July 2, 2025 • 30 mins
In this live edition of The PR Breakdown, Molly McPherson is joined by Warren Weeks and John Perenak, the hosts of the Reputation Town podcast, to explore the widening gap between journalism and public trust. The conversation centers on CNN’s Jake Tapper and his new book with Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.
Is this book a mea culpa? A career pivot? Or a strategic move to rebuild credibility?
- The reputation strategy behind Tapper’s timing
- Whether journalists should profit from stories they once protected
- How media control is shifting from legacy outlets to podcasters and independent creators
- Why access journalism is losing public trust
- The pressure journalists face when reporting truth conflicts with institutional loyalty
This episode is not just about one book or one anchor. It’s about the changing role of journalism, the rise of independent media, and the challenge of earning trust in today’s media environment.
If you work in communications, follow the news closely, or just want to understand what’s really happening behind the headlines, this conversation is for you.
The media tool I use to track stories, monitor coverage, and help clients get their message in the right hands. Click here to learn more.
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson
Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.media
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
This podcast is supported by Muck Rack, the PR management platform I use to monitor media coverage, track journalist activity, and inform high-stakes strategy with real-time data. Click here to try Muck Rack for yourself.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Molly McPherson (00:00):
Welcome to a live edition of the PR Breakdown
, bringing back two of myfavorite guests.
It is the I think I wrote thistoday the guys behind the
Reputation Town podcast.
Briefly, for the new peoplehere listening what do you guys
do?
Why are you here?
Why do I love you guys?
John Perenack (00:20):
We like to give different takes on PR and
communications.
You might not hear elsewhere,Certainly in Canada anyway,
where Warren and I operate from.
Molly McPherson (00:29):
Warren, what say you?
Warren Weeks (00:30):
A media training guy, 30-some years in public
relations, and I just lovechatting about it, which is why
we're here.
Molly McPherson (00:37):
What's interesting?
We've been doing this for acouple years.
You two have had your podcastfor a while, but I popped in as
a guest and you've been a gueston my podcast.
I always find that our opinionsalign, for the most part, not
often that we are on other sidesof the argument.
One was the election, john, andI miscalled it big time.
Warren, you, you correctly saidthat Donald Trump would win the
(01:01):
election, but I'm going to tiethis into that.
Donald Trump would win theelection, but I'm going to tie
this into, I think, anotherplace where we do not align, and
that would be our take on JakeTapper's book, or co-author of
Original Sin, all about JoeBiden, and now it's been a month
or two since the publicationdate and I have to ask you guys
(01:22):
what do you think?
Should we go with John first onthis one, or Warren?
Who's going to drop the bomb onthis one?
John Perenack (01:27):
I've got the contrarian take.
Molly McPherson (01:29):
You think you have the contrarian.
John Perenack (01:31):
I'll throw that out there and then you can tell
me what you think of it.
So obviously, the backstory tothat book everybody knows Jake
Tapper really didn't give a lotof time to the Joe Biden is in
decline story and so he wastrying to, I think, create a
path for him to be able to talkabout this going forward.
And what's the best way to getpast an issue you have?
(01:54):
Sometimes it's to embrace it,and I think that's what his
strategy was here.
He searched out Alex Thompson,who had been reported about
Biden's decline, out AlexThompson who had been reported
about Biden's decline, andwrapped himself tightly around
him to write this book.
And then he's using it as avehicle to give himself
credibility going forward to sayyou know what?
I got it wrong, but now I'vemade amends and I've written
(02:15):
this book that gives all thisgreat detail about what actually
did happen and so I can becredible on the subject again.
That's the approach I thinkhe's taking here.
Molly McPherson (02:24):
Okay, so I can't tell.
Though, in your answer, do youthink he was, do you have a
problem with him writing a booklike this, or do you understand
why some people had problemswith him?
John Perenack (02:34):
This.
I don't have a problem with it,particularly because, if he was
, if he came to me as a clientand said, hi, help me get past
this issue I have.
This is probably the best wayof doing it, giving himself
freedom to work past this in thefuture and have a discussion
about this in the future so heisn't constantly being called
out.
I think there's going to behearings coming up in the not
too distant future in Congressabout Biden's decline, so he has
(02:57):
given himself a platform to beable to talk about this in a way
that he couldn't have otherwise.
Molly McPherson (03:01):
Okay, warren, what is your take Now?
I will say a little backstoryhere.
When I had a podcast about itbecause I started listening to
the book, I was flying to SanFrancisco and I thought, oh,
this is perfect Cross country,perfect time to start listening
to the book.
I loved it.
I looked at it as an insider'sview of what was happening in
the White House.
(03:21):
I was not really thinking aboutthe authors and what they were
lacking.
It certainly came up, but Ididn't have as much of a problem
with it because I have mythoughts on journalism nowadays
and what it's like to be ajournalist and work in media
companies I don't even call themnews companies anymore and I
had posted something and youwere the first person to chime
(03:43):
in with your thoughts.
Warren, share your thoughts onJake Tapper specifically.
Warren Weeks (03:49):
My comment was I can't believe you gave Jake
Tapper $30.
Molly McPherson (03:54):
And my honest response was technically, I
didn't.
Warren Weeks (03:57):
On Spotify, which I didn't know.
This is great If you have aSpotify membership, you can
listen to any audio book,basically.
Molly McPherson (04:03):
Oh yes.
Warren Weeks (04:04):
I've been stewing about this for a couple of weeks
, so I love that I have anopportunity to vent a little bit
now.
I think that and this is justone guy's opinion this to me was
the most blatant and shamelessdisplay of hypocrisy I've seen
in the book publishing world andalso, on the tail end, probably
one of the least successful.
If you look at his book, wouldyou call it a success?
Do you think it was a greatlaunch?
(04:25):
Do you think he sold a bunch ofcopies?
What do you think his numbershave been?
Molly McPherson (04:27):
Oh, he was on the top of the list when I
recorded the podcast.
He was number two on the Amazonlist behind Mel Robbins, and I
don't know if you know who he is.
She wrote the Let them Theory.
That annoyed me in and ofitself, but he was at the top of
the New York Times list.
There was a pre-sale.
I think he did well.
Warren Weeks (04:45):
Manufactured.
I would say that's manufacturedby CNN.
It was probably one of the mostpromoted books Every time.
Hey guys, my book's coming outnext week and they just promote
like millions of dollars worthof free promotion.
First week he sold 53,000copies, which is certainly
respectable.
If you compare that to BobWoodward Fear, the book he had
about Donald Trump, first week1.1 million books.
(05:06):
Mary Trump, right.
So Bob Woodward is like youknow.
Obviously Watergate.
Mary Trump's book about DonaldTrump that came out a couple
years ago 900,000 copies in thefirst week, and those books also
held their sales for atremendous amount of time.
Jake Tabber second week 17,000.
And now it's just it's off thelist.
So, sales aside and I listenedto the first two chapters but I
(05:28):
started throwing up in my moutha little bit, so I just like
were those the free chapters?
I have the whole book.
I have it's on Spotify as well.
I'm like, oh, I'll listen to it.
And as I went for a walk, I'mjust like Jesus Christ.
So the stories are great.
You're right Like, the storiesare excellent, it's interesting,
you can picture it.
You're like, oh, I had asuspicion.
It's to me, you have toseparate the art from the artist
(05:49):
.
I just I think he's the wrongmessenger for this, because if
you look back, as I have, thereare many video clips when he's
always sharp as a tack.
He's the best Joe Biden he'sever been.
