists believe that they
hold the higher ground, thatthey believe in their minds
they're morally superior to youand me, and we need to be
(14:18):
educated by the media.
That's nonsensical.
Because let me put it this way: you could hate Donald Trump, you (14:23):
undefined
could hate Joe Biden, but youcan find good in any one of
those people with all duerespect.
Okay, I'm not a Democrat, Iwon't be a Democrat, but I can
find two, three things that Icould say, yeah, Biden was good
here and here and here.
But if you're deranged and youbelieve that Trump can do no
(14:45):
wrong, and the moment he openshis eyes, he's done wrong, then
you should not be granted accessto the president or his
administration for any suchthing.
And you're gonna write those badarticles anyway, Stuart.
You're gonna quote anonymoussources, you're gonna create a
narrative so that your mediapublication could still be
relevant.
Because apparently, trashing thepresident drives ad revenue.
(15:09):
Trashing the president brings ineyes to your website.
It is amazing to see what theybelieve works.
Yeah, in a vacuum to thederanged folks who hate Trump,
perfect.
But to regular Americans, middleAmericans, registered
independents, as you like tosay, they're not, they don't
want to listen to you anymore.
(15:30):
They don't want to hear itanymore.
Right behind you, there's aBloomberg uh TV.
It's showing statistics, it'sshowing stock.
That's a fact, that's real.
But when you bring in and youcan see a commentator right
there, right now, talking aboutanything, that's an opinion.
That's their opinion.
(15:51):
Will the stock market go up?
Will the stock market go down?
Are tariffs good or tariffs bad?
That's their opinion.
It might be based on fact, andit may be, but it's their
opinion.
And when media finally admitsthat that's what they're really
driving, I think people would bebet would be feel a lot better
deciding and choosing whichchannel or publication they want
(16:12):
to watch.
And I'll wrap it up with this,Story, because I know I'm seeing
you're ready to jump on this.
So here's the thing I don'tthink Vanity Fair should be
allowed into the White Houseanymore.
They're done.
They have lost to me.
Hold on, they've lost for metheir credibility.
And now you have to make it upto the White House, not on a
puff piece, but if you want tobe true to the American people,
(16:36):
give a true picture.
But if all you are looking to dois to trash the Trump
administration and the rest ofthe Trump family and whatever, I
say no.
SPEAKER_00 (16:46):
All right.
Short answer, David, just toquickly get down this.
The media, the White Houseshould not ban media for their
viewpoints, but it should stoppretending that all outlets
deserve equal access regardlessof conduct.
Here's a distinction in thismatter, right?
The First Amendment protects thepress from government
punishment, not fromconsequences, loss of privilege,
(17:09):
privileges, or scrutiny.
The White House is not a right,it's a privilege.
I agree.
And privileges come withstandards.
For decades, access to the WhiteHouse, the press corps, was
based on the assumption ofprofessionalism, good faith
reporting, factual integrity,and the willingness to correct
(17:29):
errors transparently.
Separation between reporting andactivism.
Many outlets, like Vanity Fair,have abandoned those norms.
They don't behave like neutralobservers.
They operate like politicalactors, which we know, like
actors act.
And when media outlets act aspartisan activists, it's
(17:51):
reasonable for theadministration to ask why they
should be treated as a neutralinstitution.
And the Donald J.
Trump president that we knowgoes on attack mode.
This isn't banning criticism.
It's not banning free press.
It's criticizing the free presspower that isn't duly elected by
(18:12):
the people.
That's healthy.
It's not about refusingsubsidized propaganda with
exclusive news access.
No viewpoint is discrimination,David.
But yes, conduct standards, nocensorship, but no guaranteed
for a front row seat, nosilencing, no special privileges
(18:34):
for bad actors and call themout.
There should be a liabilitystandard within the government,
within the law that says if youknowingly, willingly lie, and it
can be proven, you should besued for slander and liability.
Well, that's what's happening.
SPEAKER_01 (18:51):
That's what's happening.
Trump has done that.
SPEAKER_00 (18:53):
Well, that's what is starting to happen.
You're pushing false narrativesdown.
You're you're getting rid of thereliance of anonymous sources
without accountability.
If you refuse to correct majorerrors, like the BBC getting
sued for$13 billion, it engagesin the proper political message.
(19:13):
But again, the White House isunder no obligation to treat
each outlet as a trustedpartner.
Okay.
Equal application under therule.
Because what's going to happenwhen the president switches from
Democrat Republican to Democratto Republican?
