TRUMP AT NABJ / LAPD USE OF FORCE / SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE ELECTION

The student journalists weigh-in on Donald Trump’s appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention in Chicago; the panel also discusses the viral video of an Los Angeles Police Officer’s punch to the face of a man he was trying to arrest (listen to the opinions as the panel learns more about the backstory), and finally, social media platforms have been censoring content surrounding the election and certain politicians. What legal/ethical obligation does social media have in the upcoming, or any, election?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Kf I AM six forty live and on demand only
on the iHeartRadio app. This week's panel on Studio six forty.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
I'm Kem d Wosu from California State University, Fullerton.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
I'm Nico Saffire from California Lutheran University.

Speaker 4 (00:15):
And I'm Jorge Monteo from Arizona State University.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
The only program in southern California that breaks down the
stories of today through the voices of tomorrow's journalists. The
students come from campuses large and small, public in private.
This is Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for

(00:43):
joining us our top story.

Speaker 5 (00:44):
Mister President, We so appreciate you giving us an hour
of your time. I want to start by addressing the
elephant in the room, Sir. A lot of people did
not think it was appropriate for you to be here today.
You have pushed false claims about some of your rife,
from Nicki Hayley to former President Barack Obama, saying that
they were not born in the United States, which is

(01:06):
not true. You have told four congresswomen, women of color,
who were American citizens to go back to where they
came from. You have used words like animal and rabbit
to describe black district attorneys. You've attacked black journalists, calling
them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are
quote stupid and racist. You've had dinner with a white
supremacist at your marologue resort. So my question, sir, now

(01:30):
that you are asking black supporters to vote for you,
why should black voters trust you after you have used
language like that.

Speaker 4 (01:39):
Well, first of all, I don't think I've ever been
asked a question so in such a horrible manner.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
A first question.

Speaker 4 (01:47):
You don't even.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Say, hello, how are you? Are you with ABC? Because
I think they're a fake news network, a terrible network.
And I think it's disgraceful that I came here in
good spirit. I love the black population of this country.

Speaker 6 (02:05):
I've done so much for the black population of this country.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
And that's a former President Donald Trump speaking at a
National Association of Black Journalist convention in Chicago. And that
was ABC's Rachel Scott who asked the question. Also on
the panel Semaphores Nadiagoba and Fox News is Harris Faulkner.
So the first question to Unico Sapphire, this was a
very interesting thing. I don't think i've ever seen an

(02:30):
exchange this contentious at the NABG convention at NABJ convention before.
Do you think it was right of them to invite him?

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Gosh? I mean, you know, like the one of the
panelists said, a lot of people I think didn't think
he should be there. You know, I think this was
an attempt for him to try and somebody said, you know,
like to woo the black population, the black voters. You know,
I think this was great for the Democrats because he

(03:00):
did pretty terrible, and you know, I just I can't
help but laugh when I hear these little clips. I mean,
clearly he barely has any media training, you know, So
I don't know. I think again, like I said, it
was for him a chance to try and win over
some black voters, but I do not think he succeeded
at all.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
Kim d Wosu, brand new to the show, Welcome. You
heard the comments made by both Trump and the moderator
Rachel Scott. Do you think that this was an appropriate
venue for the former president to be invited to.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
I don't understand exactly why they decided to invite him.
I guess they were going under the guise of maybe
giving like both candidates a chance just just for you know,
give them equal time. But I don't think it ended
up working in their favor because in my in my opinion,

(03:57):
it felt like he was like controlling the from like
the first minute, Like as soon as Rachel Scott asked
that first question, he just like answered it, and then
from that on it was just like him saying whatever
he wanted.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
And well, here's the thing though, don't you think those
are three seasoned, veteran reporters that were on that panel,
don't you think they knew what was coming with him?
Don't you think they, I don't want to say should
have been better prepared, because they were prepared I think
for their topics and content, but preparing for him, I

(04:31):
think is a whole different thing. And don't you think
they knew that that was to be expected?

Speaker 2 (04:36):
I think so, which is why I'm curious why they
wanted to do it, because it felt like it was
just like a repeat of what happened in the debate. Honestly,
it felt like he was just like going at the
same points he always went at the immigration stuff, just
the black population that comment about, and then he just
kind of made it I'm sure like he just got
a lot of sound bites that everyone's going to use,

(04:58):
like the comment about black jobs being jobs that like.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
Everyone has stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
I honestly think in like like as like I've been
like looking at like Fox News and like other like
stations similar to that like that like cover him, and
it feels as if they think it's like a win,
which I think it is for him and his supporters,
because it's just like, uh, like at that they tried
to embarrass him and now he's like taking control and
he's like hijacking this whole thing.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
It's all about him now, Jorte Montille. Do you think
that maybe the organizers at the nabj knew exactly what
was going to happen, and perhaps they wanted to expose him.
Maybe it was maybe it was an attempt to put
him out there and say, Okay, here we go, and
maybe he was gonna, you know, uh kind of put

(05:48):
his foot in his own mouth, so to speak. Or
do you think that this was a legitimate attempt to
find out what he had to say.

Speaker 4 (05:56):
I mean, we're living in a time where each side
is trying to expose the other, and the thing I
have to say here is that nobody's brought up is
the event was a complete disaster. He was supposed to
speak for an hour with these three journalists and they
only got thirty five minutes because they couldn't get the
equipment to work. They had Mike troubles and he didn't

(06:18):
or they didn't really prepare for that on the audio side. Now,
when it comes to the rhetoric and what was happening,
I think they did try to expose him. I think
they did try to expose him as a racist. I
think they tried to expose him and his blizzard of
lies because he told a blizzard of lies. Quite simply,
AP's reported it. Politicals report and I'll just give you

(06:39):
a few lists here. The claim that he saved historically
black colleges and universities was a lie. Many migrants are
for mental institutions. He claimed that.

Speaker 7 (06:50):
That's false.

Speaker 4 (06:51):
Democrats allow the killing of babies after being born. That's
not correct. Everyone wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.

Speaker 7 (06:57):
We know that's not true.

Speaker 4 (06:59):
And lastly, i'll with this as drilling is going to
reduce inflation, that's not going to happen. And you can
go to the Washington Post and click on these links
and see the real information for yourself. The trouble is
the people that are backing him. It doesn't matter at
this point what he's going to say. They're never going
to turn on him. They are just pro Trump.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
Historically, Nico a lot of presidential candidates over history, and
the NABJ was born from a group of black journalists
who felt like they needed to come together because they
felt that they were being justifiably neglected. They felt like
they were being neglected. I think the organization's fifty years
old now, and they come together and they started to

(07:40):
invite presidential candidates. So this is not an uncommon thing,
but this seemed like to be a more unusual event,
I think, given because of who Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
Is, right, I was just going to say, he's also
an unusual candidate.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Yeah, So do you think that it was in the
nabj's best interest to have him there or do you
think that was I mean, because some of the organ
organizers walked out, they resigned from their positions, do you
think that it was an appropriate move?