This guy's I mean Like, howdare you make fun of his stutter
?
And the dude had clearcognitive decline and like
dementia, whatever you want tocall it.
And for him, the moment whenJoe Biden becomes out of power
(06:10):
and not useful to him anymore,he stabs him in the back and
uses him to climb up, and Ifound that really, really
offensive.
So interesting stories in thebook, but I was really offended
by the balls that this guy hadto actually say that he was not
complicit.
I would say he was one of thetop four or five journalists,
because of his platform who wasactually promoting this.
Like he was the guy moderatingthe debate the terrible debate
(06:34):
and he was actually working onthis book before all that.
So it's not like he had thiseureka moment during the debate
of oh my God, what's happening.
He was writing the book andfolks in the journalism and the
media world would say if yourjob is a journalist and you're
on CNN, should you maybe not bereporting stuff when you know it
?
Molly McPherson (06:53):
So that's my beef with Jake Tapper, yeah, and
that has certainly come upbefore I'm blanking on the New
York Times, maureen O'Dowd, youknow it's the same thing.
No, not Maureen O'Dowd, butwriting, writing about Trump and
then coming out with a bookabout Trump.
Yeah, certainly, withjournalists, I and something
that I had said to you.
I think your argument is valid.
It is absolutely valid.
(07:13):
But my take on it for the JakeTappers of the world is this is
that the media industry ischanging.
When Bob Woodward was reportingon Watergate newspaper really
was king Woodward and Bernstein.
They were doing the work, theywere hustling.
They didn't even have therespect in the newsroom with Ben
Bradley, but he gave them thestory hustle, hustle because
(07:36):
they did it for the love of news.
But nowadays, I think it's acombination of journalism, ego,
but also how the media world isstructured.
Now we don't have newsbusinesses, we just have
entertainment businesses.
So whether it's cabletelevision, if it's news or book
, I think it's all the same.
It's like content.
John Perenack (07:54):
The reality is that I think Jake Tava wrote the
book to give him thecredibility as a journalist.
Going forward, and a year fromnow, when we're more deep into
congressional hearings about JoeBiden's competency, he's gonna
be able to credibly say you knowwhat?
I did get that wrong.
I covered it in my book.
I laid out like the first clearaccount of what that decline
(08:16):
was like, and he will be able to, I think, have a lot more room
to maneuver and talk about theseissues than he would have
otherwise.
Warren Weeks (08:23):
So another way down to the reputational play
for him.
So, 50 years from now, whenpeople don't remember the
minutia, they'll remember he wasthe guy that set the record
straight.
That's what we'll remember.
So yeah, actually still abullshit move.
A couple other things, if I can.
Jake Tapper hired a crisismanager.
I thought when I first heardthat I thought it was you.
I'm like, oh my God, molly,please.
Molly McPherson (08:43):
No, but let's just say, though, that Jake
Tapper does follow me and hisresponse what you could tell he
was doing crisis management.
Then I heard that he did hiresomeone.
It did follow my framework.
Warren Weeks (08:53):
I'm just saying but go on Having.
I'm just saying but go on.
Having said all that, if youhave to hire a crisis manager to
launch a book, like, maybethere's an issue.
The other thing is one of your,one of your listeners here said
where do we find stories thatare true?
What do you and here's I'mgoing to say something that is
maybe going to rub people thewrong way, but I actually
believe this is the case.
The best journalists we have inthe world right now are these
(09:15):
independent podcasters like TheoVaughn, which is crazy and I
know Joe Rogan is a verypolarizing figure, but if you go
back and just objectivelylisten to his podcasts over the
past four years, he was askingtough questions of politicians,
of health care professionalsthat no actual journalists were,
(09:35):
Got just vilified for it andCNN had him in a yellow filter,
made him look all weird but like, why is Theo Vaughn asking
harder questions than 60 minutes?
That's problematic.
Molly McPherson (09:45):
And here's your answer.
And on this chat before and Ishould say on this episode we do
have the chat going I said mysmarty sometimes snarky smart
people they chime in and wetalked about this issue at great
length.
I had touched on the fact thatthe media industry is changing
so much.
And you bring up 60 Minuteswhen CBS, owned by Paramount, is
(10:05):
brokering a deal to bepurchased and then there's
pressure on the executiveproducer of 60 Minutes and then
the head of CBS News, wendyMcMahon, is asked to leave.
Business now forms journalism.
So a lot of these journalists,their hands are tied on what
they can and cannot report on.
But you get content creatorsthe Theo Vons, the Joe Rogans,
(10:29):
the oh my gosh, call Her DaddyAlex boys.
No, someone in the chat willtell me why am I blanking?
I just watched her on Netflix.
They can say what they want,they can ask any question what
they want, but also they havethe ability to go so deep.
That's what makes theminteresting.
And so the question was arethey really journalists or not?
But they're knowledgeable,that's what people are driven to
(10:50):
.
Warren Weeks (10:50):
How are they not journalists?
How are they not?
Molly McPherson (10:52):
I say this they're not credentialed.
But you're right.
What makes a journalist?
Do they follow ethics and rules?
The journalism, the rules ofethics.
Warren Weeks (11:01):
Do the journalists today like do the MSNBCs and
the Fox?
It's if you look at what'shappened in the media business
and I know this was not reallyour topic that we were going to
chat about, but it's I find itdepressing what's going on and
like to the point where, at thisadvanced age that I'm at here
in this business and I went tojournalism school I am
credentialed right from way backin the day and a lot of people
I would say would think thatcredential is worth the paper
(11:24):
it's written on, because theylearn how to do it in a newsroom
and they learn how to go out onthe street and ask questions.
But it makes me actually wantto go out and start a program
where I ask these people becauseno one is asking no one is
asking.
Molly McPherson (11:39):
No one's taking these politicians to task and
asking them great questionsbecause they're scared of losing
their access.
Yeah, exactly, if you'recomparing, let's say, alex
Cooper from Call Her Daddy,which has between her and Joe
Rogan, they're at the top andthe reason why it's entertaining
they ask the questions that acredentialed journalist who is
on a media outlet is not goingto ask.
But then you have Terry Moranbeing fired from ABC News for
(12:02):
the tweet that he posted aboutDonald Trump and Stephen Miller.
Now what do you think aboutthat?
John Perenack (12:08):
So that strays into.
What does a news organizationhave to do to stay in good stead
with the White House to be ableto effectively report?
We've already seen them kickboth AP out of the press pool or
out of the White House offices.
The thing about the media rightnow is that there's all these
businesses that look like newsoutlets and from an outsider you
(12:32):
would say, oh, that's a newsoutlet, but they don't actually
operate that way.
The quote-unquote journalistswho run them and who actually do
the reporting.
They don't operate on the samebasis, with the same rules and
the same sort of standards thata traditional journalist would.
But at the same time you as anorganization are left trying to
protect your reputation or maybeget a story accurately reported
(12:55):
on those platforms, and it'svery difficult because they
often have their own interests,their own objectives they don't
disclose and often motivated bytheir own political or financial
motivations that again aren'tdisclosed.
So it is a very complicatedenvironment to be in and this is
actually why, to the pointabout content creators like
(13:17):
podcasters, embracing them whereyou can to get your message out
is the better way than tryingto just rely on earned media
alone, because if you just tryand rely on earned media to tell
your story.
It is a losing game as far asI'm concerned, because there's
not as many, there's not enoughopportunity, your audience isn't
necessarily there in the firstplace, and I find that this ties
(13:39):
into what you were talkingabout, molly, about some of the
traditional journalists in theWhite House.