It's going to be anauthoritative governance by
(19:34):
media.
There should be, David, shouldnever be a blacklist based on
ideology.
There shouldn't be punishmentfor unfavorable coverage.
No government control cancontrol an outlets on what they
can publish.
What should happen is clearpublic press standards, equal
enforcement, expanded access foralternative independent media.
(19:58):
The Trump administration.
And introduced a few seats andless defense to legacy outlets
for absurd trust.
SPEAKER_01 (20:07):
Okay.
Stuart, let me wrap this upbecause we've gone way past our
thing.
And what you said is great.
But at the end of the day, I'mnot suggesting that Vanity Fair
never be, but Vanity Fair needsto show that they were that if
you're going to purposefully lieto the people, you should not
have an exclusive access to theto any president.
And I know, listen, I'm notsuggesting here that we have
(20:28):
control speech.
That was what you know otheradministrations have tried to
do.
And I know that they accuseTrump of being an authoritarian
because of that.
And I laugh at that because I'mlike, really?
It's funny how you're sayingthat Trump is an authoritarian
and he's given he's giveneverybody an interview.
He's got full access on theplane.
Biden didn't do that.
(20:50):
You have full access to thepresident at any time for crying
out loud.
And your way to thank thepresident for giving you news
feeds is by trashing them.
Bravo.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's itfor the hump day version of it.
We're back on Friday.
We'll catch you on the otherend, ladies and gentlemen, as
we're reaching the end of theyear and the holidays.
Without further ado, haveyourself a fun.
Oh, childish.
Hey everybody, welcome back.
Yeah, hump day, ladies andgentlemen.
And as we approach the year end,Stuart and I will be recording
our year end in the review verysoon.
So stay tuned, folks.
As we are two weeks, I can'tbelieve I'm saying this, two
(00:22):
weeks away from the year end of2025.
And as I can't say it enough, Ican't wait for it to be over.
And I think that the Trumpadministration in itself is
looking to the end of this 2025and is hoping to finish this on
a high.
Because as we know, sinceJanuary 20th, 2025, left-wing
(00:44):
media has been taking shots atTrump.
Midnight, those late-night talkshows have been taking nothing
but shots at Trump.
The idea of trying to createbalance in information, news,
non-existent.
What we're seeing is obviouslyvery polarized media houses
where you'll have Fox News beingthe cheerleader on the sideline
(01:05):
for Donald Trump and otherleft-wing media being the
downplayers, the ones who aretrying to trip Donald Trump to
make sure that in 2026 he losesthe Senate and the House.
And of course, in 2028, theRepublicans get thrown out.
This is the agenda.
This has all been the agenda fora long, long time.
And yet, why, knowing this, doesthe White House continue to
(01:28):
allow left-wing media tointerview people in the Trump
administration?
Where's the advantage if youknow that every piece is going
to come out is going to be downdownplay, not only downplaying,
but simply finding a way to hurtthe Republicans, the Trump
administration, and byextension, the American people.
Hey everybody, welcome back tothe Rant Network.
(01:50):
My name is David Solomon.
He is Stuart Brisgale.
What we do every Monday,Wednesday, Friday, noon, Eastern
is this thing all we call theRant Network.
If you haven't seen us before,check us out.
We do all these kinds of rantson politics, culture, society,
and so much more.
There's an absurdity out there,ladies and gentlemen, and we're
calling it out.
We bring this to the table.
(02:10):
Yes, we might be a little moreright-wing, right-leaning.
Yes, we might be moreconservative leaning, but we
love to argue even in thatpoint.
Right, wrong from society.
So sit back and relax today aswe dive into yet one more of
these absurd topics.
Stuart Vanity Fair, writer ChrisWhipple, meant a two-piece story
that ran in the in the magazinebased on 11 interviews with uh
(02:34):
White House Chief of Staff SusieWiles.
And apparently, it was of coursea hit piece.
It was one of those ways to finda way to simply damage the Trump
administration.
Nothing positive.
And Susie Wiles in her in an expost said once again, it's
another one of thoseopportunities that it was
(02:56):
disingenuously framed hit pieceon me and and of course Donald
Trump.
Significant context wasdisregarded, and much of what I
and others said about the teamand the president was left out
of the article.
And yet, once again, this iswhat we seem to see from media
house after media house aftermedia house.
How can we turn a positive intosuch a negative?
(03:20):
Stuart, should the White Houseput a policy out saying you're
either honoring and respectingthe office of the president or
you're out of here?
