The Gravy Train is OVER—Trump Cutting off Billions that was Funding Left-wing Activists, NPR CEO Gives Disastrous Congressional Testimony & Signal-gate Dem Attack Fails
In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz and Ben Ferguson break down how President Trump is cutting off billions in taxpayer funding that has long propped up left-wing activists. They discuss NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s disastrous congressional testimony, highlighting the taxpayer-funded outlet’s deep partisan bias and lack of viewpoint diversity. Plus, they dissect the media’s failed attempt to take down President Trump with “Signalgate,” as a new CBS poll shows his approval rating holding strong.
Be sure to follow and subscribe to Verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcasts.
And don’t forget to follow the show on social media so you never miss a moment!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz
X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Good Monday morning. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz,
Ben Ferguson with you.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Center.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
It's nice as always to be chatting with you. And
this was a very interesting week for the Democrats, whose
secret weapon has always been use the media to Jedi
mind trick. The American people seems to not be working,
and they could also be losing their funding when it
comes to MPR and their propaganda and PBS.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Well, the gravy train is over.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
And I got to say, we're two and a half
months into the Trump administration and we have never seen
such a concerted onslaught on the entire wall of left
wing control, the elites of left wing control, and in
particular going after the money. What Doze is doing, what
Trump is doing, what Elon is doing, is going after
(00:51):
the billions and billions of funding, whether at USAID, whether
at EPA, whether throughout the administration, that are funding the
entire apparat of the left wing. And that is proving
incredibly effective. It is sorely needed, and it is causing
absolute chaos and panic and terror. Not only that, we
(01:13):
saw truly catastrophic testimony from the head of NPR before
the House. NPR and PBS are both hard left propaganda
networks funded by the taxpayers, and they're both on the
chopping blocks. And the left is panicking because again the
gravy train is over. And what we're seeing among Democrats
right now is chaos, is fear, is absolute disarray and panic,
(01:37):
and the Democrats are scattering. We're going to break all
of that down. And finally, the democrats big attempt, the
media's big attempt to take down President Trump in these
first couple of months was Signalgate. Signal Gate. They thought, okay,
we've got them, we can take you down the entire
national security team. It was breathlessly reported on every TV
(01:58):
station around the clock. Democrats called for resignations. Every one
of them went out and bought pearls just so they
could clutch those pearls. And yet the polling has come
through now and the president's approval ratings remain historically strong.
Signal gait has failed despite the Democrats and the media's
full court press.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, it really is incredible, and we're going to dive
into all of that as well. I want to talk
to you real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians
and Jews. After more than a year of war, terror
and pain in Israel. The need for security essentials and
support for first responders is still critical. Israel must be
prepared for the next attack, wherever it may come from.
(02:40):
As Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides. That
is where the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has
supported and will continue to support the people of Israel
with life saving security essentials, and your gift today will
help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored security vehicles,
armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flat jackets and bulletproof vests and
(03:05):
so much more. Your generous donation today will help ensure
the people of Israel are safe and secure in the
days to come, as threats of tear remain imminent. So
give a gift to bless Israel andenter people by visiting
SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ dot org.
(03:27):
You can also call to give eight at eight four
eight eight IFCJ that's eight at eight four eight eight
if CJ eight eight eight four eight eight four three
two five or supportif CJ dot org. All right, so, Centater,
let's start with something and again this goes back to
(03:48):
money is power. The Democratic Party has figured this out.
