March 6, 2025 • 39 mins
ICYMI: Hour One of ‘Later, with Mo’Kelly’ Presents – Another hectic day surviving Southern California traffic in the rain…PLUS – A look at what’s next for Former LAFD chief Kristin Crowley AND thoughts on L.A. Times Owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong adding an AI powered ‘Bias Meter’ to analyzes the political viewpoint of stories” - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Just slow down, just slow down. I know you're on
the five, right down. Some of you are on the
one ten, Some of you are on the one, thirty four,
the one seventy, the four oh five, the fourteen, the
two ten, the fifty five to fifty seven, the ninety one,
six oh five, seven, ten, twenty two. Just slow down
(00:47):
or do like me, just get off the freeway and
take surface streets.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It was really we talk about, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
We talk about how bad it was on a given day,
how it took so long to get to the office
or to get home. No, today was a day unlike
other days. I left my house around two thirty driving
surface streets. Why because I just wanted to be safe
or I felt safer on surface streets. And it took
me more than a half hour and a half as
(01:15):
close to two hours to get to the office today.
But I wasn't stressed, I wasn't driving very fast, was
not in a hurry, and so it was a much
more reasonable, manageable ride. And if you're on the freeways
right now, just slow down and take your time. Because
I know that there are a lot of people, not
(01:36):
me personally, but I'm saying I know that there are
a lot of people who got into accidents today who
might have imperiled themselves put other people in danger, and
it's not necessary. So what if you get there fifteen
minutes later than you originally hoped your plan, at least
you got there, hopefully without an accident.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The rain has been no joke. The flooding.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
We know about the evacuates orders to Sierra Madre and
other places. This is the rain that we thought we
were going to get some weeks ago. It is now here.
The flooding is now here. And I know, Mark Ronner,
good evening, Mark Ronner, you had some information on that
as well.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I'd say thank you for that as usual, but today
was such a terrifying white knuckle death ride into the
office that I'm not feeling very grateful. And if I
can add to your tips to people, if I've left
a one car length space between me and the guy
in front of me, you know, and this is not
the data, zoom in there, please.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's interesting you said white knuckle because Taala Sharp used
the exact same terminology when he says white knuckle.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I really have to take him seriously. Oh yeah, it's
much more serious if he says it. I'm telling you,
the tips of my knuckles were a bright white, and
I was shocked at how frightened I was on the
trip in here.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, here's how serious it was.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
I would too afraid to take a hand off the
steering wheel to flip anybody off. Yeah, yeah, safety first,
Yeah yeah. All those bases in between my car, it
didn't mean a damn thing. Trucks wanted to get in
front of me, splashing water in front of me, of course,
which had my heart in my throat.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Worried about hydro planning, Yes, And that's another reason why
I on days like this, when I can really plan
in advance, and you know, the rain was coming, and
I knew that I had a swath of time that
I could carve out just to drive. Let me just
get on the surface streets. And I took Western Avenue
north and it's actually a physically shorter distance, but of
(03:39):
course with traffic lights and traffic, it usually takes longer
than obviously driving the freeways.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
But it was okay.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I much more enjoyed the serenity of driving the surface
streets than dealing with the craziness of the highways and byways.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
It was something else today. Now you guys.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Both drive more or less tanks, so if anything does happen,
you're not likely to be, you know, pulped.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, this is one of those times where and for
those who don't know, I got my first SUV back
in September. I always had subcompact cars one because I
always like driving stick and those are about the only
cars that you could get which still had a stick,
a manual transmission, and a clutch. So I got a
hond A CRV and it's a regular sized suv, not
(04:25):
a subcompact, not one of the bigger SUVs, but it's
a regular sized suv and it does make the overall
driving experience much more enjoyable. I'm not cramped. It's not
a luxury suv, but it's comfortable. I have enough room
and I don't feel like I'm dealing with unnecessarily cramped quarters.
(04:45):
When you're trying to deal with the weather and also
larger vehicles, you know, they may not be able to
see me in that subcompact Honda Civic, but they're damn
you're going to see my CRV, that's for sure.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah. It's weather like this that makes you realize if
another so much as touches my normal human, smallish car.
It's like ramming into a lawnmower. You're you're not gonna
survive that. Yeah, I'm not going to lose too many,
you know, I may not. I want to take some damage,
but I'm not gonna lose but that way.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, And I'm not going to out Stephan which car
he drives, but he needs to be a little careful
out there as well.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
He might get run over. They might. They might just
take him out.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I would probably tear straight through Stephan's car, straight through
a knife through.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Butter buy out.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Well, you're driving twala, the equivalent of the Batman tumbler
from those Christopher Nolan movies. I mean you can, you
can pretty much drive over most cars in that tank.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Ears.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
You know, we are comparable so allow, and we're comparable
in size.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Yeah, I'm taking out Stephan, that's for damn sure. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
But the thing is that now your chance to get
a tank like that is decreased because I've seen that,
say on a eighty thousand dollars truck that's going up
to one hundred grand because of the tariffs.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Well well, well, well well let's wait they've paused the
terraffs for a month. President Trump made it clear to
allay fears because, like I said, yesterday, watched the markets.
Evidently there were some indicators such as futures and also
concern from pushback from countries like Canada that maybe they're
(06:18):
moving a little too fast. And the President decided today
to make the announcement that they're going to wait a
month before they implement all the teriffs.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But they did do the auto tearf that's the one
that that that they're like, hey, we're cool there, But
like fruits, vegetables, there's a lot of stuff that will
end up having to pay a lot for that you
wouldn't be able to afford.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Well that new car anyway.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Oh well, also, can we recheck what suv is mark
buying the Catac six hundred. Oh this is just from
news reports that I've seen that look at averages. I
have actually been kind of shopping around with non urgency
for n SUV and I had like four of them
bookmarked to go back to. They were all gone when
(07:03):
I came back from work last night. People are snapping
these things up because they know what's around the corner.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yes, they are and look, if I can recommend anything,
I swear by a hybrid. I and I was talking
about this with Stephen a few weeks ago. I don't
know what took me so long. Maybe it was just
marketed poorly. It wasn't explained adequately. If you would have
just said, hey, mo, you get this Honda CRV, you're
going to get more than five hundred miles to the tank,
(07:29):
I was saying, shoot, sign me up, because Mahnta Sibuk
was only getting like three hundred.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
I will never ever, ever ever go back, like once
you get into hybrid and you realize it's getting over.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah, yeah, I think I laugh filled my car up
on I will say Thursday, but I think it was
like Friday night, Friday night or actually no, it was
actually a Saturday morning because Friday I didn't go to
shopping or anything. Saturday morning, when one shop I said,
you know what, I'm gonna put some gas in. It's
not Wednesday, and I'm at a half a tank. So
(08:03):
that's from Saturday morning to right now.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Look, I thought.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
About getting an ev A straight up ev I had
range anxiety, if only because I have somewhat of a commute,
so I wasn't exactly sure it was gonna fit my
lifestyle for the frequency that I drive, and also was
much more expensive, almost two to one to the cost
of a hybrid. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm
gonna save money on the on the cost of the car,
(08:31):
and I'll save money on gas. My wife has a
plug in hybrid, and you know, we we've saved a
lot of money.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
And neither of us felt comfortable with a full on EV.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
But yeah, at once, and it demonstrated to me you
needed someone to actually walk you through it and explain
it to you. Here are the plus is, here are
the minuses, Here the benefits of getting a hybrid versus
an EV, And it made all the difference in the world.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
You know, mo, I see you in one of them
fancy cyber trucks. Yeah, and you're absolutely one hundred percent wrong. Really, yeah,
I'm And that has nothing to do with Elon musk.