Speaker 3 (08:10):
Well, you know, like I said earlier, I think for
the Democrats it did them a lot of good because
and again, you know, just really showed Trump's true colors.
I mean, most people know who he is, right, and
I think, like we said earlier too, you know, they
probably expected this to a certain extent, the way that
he was going to respond, you know, because a lot
of the panelists, I mean, they were trying to confront him,
you know, about things that he did and said, and

(08:31):
then Trump he was just deflecting and he got angry
at them for the things that he did, you know,
which that's a typical Trump move.

Speaker 4 (08:38):
I find it incredible because he's all like, you know,
he's talking about fake news and he's being attacked him
like these are the things that you said.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
Yeah, he can't.

Speaker 4 (08:45):
Even like this is objectively speaking, you can't take accountability
for what he said.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Okay, let's let's pause there. We got a hold. You
got to do the We got to do the break.
So when we come back, we'll pick up the conversation.
K if I am six forty live and on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. I'm Steve Gregory and this is
Studio six point forty. Welcome back. Before the break, we
were talking about former President Donald Trump's appearance at the

(09:10):
nab J and before the break, Nico Orge, you were
talking about the fact that Trump is a character in
of himself, and I think that this was sort of
a walk on Xhal's moment because I don't think anyone
knew what was going to happen. But Ken Dye wanted
to ask you, I watched the event live. Did you
watch it live? Were you interested in it? Or did
you go back and watch it later? What were your

(09:30):
what were your overall views of the appearance. I went
back and watched it afterwards. I had heard about it.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
I thought it was a disaster, and I thought one
way it could have been remedied is this might seem
like a stretch. But Joe Rogan, he has someone like
a podcast producer that's always on a computer kind of
fact checking everything Joe says. And I always felt like
that would be great for debates or just like kind
of news conferences stuff like that, where you have someone
like interviewing, like someone for that kind of thing, just

(10:00):
like to instantly like just like deny or not deny,
just like certain claims that like politicians make. I also
felt that it would have been a much better idea
if they kind of didn't start off with like a
hardball question if they eased into it.

Speaker 1 (10:16):
A little more. You know, I'm glad you brought that
up because as someone who's interviewed a lot of people,
and I got into it with Trump when he first
ran for office. I got into it with him at
an event in Beverly Hills. But I'm glad you brought
that up because as a journalist, what should your approach
be to someone that you know has kind of a
hostile overtone at times, or someone that is very skeptical

(10:40):
of the media, What would your approach it been.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
I would have tried to like ease into it, like
I would have asked more. I would probably would have
had the Fox News journalists start him off interesting by
asking a couple of softs kind of butter him up, Yeah,
buttering him up, and then like over time, just adding
in more, just like going from one to another to another,
and then that way, like because I honestly thought when

(11:05):
I first watched it, I thought, is this really going
to be thirty minutes?

Speaker 1 (11:08):
I feel like he's about to walk out. Yeah, I
thought the same thing I thought he was about. But
then that would have been the cut and I think,
and was it? Nico, you said that he desperately needs
media training. Here's the thing, he's been media trained over
and over and over. He never follows it right right. Yeah,
he's got a ton of advisors and a lot of entourage,

(11:30):
but you can tell he doesn't. He's off script constantly.
And I would love to have known what he was
prepped for on this appearance as well, because I think
that has a lot to do with what he was
going in, what was his message going in, and then
when he was making comments, there were people in the
back of the room cheering him, and some people were
sort of in all like it like what like they

(11:51):
were that gasping moment, but there were some people cheering
and clapping in the back. I did hear, not a lot,
but a few, but I think it's interesting in Kim Dya,
I'm really glad you brought that up because I think
I asked cort Hey earlier, do you think that it
could have been a strategy to sort of out him
right out of the shoot because of the way they

(12:11):
kind of went in hot like that.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
I thought that was the goal. I think that's definitely
what they were trying to do, to just kind of
rile him up right out of the shoot. Yeah, I
think they just wanted him to leave. I think they
wanted him to make a public appearance and just see
how flustered he would get. And it really they also
really seemed to mess up. I think if like the
audio stuff didn't happen and they got a full hour
with him, I don't think they would have lasted the

(12:34):
full hour anyways. I feel like they were hoping he
would walk out in like the first two or so questions,
or he says something that mess up as campaign.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
But I don't get that.

Speaker 2 (12:43):
Because, like, as we've said before, or we talked about before,
like he says stuff like every day that with Torpedo,
anyone else's campaign in like a second, and he's still won,
like back in twenty sixteen.

Speaker 4 (12:56):
Yeah, so I don't see excuse me, sorry, Yeah, And
for that is because he says in ways that people
find funny.

Speaker 7 (13:03):
He goes into this entertainment mode that he does.

Speaker 4 (13:06):
And I know, Nico, you want to say that this
is a big win for the Democrats. It's a win,
but it could have been bigger. I mean, the fact
is they walked into his trap. He's playing the victim.
He's obviously still pulling some people, and that's what's unfortunate
about what happened.

Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, that's true. I also think, you know, it made
me think I feel like this was almost maybe just
as bad as the debate was for for Biden. That's
what this seemed like bo to me, because I mean,
you know, I have to bring up I don't think
we talked about it at the black comment. I mean
about Kamala that you just one day decided to turn black.
I think that I had heard even some Republicans were
kind of like taken back that he said something like
that because I know you said, which is true and

(13:40):
weird that you know, still a lot of his party
sticks with him even after he says crazy things like that.
But I think that was also totally out of what
has too.

Speaker 4 (13:50):
Scott asked him because he said this about Obama as well,
I mean, this is nothing us true.

Speaker 7 (13:55):
Yeah, this is what he does.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
Yeah. Well, so then kim dy back to you, if
you said that you thought this was a strategy, I mean,
do you think that's an appropriate strategy for a journalism organization?

Speaker 2 (14:06):
No, I don't. I thought a better idea would have
just been to do the traditional like way of like
just like get him to talk like the way he does, maybe,
like he just said, because the way he like normally
acts like just on camera, I feel like that's what
people like. So if he acts more professional, I feel

(14:26):
like people just see him more as like a traditional politician,
which he sort of is trying to avoid becoming by
acting the way he does.

Speaker 3 (14:35):
Yeah, because it seems that, you know what you said before,
Like it seems like he does respond better to you know,
somebody sucking up to him, right, But again, I think
whenever he is confronted at any time about something he
did or said, he lies about it. He tries to deflect, right,
And so I think, you know, you can try and
go with a different strategy, but if you're trying to
confront him about something he did, he's he's always going

(14:56):
to do the same thing and say he didn't do
it or something else.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
So horny fact checking, let's talk about that. I mean,
do you think you know these events should be fact
checked in real time? Do you think that they should
always be fact checked? And if so, who should do
the fact checking?

Speaker 4 (15:11):
They should absolutely be fact checked. I mean, let's start there.
I just it bothers me as a student journalist even
I don't know how you feel about it. I mean,
I imagine you're bothered by it when politicians make these
ridiculous claims that have absolutely they hold no water. It's
completely false, and people get suckered in by this. They're
they're voting for somebody based on lies, and I don't

(15:32):
feel comfortable with that. As far as who should be
fact checking, I'd say, try to find an organization or
an individual who's not really on either side of the fence.
Best case scenario, like, try to do your best to
find somebody that way that doesn't lean too much to
the left or too much of them.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
Does that organization exist.