They really get hung up on whatthey think the storyline should
be versus what an objective viewof the matter might be.
Recording this, it's June 25thand this morning, the dialogue
is continually all about who'scorrect, about the way the White
(14:01):
House is portraying the attackon Iran, where things completely
obliterated or just partiallyobliterated, and trying to catch
the president out in some way,shape or form.
But the reality is, this is thesame game they played for four
years before and it was a losinggame, and it's a losing game
now.
They're really focused onsomething so in the weeds that I
think they're puttingthemselves at risk to have them
(14:23):
being outstripped even furtherby these alternative content
creators and podcasters, becausethat's more and more what is
going to, I think, drive thenarrative when it comes to news
in the future.
Molly McPherson (14:33):
The White House giving press credentials to
content creators, friendlycontent creators, and it's
interesting, when you guys wentto open the HuffPo the
Huffington Post clip that I gaveyou it was gone, it was already
pulled and what I had sent youwas Caroline Levitt.
She's the press secretary.
(14:54):
She was welcoming a room fullof online content creators, all
very friendly, and so you canimagine what the questions were.
The first question was given toa content creator and she said
thank you so much for allowingme to ask the first question and
to be here.
And then everything was fluff,fluff, fluff.
It's like how come you guys areso great and how can you be any
(15:17):
better?
So that's a big problem.
They're really skewing itthrough social media and I'll
say last night I was tellingWarren, before we came on the
air, I was at a show last nightin Boston and it was with a
bunch of influencers and theyneeded to invite the old person
up there.
I totally represented Gen XOffline, offline, when we were
(15:50):
chit chatting, the conversationwas how much, how much money is
flowing to from PAC money comingfrom both sides, I think is
just having the beat on theircontent creators and influencers
who are spreading theirmessages.
John Perenack (16:03):
But here's the thing Is that really a problem
or is that just reality?
And as communicators, you haveto adapt to reality and often
embrace it in order to get theupper hand with your clients or
your organization you're tryingto represent.
Molly McPherson (16:15):
Yeah, but also the White House doesn't want
traditional media in there.
They're blocking them.
So how does traditional mediathen report on what's happening
in the White House?
And then that could bring usback right to Jake Tapper.
What we know happened on theinside, even with Biden.
Warren Weeks (16:30):
Maybe try reporting on it.
Actually, the Bidenadministration had their
friendly voices and they wereMSNBC and CNN.
They were doing the same thingthat these independent
podcasters are doing and theother thing that we haven't
really mentioned here, and thatis an actual fact.
I mean, you sound like atinfoil hat person, but there
are a lot of these media outlets.
(16:52):
These big ones in the Statesespecially, are kind of
communications arms of thegovernment.
There is someone from thegovernment I can't remember if
it's the FBI or the CIA who hasa desk at Fox News, and I'm sure
it's the same in all thoseother channels.
They sit inside the outlet.
I heard that the other day.
Yeah, that's bananas.
Molly McPherson (17:11):
Oh, I haven't heard that.
That's interesting.
We know there's significantcuts to Voice of America, which
is putting out propaganda, butwe have one of the people in our
chat here who is visiting usfrom Sweden is saying news in
the USA looks like a game showand a tabloid in one in one big
colors, yelling people overexaggerations and in competition
(17:32):
with each other.
It's such a setup for divideand untruths and they really
nailed it there because it istrue.
It is like a game show, becauseit is it's ratings, it's
advertising dollars.
That's what they need.
Truth.
I don't know where truth falls.
John Perenack (17:48):
Yeah.
Or in the case of a new contentcreator, subscriptions, and the
more you can deliver contentthat your audience likes to see,
the more subscriptions.
You deliver content that youraudience likes to see, the more
subscriptions you get.
Again, communicators aren'tgoing to change all this.
We are caught in the current.
The current is going this way,and so the question is in my
(18:08):
mind how do you use this to youradvantage, versus trying to
throw your hands up in the airand say, oh, this is terrible,
how do we stop it?
I don't think it's stoppable.
It is what it is.
This is the way that the mediaworld is evolving.
Molly McPherson (18:22):
To wrap up this conversation, I'm going to
bring in a comment from the chatand, warren, I'm going to
direct this to you.
She's a fellow Canadian and sheworks in politics.
She's an operative.
She always brings good intel inhere.
But her question is genuinelycurious Do you think Jake Tapper
is wrong for withholding thebook's content as a reporter or
(18:45):
making money off news as areporter?
And I will add or both.
Warren Weeks (18:49):
I guess it depends on your definition of his role.
Is he a journalist or is he anentertainer?
And I think he's answered thatquestion for us right.
If you're a journalist and youhave news that the public should
you know that the presidentcan't function?
Should you know that there's anauto pen that's signing
everything?
And what do they call it?
Pardoning people?
Should you know that?
As an American citizen Like Ilive in a different country and
(19:09):
I'm pissed.
So I think that it just it'sdisappointing to me that the and
maybe I nostalgize the WalterCronkite, dan Rather era but
like where do you go, where doyou go for news?
How do you know what's going on?
And I would say like the bestversion of that and it might
piss off some of your peoplehere, it's like X for me.
It's just it's an unfilteredwindow into what and that's why
(19:32):
I said Trump was going to winthe election like I was seeing
something dramatically differenton there than I was seeing on
these different channels and NewYork Times.
You look at the Globe and Mailhere, or the Toronto Star, or
the New York Times, theWashington Post, and you see
that kind of title and I thinkthere's this automatic.
You say this is the same paperthat existed 10 years ago and 20
years ago and 50 years ago and80 years ago.
But it's not.
(19:52):
The cover looks the same, butthe people underneath and the
motivations are completelydifferent and I think once you
scratch below the surface, it'spretty ugly.
What's going on in journalismand you have.
You obviously have the echochambers and the squeaky wheels
on either side, but I thinkthere are a lot of people in the
moderate middle who don'treally have a voice and who are
(20:12):
super pissed off and superconfused.
Molly McPherson (20:14):
Yeah, and speaking of being super confused
, john Pernick, I cannot believethat Warren nailed the calling
Trump, but he's saying he onlygot that from X, which is the
most biased version of gettinginformation about Trump.
Is it, warren Weeks?
Are you telling me X is yourgo-to social media?
Warren Weeks (20:35):
It's my go-to news information source.
Like I dabble in all, like youhave to get it from everywhere,
right?
Molly McPherson (20:41):
Yeah, you do yeah.
Warren Weeks (20:42):
And myself.
Am I part of the problem?
Am I in my echo chamber?
But I will say, in the lead upto the election I was seeing
just as much, if not more, stufffor Kamala Harris than I was
seeing for Donald Trump, but itwas so polarized from both sides
.
But I would see his rally andI'm like those people look
pretty jazzed up, and I wouldsee hers.
I'm like those people look likethey're at gunpoint and so on
(21:04):
some level it looked the same.
Oh yeah, we've got the signs.
Beyonce's here for threeminutes for $10 million.
It looked like my gut instincttold me this is bullshit.
That's not real Donald Trumpit's.
And whether you like him,whether you don't, a lot of
people don't.
It seemed genuine.
And so that's how I made thatcall, because I was just seeing
this content and I was seeing iton both sides.
Yeah, money into it.
(21:25):
She went.
She burned through like abillion and a half dollars in a
couple of months.
Molly McPherson (21:28):
Yeah, getting people like Oprah paying for
that?
Yeah, and speaking of Oprah, Ijust want to ask quickly on this
one and we're not going to gotoo deep on it, but this weekend
the wedding.