It doesn't help, but it has nothing to do with them.
I just think that they're ugly vehicles and they're not practical.
If I'm going to get a truck, I need to
want at least that it can act like a truck
and do truck things.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Oh they'll laugh out loud, ugly, but still I don't
rule them out.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Mo. I can see one of those they're ruled out.
What are they like one hundred thousand and you know ish,
yeahsh sure. I'm not a cars guy like that. I
had a Honda S two thousand, which is when I
bought ninety nine, which is forty something thousand.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
That was my most expensive car. I know.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I'm usually subcompacts, and I don't spend my money there
and I don't want to have an outrageous car payment.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I like the footage of them being completely immobilized by
two inches of snow.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
I need a truck to do truck things. I need
to be if I'm going to get a truck I
want to get me. I don't know a Chevy Verado
or an F one point fifty something that I know
that you can handle truck things.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Yeah, something that comes with a hat, cowboy hat, that's right. Yeah,
And like they have to to scrot them hanging on
the back. Jesus, you didn't have to my tank.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
If I put my tank in in wet water weather mode,
it's going to handle the road a lot better. Now
If I can put uh some type of scrotum on
the back of my vehicle. That would really really stop
saying scrot them everybody, Jesus that what he wants to say.
(10:37):
That that's what they have. They sell those and they
when you drive and go over them up they clan.
We want us to say beans and Franks.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
I mean, what do you want? Nothing? Nothing?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
I like if I do a search on Amazon for that,
will it pull those up? I'm afraid to do a
search on a company computer. Get that company. No, no, no, no, no, no, okay.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
If I am sixty everywhere in the iHeartRadio app let's
find out what's going on with Christian crowd former LA
Fired Department chief. But she's up to now in light
of her her I guess her chance to appeal her
firing didn't go so well. So we'll find out what
she's up to now when we come back.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
And you know not by now that Kristin Crowley appealed
her dismissal as chief for the LA Fire Department, and
it probably was not going to turn out any other way.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And the void excuse me.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
The vote from the City Council was thirteen to two
in opposition to her being reinstated as chief. We have
talked about some of this with the la City Council
President Marquis Harris Dawson as far as his opposition to
Chief Crowley, and obviously it indicated how he would vote,
but there was a question of what would happen next. Yes,
(11:58):
she's still with the Fire Department, so yes, she's still
going to be involved in the day to day actions
of the department, but it's for a new position or
a vacant position. She'll now hold the title of Assistant
Chief of lafd's Operations Valley Bureau. I don't know the hierarchy,
(12:20):
I don't know the flow chart, but I can tell
that sounds like a significant step down from Fire Chief.
I bring that up because I expect Kristin Crowley to
be very active and very vocal going forward about Karen Bass,
(12:40):
Mayor Bass, and also what happened during the fires of January.
Just because you may demote someone, just because you may
have fired someone, it doesn't mean that they go away completely.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
It doesn't mean that they have been silenced.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It doesn't mean that the story is over, and I
fully expect Kristin Crowley, and as an extension of that,
her supporters, to make life very difficult for Mayor Bass.
And that goes back to why I really question why
Mayor Bass made that decision. At that point, We've talked
about the ongoing investigations which would have either bared out
(13:18):
Bass's version of the story or Crowley's. And if you
think that Mayor Bass did the right thing and she
had every reason to fire Crowley, then let the independent
investigation and oversight basically verify that, and then you can
come out smelling like a roast, like, hey, I'm not
making this decision. Obviously, the investigation said that Kristin Crowley
(13:41):
made these decisions and made these mistakes, and I'm left
with no choice. Now it looks like she was scapegoating.
Mayor Bass was scapegoating. And it's not just a question
of she said. She said. There will be recommendations, there
will be a summation to that investigation, and we'll find
out between the two who is more telling the truth
(14:04):
or less telling the truth.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
I have a firm believer.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Don't create for yourself more problems, especially if you're an
elected official, and you're.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Basically in campaign mode.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
She's not officially in campaign mode, but Mayor Bass is
obviously running for reelection. And when you don't have first
responders and oh, as a matter of fact, we're going
to talk about Daredevil later on, but the new series
on Disney Plus. But there's a line in the first
episode of Daredevil, or maybe it was a second episode.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Sorry, Twala. I know you haven't seen it yet, but
there was a line and.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
I know Mark Ronnert remembers this where if you lose
law enforcement or if you lose first responders, you lose
the city. And that jumped out at me because it
was so applicable to what is going on right here.
And I think that Mayor Bass is on the verge
(15:00):
of losing first responders. And I would draw a line
straight back to this firing. In the way it was done.
To me, it seemed like it was mean spirited and
it was done in a way to embarrass Kristin Crowley.
And that's just just my you know, read of it.
And there's gonna be blowback. There's gonna be a lot
(15:20):
of blowback.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, it's unfortunate, but something that's jumped out at me
in your conversation with La City Council President Marquise Harris
Dawson was the fact that this is not a pick
from Mary Baths. Okay, this was not Mary Baths's pick.
(15:46):
This is someone who she inherited to her administration. And
when the ish hit the fan, she said, okay, hey,
no hard feelings because I didn't take it as as
being militia. I took it as you know what, everyone
is pointing at me for something that you did wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
I'm not the fire chief. You're the fire chief.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
You assured me that the actions I was taking and
what was happening within the city were fine, and then
when it hits the fan, no, no, no, you're going
to get it. What I'm seeing most of all is
a lot of individuals who, to your point last night,
are using this opportunity to just tear Mayor Bass down.
(16:33):
This is all a part of a we need Mayor
Bass out of their campaign and this is the feel
to that fire agreed, nothing more. I think it's a
big to do about nothing. If not for the fact
that there are so many factions that want Mayor Bass
out just because they don't like her.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What happens now is and this may lead nowhere. In
other words, you have the burgeoning recall effort against Mayor Bass.
I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Like I
discussed before, you're going to have a mayoral election June
second of twenty twenty six. It's probably not going to
go anywhere. But does it damage her and make it
(17:13):
more difficult for her to legislate? Does it make it
more difficult for her to just do the job as
a mayor right now and also run for reelection. It's
not a fate of complete it's not a done deal.
But I think that you know, since the Republicans can't
put up a viable candidate, it's more likely than not
that she would be re elected. She's making it, I
(17:36):
would think more difficult for her. I would have thought
that if you're going to fire Crowley, you do it
a month from now, two months from now.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
I don't put it this way.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Do you really think that she is in Mayor Bass
would have been dealing with the same type of scrutiny,
the same type of pushback on this particular day if
she had not fired Crowley. I think she started. I
don't want to use the phrase started her own fire.
But that's the only like metaphor I can use here.
I think she created a situation Bass did that was unnecessary,
(18:07):
and you could have dealt with Crowley two or three
months from now. In other words, more harm has come
to the Bass administration because of firing Crowley at this
time and in this way. If that she could have
just gritted her teeth for another couple of months or so,
wait for the official findings, and then said, Okay, I
now have the predicate. I now have the justification for
(18:31):
firing you. And then you could also say you were
never mind fire chief to begin with, and now I
can fire you for cause and I have the investigation
results and findings to back it up. That's what I
would have recommended if I were one of her advisors.
We're talking about Kristin Crowley now and in relation to
(18:51):
the future of the Bass Administration only because of the
actions of Karen Bass, where we would have been talking about,
I think in a more general sense, talking about what
mistakes might have been made, what needs to be done.