Speaker 4 (15:51):
No, That's why I said, you got to try your best, like,
find somebody who comes just closest to that.

Speaker 1 (15:56):
Yeah. But here's the problem. It's like being on a jury.
It's going to be beyond reasonable doubt. If you have
the most minute evidence that there could be some sort
of sway or bias, then that whole theory goes out
the window. But when you talk about spot checking or
fact checking rather you know there are there are a
few organizations out there who do a pretty decent job

(16:18):
of keeping that balance, and they'll take a topic and
then they'll look at both sides based on the way
media is covering it, and then they sort of do
a formula. All sides is the one I usually go
to at Fontis is the other one. But but what
I what I want to get at is that is
it fair? I mean, Rachel Scott come out of the shoot,
she came out hot like that. Is it fair to

(16:40):
just you know, sort of ram rotting with all of
that stuff, right, even though what she was asking we're
legitimate questions. They're all legitimate questions, and it's I think
those are answers that they want. And we'll talk more
about that, but first we've got to take this quick break.
KYF I am sixty live and on demand on the
iHeart Radio app. Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm

(17:03):
Steve Gregory. Before the break, we've been talking a lot about,
you know, bias and reporters and how they should be
fact checking any politicians claims, whether it's in a debate,
whether it's in a presentation, whether it's on a press conference,
whatever the case is. But first, before we get back
into that conversation, I want to take this opportunity now

(17:25):
to let the audience meet our panel. Kim d Wosu
from cal State Fullerton, your first appearance on the show, Welcome.
Tell us a little bit about what you do with
cal State Fullerton. What are your goals.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
I'm a grad student there in the CTVA, which stands
for Cinema Television Arts. I work at the television station
Titan TV, which they have there, and I also work
as a DJ for the school's radio station, Titan Radio.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
What's the ultimate goal for you?

Speaker 2 (17:55):
Ultimate goal is to work in the entertainment industry. Really
really like writing and producing. So the goal would be
to have some kind of job related to that, something
probably what I already do on campus, but get paid
for it.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Yes, get very good. Nico Sapphire, welcome back, and you
cal Lutheran and tell us a little bit about you.

Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yeah, well, so I just graduated in May, and so
I came in, you know, was studying communications when I
got my degree in and I focused on PR and
advertising for the most part for the beginning, and that
it was my emphasis. And you know, sort of the
second half of my college years, that's when I really
got into a lot of the production classes. I got
really involved in the radio program. So I started first

(18:38):
with my own podcast, started doing some podcasting and you
guys should check it out at Sapphire Sessions on Spotify.
And then yeah, and then I started doing shows for
the campus station, i cel You Radio. So that one
I have is Nico and Anthony Live. It's on mixed Cloud. Yeah,
and just kind of having fun with that. And so
that's uh where I want to go with that.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
Orney montile A su You'll be heading to campus here
pretty quick, but you've been kind enough to come in
while you're still in town. So what are your goals?

Speaker 4 (19:07):
So my goals is a very sports oriented, a sports journalist.
I've written pieces for Azypreps through sixty five dot com.
It's for a student journalist. I've written pieces about basketball
at baseball. I've also done some audio production for the
Watcher Kronkite Sports Network, and I also have my own

(19:28):
YouTube channel called The Montiovers, where I cover World wrestling
entertainment AKAWWE. So it's kind of like getting in that
sports world anyway that I can.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
And did you ever think you'd be talking about Trump?

Speaker 7 (19:40):
I mean I talk about them in my regular day lives.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
Though he has a connection to wwe Yes, he does,
he does, right, Yeah, and a big supporter from that
world too, right, yeah, yeah, Haul Cogan, I.

Speaker 7 (19:51):
Believe yeah, ye spoke at the pack.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
That's right. Well, welcome to all of you. It's good
to have you here. We were talking about former President
Donald Trump's appearance at the NABJ conference that just happened
in Chicago, and I watched it live and I was flabbergasted,
I mean to say the least. And it was interesting
because what happens in a case like this and something

(20:17):
that I experienced when I'm covering events or press conferences
and in the field, you run the risk of and
I think, Ken, do you alluded to earlier about you know,
you thought he was going to walk out? You thought
Trump was just going to get up and leave. And
that's always a fear for me when I go to
an event and a reporter before me has fired up
the newsmaker, and I'm always afraid that that person is

(20:38):
going to, like whether it's a sheriff. I've seen many
times where a sheriff is left because a reporter asked
him a hard question or was relentless and wouldn't let up.
And then I don't know what your experiences have been
in that same realm. But I want to know before
we move on to our next topic. I'd like to
know if you had the chance to sit on stage

(20:59):
and were a pants that day, how would you have
handled this? And what were your What would your questions
have been? Orge?

Speaker 4 (21:08):
My questions would have been, well, first.

Speaker 1 (21:10):
Of all, how would you have handled this? How would
you have handled knowing that Donald Trump was going to
be a subject that you got to ask questions of,
how would you have handled what happened that day? And
what were the questions you would have asked?

Speaker 7 (21:23):
Well?

Speaker 4 (21:24):
I would handle being on the same stage with Trump
a lot different than other candidates for the simple fact
of him. He approaches things in a different manner. He
gets argumentative when pressed.

Speaker 7 (21:39):
So I would.

Speaker 4 (21:42):
We've talked about this, but I would have approached them
to like a couple of softball questions, then gone after
him a little bit more. You have to like ease
in with Trump because Trump is just looking for an outside.

Speaker 7 (21:54):
He's looking to play the victim.

Speaker 4 (21:55):
If you ask him a hard question, he's going to
try and spin that where we're the ones that're telling lies,
We're the ones that are lying about him, and it's
not really real reporting. It's he knows everything. Apparently everything
he says is true, but everything we say is fault.
So I would try to like ask him a couple
of softball questions. You got to handle him in a
more I would say smart way, for lack of a

(22:20):
better term.

Speaker 7 (22:20):
You can't just like go after him immediately.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
Kim Dy, the same question to you, How would you've
handled it that day? And what would some of the
questions have been that you wanted to ask.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
I would have focused on specifics. One question I've always
wanted to ask him is there's this interview of him
from the eighties basically saying I don't ever want to
be president. It just seems like a job that I
wouldn't enjoy doing. And I would just like to, like
basically should play that interview for him and say, so,
what's changed, and why do you want to be president now?
Why do you want to be president again? You know?

Speaker 1 (22:52):
And I think you kind of talked a little bit
about how you would have handled it, sort of kind
of you know, little softball questions. Yeah, was that a
fair assessment? Yeah, Rachel Scott, though I wish I could
have gotten into her mind and found out what she
was thinking that day, and and and if she went
into this thing fired up or went into it nervous,
went into it, I want I would love to have

(23:14):
known what her state of mind was that day. So
same question to you, Nico, how would you've handled it?
And what would you wanted to know?