John, I know you just came backfrom Italy and it's a shame
that you must've missed it inthe mail, your invitation.
John Perenack (21:44):
My invitation yeah it was lost somewhere.
Molly McPherson (21:46):
Yeah, To his wedding, to the wedding to
Lauren Sanchez.
And when I was doing thisprogram last night, Jeff Bezos
came up.
But there's a lot of peopleonline and he's gets a lot of
blowback about just how heconducts himself and their whole
branding of the two of them.
But what do you guys think?
I have an opinion on it, but ifyou're walking in the shoes of
Jeff Bezos, like, what do youthink?
(22:08):
He's what?
How is he putting hisperception out there, or his
brand out there?
What is he trying to do?
Is he trying to come off asthis ridiculous kind of trope of
just oozing of money and theydon't care what people think?
Or do you think he actuallycares what people think?
Warren Weeks (22:24):
I also want to hear if John got married when he
was in Italy, but we'll talkabout that later.
I think I know what happened toyour invitation it got stolen
off your porch.
That's probably why.
So there was anotherbillionaire wedding recently,
June 14th.
Does anybody know who it was?
Molly McPherson (22:39):
Wait, is this a quiz or are you asking us Quiz?
Wait, a billionaire wedding onJune 14th.
Warren Weeks (22:44):
Billionaire wedding on June 14th oh Soros
yeah.
Alexander Soros marries AnthonyWeiner's ex, which, like
there's no amount of money inthe world, so I don't remember.
Molly McPherson (22:55):
I admit that was a great story to follow that
was a great.
Twitter story.
Warren Weeks (22:59):
Yeah, I don't remember any protesters at their
wedding.
So this is the problem,billionaires.
Or is the problem billionairesthat gave a million dollars to
Donald Trump again, and so hekeeps coming up as a thread
through all the stories.
And so he keeps coming up as athread through all the stories,
but I don't I.
The most problematic thing tome is, like they're talking
about over.
Tourism in in Venice is being ahuge problem.
(23:22):
Do you know how many visitorsthey get every year?
20 to 30 million visitors, andhe has 200 people at his wedding
.
So that doesn't work for meeither.
It's not like too many people.
The politicians in the area areall saying this is great, bring
the money on, we need this.
So to me, the biggest problemwith this is I don't know of
what the third or fourth richestperson in the world and this is
who he picks no offense, butshe's spent millions of dollars
(23:44):
to look like a cat and I don'tunderstand the logic.
In and again to each his own,but as far as I know, they're
doing all their stuff in privatevenues.
I don't think they're shuttinganything down.
George Clooney got marriedthere and they shut down the
canal so they could have theirlittle procession.
I don't remember any protestersthere as well, because they're
on the left.
So I don't want to makeeverything political, but it
(24:05):
seems like much ado aboutnothing.
I don't know.
To answer your actual question,I don't think Jeff Bezos cares
what people think about him.
John Perenack (24:21):
John, what say you?
I think that the amount of newscoverage that is happening is
more in relation toorganizations like Greenpeace,
who were organizing some of theprotests, using this as an
opportunity to get profile forthemselves and I had to laugh,
though I saw them.
I can't remember the name ofthe tower in Venice they
occupied and then released somesmoke from and had a big banner
hanging off of.
But if you think of thosepeople who vandalize or destroy
valuable pieces of artworkbecause they're trying to
(24:41):
protest oil prices or somethinglike that, it's on par with that
.
They're using it as a platformfor their own interest and I
think often it just backfires.
People look at it and say thisis ridiculous.
You're doing this.
I think Bezos is an easy targetbecause he's made a lot of money
.
He's got a really successfulbusiness.
There are questions about laborpractices at Amazon over the
(25:03):
years, whether or not they'retrue or not.
I don't have that informationin front of me to say either way
, but I think it is a convenientopportunity for these kind of
third parties to try and give aplatform for their message, and
this is where it goes back tothe media thing.
At the end of the day.
You could probably count thenumber of protesters that are
involved.
(25:23):
There's probably fewer than 100in total, I would bet, but yet
the amount of media attentionthey're being given by all the
major news outlets is enormous.
And I would go back to thequestion of is that really news?
Is that the thing that the newsorganizations should be giving
the attention to, or otherthings that arguably are more
newsworthy?
(25:43):
But again, this reveals thewhole lie behind the curtain is
that even the traditional newsmedia is driven by ratings and
advertising, and they will puton what gets eyeballs, and Jeff
Bezos' wedding is probably goingto get more eyeballs than
something else.
Molly McPherson (25:59):
Yeah, I agree with both of you and not just
ratings but also the onlinechatter, because that's where a
lot of everything goes well, andthe Sanchez-Bezos wedding is a
wedding that is just made forsocial media and for commentary.
I had a reporter reach out tome at UK Magazine asking me to
comment on it, and I thought Idon't want to spend even two
(26:22):
minutes thinking about thiscouple in the middle of my work
I have to do strategic comms.
And then I said no.
And then they came back againand said, could you just write
something?
And I thought, oh, just howannoying.
I like a journalist being ajournalist.
But then I thought on itbecause I thought what is this
guy thinking?
Because I thought, no, let methink about it.
I really do want to think aboutthis now, and what it comes
(26:43):
down to is I think people arelooking at the Jeff Bezos and
Lauren Sanchez in a way almostlike common people, if you will.
They're one of us in a weirdway, and so we can chime in on
them.
I don't think Jeff Bezos caresabout anybody because he has so
much money.
Now Lauren Sanchez, a littlebit more of a commoner.
She was a on-air reporteranchor but she's still in the
(27:04):
normal realm.
But I think his currency isrelevancy and he wants to be
respected.
But because he doesn't have it,they have to make a show of
everything.
And a lot of guests who arethere are the people who want to
be relevant, the people onetransactionally the Kardashians
are there, but also Oprah andGayle, who I find very
(27:26):
transactional in their choicesof late as well.
And then there's other people,certainly in the spectacle of it
all, but I just don't thinkthey care and I agree with you
100%.
It's ratings, it's chatter andthey're just negative now, like
they're the villains that peoplelove to talk about, but they
have so much money they don'teven care.
Warren Weeks (27:45):
Let's ask this when couldn't he have done his
wedding and not had a protest?
Molly McPherson (27:48):
You're right, you're 100% correct.
Warren Weeks (27:50):
He could have done it on his little spaceship in
space, and they'd be whiningabout that.
Oh, the green emissions, orwhatever.
Molly McPherson (27:56):
On the cusp of space.
Warren Weeks (27:58):
It's.
Ultimately it's people are.
I think there's some envy, somejealousy there, and rightly so.
And should people have $9gajillion?
I'll just leave that becauseI'm a capitalist too.
Jeff Bezos paid $1.4 billion intaxes last year.
A lot of people would saythat's low, but it seems
probably higher than most, and Iwould ask a couple of questions
.
What did the folks who wereprotesting pay in taxes last
(28:20):
year as a percentage of theirincome Because I would say it's
probably lower and have any ofthem ordered stuff from Amazon
and had it shipped to theirhouse in a day?
So answer me that.
Molly McPherson (28:31):
Wow, okay, so Jeff Bezos apologist.
Warren Weeks (28:33):
I'm not, it's just we.
Maybe we should be worried, butless about Jeff Bezos and his
wedding, and worry more aboutour own life and getting a
better job and having a betterrelationship and taking care of
our kids and like going to thegym and eating a little better
not to get all preachy, but whenwe're focusing on him what are
(28:55):
we really doing to your point?