We'll find out what the investigations say it in a
more general sense. Now you've you focused more attention on
Bass and trying to get her out, for example, the
(19:13):
recall effort. I don't think that even is even talked
about in a serious way without the firing of Kristen Crowley.
I might be wrong, but probably not, because I'm rarely
ever wrong. It's Later with mo Kelly. Don't look at
me like that, Mark Runner. I know that you may
be skeptical. I think that's the right word. You may
(19:34):
be skeptical.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
I'm sorry where my eyebrows operating independently of my will?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
I did you cash something there?
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Your eyebrow like hit the back of your neck.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
You raise it so high. Let me look into that.
Heads may need to roll, can't I am six forty.
We are live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. And when
we come back, Mark, I got your favorite favorite topic.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
We got to talk about AI. We got to talk
about print media, specifically the LA Times their intersection and
how AI just might be the downfall of the Los
Angeles Times.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
No exaggeration. Those poor bastards.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And it goes without saying that Mark Ronner, I'm using
him as a focal point Mark Ronner is going to
be a defender of the press. He's going to be
a defender of actual people in the newsroom and the
importance of actual information as opposed to misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Is that fair, Mark? Yeah, I'm really sticking my neck
out with that one, aren't I You are?
Speaker 2 (20:33):
You are?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
But it's relevant to what we're getting ready to talk
about because the La Times, it's been in the news.
When you are given the news and you are in
the news, you've probably done something wrong. You're not supposed
to be the story. You're supposed to report the story,
not become part of the story. And the La Times
has become part of the story because of their refusal
(20:55):
to provide any type of endorsement editorial endorsement of either
presidential candidate for the twenty twenty four election, and also
I would say the heavy handedness of its owner Patrick
Soon Schong as far as the direction, editorial direction and
news direction of the La Times, Well, Patrick Suhsong has
(21:19):
taken another step and Monday he announced the use of
La Times Insights, and it's an AI tool which would
work parallel to editorials. And I'm just paraphrasing this and
condensing it where you'd have an editorial and then AI
would characterize it somewhere on the political spectrum, and then
(21:43):
also offer other articles and opposing opinions to run alongside
the actual editorial, which would be in the La Times.
According to Patrick Soon Schong, the owner of the La Times,
who clearly is now invested in what is said in
the paper.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Historically you usually would have.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
An owner, but he or she they would not involve
themselves in the actual news process. It was left to
the actual news professionals, of which Patrick Sunschung is not one.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
But this is what he had to say. Quote.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
The purpose of Insights is to offer readers an instantly
accessible way to see a wide range of different AI
enabled perspectives alongside the positions presented in the article. I
believe providing more varied viewpoints supports our journalistic mission and
will help readers navigate the issues facing this nation.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
There are a bunch of close quotes.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
There are a bunch of problems with that because it
wrongly alleges that all viewpoints hold a certain value or
a more equitable value. In other words, if I were
to write an editorial saying that the earth is spherical
we landed on the moon. We landed on the spherical moon,
and then the aid to put up well, here's another
(23:01):
article which says the Earth is flat and we didn't
land on the moon. It's a false equivocation that all
of these opinions are somehow equal in value or worthy
of being positioned on an equal level. That's how I
read it, and I'll give you a perfect example. The
(23:24):
Insights feature only lasted oh about two days, because about
two days in there was an article from Gustavo Ariano,
who has done some on air work here at KFI,
did an article titled one hundred years Ago. Anaheim recalled
it's KKK City Council. Why don't we remember? And the
(23:45):
AI Insights for some reason sided with the KKK. No,
don't get me wrong. I know there are people listening
right now who do side with the KKK. Somewhere along
the way.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I think they got a bump wrap.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yes, yeah, But the point is you get me give
them off my point.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
No, no, no, I'm waiting on this now.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
The point is it gives the fault equivocation that just
because there is a viewpoint contrary to the one expressed
in the La Times, it's either valid or worthy of
equal placement.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
It's almost hard to emphasize how terrible and stupid this is,
to the point where we almost need to break it
down for people, Like if you're thinking, let's break it down.
It's his paper, he bought it, he can do whatever
he wants. Well, he certainly is, and it's a disaster.
There is a wall of separation between the newsroom and
the owner, advertisers and everybody else. The journalists have to
(24:44):
have independence so we can trust them and what they write.
We shouldn't have to wonder if what we're being told
is because of some owner's agenda right left or otherwise,
or what advertisers dictate they want. And Patrick soon Sean
has no understand appreciation of that, or of journalism, or
the ethics that go with journalism, or the role of
(25:06):
the free press in the United States. He's a disaster.
Try to imagine how much the actual journalists who work
at the La Times, the career professionals who take journalism
seriously and have devoted their lives to it, how much
they must hate this guy, how much he embarrasses them.
And where AI comes into this is that Patrick Suon
Sean clearly doesn't understand what real journalists do. This is
(25:28):
the free press equivalent of putting an anti vaxer in
charge of the Department of Health and Human Services during
a measles outbreak. Not that anyone would ever do that. No,
not that anybody would. You can do it, but these
things have serious costs, and he's destroying a legendary Los
Angeles giant of journalism, one of the jewels of the
state's crown. Other states would love to have in LA
(25:51):
Times and they don't. Now where this comes into AI
is to believe you should rely on AI for your
news judgment. Reveals how awful and disqualifying your news judgment is.
Patrick soon Seng is a doctor. Now imagine me with
no medical degree being put in charge of a hospital
and just kind of arbitrarily deciding hand washing is optional
(26:13):
and you must wear a clown nose instead of a
mask during surgeries. You cannot overstate what a disaster and
an embarrassment this rich, imbecile owner is for the LA
Times and how much he's ruining it. And let's make
a distinction here. Yes it's his paper.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Yes he has the right to run his business as
he sees fit. But just from a business standpoint, how
many professionals has he lost? How much has he damaged
the name and legacy of the La Times? How many
subscribers has he lost? How much money has he lost?
(26:50):
Just in this business endeavor?
Speaker 2 (26:52):
It would be.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
It is idiotic to run any business counter to the
best interests of the business itself.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Oh yeah, and these are professionals. Bear in mind that
the newspaper industry for the last at least two decades
has been musical chairs. There are no jobs. So for
somebody a to walk out the door in a precious,
precious job at the La Times and b to torch
the owner like some of these people have been doing
on the way out, you can't overstate how major that is, a.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Mark, Ronald, Can you tell me who owned CBS News
in the nineteen seventies?
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Who owned it? No? Right, right? How about NBC or
ABC just broadcast news?
Speaker 3 (27:37):
No, I mean there's a revolving door of people in charge,
you know, like I think William S. Paley didn't he
run CBS for a while, But yeah, you never hear
about them dictating the news content, Thank you very because
news was always especially with the networks on TV news
was the loss Leader that they regarded as a public service.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Explained for folks who may not know what because we said,
we're going to break it down a lost leader.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
It's not a p and making entity.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
It's something that you do that your other entities make
up for with their profits because you are performing a
public service. And the free press is in the constitution.
It's there to safeguard democracy.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
We need it.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
And you talked about the involvement subsequent involvement of for
profit interests like advertisers, like an owner who is about
trying to make money or make sure their pet politics
are prominently featured. Then you've defeated the whole purpose of news.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
If you're in a newsroom and you hear that somebody
from advertising say wants you to emphasize X, Y or Z,
You're like out of here with that.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Who do you think you are? What are you doing?
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Would never find another person say you would never. It's
just it's so unheard of. People who don't have much
experience behind the scenes at newspapers maybe don't understand what
a four alarm dumpster fire this is at the LA Times, what.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Bothers me it is?