Speaker 3 (23:21):
Yeah, you know, that's so difficult again because Trump, you know,
he kind of he does the same things over and
over again, right, and so you know, I think that's
something everybody is trying to figure out, like how to
get through to him. I don't know if anybody's really
figured that out yet, because you know, he's really like
even like you guys are saying, I agree, I think
it's a good move, you know, to kind of start
like ease into it. Right. But even when you would

(23:44):
get to those difficult questions, like he never gives you
a direct answer and again he always deflects and goes
on to something else and lies about, you know, all
the things that you're asking him about.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
So has he ever told the truth? Did you know?

Speaker 3 (23:55):
Oh? God, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I mean,
you know, everything that we've been seeing, like he's been
lying about everything and then it's hard to believe him
with anything ever. But most of the things he's saying, again,
you can check it and they're all false.

Speaker 7 (24:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (24:12):
And even if he is telling the truth, and I
do my own research best I can, I find that
he over exaggerates some of the points, like yeah, there's inflation,
but he goes and says, oh, it's sixty percent higher
than what we were four years ago, when it's not
that high.

Speaker 7 (24:24):
I mean, it's not great, but it's not that high.
It over exaggerates the truth.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
Kimdy, have you ever known President Trump, former President Trump,
to ever say anything accurate or true?

Speaker 2 (24:34):
Probably that one line he said back in twenty fifteen,
where yeah, like his father gave him a small business
loan of a million dollars.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
That's that's about it. That's a good one, I think.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, he definitely got more extreme later. Like it's crazy.
I've seen some clips too, you know, from a long
time ago, like he used to actually be kind of
pro choice, if believe it or not, So he was
a reform party.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
Yeah, that's right, that's right. They forgot about that. Listen,
we gotta leave it there. We're gonna come back and
we'll talk some more. This is Studio six forty one
kf I AM six forty live and on demand on
the iHeartRadio app. Welcome back. This is Studio six forty

(25:16):
I'm Steve Gregory. Thanks for joining us. Our next story, the.

Speaker 6 (25:19):
LAPD tonight is investigating one of its own officers after
he was caught on camera punching a man in the head.
The man was being detained in Watts and was being
handcuffed when the officer suddenly threw that punch. KKW News
reporter Lori Perez has a department's response tonight.

Speaker 8 (25:35):
There are still a lot of questions about what led
up to the punch, but experts we spoke with say
it doesn't really matter this now viral video appears to
show an LAPD officer punching a man in the face,
although he seems to already have at least one hand,
if not both, in handcuffs now go on Immediately, the

(26:01):
crowd reacts and shot, particularly because so many are watching
smartphones rolling record. It happened at about five Sunday afternoon
in the seventeen hundred block of one hundred and thirteenth
Street in Watts. Neighbors telling us the man collapsed moments later.
This citizens video showing him taken away by ambulance. By

(26:21):
Monday afternoon, LAPD posted on x The Los Angeles Police
Department is aware of an incident that unfolded from a
traffic stop on July twenty eighth, twenty twenty four, in
the Southeast area involving use of force. The incident is
under investigation and the officer involved has been removed from
field duty.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
So open question. Anyone see the video?

Speaker 3 (26:43):
Yes, I also saw the body camp.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
You also talked about a cambricaine, so we'll go to that.
Who wants to start, I can start reaction.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
I thought it was crazy, like he he gave him
a really good punch, and I like I was because
I first saw just like the initial clip and then
afterwards I saw the bodycam footage. Didn't make it look
any better whatsoever. And it just makes me think, like,
like at first, I was like, what was the whole
story behind this? And I saw the full story, and
first of all, like both like the officers, like it

(27:15):
did not have any de escalation training obviously, because there's
no way it should have gotten this serious at the
very least, uh Like, because I know the guy was
double parked and that's why they first came up to him.
But you could have just like simply said you can
even have to get it out of your car. You
probably could have just like been in your car, rolled
down the window, said to the guy, hey, you can't

(27:36):
be double parked on the wrong side of the road,
and then at the very most give him a ticket,
like if you're gonna do anything, there's no need.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
For all of this.

Speaker 3 (27:45):
Yeah, I found it weird that, you know, he was
actually starting to try and arrest him, right, But I
definitely think, you know, the bodycam video showed a much
different perspective, you know, and kind of the full story
of that, you know, because I think at first when
he was trying to talk to the man his name
was Mitchell in the car and try to explain what
he was doing wrong, right, and then he was getting
really confused, you know, he didn't understand what the cop

(28:06):
was trying to say to him, meet know, but Mitchell
he was also very disrespectful to the cop, right, But
no doubt they got very out of hand and very
aggressive towards Mitchell. And again it was strange, what like
why would you try and arrest somebody for just parking
the wrong way. Right.

Speaker 4 (28:21):
So yeah, I think this is completely and utterly unacceptable,
and it really upsets me personally because I've had great relationships,
whether it be with my Arizona State Police Department or
the police department at my JC which is at Crito's College.

Speaker 7 (28:37):
They're awesome.

Speaker 4 (28:38):
I genuinely, like do have a lot of respect for
the police, and they've always liked that for me. So
when I see an officer like this act the way
that he does and handle things that the way that
he does, it's a stain because I mean it's like
desecrating everything they're supposed to stand for.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
You know.

Speaker 4 (28:55):
Yeah they have like they're supposed to enforce the law,
but like you're supposed to have like temperament, you know,
they're supposed to have training for this.

Speaker 7 (29:02):
I think you should be.

Speaker 4 (29:05):
Uh you know, last I checked, asking for what you're
being charged with doesn't warrant a sucker plunge to the face.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Okay, So now just for audience perspective, because not everyone
sees the video or here's the audio. Let's play the
audio clip from the body cam. Now this is a
composite of thirty three minutes. That's a thirty three minute incident.
On the body cam. The first clip is going to
be from the point of the officer who actually struck
the man, and the second clip is going to be

(29:33):
from the partner officer.

Speaker 7 (29:35):
Hey, roll the windows down.

Speaker 3 (29:39):
What's going on?

Speaker 1 (29:40):
You roll the windows down?

Speaker 7 (29:42):
Roll the windows down. You're parked in.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
You're double parked.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
So it was going over your double park man, and
you're sitting in the car.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah, h you got a license on her.

Speaker 2 (29:58):
Going over.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
I just told you, man, what's going on? I'm not
for role.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
I'm have an.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
Idea on you your double part? But what does that mean?

Speaker 4 (30:07):
Though there's a cut, your double park with the wrong
way in the street.

Speaker 3 (30:11):
What does that mean? Why you're on my door?

Speaker 5 (30:14):
I got everything?

Speaker 2 (30:15):
Why you my door?

Speaker 1 (30:16):
Relations for me?

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Man? I do?

Speaker 1 (30:18):
Why are you open my door?

Speaker 7 (30:20):
Because you're ignoring me?

Speaker 1 (30:21):
I didn't ignore it. You step on the car, step
out the car, open my door like that?

Speaker 4 (30:26):
Where does.

Speaker 6 (30:30):
For?

Speaker 1 (30:30):
What had you down for?

Speaker 5 (30:31):
Weapons?