SPEAKER_00 (03:31):
Okay, you know, let's say the quiet part is out
loud.
There's no obligation to thetruth.
Modern media political elitesdon't believe they are
responsible for any truth.
They believe they're responsibleto a narrative, a political
(03:52):
party, motive, an underlyingundertone.
And once you understand that,everything you're watching,
David, suddenly makes sense.
This is something that you and Ihave been ranting about for five
years.
Because if the truth were thepriority, we wouldn't see the
(04:13):
story after the stories quietlycorrected weeks later, long
after the damage is done.
If the truth really mattered, wewouldn't see selectivity, edited
clips, anonymous sources,treated as gospel and outright
(04:33):
stories pushed that collapseunder just the basic scrutiny,
and nothing more.
But that's not how the systemworks anymore.
The media class doesn't even seeitself as a watchdog for the
people, it's a partner withpolitical power, cocktail
(04:54):
parties, donors, pocket lining,the same revolving door between
cable news, government agencies,you know, think tanks, political
campaigns, lobbyists.
They don't ask, is this true?
(05:15):
They don't ask, does this helpour side?
Let's be honest.
Say the word out loud.
We're told we're attackingdemocracy.
But democracy only works ifvoters have access to honest
both sides of the information.
(05:36):
What they're actually attackingis a monopoly on narrative
control.
And like I always say, David, Ibring up my good old news buddy
that I never met but grew upwatching, Walter Cronkite.
Let's look at immigration justfor a second.
For years, Americans were toldthe borders were secure, long
(06:00):
before Trump was ever in office.
You know, where Obama had cagesat the border.
Anyone who said otherwise waslabeled an extremist, more
modern terms, xenophobic orunserious.
Then suddenly, when theconsequences became impossible
(06:20):
to hide, the same outletsquietly changed their language.
No apology, no accountability,just a new headline on the next
talking point, which they keepchanging each and every single
week, trying to find a they'rethere against the current
president of the United States.
(06:42):
Another note, David.
Let's look at inflation.
While the Biden administrationwas in power, people used to
call it transitory.
Then it was Putin, the pricehike.
Never mind policy decision,never mind spending, never mind
energy restriction, never mindtruths that were inconvenient
(07:04):
and so burdensome to hearingpeople in the United States.
This isn't an accidentaldiscovery that we're about to
expose.
It's the structural foundationalproblem that the political elite
don't want the truth.
They want compliance.
Truth invites debate, truthempowers voters, truth creates
(07:29):
consequence.
A managed narrative keeps powerwhere it already is.
And the key point is why theywant to destroy religion in the
United States.
You know, Fox News is sopro-Christianity, at some points
I find it nauseating.
(07:49):
However, conversely, MSNBC, alack of any religious moral
values, has gone off the deepend.
There is a key point.
I don't think they owe youhonesty.
And that's why they are nolonger news networks.
They are editorial trash TV.
(08:12):
They think you owe them trust,trust their experts, trust the
institutions they rely on, truston their fact checkers, trust
their process, don't ask anyquestions, or you will be what?
Tossed into the turd.
They attack your character.
First thing they do.
(08:34):
You are Islamophobic, you're uhxenophobic, you're everything.
They label you, they dismiss youbecause they can't handle you
questioning their authority.
It's an illusion.
Like the crazy squad or thecracker barrel Texas monster
potty mouth.
(08:54):
This is why voters areskeptical.
Not because we reject facts, butbecause we've been watching
facts being weaponized,withheld, distorted for
political gain.
We're told to follow scienceunless the science changes the
policy outcome.
We're told to respectjournalism, unless journalists
(09:15):
get some catastrophically wrong.
We're told to protect democracy,unless voters choose their wrong
candidate.
That's not truth.
That's power-seekingpreservation.
So where do we believe truthbelongs?
Does it belong to institution ordoes it belong to the people?
(09:38):
I believe peach shouldn't bemanaged.
I believe dissent isn'tdangerous.
And I believe censorship is.
I believe accountability matterswhen uncomfortable.
When a politician speaks, sir,will you swear and affirm that
the statements you are givingare true and correct?
So help me, God.
(10:00):
Failing to add that line intoanything these people say,
whether left, right, liberal,conservative, it is literally
irrelevant.
They have no morals or valuesand no respect for you, the
voter.
Media doesn't fear you.
They fear losing control.
(10:22):
Because once America realizesthey don't need permission to
ask a question, the researchthey do independent is great
info for debate.