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Our intransigence as a people, as citizens of the United States.
People who've never worked in any facet of news are
determined to tell you and to tell me on a
daily basis, what news is, how news should be covered,
and why they like such as such cable news, which
is not even news.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
No.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
No, you have to have a small and shrinking number
of lifetime career professionals who regard it as a calling.
And these are people who can't be bought or intimidated,
and they choose to do this because I think it's
a worthwhile thing to do. And if you want to
get up in my face about fake news nonsense because
it's something that you personally don't care for, go away.
(29:41):
That's not an adult reaction to mainstream news. You need
this and we all need it to make informed decisions
just in our day to day life.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
But that's only back when facts actually matter. They don't
matter anymore.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
So news is what you make it. News is what
you believe, or want to believe, or choose to believe.
I guess I'm just a dinosaur moe. No, we all are?
We all are? You know?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
The no billionaire I don't have. Apparently I don't have
the intelligence to become a billionaire.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Well, we've also falsely conflated an individual's wealth with somehow
being either a good person, successful, or more knowledgeable than
other people.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
We have some current, high profile examples that should disabuse
us for life of the notion that getting rich means
you're super intelligent.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
The two may not be.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
There's not a causal relationship, but I'm not even sure
there's a corollary relationship.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
I think you're right. KFI AM six forty we are
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Kelly K.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Six We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
And I have a few vices, not as many as
I get older, but I have a few. I do
like some Jack Daniels I do. I'll drink some and
Stephan and I we had some drinks together a few
weeks ago. Single Barrel, Gentleman Jack, the original I don't
care for like the honey, and I don't like the
(31:25):
sweet Jack. I just like the more traditional, more bitter
tasting whiskey. And the reason I talk about that is
I'm going to be aware of what's happening with that product.
Last night, for my final thought, talking about the Joint
Session of Congress, the gathering, the speech by President Trump,
(31:46):
I said, hey, regardless of how you may like or
dislike the speech, there is going to be a response.
There's going to be a response in the markets, There's
going to be a response from other countries. And that
response is going to be far more telling and impactful
than our personal preferences about the speech or whether we
(32:06):
thought it was good or whether we liked it. Sometimes
we forget, we get so insulated by American media that
we sometimes we forget that there is a larger world
out there and they can impact our world.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
And here's just one of the examples.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Even though President Trump said that he was going to
delay the tariffs to Canada for a month, here is
an example of the world responding to not only what
they heard, also responding to what they may think President
Trump may do in the future. Jack Daniel's boss says
Ontario removing us alcohol from shells is worse than tariffs.
(32:52):
As the Trump threats go into effect. And this is
not even the actual tariffs. This is about the threat
of the terraffs the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is
removing alcohol from the US from its shells after the
Trump administration's tariffs on Canada and Mexico went into effect
(33:18):
on Tuesday night at midnight. The President imposed tariffs of
twenty five percent on Canadian goods, as well as a
ten percent tariff on energy.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
So it's going to go back and forth as far.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
As whether it's an actual threat or an actual tariff,
it depends on the industry. But as far as Canada
is concerned, it is a twenty five percent tariff on
Canadian goods and they're responding to that, and Ontario put
in place a number of measures that it was close
to enacting a few weeks ago when the Trump White
House came close to taking action on its tariff plans
(33:49):
the first time. If you remove these specific products from
Canadian shells, it is going to have a domino effect
all the way down alcohol sales in that industry. For
Jack Daniels and other alcohol distributors. There are going to
(34:10):
be real consequences for American companies. It's one thing to say, hey,
We're going to put a tariff on all of your goods.
Canada has every right to say, you know what, We're
not even going to put a tariff on your goods.
We're just not going to buy your goods at all.
We're going to remove your goods from our shelves.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
It's one thing.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
And I use this example before, and I always tease
to Wall with this because he understands what I'm referring to.
Once you start a fight, be it a physical fight
or an economic fight, you get to determine your first move.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
In other words, I don't like Mark Ronner at all.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Okay, we just act like we don't like each other,
but actually, in truth, we hate each other. So if
I walk in one day, I'm kidding, y'all, I'm kidding.
If I walk in one day and we get into
a verbal confrontation and I decide to haul off and
hit him in the jaw, that's the only choice I
get to make. Mark, in response to me swinging on him,
(35:15):
doesn't have to say, oh, we're in a boxing match.
He may pick up a chair and hit me over
the head. He may decide to kick me, you know,
he may decide to call the police. But once you
start a fight, you don't get to dictate what happens
after that fight has started, and you're seeing in that
analogy that Canada is saying, oh, no, we don't have
(35:37):
to reciprocate with tariffs. We can just say we're not
going to buy your products at all and deal with that.
We're not going to pass on that tariff to our consumers,
or or our companies, or or our liquor dispensaries or stores.
We're just not going to buy your products at all.
(35:58):
And that's something that I don't know, I'm not exactly
sure that the Trump administration has taken into account. To
go deeper with the analogy. Imagine if before this fight,
you and I had been best pals for decades, right,
and you just socked me one out of the blue
for no good.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Reason because we're supposedly friends. Yeah, you just couldn't do that.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
I'm coming around the corner and you just let me
have it, and I have no idea why you've done that.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
And that's actually probably received as even more offensive because
you look, we're supposed to be boys, we're supposed to
have each other's backs, and you just hit me for
no reason.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
You probably take even more umbrage at it. I probably
wouldn't like it. You're correct about that. And what's strange
to me is I read as much as I can
about the subject because I did not I don't have
an economics degree, so I really try to school myself
on this, and without exception, every single economist I read
says that tariffs are going to be harmful. They're gonna
(36:59):
be the cost is going to be passed on to
American consumers, and it could lead to a recession or
a depression. And a lot of people are scratching their
heads about what's going on here and why.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
This is my personal theory.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
If you were listening to the speech last night and
we had it live here on KFI. Part of the
reason I believe President Trump was going through almost line
by line every executive action is he needs to somehow
soften what I think he knows is going to be
a staggering blow economically in the near future, for the
(37:33):
next few weeks, possibly next few months, and he wants
to be able to say, but here, I renamed the
Gulf of Mexico, you know. But here I signed this
executive action that transgender bals can't play basketball in women's sports.
But here, I signed this executive action that there'll be
no more DEI.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
You know, woke is gone, America's back.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
That's why I believe he went through those line items
of all the executive actions because the economic reality is
not something that he would either feel comfortable discussing or
he doesn't want people to focus on. We know what
the farmers are going through right now, and we know
what you and I are going to go through because
(38:15):
of these tariffs.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
The market has been up and down.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
It dropped thirteen hundred points in two days, in large
part on the announcement of the tariffs. President Trump and
the administration pulled back a little bit because of what
happened in the markets, I believe. But you can't then
put that toothpaste back in the tube. And you have
other countries like Canada saying no, that's okay, that's okay,
(38:40):
we just won't buy anything of yours.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Now, what are you going to do? Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Even such notorious liberal rags as the Wall Street Journal
keep pointing out that the United States economy was the
envy of the free world under Biden. By the time
Biden left, the United States had bounced back from COVID
better than any other country in the world. They don't
understand what's happening right now or what the reasons are
behind it. It's not been transparent. Well, part of it
(39:05):
is we're so insular with our media. We don't have
a global approach as far as looking at our economics.
We think about only the America and not how our
economy is interdependent with other economies. We're going to find
out the hard way, and sooner rather than later. Kf
(39:26):
I am six forty. We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (39:29):
If there's news, if things shift, if they stay the same,
things change.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
For better or worse. Regardless of what's happening, you're going
to hear in here. It's what we do. K S
I'm KOST HD two Los Angeles, Orange County, Live everywhere
on the radio.