Molly McPherson (28:55):
right, it's eyeballs, it's clicks, but at
the end of the day, who gives ayeah?
And I mean it is a littlepreachy?
I'll say warren, you sound alittle freaky.
No, but I don't think.
Jeff bezos cares.
No, I don't think he cares onebit, he doesn't care one bit.
All right, guys.
Thank you so much for joiningme and if you guys want more of
warren and john, you can checkout their podcast reputation
town.
I am such a fan.
All right, everyone.
Thanks so much for joining.
Bye for now.
(29:16):
Thanks warren, thanks john.
Welcome to a live edition of the PR Breakdown
, bringing back two of myfavorite guests.
It is the I think I wrote thistoday the guys behind the
Reputation Town podcast.
Briefly, for the new peoplehere listening what do you guys
do?
Why are you here?
Why do I love you guys?
John Perenack (00:20):
We like to give different takes on PR and
communications.
You might not hear elsewhere,Certainly in Canada anyway,
where Warren and I operate from.
Molly McPherson (00:29):
Warren, what say you?
Warren Weeks (00:30):
A media training guy, 30-some years in public
relations, and I just lovechatting about it, which is why
we're here.
Molly McPherson (00:37):
What's interesting?
We've been doing this for acouple years.
You two have had your podcastfor a while, but I popped in as
a guest and you've been a gueston my podcast.
I always find that our opinionsalign, for the most part, not
often that we are on other sidesof the argument.
One was the election, john, andI miscalled it big time.
Warren, you, you correctly saidthat Donald Trump would win the
(01:01):
election, but I'm going to tiethis into that.
Donald Trump would win theelection, but I'm going to tie
this into, I think, anotherplace where we do not align, and
that would be our take on JakeTapper's book, or co-author of
Original Sin, all about JoeBiden, and now it's been a month
or two since the publicationdate and I have to ask you guys
(01:22):
what do you think?
Should we go with John first onthis one, or Warren?
Who's going to drop the bomb onthis one?
John Perenack (01:27):
I've got the contrarian take.
Molly McPherson (01:29):
You think you have the contrarian.
John Perenack (01:31):
I'll throw that out there and then you can tell
me what you think of it.
So obviously, the backstory tothat book everybody knows Jake
Tapper really didn't give a lotof time to the Joe Biden is in
decline story and so he wastrying to, I think, create a
path for him to be able to talkabout this going forward.
And what's the best way to getpast an issue you have?
(01:54):
Sometimes it's to embrace it,and I think that's what his
strategy was here.
He searched out Alex Thompson,who had been reported about
Biden's decline, out AlexThompson who had been reported
about Biden's decline, andwrapped himself tightly around
him to write this book.
And then he's using it as avehicle to give himself
credibility going forward to sayyou know what?
I got it wrong, but now I'vemade amends and I've written
(02:15):
this book that gives all thisgreat detail about what actually
did happen and so I can becredible on the subject again.
That's the approach I thinkhe's taking here.
Molly McPherson (02:24):
Okay, so I can't tell.
Though, in your answer, do youthink he was, do you have a
problem with him writing a booklike this, or do you understand
why some people had problemswith him?
John Perenack (02:34):
This.
I don't have a problem with it,particularly because, if he was
, if he came to me as a clientand said, hi, help me get past
this issue I have.
This is probably the best wayof doing it, giving himself
freedom to work past this in thefuture and have a discussion
about this in the future so heisn't constantly being called
out.
I think there's going to behearings coming up in the not
too distant future in Congressabout Biden's decline, so he has
(02:57):
given himself a platform to beable to talk about this in a way
that he couldn't have otherwise.
Molly McPherson (03:01):
Okay, warren, what is your take Now?
I will say a little backstoryhere.
When I had a podcast about itbecause I started listening to
the book, I was flying to SanFrancisco and I thought, oh,
this is perfect Cross country,perfect time to start listening
to the book.
I loved it.
I looked at it as an insider'sview of what was happening in
the White House.
(03:21):
I was not really thinking aboutthe authors and what they were
lacking.
It certainly came up, but Ididn't have as much of a problem
with it because I have mythoughts on journalism nowadays
and what it's like to be ajournalist and work in media
companies I don't even call themnews companies anymore and I
had posted something and youwere the first person to chime
(03:43):
in with your thoughts.
Warren, share your thoughts onJake Tapper specifically.
Warren Weeks (03:49):
My comment was I can't believe you gave Jake
Tapper $30.
Molly McPherson (03:54):
And my honest response was technically, I
didn't.
Warren Weeks (03:57):
On Spotify, which I didn't know.
This is great If you have aSpotify membership, you can
listen to any audio book,basically.
Molly McPherson (04:03):
Oh yes.
Warren Weeks (04:04):
I've been stewing about this for a couple of weeks
, so I love that I have anopportunity to vent a little bit
now.
I think that and this is justone guy's opinion this to me was
the most blatant and shamelessdisplay of hypocrisy I've seen
in the book publishing world andalso, on the tail end, probably
one of the least successful.
If you look at his book, wouldyou call it a success?
Do you think it was a greatlaunch?
(04:25):
Do you think he sold a bunch ofcopies?
What do you think his numbershave been?
Molly McPherson (04:27):
Oh, he was on the top of the list when I
recorded the podcast.
He was number two on the Amazonlist behind Mel Robbins, and I
don't know if you know who he is.
She wrote the Let them Theory.
That annoyed me in and ofitself, but he was at the top of
the New York Times list.
There was a pre-sale.
I think he did well.
Warren Weeks (04:45):
Manufactured.
I would say that's manufacturedby CNN.
It was probably one of the mostpromoted books Every time.
Hey guys, my book's coming outnext week and they just promote
like millions of dollars worthof free promotion.
First week he sold 53,000copies, which is certainly
respectable.
If you compare that to BobWoodward Fear, the book he had
about Donald Trump, first week1.1 million books.
(05:06):
Mary Trump, right.
So Bob Woodward is like youknow.
Obviously Watergate.
Mary Trump's book about DonaldTrump that came out a couple
years ago 900,000 copies in thefirst week, and those books also
held their sales for atremendous amount of time.
Jake Tabber second week 17,000.
And now it's just it's off thelist.
So, sales aside and I listenedto the first two chapters but I
(05:28):
started throwing up in my moutha little bit, so I just like
were those the free chapters?
I have the whole book.
I have it's on Spotify as well.
I'm like, oh, I'll listen to it.
And as I went for a walk, I'mjust like Jesus Christ.
So the stories are great.
You're right Like, the storiesare excellent, it's interesting,
you can picture it.
You're like, oh, I had asuspicion.
It's to me, you have toseparate the art from the artist
(05:49):
.
I just I think he's the wrongmessenger for this, because if
you look back, as I have, thereare many video clips when he's
always sharp as a tack.
He's the best Joe Biden he'sever been.
This guy's I mean Like, howdare you make fun of his stutter
?
And the dude had clearcognitive decline and like
dementia, whatever you want tocall it.
And for him, the moment whenJoe Biden becomes out of power
(06:10):
and not useful to him anymore,he stabs him in the back and
uses him to climb up, and Ifound that really, really
offensive.
So interesting stories in thebook, but I was really offended
by the balls that this guy hadto actually say that he was not
complicit.
I would say he was one of thetop four or five journalists,
because of his platform who wasactually promoting this.
Like he was the guy moderatingthe debate the terrible debate
(06:34):
and he was actually working onthis book before all that.