The entire manufactured systemfalls to pieces.
And that's why, David, I've beendoing this with you for the last
(10:43):
five going on nearly six years.
Because the truth isindependent, the truth will not
be managed, the truth doesn'tvote the way anyone wants it to,
and that's why it still matters.
Well, Stuart, great rant.
SPEAKER_01 (11:01):
Love it.
Oh, the question that I'm askingis based on what you just said,
should the White House grantinterviews to media that you
know are going to lie, distort,trash?
Should we let them in?
And I'll tell you the truth is Iand I and I there's Clay Travis,
(11:22):
who's very interesting.
He made a comedy, he says, youknow what?
Yeah, except it must be live.
Because then they don't have achance to edit it.
Which means bye-bye magazines,bye-bye newspapers, because you
can't trust them.
It has to be a live interview.
And I'll tell you something.
Even when it's live or live totape, as they like to call it,
you could see they're trying tocatch Trump even in a half a
(11:46):
sentence.
Look, I'm I'm I'm gonna say thisvery, very bluntly.
I'm not a big fan of thepresident.
There are things he's done thatI'm really against, and there
are things he's done that, sure,has really been good.
Take it the spectrum.
But you can't.
This is the office of thepresident of the United States,
and you can't play both sides.
(12:06):
You can't decide that when theBiden administration, you lied.
You lied when the Bidenadministration, you claimed
Biden was fully healthy, youlied.
You claim there was no auto pen,you lied.
You claim there was no laptop,you lied.
You've been caught in a lieafter lie after lie after lie.
And even your own journalistsadmit that they're lying.
(12:29):
Because they need to control thepeople.
So if that's the case, if you'regonna give an article to Vanity
Fair, okay.
You know, it's Stuart, it'sinteresting because the First
Lady has almost always been onthe cover of a variety of
different magazines, exceptMelania.
So why should you give Melaniaanything?
Right?
First, they criticize her as animmigrant, then they criticize
(12:52):
her.
You just don't stop finding waysto trash the office of the
president of the United Statesand his family.
It hasn't stopped since 2015,and yet they're continuing to
say we as the media have theright to do so.
What Barry Weiss is doing in atCBS by cleaning out house, by
(13:15):
getting rid of theseagenda-based journalists, is
really to try to bring them, asyou said, Stuart, to try to
bring the media as much to thecenter as possible.
Now, I've watched CBS news, Isee it with that they're they're
they're struggling with thisbecause that means you actually
have to give an honest meetingand uh uh sorry, interview with
(13:35):
the president and and his andhis entourage.
And you could see they can't doit.
You could see that it killsthem.
You could see the hate, and it'sa visceral hate towards
Republicans, towards Trumpadministration.
And any which way you can paintthem as evil, racist,
(13:56):
xenophobic, you name it.
Now, I understand that woke hasinvaded media.
I completely understand based onwhat you've seen in
universities.
You could see how thesejournalists believe that they
hold the higher ground, thatthey believe in their minds
they're morally superior to youand me, and we need to be
(14:18):
educated by the media.
That's nonsensical.
Because let me put it this way: you could hate Donald Trump, you (14:23):
undefined
could hate Joe Biden, but youcan find good in any one of
those people with all duerespect.
Okay, I'm not a Democrat, Iwon't be a Democrat, but I can
find two, three things that Icould say, yeah, Biden was good
here and here and here.
But if you're deranged and youbelieve that Trump can do no
(14:45):
wrong, and the moment he openshis eyes, he's done wrong, then
you should not be granted accessto the president or his
administration for any suchthing.
And you're gonna write those badarticles anyway, Stuart.
You're gonna quote anonymoussources, you're gonna create a
narrative so that your mediapublication could still be
relevant.
Because apparently, trashing thepresident drives ad revenue.
(15:09):
Trashing the president brings ineyes to your website.
It is amazing to see what theybelieve works.
Yeah, in a vacuum to thederanged folks who hate Trump,
perfect.
But to regular Americans, middleAmericans, registered
independents, as you like tosay, they're not, they don't
want to listen to you anymore.
(15:30):
They don't want to hear itanymore.
Right behind you, there's aBloomberg uh TV.
It's showing statistics, it'sshowing stock.
That's a fact, that's real.
But when you bring in and youcan see a commentator right
there, right now, talking aboutanything, that's an opinion.
That's their opinion.
(15:51):
Will the stock market go up?
Will the stock market go down?