Just slow down, just slow down. I know you're on
the five, right down. Some of you are on the
one ten, Some of you are on the one, thirty four,
the one seventy, the four oh five, the fourteen, the
two ten, the fifty five to fifty seven, the ninety one,
six oh five, seven, ten, twenty two. Just slow down
(00:47):
or do like me, just get off the freeway and
take surface streets.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
It was really we talk about, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
We talk about how bad it was on a given day,
how it took so long to get to the office
or to get home. No, today was a day unlike
other days. I left my house around two thirty driving
surface streets. Why because I just wanted to be safe
or I felt safer on surface streets. And it took
me more than a half hour and a half as
(01:15):
close to two hours to get to the office today.
But I wasn't stressed, I wasn't driving very fast, was
not in a hurry, and so it was a much
more reasonable, manageable ride. And if you're on the freeways
right now, just slow down and take your time. Because
I know that there are a lot of people, not
(01:36):
me personally, but I'm saying I know that there are
a lot of people who got into accidents today who
might have imperiled themselves put other people in danger, and
it's not necessary. So what if you get there fifteen
minutes later than you originally hoped your plan, at least
you got there, hopefully without an accident.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The rain has been no joke. The flooding.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
We know about the evacuates orders to Sierra Madre and
other places. This is the rain that we thought we
were going to get some weeks ago. It is now here.
The flooding is now here. And I know, Mark Ronner,
good evening, Mark Ronner, you had some information on that
as well.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I'd say thank you for that as usual, but today
was such a terrifying white knuckle death ride into the
office that I'm not feeling very grateful. And if I
can add to your tips to people, if I've left
a one car length space between me and the guy
in front of me, you know, and this is not
the data, zoom in there, please.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's interesting you said white knuckle because Taala Sharp used
the exact same terminology when he says white knuckle.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I really have to take him seriously. Oh yeah, it's
much more serious if he says it. I'm telling you,
the tips of my knuckles were a bright white, and
I was shocked at how frightened I was on the
trip in here.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, here's how serious it was.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
I would too afraid to take a hand off the
steering wheel to flip anybody off. Yeah, yeah, safety first,
Yeah yeah. All those bases in between my car, it
didn't mean a damn thing. Trucks wanted to get in
front of me, splashing water in front of me, of course,
which had my heart in my throat.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Worried about hydro planning, Yes, And that's another reason why
I on days like this, when I can really plan
in advance, and you know, the rain was coming, and
I knew that I had a swath of time that
I could carve out just to drive. Let me just
get on the surface streets. And I took Western Avenue
north and it's actually a physically shorter distance, but of
(03:39):
course with traffic lights and traffic, it usually takes longer
than obviously driving the freeways.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
But it was okay.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I much more enjoyed the serenity of driving the surface
streets than dealing with the craziness of the highways and byways.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
It was something else today. Now you guys.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Both drive more or less tanks, so if anything does happen,
you're not likely to be, you know, pulped.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, this is one of those times where and for
those who don't know, I got my first SUV back
in September. I always had subcompact cars one because I
always like driving stick and those are about the only
cars that you could get which still had a stick,
a manual transmission, and a clutch. So I got a
hond A CRV and it's a regular sized suv, not
(04:25):
a subcompact, not one of the bigger SUVs, but it's
a regular sized suv and it does make the overall
driving experience much more enjoyable. I'm not cramped. It's not
a luxury suv, but it's comfortable. I have enough room
and I don't feel like I'm dealing with unnecessarily cramped quarters.
(04:45):
When you're trying to deal with the weather and also
larger vehicles, you know, they may not be able to
see me in that subcompact Honda Civic, but they're damn
you're going to see my CRV, that's for sure.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah. It's weather like this that makes you realize if
another so much as touches my normal human, smallish car.
It's like ramming into a lawnmower. You're you're not gonna
survive that. Yeah, I'm not going to lose too many,
you know, I may not. I want to take some damage,
but I'm not gonna lose but that way.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, And I'm not going to out Stephan which car
he drives, but he needs to be a little careful
out there as well.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
He might get run over. They might. They might just
take him out.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I would probably tear straight through Stephan's car, straight through
a knife through.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Butter buy out.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Well, you're driving twala, the equivalent of the Batman tumbler
from those Christopher Nolan movies. I mean you can, you
can pretty much drive over most cars in that tank.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Ears.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
You know, we are comparable so allow, and we're comparable
in size.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Yeah, I'm taking out Stephan, that's for damn sure. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
But the thing is that now your chance to get
a tank like that is decreased because I've seen that,
say on a eighty thousand dollars truck that's going up
to one hundred grand because of the tariffs.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Well well, well, well well let's wait they've paused the
terraffs for a month. President Trump made it clear to
allay fears because, like I said, yesterday, watched the markets.
Evidently there were some indicators such as futures and also
concern from pushback from countries like Canada that maybe they're
(06:18):
moving a little too fast. And the President decided today
to make the announcement that they're going to wait a
month before they implement all the teriffs.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But they did do the auto tearf that's the one
that that that they're like, hey, we're cool there, But
like fruits, vegetables, there's a lot of stuff that will
end up having to pay a lot for that you
wouldn't be able to afford.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Well that new car anyway.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Oh well, also, can we recheck what suv is mark
buying the Catac six hundred. Oh this is just from
news reports that I've seen that look at averages. I
have actually been kind of shopping around with non urgency
for n SUV and I had like four of them
bookmarked to go back to. They were all gone when
(07:03):
I came back from work last night. People are snapping
these things up because they know what's around the corner.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yes, they are and look, if I can recommend anything,
I swear by a hybrid. I and I was talking
about this with Stephen a few weeks ago. I don't
know what took me so long. Maybe it was just
marketed poorly. It wasn't explained adequately. If you would have
just said, hey, mo, you get this Honda CRV, you're
going to get more than five hundred miles to the tank,
(07:29):
I was saying, shoot, sign me up, because Mahnta Sibuk
was only getting like three hundred.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
I will never ever, ever ever go back, like once
you get into hybrid and you realize it's getting over.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah, yeah, I think I laugh filled my car up
on I will say Thursday, but I think it was
like Friday night, Friday night or actually no, it was
actually a Saturday morning because Friday I didn't go to
shopping or anything. Saturday morning, when one shop I said,
you know what, I'm gonna put some gas in. It's
not Wednesday, and I'm at a half a tank. So
(08:03):
that's from Saturday morning to right now.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Look, I thought.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
About getting an ev A straight up ev I had
range anxiety, if only because I have somewhat of a commute,
so I wasn't exactly sure it was gonna fit my
lifestyle for the frequency that I drive, and also was
much more expensive, almost two to one to the cost
of a hybrid. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm
gonna save money on the on the cost of the car,
(08:31):
and I'll save money on gas. My wife has a
plug in hybrid, and you know, we we've saved a
lot of money.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
And neither of us felt comfortable with a full on EV.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
But yeah, at once, and it demonstrated to me you
needed someone to actually walk you through it and explain
it to you. Here are the plus is, here are
the minuses, Here the benefits of getting a hybrid versus
an EV, And it made all the difference in the world.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
You know, mo, I see you in one of them
fancy cyber trucks. Yeah, and you're absolutely one hundred percent wrong. Really, yeah,
I'm And that has nothing to do with Elon musk.
It doesn't help, but it has nothing to do with them.
I just think that they're ugly vehicles and they're not practical.