So it's not like he had thiseureka moment during the debate
of oh my God, what's happening.
He was writing the book andfolks in the journalism and the
media world would say if yourjob is a journalist and you're
on CNN, should you maybe not bereporting stuff when you know it
?
Molly McPherson (06:53):
So that's my beef with Jake Tapper, yeah, and
that has certainly come upbefore I'm blanking on the New
York Times, maureen O'Dowd, youknow it's the same thing.
No, not Maureen O'Dowd, butwriting, writing about Trump and
then coming out with a bookabout Trump.
Yeah, certainly, withjournalists, I and something
that I had said to you.
I think your argument is valid.
It is absolutely valid.
(07:13):
But my take on it for the JakeTappers of the world is this is
that the media industry ischanging.
When Bob Woodward was reportingon Watergate newspaper really
was king Woodward and Bernstein.
They were doing the work, theywere hustling.
They didn't even have therespect in the newsroom with Ben
Bradley, but he gave them thestory hustle, hustle because
(07:36):
they did it for the love of news.
But nowadays, I think it's acombination of journalism, ego,
but also how the media world isstructured.
Now we don't have newsbusinesses, we just have
entertainment businesses.
So whether it's cabletelevision, if it's news or book
, I think it's all the same.
It's like content.
John Perenack (07:54):
The reality is that I think Jake Tava wrote the
book to give him thecredibility as a journalist.
Going forward, and a year fromnow, when we're more deep into
congressional hearings about JoeBiden's competency, he's gonna
be able to credibly say you knowwhat?
I did get that wrong.
I covered it in my book.
I laid out like the first clearaccount of what that decline
(08:16):
was like, and he will be able to, I think, have a lot more room
to maneuver and talk about theseissues than he would have
otherwise.
Warren Weeks (08:23):
So another way down to the reputational play
for him.
So, 50 years from now, whenpeople don't remember the
minutia, they'll remember he wasthe guy that set the record
straight.
That's what we'll remember.
So yeah, actually still abullshit move.
A couple other things, if I can.
Jake Tapper hired a crisismanager.
I thought when I first heardthat I thought it was you.
I'm like, oh my God, molly,please.
Molly McPherson (08:43):
No, but let's just say, though, that Jake
Tapper does follow me and hisresponse what you could tell he
was doing crisis management.
Then I heard that he did hiresomeone.
It did follow my framework.
Warren Weeks (08:53):
I'm just saying but go on Having.
I'm just saying but go on.
Having said all that, if youhave to hire a crisis manager to
launch a book, like, maybethere's an issue.
The other thing is one of your,one of your listeners here said
where do we find stories thatare true?
What do you and here's I'mgoing to say something that is
maybe going to rub people thewrong way, but I actually
believe this is the case.
The best journalists we have inthe world right now are these
(09:15):
independent podcasters like TheoVaughn, which is crazy and I
know Joe Rogan is a verypolarizing figure, but if you go
back and just objectivelylisten to his podcasts over the
past four years, he was askingtough questions of politicians,
of health care professionalsthat no actual journalists were,
(09:35):
Got just vilified for it andCNN had him in a yellow filter,
made him look all weird but like, why is Theo Vaughn asking
harder questions than 60 minutes?
That's problematic.
Molly McPherson (09:45):
And here's your answer.
And on this chat before and Ishould say on this episode we do
have the chat going I said mysmarty sometimes snarky smart
people they chime in and wetalked about this issue at great
length.
I had touched on the fact thatthe media industry is changing
so much.
And you bring up 60 Minuteswhen CBS, owned by Paramount, is
(10:05):
brokering a deal to bepurchased and then there's
pressure on the executiveproducer of 60 Minutes and then
the head of CBS News, wendyMcMahon, is asked to leave.
Business now forms journalism.
So a lot of these journalists,their hands are tied on what
they can and cannot report on.
But you get content creatorsthe Theo Vons, the Joe Rogans,
(10:29):
the oh my gosh, call Her DaddyAlex boys.
No, someone in the chat willtell me why am I blanking?
I just watched her on Netflix.
They can say what they want,they can ask any question what
they want, but also they havethe ability to go so deep.
That's what makes theminteresting.
And so the question was arethey really journalists or not?
But they're knowledgeable,that's what people are driven to
(10:50):
.
Warren Weeks (10:50):
How are they not journalists?
How are they not?
Molly McPherson (10:52):
I say this they're not credentialed.
But you're right.
What makes a journalist?
Do they follow ethics and rules?
The journalism, the rules ofethics.
Warren Weeks (11:01):
Do the journalists today like do the MSNBCs and
the Fox?
It's if you look at what'shappened in the media business
and I know this was not reallyour topic that we were going to
chat about, but it's I find itdepressing what's going on and
like to the point where, at thisadvanced age that I'm at here
in this business and I went tojournalism school I am
credentialed right from way backin the day and a lot of people
I would say would think thatcredential is worth the paper
(11:24):
it's written on, because theylearn how to do it in a newsroom
and they learn how to go out onthe street and ask questions.
But it makes me actually wantto go out and start a program
where I ask these people becauseno one is asking no one is
asking.
Molly McPherson (11:39):
No one's taking these politicians to task and
asking them great questionsbecause they're scared of losing
their access.
Yeah, exactly, if you'recomparing, let's say, alex
Cooper from Call Her Daddy,which has between her and Joe
Rogan, they're at the top andthe reason why it's entertaining
they ask the questions that acredentialed journalist who is
on a media outlet is not goingto ask.
But then you have Terry Moranbeing fired from ABC News for
(12:02):
the tweet that he posted aboutDonald Trump and Stephen Miller.
Now what do you think aboutthat?
John Perenack (12:08):
So that strays into.
What does a news organizationhave to do to stay in good stead
with the White House to be ableto effectively report?
We've already seen them kickboth AP out of the press pool or
out of the White House offices.
The thing about the media rightnow is that there's all these
businesses that look like newsoutlets and from an outsider you
(12:32):
would say, oh, that's a newsoutlet, but they don't actually
operate that way.
The quote-unquote journalistswho run them and who actually do
the reporting.
They don't operate on the samebasis, with the same rules and
the same sort of standards thata traditional journalist would.
But at the same time you as anorganization are left trying to
protect your reputation or maybeget a story accurately reported
(12:55):
on those platforms, and it'svery difficult because they
often have their own interests,their own objectives they don't
disclose and often motivated bytheir own political or financial
motivations that again aren'tdisclosed.
So it is a very complicatedenvironment to be in and this is
actually why, to the pointabout content creators like
(13:17):
podcasters, embracing them whereyou can to get your message out
is the better way than tryingto just rely on earned media
alone, because if you just tryand rely on earned media to tell
your story.
It is a losing game as far asI'm concerned, because there's
not as many, there's not enoughopportunity, your audience isn't
necessarily there in the firstplace, and I find that this ties
(13:39):
into what you were talkingabout, molly, about some of the
traditional journalists in theWhite House.
They really get hung up on whatthey think the storyline should
be versus what an objective viewof the matter might be.
Recording this, it's June 25thand this morning, the dialogue
is continually all about who'scorrect, about the way the White
(14:01):
House is portraying the attackon Iran, where things completely
obliterated or just partiallyobliterated, and trying to catch
the president out in some way,shape or form.
But the reality is, this is thesame game they played for four
years before and it was a losinggame, and it's a losing game
now.
They're really focused onsomething so in the weeds that I
think they're puttingthemselves at risk to have them
(14:23):
being outstripped even furtherby these alternative content
creators and podcasters, becausethat's more and more what is
going to, I think, drive thenarrative when it comes to news
in the future.