Speaker 1 (30:36):
This way? Yourself?

Speaker 3 (30:38):
You get.

Speaker 4 (30:43):
Good your taste, Just put your heads on you put
your hands on your back, your hand, your hands on
your back.

Speaker 6 (30:53):
What you pack?

Speaker 1 (31:06):
So? I wanted to play both because it does paint
two different perspectives. Now, when you see something like this,
and remember through the eyes of journalists, what was your
first reaction to seeing the viral video? Because the body
cam hadn't come out until days later, what was your
first reaction seeing the viral video as journalists?

Speaker 3 (31:30):
I mean, it was terrible to see that, you know,
I think.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Okay, but as a journalist, what's the approach if you
had to write the story based only on the viral video?

Speaker 7 (31:41):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (31:42):
Oh gosh, yeah, that's really difficult. I think. You know,
you have to really think about when you see a
short clip like that too, because and again, like you said,
it's just difficult when the full thing doesn't come out
till later, because you know, you see something like that
and it's so easy to just assume what is going on?

(32:05):
Oh gosh, how to cover that.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
I'll let you have a little time to think about
that because we're going to take a break. K I
Am six forty live and on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
To learn how to become a student panelist, go to
k if I am six forty dot com slash studio.
That's k f I am six forty dot com slash Studio.

(32:36):
An exclusive bonus segment featuring today's panelists can be heard
by downloading Studio six forty on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you listen. Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm
Steve Gregory. Before the break, we were talking about the

(32:57):
LAPD and a use of force incident that happened on
July twenty eighth in the South part of Los Angeles.
Officers were seen on bystander video cell phone video attempting
to arrest a man and one of the officers punched
that man in the chin, and it's causing a lot

(33:18):
of outrage. And before the break, Nico, we were talking
about the hypothetical as a journalist, you see this clip
and you've been given the assignment to cover the story.
What's the approach.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
Well, I think you know, we already know the full
video came out later, right. I think maybe you know
as a journalist too, if I'm only seeing this little
clip at first, you know, I don't know if it's
appropriate just to wait or you know, say more updates
coming soon kind of thing, right, Yeah, Because again, you know,

(33:53):
when you just have that and I think just seeing
that too as a viewer, you get a slightly a
skewed version of the situation, and I think the full video,
you know, it brought more information about what actually happened.

Speaker 1 (34:05):
Okay, So how do you write the story? I write the.

Speaker 3 (34:07):
Story, okay, well, something about the officer punching the man.
But then you know later when you get the full video.
I mean, are we talking about after the full.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Said the viral video, when the viral video first came out. Now,
keep in mind the body cam hasn't been released yet.
What I'm asking is, how do you approach it when
that's the only content that you have to go off of.

Speaker 3 (34:29):
Yeah, I mean, then just kind of describing what's going on.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
I guess, Kim Dy, I'd probably say, like the headline
would be like black man in handcuffs is punched by
police during arrest. That'd probably be the way, uh like
I would handle that as a journalist.

Speaker 1 (34:47):
Now, is it important to put the man's race in
the headline?

Speaker 2 (34:52):
I think for the purposes of uh like, to get
like the attention of people most likely, yeah.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
Okay, to get the attention of people. But is it
is it relevant? It's not, It's not relevant, yeah, okay?
Or hey, approach how would you approach the story?

Speaker 4 (35:10):
So, watching just the viral video, I would have been like, Okay,
what's the angle here? So what I would have done
if I was assigned to this case is.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
The story not the case.

Speaker 7 (35:21):
Okay, yeah, you're yeah the story.

Speaker 4 (35:27):
I look at the video, play it over and over again,
see what happened. I even try to talk to the
family before I even try to write this story, see
what their version of it was, because again, the body
cam revealed a lot of stuff that we didn't get
on the viral video.

Speaker 7 (35:43):
So without the body.

Speaker 4 (35:45):
Cam stuff coming out, I would have immediately gone to
that to the witnesses there and interviewed them, and then
I would have probably the headline would have been for
me after talking to those folks, would have been a
situation involving police escalated, didn't warrant an attack.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
Well, the one thing that none of you had said
is calling the LAPD for comment or asking what they
would have said or what their point of view would
have been. Right, Yeah, So would you have called the
LAPD They're probably going to give you, doesn't matter what
they're probably going to give you. Would you have contacted.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
Yeah, because I think you said to reach out to
the family or the witnesses, and I think to get
the other point of view too, and then when you
have both of those, then it'd be easier without the
full video to kind of get get a bigger picture
yourself of what actually happened with both perspectives, what.

Speaker 1 (36:35):
Would you what would have been your play, Kim Dy,
I wouldn't have even thought to call the lap D
because I would have just assumed, of course that they
would have like said, no comment at the time. But
that's fine, because you still you made the effort.

Speaker 4 (36:50):
Yeah, yeah, you have to contact them because of because.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
That's because that's one of the reasons why the trust
in media is at an all time low.

Speaker 7 (36:59):
Yeah, don't even try it.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
Because was there was no effort or attempt to get
the other side. It doesn't matter what you think they
might tell you, because as it was, the LAPD came
out with a statement and on x I believe, and
it was it came out later, I think, hours after
the incident, hours after the video went viral. Now perspective,

(37:22):
let's talk a little bit about the fact that the
optics of this thing are horrible and when any time
you see an officer strike a person anybody when it
looks like they've been handcuffed and they posed no threat.
That is that's atrocious, It's horrible. But now, what did

(37:42):
you learn if you've seen I don't remember did all
of you see the bodycam or not? You did? You
said you did, and you did? You did? You did not? Okay,
so let me ask the two that did Did you
learn anything new from the bodycam that you didn't get
from the viral video?

Speaker 3 (37:56):
Yeah, I mean just kind of more how it started, right,
And I think Mitchell, the man who was in the
car too, you know, he was like he was resisting
everything the cops were saying, and he was aggressive towards
you know, at least verbally aggressive towards the cops, and
so I think that didn't help to escalate it obviously.
But again, even still seeing the full thing, I think
the punch especially was totally out of, out of the

(38:19):
blue and not necessary. But yeah, I painted certainly a
clearer picture of what had happened seeing the full thing,
so yeah, and kind of showed how they got to
that point.

Speaker 1 (38:30):
So Kimdy, Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
I also thought I thought both parties were kind of fault. Yeah,
because Mitchell the guy who was in the car. I
really felt like he was like defensive from the beginning.
If he had just been a big calmer and had like,
you know, kind of just said like, yeah, sure, here,
pat me down, here's my ID, stuff like that just
kind of go along with it, but he was just

(38:53):
from the start he just said, what did I do?
I'm not on parole, I'm not on anything like that.
Why are you doing this?