If I'm going to get a truck, I need to
want at least that it can act like a truck
and do truck things.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Oh they'll laugh out loud, ugly, but still I don't
rule them out.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Mo. I can see one of those they're ruled out.
What are they like one hundred thousand and you know ish,
yeahsh sure. I'm not a cars guy like that. I
had a Honda S two thousand, which is when I
bought ninety nine, which is forty something thousand.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
That was my most expensive car. I know.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I'm usually subcompacts, and I don't spend my money there
and I don't want to have an outrageous car payment.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I like the footage of them being completely immobilized by
two inches of snow.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
I need a truck to do truck things. I need
to be if I'm going to get a truck I
want to get me. I don't know a Chevy Verado
or an F one point fifty something that I know
that you can handle truck things.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Yeah, something that comes with a hat, cowboy hat, that's right. Yeah,
And like they have to to scrot them hanging on
the back. Jesus, you didn't have to my tank.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
If I put my tank in in wet water weather mode,
it's going to handle the road a lot better. Now
If I can put uh some type of scrotum on
the back of my vehicle. That would really really stop
saying scrot them everybody, Jesus that what he wants to say.
(10:37):
That that's what they have. They sell those and they
when you drive and go over them up they clan.
We want us to say beans and Franks.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
I mean, what do you want? Nothing? Nothing?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
I like if I do a search on Amazon for that,
will it pull those up? I'm afraid to do a
search on a company computer. Get that company. No, no, no, no, no, no, okay.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
If I am sixty everywhere in the iHeartRadio app let's
find out what's going on with Christian crowd former LA
Fired Department chief. But she's up to now in light
of her her I guess her chance to appeal her
firing didn't go so well. So we'll find out what
she's up to now when we come back.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
And you know not by now that Kristin Crowley appealed
her dismissal as chief for the LA Fire Department, and
it probably was not going to turn out any other way.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And the void excuse me.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
The vote from the City Council was thirteen to two
in opposition to her being reinstated as chief. We have
talked about some of this with the la City Council
President Marquis Harris Dawson as far as his opposition to
Chief Crowley, and obviously it indicated how he would vote,
but there was a question of what would happen next. Yes,
(11:58):
she's still with the Fire Department, so yes, she's still
going to be involved in the day to day actions
of the department, but it's for a new position or
a vacant position. She'll now hold the title of Assistant
Chief of lafd's Operations Valley Bureau. I don't know the hierarchy,
(12:20):
I don't know the flow chart, but I can tell
that sounds like a significant step down from Fire Chief.
I bring that up because I expect Kristin Crowley to
be very active and very vocal going forward about Karen Bass,
(12:40):
Mayor Bass, and also what happened during the fires of January.
Just because you may demote someone, just because you may
have fired someone, it doesn't mean that they go away completely.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
It doesn't mean that they have been silenced.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It doesn't mean that the story is over, and I
fully expect Kristin Crowley, and as an extension of that,
her supporters, to make life very difficult for Mayor Bass.
And that goes back to why I really question why
Mayor Bass made that decision. At that point, We've talked
about the ongoing investigations which would have either bared out
(13:18):
Bass's version of the story or Crowley's. And if you
think that Mayor Bass did the right thing and she
had every reason to fire Crowley, then let the independent
investigation and oversight basically verify that, and then you can
come out smelling like a roast, like, hey, I'm not
making this decision. Obviously, the investigation said that Kristin Crowley
(13:41):
made these decisions and made these mistakes, and I'm left
with no choice. Now it looks like she was scapegoating.
Mayor Bass was scapegoating. And it's not just a question
of she said. She said. There will be recommendations, there
will be a summation to that investigation, and we'll find
out between the two who is more telling the truth
(14:04):
or less telling the truth.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
I have a firm believer.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Don't create for yourself more problems, especially if you're an
elected official, and you're.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Basically in campaign mode.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
She's not officially in campaign mode, but Mayor Bass is
obviously running for reelection. And when you don't have first
responders and oh, as a matter of fact, we're going
to talk about Daredevil later on, but the new series
on Disney Plus. But there's a line in the first
episode of Daredevil, or maybe it was a second episode.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Sorry, Twala. I know you haven't seen it yet, but
there was a line and.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
I know Mark Ronnert remembers this where if you lose
law enforcement or if you lose first responders, you lose
the city. And that jumped out at me because it
was so applicable to what is going on right here.
And I think that Mayor Bass is on the verge
(15:00):
of losing first responders. And I would draw a line
straight back to this firing. In the way it was done.
To me, it seemed like it was mean spirited and
it was done in a way to embarrass Kristin Crowley.
And that's just just my you know, read of it.
And there's gonna be blowback. There's gonna be a lot
(15:20):
of blowback.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, it's unfortunate, but something that's jumped out at me
in your conversation with La City Council President Marquise Harris
Dawson was the fact that this is not a pick
from Mary Baths. Okay, this was not Mary Baths's pick.
(15:46):
This is someone who she inherited to her administration. And
when the ish hit the fan, she said, okay, hey,
no hard feelings because I didn't take it as as
being militia. I took it as you know what, everyone
is pointing at me for something that you did wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
I'm not the fire chief. You're the fire chief.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
You assured me that the actions I was taking and
what was happening within the city were fine, and then
when it hits the fan, no, no, no, you're going
to get it. What I'm seeing most of all is
a lot of individuals who, to your point last night,
are using this opportunity to just tear Mayor Bass down.
(16:33):
This is all a part of a we need Mayor
Bass out of their campaign and this is the feel
to that fire agreed, nothing more. I think it's a
big to do about nothing. If not for the fact
that there are so many factions that want Mayor Bass
out just because they don't like her.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What happens now is and this may lead nowhere. In
other words, you have the burgeoning recall effort against Mayor Bass.
I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Like I
discussed before, you're going to have a mayoral election June
second of twenty twenty six. It's probably not going to
go anywhere. But does it damage her and make it
(17:13):
more difficult for her to legislate? Does it make it
more difficult for her to just do the job as
a mayor right now and also run for reelection. It's
not a fate of complete it's not a done deal.
But I think that you know, since the Republicans can't
put up a viable candidate, it's more likely than not
that she would be re elected. She's making it, I
(17:36):
would think more difficult for her. I would have thought
that if you're going to fire Crowley, you do it
a month from now, two months from now.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
I don't put it this way.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Do you really think that she is in Mayor Bass
would have been dealing with the same type of scrutiny,
the same type of pushback on this particular day if
she had not fired Crowley. I think she started. I
don't want to use the phrase started her own fire.
But that's the only like metaphor I can use here.
I think she created a situation Bass did that was unnecessary,
(18:07):
and you could have dealt with Crowley two or three
months from now. In other words, more harm has come
to the Bass administration because of firing Crowley at this
time and in this way. If that she could have
just gritted her teeth for another couple of months or so,
wait for the official findings, and then said, Okay, I
now have the predicate. I now have the justification for
(18:31):
firing you. And then you could also say you were
never mind fire chief to begin with, and now I
can fire you for cause and I have the investigation
results and findings to back it up. That's what I
would have recommended if I were one of her advisors.
We're talking about Kristin Crowley now and in relation to
(18:51):
the future of the Bass Administration only because of the
actions of Karen Bass, where we would have been talking about,
I think in a more general sense, talking about what
mistakes might have been made, what needs to be done.
We'll find out what the investigations say it in a
more general sense. Now you've you focused more attention on
Bass and trying to get her out, for example, the
(19:13):
recall effort. I don't think that even is even talked
about in a serious way without the firing of Kristen Crowley.