Molly McPherson (14:33):
The White House giving press credentials to
content creators, friendlycontent creators, and it's
interesting, when you guys wentto open the HuffPo the
Huffington Post clip that I gaveyou it was gone, it was already
pulled and what I had sent youwas Caroline Levitt.
She's the press secretary.
(14:54):
She was welcoming a room fullof online content creators, all
very friendly, and so you canimagine what the questions were.
The first question was given toa content creator and she said
thank you so much for allowingme to ask the first question and
to be here.
And then everything was fluff,fluff, fluff.
It's like how come you guys areso great and how can you be any
(15:17):
better?
So that's a big problem.
They're really skewing itthrough social media and I'll
say last night I was tellingWarren, before we came on the
air, I was at a show last nightin Boston and it was with a
bunch of influencers and theyneeded to invite the old person
up there.
I totally represented Gen XOffline, offline, when we were
(15:50):
chit chatting, the conversationwas how much, how much money is
flowing to from PAC money comingfrom both sides, I think is
just having the beat on theircontent creators and influencers
who are spreading theirmessages.
John Perenack (16:03):
But here's the thing Is that really a problem
or is that just reality?
And as communicators, you haveto adapt to reality and often
embrace it in order to get theupper hand with your clients or
your organization you're tryingto represent.
Molly McPherson (16:15):
Yeah, but also the White House doesn't want
traditional media in there.
They're blocking them.
So how does traditional mediathen report on what's happening
in the White House?
And then that could bring usback right to Jake Tapper.
What we know happened on theinside, even with Biden.
Warren Weeks (16:30):
Maybe try reporting on it.
Actually, the Bidenadministration had their
friendly voices and they wereMSNBC and CNN.
They were doing the same thingthat these independent
podcasters are doing and theother thing that we haven't
really mentioned here, and thatis an actual fact.
I mean, you sound like atinfoil hat person, but there
are a lot of these media outlets.
(16:52):
These big ones in the Statesespecially, are kind of
communications arms of thegovernment.
There is someone from thegovernment I can't remember if
it's the FBI or the CIA who hasa desk at Fox News, and I'm sure
it's the same in all thoseother channels.
They sit inside the outlet.
I heard that the other day.
Yeah, that's bananas.
Molly McPherson (17:11):
Oh, I haven't heard that.
That's interesting.
We know there's significantcuts to Voice of America, which
is putting out propaganda, butwe have one of the people in our
chat here who is visiting usfrom Sweden is saying news in
the USA looks like a game showand a tabloid in one in one big
colors, yelling people overexaggerations and in competition
(17:32):
with each other.
It's such a setup for divideand untruths and they really
nailed it there because it istrue.
It is like a game show, becauseit is it's ratings, it's
advertising dollars.
That's what they need.
Truth.
I don't know where truth falls.
John Perenack (17:48):
Yeah.
Or in the case of a new contentcreator, subscriptions, and the
more you can deliver contentthat your audience likes to see,
the more subscriptions.
You deliver content that youraudience likes to see, the more
subscriptions you get.
Again, communicators aren'tgoing to change all this.
We are caught in the current.
The current is going this way,and so the question is in my
(18:08):
mind how do you use this to youradvantage, versus trying to
throw your hands up in the airand say, oh, this is terrible,
how do we stop it?
I don't think it's stoppable.
It is what it is.
This is the way that the mediaworld is evolving.
Molly McPherson (18:22):
To wrap up this conversation, I'm going to
bring in a comment from the chatand, warren, I'm going to
direct this to you.
She's a fellow Canadian and sheworks in politics.
She's an operative.
She always brings good intel inhere.
But her question is genuinelycurious Do you think Jake Tapper
is wrong for withholding thebook's content as a reporter or
(18:45):
making money off news as areporter?
And I will add or both.
Warren Weeks (18:49):
I guess it depends on your definition of his role.
Is he a journalist or is he anentertainer?
And I think he's answered thatquestion for us right.
If you're a journalist and youhave news that the public should
you know that the presidentcan't function?
Should you know that there's anauto pen that's signing
everything?
And what do they call it?
Pardoning people?
Should you know that?
As an American citizen Like Ilive in a different country and
(19:09):
I'm pissed.
So I think that it just it'sdisappointing to me that the and
maybe I nostalgize the WalterCronkite, dan Rather era but
like where do you go, where doyou go for news?
How do you know what's going on?
And I would say like the bestversion of that and it might
piss off some of your peoplehere, it's like X for me.
It's just it's an unfilteredwindow into what and that's why
(19:32):
I said Trump was going to winthe election like I was seeing
something dramatically differenton there than I was seeing on
these different channels and NewYork Times.
You look at the Globe and Mailhere, or the Toronto Star, or
the New York Times, theWashington Post, and you see
that kind of title and I thinkthere's this automatic.
You say this is the same paperthat existed 10 years ago and 20
years ago and 50 years ago and80 years ago.
But it's not.
(19:52):
The cover looks the same, butthe people underneath and the
motivations are completelydifferent and I think once you
scratch below the surface, it'spretty ugly.
What's going on in journalismand you have.
You obviously have the echochambers and the squeaky wheels
on either side, but I thinkthere are a lot of people in the
moderate middle who don'treally have a voice and who are
(20:12):
super pissed off and superconfused.
Molly McPherson (20:14):
Yeah, and speaking of being super confused
, john Pernick, I cannot believethat Warren nailed the calling
Trump, but he's saying he onlygot that from X, which is the
most biased version of gettinginformation about Trump.
Is it, warren Weeks?
Are you telling me X is yourgo-to social media?
Warren Weeks (20:35):
It's my go-to news information source.
Like I dabble in all, like youhave to get it from everywhere,
right?
Molly McPherson (20:41):
Yeah, you do yeah.
Warren Weeks (20:42):
And myself.
Am I part of the problem?
Am I in my echo chamber?
But I will say, in the lead upto the election I was seeing
just as much, if not more, stufffor Kamala Harris than I was
seeing for Donald Trump, but itwas so polarized from both sides
.
But I would see his rally andI'm like those people look
pretty jazzed up, and I wouldsee hers.
I'm like those people look likethey're at gunpoint and so on
(21:04):
some level it looked the same.
Oh yeah, we've got the signs.
Beyonce's here for threeminutes for $10 million.
It looked like my gut instincttold me this is bullshit.
That's not real Donald Trumpit's.
And whether you like him,whether you don't, a lot of
people don't.
It seemed genuine.
And so that's how I made thatcall, because I was just seeing
this content and I was seeing iton both sides.
Yeah, money into it.
(21:25):
She went.
She burned through like abillion and a half dollars in a
couple of months.
Molly McPherson (21:28):
Yeah, getting people like Oprah paying for
that?
Yeah, and speaking of Oprah, Ijust want to ask quickly on this
one and we're not going to gotoo deep on it, but this weekend
the wedding.
John, I know you just came backfrom Italy and it's a shame
that you must've missed it inthe mail, your invitation.
John Perenack (21:44):
My invitation yeah it was lost somewhere.
Molly McPherson (21:46):
Yeah, To his wedding, to the wedding to
Lauren Sanchez.
And when I was doing thisprogram last night, Jeff Bezos
came up.
But there's a lot of peopleonline and he's gets a lot of
blowback about just how heconducts himself and their whole
branding of the two of them.
But what do you guys think?
I have an opinion on it, but ifyou're walking in the shoes of
Jeff Bezos, like, what do youthink?