Are tariffs good or tariffs bad?
That's their opinion.
It might be based on fact, andit may be, but it's their
opinion.
And when media finally admitsthat that's what they're really
driving, I think people would bebet would be feel a lot better
deciding and choosing whichchannel or publication they want
(16:12):
to watch.
And I'll wrap it up with this,Story, because I know I'm seeing
you're ready to jump on this.
So here's the thing I don'tthink Vanity Fair should be
allowed into the White Houseanymore.
They're done.
They have lost to me.
Hold on, they've lost for metheir credibility.
And now you have to make it upto the White House, not on a
puff piece, but if you want tobe true to the American people,
(16:36):
give a true picture.
But if all you are looking to dois to trash the Trump
administration and the rest ofthe Trump family and whatever, I
say no.
SPEAKER_00 (16:46):
All right.
Short answer, David, just toquickly get down this.
The media, the White Houseshould not ban media for their
viewpoints, but it should stoppretending that all outlets
deserve equal access regardlessof conduct.
Here's a distinction in thismatter, right?
The First Amendment protects thepress from government
punishment, not fromconsequences, loss of privilege,
(17:09):
privileges, or scrutiny.
The White House is not a right,it's a privilege.
I agree.
And privileges come withstandards.
For decades, access to the WhiteHouse, the press corps, was
based on the assumption ofprofessionalism, good faith
reporting, factual integrity,and the willingness to correct
(17:29):
errors transparently.
Separation between reporting andactivism.
Many outlets, like Vanity Fair,have abandoned those norms.
They don't behave like neutralobservers.
They operate like politicalactors, which we know, like
actors act.
And when media outlets act aspartisan activists, it's
(17:51):
reasonable for theadministration to ask why they
should be treated as a neutralinstitution.
And the Donald J.
Trump president that we knowgoes on attack mode.
This isn't banning criticism.
It's not banning free press.
It's criticizing the free presspower that isn't duly elected by
(18:12):
the people.
That's healthy.
It's not about refusingsubsidized propaganda with
exclusive news access.
No viewpoint is discrimination,David.
But yes, conduct standards, nocensorship, but no guaranteed
for a front row seat, nosilencing, no special privileges
(18:34):
for bad actors and call themout.
There should be a liabilitystandard within the government,
within the law that says if youknowingly, willingly lie, and it
can be proven, you should besued for slander and liability.
Well, that's what's happening.
SPEAKER_01 (18:51):
That's what's happening.
Trump has done that.
SPEAKER_00 (18:53):
Well, that's what is starting to happen.
You're pushing false narrativesdown.
You're you're getting rid of thereliance of anonymous sources
without accountability.
If you refuse to correct majorerrors, like the BBC getting
sued for$13 billion, it engagesin the proper political message.
(19:13):
But again, the White House isunder no obligation to treat
each outlet as a trustedpartner.
Okay.
Equal application under therule.
Because what's going to happenwhen the president switches from
Democrat Republican to Democratto Republican?
It's going to be anauthoritative governance by
(19:34):
media.
There should be, David, shouldnever be a blacklist based on
ideology.
There shouldn't be punishmentfor unfavorable coverage.
No government control cancontrol an outlets on what they
can publish.
What should happen is clearpublic press standards, equal
enforcement, expanded access foralternative independent media.
(19:58):
The Trump administration.
And introduced a few seats andless defense to legacy outlets
for absurd trust.
SPEAKER_01 (20:07):
Okay.
Stuart, let me wrap this upbecause we've gone way past our
thing.
And what you said is great.
But at the end of the day, I'mnot suggesting that Vanity Fair
never be, but Vanity Fair needsto show that they were that if
you're going to purposefully lieto the people, you should not
have an exclusive access to theto any president.
And I know, listen, I'm notsuggesting here that we have
(20:28):
control speech.
That was what you know otheradministrations have tried to
do.
And I know that they accuseTrump of being an authoritarian
because of that.
And I laugh at that because I'mlike, really?
It's funny how you're sayingthat Trump is an authoritarian
and he's given he's giveneverybody an interview.
He's got full access on theplane.
Biden didn't do that.
(20:50):
You have full access to thepresident at any time for crying
out loud.
And your way to thank thepresident for giving you news
feeds is by trashing them.
Bravo.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's itfor the hump day version of it.
We're back on Friday.
We'll catch you on the otherend, ladies and gentlemen, as
we're reaching the end of theyear and the holidays.
Without further ado, haveyourself a fun.
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
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.