I might be wrong, but probably not, because I'm rarely
ever wrong. It's Later with mo Kelly. Don't look at
me like that, Mark Runner. I know that you may
be skeptical. I think that's the right word. You may
(19:34):
be skeptical.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
I'm sorry where my eyebrows operating independently of my will?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
I did you cash something there?
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Your eyebrow like hit the back of your neck.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
You raise it so high. Let me look into that.
Heads may need to roll, can't I am six forty.
We are live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. And when
we come back, Mark, I got your favorite favorite topic.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
We got to talk about AI. We got to talk
about print media, specifically the LA Times their intersection and
how AI just might be the downfall of the Los
Angeles Times.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
No exaggeration. Those poor bastards.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on Demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And it goes without saying that Mark Ronner, I'm using
him as a focal point Mark Ronner is going to
be a defender of the press. He's going to be
a defender of actual people in the newsroom and the
importance of actual information as opposed to misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Is that fair, Mark? Yeah, I'm really sticking my neck
out with that one, aren't I You are?
Speaker 2 (20:33):
You are?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
But it's relevant to what we're getting ready to talk
about because the La Times, it's been in the news.
When you are given the news and you are in
the news, you've probably done something wrong. You're not supposed
to be the story. You're supposed to report the story,
not become part of the story. And the La Times
has become part of the story because of their refusal
(20:55):
to provide any type of endorsement editorial endorsement of either
presidential candidate for the twenty twenty four election, and also
I would say the heavy handedness of its owner Patrick
Soon Schong as far as the direction, editorial direction and
news direction of the La Times, Well, Patrick Suhsong has
(21:19):
taken another step and Monday he announced the use of
La Times Insights, and it's an AI tool which would
work parallel to editorials. And I'm just paraphrasing this and
condensing it where you'd have an editorial and then AI
would characterize it somewhere on the political spectrum, and then
(21:43):
also offer other articles and opposing opinions to run alongside
the actual editorial, which would be in the La Times.
According to Patrick Soon Schong, the owner of the La Times,
who clearly is now invested in what is said in
the paper.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Historically you usually would have.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
An owner, but he or she they would not involve
themselves in the actual news process. It was left to
the actual news professionals, of which Patrick Sunschung is not one.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
But this is what he had to say. Quote.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
The purpose of Insights is to offer readers an instantly
accessible way to see a wide range of different AI
enabled perspectives alongside the positions presented in the article. I
believe providing more varied viewpoints supports our journalistic mission and
will help readers navigate the issues facing this nation.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
There are a bunch of close quotes.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
There are a bunch of problems with that because it
wrongly alleges that all viewpoints hold a certain value or
a more equitable value. In other words, if I were
to write an editorial saying that the earth is spherical
we landed on the moon. We landed on the spherical moon,
and then the aid to put up well, here's another
(23:01):
article which says the Earth is flat and we didn't
land on the moon. It's a false equivocation that all
of these opinions are somehow equal in value or worthy
of being positioned on an equal level. That's how I
read it, and I'll give you a perfect example. The
(23:24):
Insights feature only lasted oh about two days, because about
two days in there was an article from Gustavo Ariano,
who has done some on air work here at KFI,
did an article titled one hundred years Ago. Anaheim recalled
it's KKK City Council. Why don't we remember? And the
(23:45):
AI Insights for some reason sided with the KKK. No,
don't get me wrong. I know there are people listening
right now who do side with the KKK. Somewhere along
the way.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I think they got a bump wrap.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yes, yeah, But the point is you get me give
them off my point.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
No, no, no, I'm waiting on this now.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
The point is it gives the fault equivocation that just
because there is a viewpoint contrary to the one expressed
in the La Times, it's either valid or worthy of
equal placement.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
It's almost hard to emphasize how terrible and stupid this is,
to the point where we almost need to break it
down for people, Like if you're thinking, let's break it down.
It's his paper, he bought it, he can do whatever
he wants. Well, he certainly is, and it's a disaster.
There is a wall of separation between the newsroom and
the owner, advertisers and everybody else. The journalists have to
(24:44):
have independence so we can trust them and what they write.
We shouldn't have to wonder if what we're being told
is because of some owner's agenda right left or otherwise,
or what advertisers dictate they want. And Patrick soon Sean
has no understand appreciation of that, or of journalism, or
the ethics that go with journalism, or the role of
(25:06):
the free press in the United States. He's a disaster.
Try to imagine how much the actual journalists who work
at the La Times, the career professionals who take journalism
seriously and have devoted their lives to it, how much
they must hate this guy, how much he embarrasses them.
And where AI comes into this is that Patrick Suon
Sean clearly doesn't understand what real journalists do. This is
(25:28):
the free press equivalent of putting an anti vaxer in
charge of the Department of Health and Human Services during
a measles outbreak. Not that anyone would ever do that. No,
not that anybody would. You can do it, but these
things have serious costs, and he's destroying a legendary Los
Angeles giant of journalism, one of the jewels of the
state's crown. Other states would love to have in LA
(25:51):
Times and they don't. Now where this comes into AI
is to believe you should rely on AI for your
news judgment. Reveals how awful and disqualifying your news judgment is.
Patrick soon Seng is a doctor. Now imagine me with
no medical degree being put in charge of a hospital
and just kind of arbitrarily deciding hand washing is optional
(26:13):
and you must wear a clown nose instead of a
mask during surgeries. You cannot overstate what a disaster and
an embarrassment this rich, imbecile owner is for the LA
Times and how much he's ruining it. And let's make
a distinction here. Yes it's his paper.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Yes he has the right to run his business as
he sees fit. But just from a business standpoint, how
many professionals has he lost? How much has he damaged
the name and legacy of the La Times? How many
subscribers has he lost? How much money has he lost?
(26:50):
Just in this business endeavor?
Speaker 2 (26:52):
It would be.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
It is idiotic to run any business counter to the
best interests of the business itself.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Oh yeah, and these are professionals. Bear in mind that
the newspaper industry for the last at least two decades
has been musical chairs. There are no jobs. So for
somebody a to walk out the door in a precious,
precious job at the La Times and b to torch
the owner like some of these people have been doing
on the way out, you can't overstate how major that is, a.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Mark, Ronald, Can you tell me who owned CBS News
in the nineteen seventies?
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Who owned it? No? Right, right? How about NBC or
ABC just broadcast news?
Speaker 3 (27:37):
No, I mean there's a revolving door of people in charge,
you know, like I think William S. Paley didn't he
run CBS for a while, But yeah, you never hear
about them dictating the news content, Thank you very because
news was always especially with the networks on TV news
was the loss Leader that they regarded as a public service.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Explained for folks who may not know what because we said,
we're going to break it down a lost leader.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
It's not a p and making entity.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
It's something that you do that your other entities make
up for with their profits because you are performing a
public service. And the free press is in the constitution.
It's there to safeguard democracy.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
We need it.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
And you talked about the involvement subsequent involvement of for
profit interests like advertisers, like an owner who is about
trying to make money or make sure their pet politics
are prominently featured. Then you've defeated the whole purpose of news.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
If you're in a newsroom and you hear that somebody
from advertising say wants you to emphasize X, Y or Z,
You're like out of here with that.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Who do you think you are? What are you doing?
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Would never find another person say you would never. It's
just it's so unheard of. People who don't have much
experience behind the scenes at newspapers maybe don't understand what
a four alarm dumpster fire this is at the LA Times, what.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Bothers me it is?
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Our intransigence as a people, as citizens of the United States.
People who've never worked in any facet of news are
determined to tell you and to tell me on a
daily basis, what news is, how news should be covered,
and why they like such as such cable news, which
is not even news.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
No.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
No, you have to have a small and shrinking number
of lifetime career professionals who regard it as a calling.