Speaker 1 (39:00):
So when we come back, I want to tell you
what I was able to ascertain from this story, because
I was assigned this story for our station, and I
want to ask you then, when I give you the
intel that I was given to ask if your opinion
and your approach to the story would be any different. Okay,
but first we're going to pause for a quick break.
K I AM six forty live and on demand on

(39:23):
the iHeartRadio app. To learn how to become a student panelist,
go to KFIAM six forty dot com slash studio. That's
k FIAM six forty dot com slash studio. Welcome back
to the Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Before the break,
we've been talking about the incident on July twenty eighth

(39:45):
that happened in South Los Angeles when a man was
struck by an LAPD officer during what was started as
a traffic what they call a traffic stop, and then
it was a detention and then turned into a full
blown arrest. Before the break, I was asking you a
series of questions and was leading up to something because
I was assigned this story for my station at KFI
here and I was able to get information from the LAPD,

(40:10):
and that information came from sources inside the LAPD. Because
the first thing I wanted to know was is this
acceptable use of force? What kind of use of force
would have been appropriate for this incident? And I was
told it's about proportionality, and do any of you have

(40:32):
any idea what that might mean?

Speaker 2 (40:34):
Like the size of the person that you're dealing with close?

Speaker 1 (40:37):
But was the use of force proportionate to the risk
or to the potential risk or what the officer was
thinking at that moment? What was the proportionality of the
strike and the use of force. So beyond that, that
strike that you saw is actually trained in the academy. Okay,

(41:00):
it's called a distraction strike, are you his any of
you ever heard of that?

Speaker 3 (41:04):
I saw that in one of the articles about what
happened here.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
A distraction strike? Yeah, and when I wanted to find
out because if the officer was rogue and went off
on his own, I wanted to know about that too.
So what I was trying to understand was how could
this have happened. I was told that if it was
a full blown punch, there would have been a step

(41:28):
and a step forward. Okay, energy would have been put
into the fist as you look at it now. This
is the explanation given by training officers. Then I went
outside of the department because I wanted to find out
from other law enforcement specialists, specialists those that aren't even
in law enforcement, their attorneys or what have you. And
it was characterized to me very similar that it was

(41:50):
a training thing. And then the proportionality came up. So
what's going to come down to this at the end
of the day, is what did the officer do in
proportion to what the risk was? The thing that people
jumped to conclusions on, including the associated press, as they
said the man was handcuffed. He was not handcuffed. He

(42:10):
was cuffed on one arm. Okay, yeah, if you look
at the bodycam footage. His right hand is just behind
his waist and he's actually scrunching up his shorts. He's
holding onto his shorts. He's and they had to put
two sets of handcuffs on him. Did you notice that. No. Yeah,

(42:31):
because he was so big that he couldn't get with
one single pair of handcuffs. They had to do two
sets of handcuffs on. Now. I learned this from a
case I covered many years ago, dealing with a homeless
man that had been detained by officers and later died,
and in court, I sat in the trial every day

(42:52):
and they talked about him only having one handcuff on
and then flailing around with that handcuff. Now, that was
also told to me that that's a big fear. If
you only get one handcuff on, that's solid metal, and
if someone decides to flail around, that turns into a
deadly object. The other thing that you have to keep

(43:16):
in mind is that when officers were on patrol in
this particular area of South la near Watts it is
a known gang activity. It is a documented gang activity area.
The car had heavily tinted windows on the windshield and
on all of the other windows. Heavily tinted windows. Officers
initially thought the car was empty when they approached. Then

(43:38):
they saw somebody inside. Now and there is a law
that there's president said that they are allowed to if
they think that there could be a perceived threat or
harm of any kind, they can pat someone down. Everyone
thinks that they're being arrested, but they weren't being arrested.
They're being detained. Detained is not arrested, can mean handcuffed

(44:02):
until they can consider the area, what they call code four.
All clear. Now, I've just given you a whole new
set of facts and data and analysis. Does your opinion
still change or does it stay this or does your
opinion change or does your opinion still say the same.
As a journalist Kim dy Well, I.

Speaker 2 (44:22):
Still feel like there was too much escalation. But knowing
all this, it does feel like they could have come
to some easier resolution if both parties just kind of
approach things at a calmer manner.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
The other things that is a variable here that they
don't know yet is whether he was on drugs. Okay,
if he had been in some sort of a stimulant. Now,
in the body cam, I was trying to listen for
any any reference to whether they found drugs in the car,
smelled marijuana, anything like that. I don't recall ever hearing that,
unless any of you pick that up, the two of

(44:57):
you that watched it, I didn't hear that. I was
specifically listening for that because I'm trying to figure out
all the variables here. And did you notice how young
these officers are. I mean they're new, they're fresh out
of the out of the academy. You can tell by
looking at them the way they were acting and the
way they were behaving and how it got chaotic. If
you noticed deep into the body cam footage they were trying,

(45:18):
they were kind of unsure about what to do and stuff.
You could tell they were fairly new at this and
they're thrust into these into this notorious gang area. So
did you have any more to add to your answer?
I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I wanted to
bring up the drug part of it too. Well.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
Now I just wonder why or two like probably new
like not that not that much experience on them. Officers
just kind of partnered together to assume that if they
if they were new, they would have like an older
kind of like veteran police officer.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
In the field training phase, they would so they would
be a field training officer or an FTO along with
an officer. But at some point you got to cut
that cord and then they got to go out on
their own. Now, I don't know whether they were traveling
as a pair or whether they were patrolling in separate
vehicles on the same route or the same quadrant and
they partnered up for the for that incident. I don't

(46:11):
know that question, same to you now, Nico, knowing all
the information I've just presented to you, and it's based
on my research and it's been on our air, so
it's it's vetted if you will. Yeah, But does it
change your perspective? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (46:26):
Absolutely? Oh my gosh. I mean, now knowing you know
that that is part of the training to do what
you called a distraction strike, was it?

Speaker 1 (46:34):
You know?

Speaker 3 (46:34):
I mean, it completely changes everything you know, And I
really think it shows I think we mentioned earlier how
much of you know, a skewed kind of image that
it can have. Just having this viral clip out there,
I mean, everybody probably had a similar idea of what
that looked like. But you know, if you don't know
that that's kind of part of training, something they can do.

(46:55):
Then everybody's going to assume the same thing that it was,
you know, unnecessary out of hand with the cops called.
But then didn't they also say that the cop was
removed from fieldy field duty.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
Next standard operating in procedure when there's a use of force. Okay, yeah, yeah,
it wasn't necessarily punishment. It was that they take him
out of the field and tell the investigation is concluded.

Speaker 7 (47:20):
Got it.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
Okay, so we're gonna positive come back, hord Hand. I
want to pick it up with you because I want
your opinion on this as well. Kf I Am six
forty live and on demand on the iHeart Radio app.
It's got something to say. Contact Studio six forty by
pressing the red microphone talkback button on the iHeartRadio app
and record your message. Welcome back to this is Studio

(47:44):
six forty. I'm Steve Gregory. Before the break, we're talking
about some analysis based on the student journalist's perspective after
hearing some details and facts that I presented. Having covered
the case of the LAPD officer who struck a man
while they were trying to arrest him. In South la
and Ortey. Given everything that I talked about in the

(48:04):
last segment, all the new information that was not necessarily
in the body cam, you had to look forward, had
to know about it. But all the extraneous stuff that
I told you, what would Does your opinion change, does
your perspective change, or you stay the same?