(22:08):
He's what?
How is he putting hisperception out there, or his
brand out there?
What is he trying to do?
Is he trying to come off asthis ridiculous kind of trope of
just oozing of money and theydon't care what people think?
Or do you think he actuallycares what people think?
Warren Weeks (22:24):
I also want to hear if John got married when he
was in Italy, but we'll talkabout that later.
I think I know what happened toyour invitation it got stolen
off your porch.
That's probably why.
So there was anotherbillionaire wedding recently,
June 14th.
Does anybody know who it was?
Molly McPherson (22:39):
Wait, is this a quiz or are you asking us Quiz?
Wait, a billionaire wedding onJune 14th.
Warren Weeks (22:44):
Billionaire wedding on June 14th oh Soros
yeah.
Alexander Soros marries AnthonyWeiner's ex, which, like
there's no amount of money inthe world, so I don't remember.
Molly McPherson (22:55):
I admit that was a great story to follow that
was a great.
Twitter story.
Warren Weeks (22:59):
Yeah, I don't remember any protesters at their
wedding.
So this is the problem,billionaires.
Or is the problem billionairesthat gave a million dollars to
Donald Trump again, and so hekeeps coming up as a thread
through all the stories.
And so he keeps coming up as athread through all the stories,
but I don't I.
The most problematic thing tome is, like they're talking
about over.
Tourism in in Venice is being ahuge problem.
(23:22):
Do you know how many visitorsthey get every year?
20 to 30 million visitors, andhe has 200 people at his wedding
.
So that doesn't work for meeither.
It's not like too many people.
The politicians in the area areall saying this is great, bring
the money on, we need this.
So to me, the biggest problemwith this is I don't know of
what the third or fourth richestperson in the world and this is
who he picks no offense, butshe's spent millions of dollars
(23:44):
to look like a cat and I don'tunderstand the logic.
In and again to each his own,but as far as I know, they're
doing all their stuff in privatevenues.
I don't think they're shuttinganything down.
George Clooney got marriedthere and they shut down the
canal so they could have theirlittle procession.
I don't remember any protestersthere as well, because they're
on the left.
So I don't want to makeeverything political, but it
(24:05):
seems like much ado aboutnothing.
I don't know.
To answer your actual question,I don't think Jeff Bezos cares
what people think about him.
John Perenack (24:21):
John, what say you?
I think that the amount of newscoverage that is happening is
more in relation toorganizations like Greenpeace,
who were organizing some of theprotests, using this as an
opportunity to get profile forthemselves and I had to laugh,
though I saw them.
I can't remember the name ofthe tower in Venice they
occupied and then released somesmoke from and had a big banner
hanging off of.
But if you think of thosepeople who vandalize or destroy
valuable pieces of artworkbecause they're trying to
(24:41):
protest oil prices or somethinglike that, it's on par with that
.
They're using it as a platformfor their own interest and I
think often it just backfires.
People look at it and say thisis ridiculous.
You're doing this.
I think Bezos is an easy targetbecause he's made a lot of money
.
He's got a really successfulbusiness.
There are questions about laborpractices at Amazon over the
(25:03):
years, whether or not they'retrue or not.
I don't have that informationin front of me to say either way
, but I think it is a convenientopportunity for these kind of
third parties to try and give aplatform for their message, and
this is where it goes back tothe media thing.
At the end of the day.
You could probably count thenumber of protesters that are
involved.
(25:23):
There's probably fewer than 100in total, I would bet, but yet
the amount of media attentionthey're being given by all the
major news outlets is enormous.
And I would go back to thequestion of is that really news?
Is that the thing that the newsorganizations should be giving
the attention to, or otherthings that arguably are more
newsworthy?
(25:43):
But again, this reveals thewhole lie behind the curtain is
that even the traditional newsmedia is driven by ratings and
advertising, and they will puton what gets eyeballs, and Jeff
Bezos' wedding is probably goingto get more eyeballs than
something else.
Molly McPherson (25:59):
Yeah, I agree with both of you and not just
ratings but also the onlinechatter, because that's where a
lot of everything goes well, andthe Sanchez-Bezos wedding is a
wedding that is just made forsocial media and for commentary.
I had a reporter reach out tome at UK Magazine asking me to
comment on it, and I thought Idon't want to spend even two
(26:22):
minutes thinking about thiscouple in the middle of my work
I have to do strategic comms.
And then I said no.
And then they came back againand said, could you just write
something?
And I thought, oh, just howannoying.
I like a journalist being ajournalist.
But then I thought on itbecause I thought what is this
guy thinking?
Because I thought, no, let methink about it.
I really do want to think aboutthis now, and what it comes
(26:43):
down to is I think people arelooking at the Jeff Bezos and
Lauren Sanchez in a way almostlike common people, if you will.
They're one of us in a weirdway, and so we can chime in on
them.
I don't think Jeff Bezos caresabout anybody because he has so
much money.
Now Lauren Sanchez, a littlebit more of a commoner.
She was a on-air reporteranchor but she's still in the
(27:04):
normal realm.
But I think his currency isrelevancy and he wants to be
respected.
But because he doesn't have it,they have to make a show of
everything.
And a lot of guests who arethere are the people who want to
be relevant, the people onetransactionally the Kardashians
are there, but also Oprah andGayle, who I find very
(27:26):
transactional in their choicesof late as well.
And then there's other people,certainly in the spectacle of it
all, but I just don't thinkthey care and I agree with you
100%.
It's ratings, it's chatter andthey're just negative now, like
they're the villains that peoplelove to talk about, but they
have so much money they don'teven care.
Warren Weeks (27:45):
Let's ask this when couldn't he have done his
wedding and not had a protest?
Molly McPherson (27:48):
You're right, you're 100% correct.
Warren Weeks (27:50):
He could have done it on his little spaceship in
space, and they'd be whiningabout that.
Oh, the green emissions, orwhatever.
Molly McPherson (27:56):
On the cusp of space.
Warren Weeks (27:58):
It's.
Ultimately it's people are.
I think there's some envy, somejealousy there, and rightly so.
And should people have $9gajillion?
I'll just leave that becauseI'm a capitalist too.
Jeff Bezos paid $1.4 billion intaxes last year.
A lot of people would saythat's low, but it seems
probably higher than most, and Iwould ask a couple of questions
.
What did the folks who wereprotesting pay in taxes last
(28:20):
year as a percentage of theirincome Because I would say it's
probably lower and have any ofthem ordered stuff from Amazon
and had it shipped to theirhouse in a day?
So answer me that.
Molly McPherson (28:31):
Wow, okay, so Jeff Bezos apologist.
Warren Weeks (28:33):
I'm not, it's just we.
Maybe we should be worried, butless about Jeff Bezos and his
wedding, and worry more aboutour own life and getting a
better job and having a betterrelationship and taking care of
our kids and like going to thegym and eating a little better
not to get all preachy, but whenwe're focusing on him what are
(28:55):
we really doing to your point?
Molly McPherson (28:55):
right, it's eyeballs, it's clicks, but at
the end of the day, who gives ayeah?
And I mean it is a littlepreachy?
I'll say warren, you sound alittle freaky.
No, but I don't think.
Jeff bezos cares.
No, I don't think he cares onebit, he doesn't care one bit.
All right, guys.
Thank you so much for joiningme and if you guys want more of
warren and john, you can checkout their podcast reputation
town.
I am such a fan.
All right, everyone.
Thanks so much for joining.
Bye for now.
(29:16):
Thanks warren, thanks john.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.