And these are people who can't be bought or intimidated,
and they choose to do this because I think it's
a worthwhile thing to do. And if you want to
get up in my face about fake news nonsense because
it's something that you personally don't care for, go away.
(29:41):
That's not an adult reaction to mainstream news. You need
this and we all need it to make informed decisions
just in our day to day life.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
But that's only back when facts actually matter. They don't
matter anymore.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
So news is what you make it. News is what
you believe, or want to believe, or choose to believe.
I guess I'm just a dinosaur moe. No, we all are?
We all are? You know?
Speaker 3 (30:06):
The no billionaire I don't have. Apparently I don't have
the intelligence to become a billionaire.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Well, we've also falsely conflated an individual's wealth with somehow
being either a good person, successful, or more knowledgeable than
other people.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
We have some current, high profile examples that should disabuse
us for life of the notion that getting rich means
you're super intelligent.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
The two may not be.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
There's not a causal relationship, but I'm not even sure
there's a corollary relationship.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
I think you're right. KFI AM six forty we are
live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Kelly K.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Six We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
And I have a few vices, not as many as
I get older, but I have a few. I do
like some Jack Daniels I do. I'll drink some and
Stephan and I we had some drinks together a few
weeks ago. Single Barrel, Gentleman Jack, the original I don't
care for like the honey, and I don't like the
(31:25):
sweet Jack. I just like the more traditional, more bitter
tasting whiskey. And the reason I talk about that is
I'm going to be aware of what's happening with that product.
Last night, for my final thought, talking about the Joint
Session of Congress, the gathering, the speech by President Trump,
(31:46):
I said, hey, regardless of how you may like or
dislike the speech, there is going to be a response.
There's going to be a response in the markets, There's
going to be a response from other countries. And that
response is going to be far more telling and impactful
than our personal preferences about the speech or whether we
(32:06):
thought it was good or whether we liked it. Sometimes
we forget, we get so insulated by American media that
we sometimes we forget that there is a larger world
out there and they can impact our world.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
And here's just one of the examples.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Even though President Trump said that he was going to
delay the tariffs to Canada for a month, here is
an example of the world responding to not only what
they heard, also responding to what they may think President
Trump may do in the future. Jack Daniel's boss says
Ontario removing us alcohol from shells is worse than tariffs.
(32:52):
As the Trump threats go into effect. And this is
not even the actual tariffs. This is about the threat
of the terraffs the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is
removing alcohol from the US from its shells after the
Trump administration's tariffs on Canada and Mexico went into effect
(33:18):
on Tuesday night at midnight. The President imposed tariffs of
twenty five percent on Canadian goods, as well as a
ten percent tariff on energy.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
So it's going to go back and forth as far.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
As whether it's an actual threat or an actual tariff,
it depends on the industry. But as far as Canada
is concerned, it is a twenty five percent tariff on
Canadian goods and they're responding to that, and Ontario put
in place a number of measures that it was close
to enacting a few weeks ago when the Trump White
House came close to taking action on its tariff plans
(33:49):
the first time. If you remove these specific products from
Canadian shells, it is going to have a domino effect
all the way down alcohol sales in that industry. For
Jack Daniels and other alcohol distributors. There are going to
(34:10):
be real consequences for American companies. It's one thing to say, hey,
We're going to put a tariff on all of your goods.
Canada has every right to say, you know what, We're
not even going to put a tariff on your goods.
We're just not going to buy your goods at all.
We're going to remove your goods from our shelves.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
It's one thing.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
And I use this example before, and I always tease
to Wall with this because he understands what I'm referring to.
Once you start a fight, be it a physical fight
or an economic fight, you get to determine your first move.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
In other words, I don't like Mark Ronner at all.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Okay, we just act like we don't like each other,
but actually, in truth, we hate each other. So if
I walk in one day, I'm kidding, y'all, I'm kidding.
If I walk in one day and we get into
a verbal confrontation and I decide to haul off and
hit him in the jaw, that's the only choice I
get to make. Mark, in response to me swinging on him,
(35:15):
doesn't have to say, oh, we're in a boxing match.
He may pick up a chair and hit me over
the head. He may decide to kick me, you know,
he may decide to call the police. But once you
start a fight, you don't get to dictate what happens
after that fight has started, and you're seeing in that
analogy that Canada is saying, oh, no, we don't have
(35:37):
to reciprocate with tariffs. We can just say we're not
going to buy your products at all and deal with that.
We're not going to pass on that tariff to our consumers,
or or our companies, or or our liquor dispensaries or stores.
We're just not going to buy your products at all.
(35:58):
And that's something that I don't know, I'm not exactly
sure that the Trump administration has taken into account. To
go deeper with the analogy. Imagine if before this fight,
you and I had been best pals for decades, right,
and you just socked me one out of the blue
for no good.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
Reason because we're supposedly friends. Yeah, you just couldn't do that.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
I'm coming around the corner and you just let me
have it, and I have no idea why you've done that.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
And that's actually probably received as even more offensive because
you look, we're supposed to be boys, we're supposed to
have each other's backs, and you just hit me for
no reason.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
You probably take even more umbrage at it. I probably
wouldn't like it. You're correct about that. And what's strange
to me is I read as much as I can
about the subject because I did not I don't have
an economics degree, so I really try to school myself
on this, and without exception, every single economist I read
says that tariffs are going to be harmful. They're gonna
(36:59):
be the cost is going to be passed on to
American consumers, and it could lead to a recession or
a depression. And a lot of people are scratching their
heads about what's going on here and why.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
This is my personal theory.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
If you were listening to the speech last night and
we had it live here on KFI. Part of the
reason I believe President Trump was going through almost line
by line every executive action is he needs to somehow
soften what I think he knows is going to be
a staggering blow economically in the near future, for the
(37:33):
next few weeks, possibly next few months, and he wants
to be able to say, but here, I renamed the
Gulf of Mexico, you know. But here I signed this
executive action that transgender bals can't play basketball in women's sports.
But here, I signed this executive action that there'll be
no more DEI.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
You know, woke is gone, America's back.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
That's why I believe he went through those line items
of all the executive actions because the economic reality is
not something that he would either feel comfortable discussing or
he doesn't want people to focus on. We know what
the farmers are going through right now, and we know
what you and I are going to go through because
(38:15):
of these tariffs.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
The market has been up and down.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
It dropped thirteen hundred points in two days, in large
part on the announcement of the tariffs. President Trump and
the administration pulled back a little bit because of what
happened in the markets, I believe. But you can't then
put that toothpaste back in the tube. And you have
other countries like Canada saying no, that's okay, that's okay,
(38:40):
we just won't buy anything of yours.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Now, what are you going to do? Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Even such notorious liberal rags as the Wall Street Journal
keep pointing out that the United States economy was the
envy of the free world under Biden. By the time
Biden left, the United States had bounced back from COVID
better than any other country in the world. They don't
understand what's happening right now or what the reasons are
behind it. It's not been transparent. Well, part of it
(39:05):
is we're so insular with our media. We don't have
a global approach as far as looking at our economics.
We think about only the America and not how our
economy is interdependent with other economies. We're going to find
out the hard way, and sooner rather than later. Kf
(39:26):
I am six forty. We're live everywhere in the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 5 (39:29):
If there's news, if things shift, if they stay the same,
things change.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
For better or worse. Regardless of what's happening, you're going
to hear in here. It's what we do. K S
I'm KOST HD two Los Angeles, Orange County, Live everywhere
on the radio.
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.