Speaker 4 (48:18):
I think I was on the right track, but now
I'm more convinced of what I'm about to say. At
the beginning of the segment, I told you that you know,
approaching this, I'm like, what's the angle? Because the viral
video is clearly trying to push an agenda. All this
officer's using excessive force and this and that, and he
punched a black man in the face, you know, caught

(48:40):
for him to be arrested, all this stuff. Now that
we know that this man was not really cooperative and
that he used a maneuver to sort of diffuse the situation,
and it's taught at the academy, then it changes the
whole perspective completely because this man, whether anybody likes it
or not, should have been more cooperative. Had to do

(49:00):
is rose window down, comply with the officer, and stuff
seriously could have.

Speaker 7 (49:05):
Gone a different way. It didn't need to go down
this way.

Speaker 4 (49:07):
I do still think that the officer might have overreacted
a little. O think they should have like, I don't know,
maybe like tackled them against the car at least.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
Well, that's also a non categorical use of force.

Speaker 4 (49:19):
Yeah, well it would have looked better on the viral
video than a punch.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
Well, here's the thing officers. I can tell you spending
four decades with officers, they don't care about how it
looks at the time. What they're trying to do is
control the situation, get the situation under control, and then
they'll figure it out. That's a lot of reasons why
people don't understand the difference between detained and arrested. Detained
it you're not being booked for anything. Arrested if they

(49:44):
have just you know, if they have justifiable cause to
put someone in handcuffs. That means there is a reasonable
suspicion of violence or harm or danger, and they want
to do that so they can safely search a vehicle,
search a house. What the case is. It's interesting because
when I saw the video first, I was shocked. Like
everybody else, I thought to myself, who does that, who

(50:08):
does that? I mean, come on, really, but my years
of doing this. I sat back for a minute, I
watched the viral video play out, and I'm like, I
wonder if there's more to this. You've got to ask
yourself that. And I started making calls and I started
to find out, Yes, there was more to this, and
so I waited to see. But back to Kimney's point.

(50:32):
I talked to a chief of a police department in
Orange County about this just the other day, and he said,
you know, I saw it. I understand that they can
train for it, but he said that still was not
my That still would not have been my approach. He
opted for de escalation, and de escalation meaning probably verbal
and just and just wearing the guy down basically, was

(50:54):
that was that would have been his tactic, wear him down,
just keep pushing and keep you know, just keep wanting
him and on him and on it. And that really
asks the question what should the threshold be when someone's
not cooperating and doing what's been asked of you or
what they call a lawful command. What's the threshold? How
far do you go before you say, Okay, I've had
enough of this. We got to get that, we got

(51:14):
to put a close We got to close this up here.

Speaker 4 (51:17):
Well, I think when a person is continuously like cussing
at the officer even like well, the threshold for me
is when they start to get a little like physical
even in like getting in like their face. I feel
like that's the threshold. If they're just talking and he's
not acting violently, whether it be with speech or physical,
then I think you need to go with the de
escalation side of things. But if he starts getting in

(51:40):
the officer's face and cussing on him stuff, then I
think the officer has.

Speaker 7 (51:43):
A little bit of right to use some force.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
Any other thoughts agree with that? Okay, very good discussion.
Let's move on to our next story, and this has
to do with X formerly known as Twitter White Dudes
for Harris said Elon Musk's X had suspended its account
right after it hosted a YouTube live stream that raised

(52:07):
more than four million dollars for the Harris campaign. X
had said that the account violated their rules against evading suspension,
even though they didn't explain what that meant, and recently
they actually resumed the account, but in a read only
format so they can't really engage. People can read it,

(52:29):
but can't really comment, and they can't really go beyond that.
So that's story number one. Story number two, Google is
being accused of altering its algorithm and altering its search
results when they search assassination attempt. Despite Trump being the
most recent victim of such violence, his name does not

(52:52):
come up in the search engine, but people that have
had attacks or threats on their life before that, presidential
candidates and other presidents Truman, Reagan, others automatically pop up,
but for some reason, Trump does not pop up in this.
So question, open question again, what is social media's role

(53:19):
in the election. As a privately held company, does it
have the right to do stuff like this?

Speaker 3 (53:25):
Yeah, you know, I think it's it's interesting, and I
think censoring and this kind of thing is difficult, right
because obviously you want to protect everybody's free speech to
a certain extent. I think with these examples, you know,
if it's like just a page that's supporting Kamala Harris,
I don't see that doing any harm.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Right.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
I remember though, actually when Twitter when it was back
when it was still Twitter, right, you know, when it
actually it had banned Trump around after January sixth right
because he incited that, and he was inciting all that violence.
And I think when things that are completely false are
being widely publicized, I do think the social media platforms

(54:02):
should have a role and kind of take action on that,
you know, so people are not believing all these lies, right,
But aside from that, again, when when it's just pagees,
you know, supporting a candidate or things like that, I
don't see that doing any harm to the public.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
So, Kim Dy, I honestly think if it's a privately
owned company, then they should have the right to do
whatever they want. I don't think it's right, but I
feel like they should have the right to do that
because it's a privately owned company.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Do you think that, you know, because everyone talks about
free speech, So if you put free speech into this,
and you know, Nico was saying, you know that all
these lies that are being put out there and in
misinformation and disinformation things like that, do you think regardless
if it's a private company, do you think they have
a an ethical obligation.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
Yes, definitely, I do think they have like an ethical
right to do that, especially since like social media, especially
among the young people now nowadays, I don't know why
I said.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
It like that, Like I'm not a good person, but
like it's how we like live.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
Basically, we're always on social media and it like heavily
influences our lives, and especially like if a candidate was
to partner up with a certain influencer, I'm sure that
would like greatly influence how like certain like politics are seen.

Speaker 1 (55:23):
Okay, let's pause right there. We'll pick up the conversation.
Heyf I am sixty live and on demand on the
iHeartRadio app. Welcome back to Studio six forty. I'm Steve Gregory.
Before the break, we're talking about social media's role and
ethical obligation with respect to the election, and we were
referring to two instances where an organization called White Dudes

(55:47):
for Harris had a huge fundraiser and was bragging about
it on X and using X as a platform to
get people to support And by the way, that account,
White Dudes for Harris includes a bunch of Holly, would
elite a lot of celebrities, a lot of actors, and
it had one hundred and ninety thousand people tune into
YouTube for that fundraiser included Josh Grobin, Josh gadd jj Abram,

(56:11):
Shawn Aston, the Cohen Brothers, Joseph Gordon, Levitt, Bradley Whitford,
and X for some reason suspended the account and said
it violated some of their terms and then restored it,
but only in a read only fashion. And then on
top of that, Google has been accused of purposely hiding

(56:35):
any search references or automatic search references to the attempted
assassination of Donald Trump. Now, we were talking about this
and Kendy last left with you about the ethical obligation
of a company even though it's privately held. Do you
think and you were talking about the fact that young
people were heavily influenced by social media. They count on

(56:59):
it for their news, and they count on it for
a lot of their interaction and their engagement. But and
don't you think companies know that and they're playing right into.

Speaker 2 (57:08):
That exactly, especially sites like YouTube where you can just
kind of like get these soundbites with YouTube shorts, and
specifically you can just get a single sound bite of
something and just like multiply that and just get it
all out there. I remember back in twenty sixteen when
Trump was running like I saw like a lot more

(57:30):
Trump content back in that day, that time of just
people like a different group supporting Trump, and I didn't
really see that much Hillary content, to be honest, And
I just found that really interesting.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
Yeah, you know that you bring that up. I do
remember he was, he was kind of a social media
influencer people, but I think there was also that he
had that mystery about him because people were trying to
figure him out a little bit, even though he was
kind of brash and crass. I think they were trying
to figure him out. But for some reason, social media
really embraced him. But now, I just don't understand. Everyone

(58:07):
puts so much, I don't know, so much of their
trust and faith in social media. You wouldn't you think
by now, Jorge, that people would understand. It's like you
got to take this with a grain of salt.

Speaker 4 (58:18):
Yeah, I mean it's incredible because to add to ken
Dye's argument, according to the Spectator, a newspaper based in Seattle, Washington,
data found that as a twenty twenty two, seventy four
percent of the students get their news through social media.
And that's multiple times a week. Yeah, I mean that's
at an alarming rate. And as far as the censorship.

(58:39):
You know what's funny is Elon Musk bought X. You're
promoting free stage, and now that you know this page
that seems to be against what he's supporting because he
has endorsed. He's his company's censoring that because they're for Harris.
So I find that to be very interesting. And as
you said, Steve, they didn't specify the terms that they broke,

(59:00):
and they just like, oh, you broke your terms.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
Okay, well with terms, yeah, but it must be nice
to buy a huge social media platform all to yourself
and you kind of just can do with it whatever
you want.

Speaker 3 (59:09):
That's crazy. I don't know if one person, especially him, should,
you know, have that much power and control over the platform.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
So, I mean, I know Congress is trying to do
something about it, and should they? I mean, I mean, listen,
it's a again, it's a privately held company. We're a
capitalist society. Where's the line? Where's the line here?

Speaker 4 (59:28):
I feel like because at least on Instagram, when there's
something that's being posted and it's not factually true, they'll
tell you it's still able to see, and you can see,
you can comment on it, but they'll tell you it's
not factually true. So if it's like a liar or
something like that you were talking about, then they can
they can do that with it. I feel like that's
a good balance there.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Like, Okay, I was fanned from TikTok because I posted
a video that I got from a source in the
city from Metro. It was security footage actually from the county,
but it was security footage showing the various attacks on
drivers on Metro and I was banned from TikTok because
the video was too violent. Okay, So when I appealed

(01:00:07):
it and said, I'm a journalist, this is a news clip.
It's not gratuitous. I didn't create it. I'm just passing
it along, and then they just said no way. But
then you look, you know, you keep scrolling, and then
you see videos of kids doing these crazy, stupid things
that are harming themselves killing, you know, killing themselves or
becoming permanently disfigured or injured, and it's it's game on.

(01:00:31):
I'm posting something of a legitimate journalistic nature and I
get banned.

Speaker 7 (01:00:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
So that's why when you say fact checking and all
this other stuff, I don't have any trust in the
fact checking because people like you and me, kem De
and Nigor are sitting behind the computer deciding who gets
a pass and who doesn't.

Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
Right, because it seems like the platforms themselves are also biased,
Like how do they decide to what they want to?
You know, keep pushing, Wait.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Did you just say social media is biased?

Speaker 6 (01:00:59):
Maybe?

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
Yeah, breaking news, but I mean, yeah, it's it's really no,
it's so complex, you know, in the algorithms, right, I think.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
I see that's part of the issue too, right, yeah,
but who programs the algorithm? People? Right, humans?

Speaker 7 (01:01:15):
Because they'll give you whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:01:17):
So like if you're, like, I don't know, a conservative
or liberal and you interact with conservative or liberal things,
they'll just keep feeding you when you're interacting with right,
they don't give you the other side of the story.

Speaker 1 (01:01:29):
So back to the original question, what role should social
media have in our election? Kim Dee, I think there
should be.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
In a perfect world, there would just be like equal
time for both candidates. But I know that in the
world we currently live in, that's just not the case.
There's just going to be a biased site like x
and then a biased search engine such as Google. And
I'm not really sure what exactly there is to do

(01:02:05):
about it except for creating a law. But then you
have the argument we just brought up about who plays
Judge ury an executioner.

Speaker 1 (01:02:12):
Yeah, because the FCC, which regulates the very error that
we're on right now, that has a rule in there
called equal time. When it's election season, if I put
a candidate on, I have to give equal time to
the other candidate only if that candidate files a complaint.

(01:02:33):
And we've run into it here before. A guest on
a talk show. It can be just something as benign
as that coming on to talk about their views or
point of view, and if their opponent here is it.
They can file a complaint and demand equal time under
the law, and we would have to give it to them.
Even if the host doesn't like that candidate, we'd have

(01:02:53):
to give them equal time. So do you think that
something like that should happen on social media? I think
that would be fair.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
I feel like that's the only thing you could really do.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
But then we're talking about nico ord. Hey, we're talking
about Congress starting to start regulating and messing around with
social media platforms, which is also a CANDI free speech.
Then we're talking about regulating the Internet so what do
you think about that?

Speaker 4 (01:03:20):
Well, social media companies right now have a right to
censor a moderate material on their platforms because of the
section two thirty of the Communications Decency Active Nights And I've.

Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Got to be and we're gonna be fully disclosed here.
You didn't have that memorized. You read that off your yea.
I want to make sure people know that you don't
have the Federal Code memorized. But good for you for
looking for it. No, good for you. But I just
laugh because it's like, I'm gonna make everyone know that
you're You're not that kind of a savant, are you.

(01:03:50):
I'm okay, now that's good. No, no, no, all good,
all good, No, But now recap what you were just
talking about.

Speaker 4 (01:03:56):
So basically, I was saying that social media companies right
now have a right to sense or moderate material and
their platforms because of this section two thirty of the
Communications Decency Act of nineteen ninety six, which states gives
social media companies protection over their decisions to moderate content
in certain circumstances.

Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
Certain circumstances, that's the variable.

Speaker 3 (01:04:16):
I think they need to be more transparent too, because
what you just brought up with one of the stories,
like people didn't even know what that meant about violating
some kind of community guidelines, you know, And I've heard
that before too, Like what constitutes a violation of these
community guidelines? You know? I think being more clear about
what that is to you know, users, right, maybe would

(01:04:38):
help everybody a little bit better.

Speaker 1 (01:04:40):
And we're gonna have to leave it there, folks, believe
it or not, We've come to an end of another
edition of Studio six forty Kemdy. Great to have you,
Nico Jorge, welcome back, and thank you all for being
here something. Studio six forty is a production of the
KFI News Department for iHeartMedia, Los Angeles. The show's executive
producers are Steve Gregory and Jacob Gonzalez. The line producer

(01:05:04):
is Richie Kintaro. The opinions expressed on this program are
those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the
views of KFI, iHeartMedia or its affiliates.