They've exploited to their advantage. And there was a very
intering article that was written about the money and the
shutting off of that valve by Bhi. Donald Trump, by
government funded patronage networks, explain this to everybody listening.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Well, it's an article that was in the Daily Signal
and it's entitled how Trump is decimating the Left's patriotage
networks by Jarrett Stepman. I want to read the beginning
of it because it's really, I think, quite powerful. President
Donald Trump has launched a political counter revolution in the
early days of his second presidency. One of the most
profound ways he's doing this is by effectively cutting off
(04:27):
the left's massive government funded patronage networks. What's making Trump's
move so effective is that many of these networks are
based on government functions that long ago either waned in
usefulness or have completely abandoned their purpose. Environmental Protection Agency
administrator Lee Zelden appeared on One American News Wednesday and
(04:47):
explained how the left has insidiously transformed the federal government
into a Democratic party funding apparatus. Zelden explained how the
EPA under the bided administration was used as a slush
fund to give money to activists. Quote the EPA was
absolutely being used to push out this green slush fund
(05:08):
to their friends, Zelden said. Quote by design, the director
of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund leaves one of these NGOs,
goes to work for the Biden administration to design this
whole setup, and then sees his former employer get five
billion dollars. Zelden said the scheme applied to contracts large
(05:31):
and small, to both green non governmental organization executives and
to low level activists. The EPA has been acting as
a conduit to transfer huge amounts of taxpayer money to
the left's base. Quote are we providing clean air, land,
and water? Zelden ast rhetorically, this wasn't money spent towards
remediating environmental issue. This was money going through their friends.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Indeed it was.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Zelden has canceled hundreds of contracts worth one point five
billion dollars that were tabbed to go essentially to left
wing activist networks focused on quote environmental justice. Democrats are
apoplectic about the move. Of course, big surprise, Zelden is
(06:17):
going hard on other climate change initiatives too, where the
big money is at stake for the less green client network.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
One of the real misunderstandings about the modern administrative state
was demolished in recent years is that it's operated by
nonpartisan experts. Instead, it is now a funding stream. And
this is me talking and not the article on it.
It's a funding stream for the left. And understand what's
(06:51):
gone on. Whether it was USAID, whether it was the EPA,
whether it was every single department, the Department of Education,
the Department of Agriculture, that Apartment of Justice, every cabinet agency.
What the left has done is taking these funding spigots
and spent billions and billions of dollars funding all of
(07:12):
their friends, funding all of the attack apparatus. If you
wonder why things seem sometimes so skewed left and right,
a big part of the reason is the left has
been addicted to this funding. But Ben, that's what's so
powerful about cutting it off. Listen the right. You know,
when conservatives are in power, when Republicans are in power,
(07:32):
we don't do this. We don't fund our buddies, And
I'm glad we don't. I don't want us to. But
one strength of that is that means conservative organizations are
not addicted to the government cash. We're not suckling at
the teat of the federal government. The left right now,
they don't know what to do because their entire ecosystem everybody,
(07:54):
and understand this is from the big senior poohbas to
the most junior, green haired left wing radical who dropped
out of school. They're all dependent on the government money.
And it's why, you know, when you and I interviewed
Elon Musk and he was saying, you know, I asked him,
why do they hate you so much? And if you
(08:16):
remember his answer, he said, well, I'm taking away their goodies.
I'm taking away their money. This is what's fundamentally happening.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Well, and the way you said it is exactly the
way he was. Just kind of like, look, they're in
deep trouble because they don't know how to operate on
their own without it, and if you take it away,
then it can literally disappear, and also their reach disappears overnight.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
That is so powerful.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Make it on your own, but not with my tax
hour subsidizing your radical agenda.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
That's exactly right. Let me read a little more of
this Daily Signal article. Like many of the federal government's projects,
USAID is in many ways a relic of a bygone
era when the US aimed to stop the influence of
communism around the globe. Sometime after the fall of the USSR,
it became a vehicle to fund various leftist projects around
the globe with little relation to US national interest. In fact,
(09:13):
many of these projects were downright loathed in countries that
weren't too pleased with the US government funding pride parades
in their capital city. The Trump administration is also pulling
the plug on the unofficially established Church of the Left too.
They are withdrawing or threatening to withdraw hundreds of millions
(09:36):
of dollars in grant money directed at colleges and universities
that failed to protect their students from anti semitism on campus.
They are threatening schools with removing even more funds if
they continue their illegal, racially discriminatory DEI programs too, and
one might add that the problem goes far beyond anti
semitism and DEI. American universities, which have in many cases
(10:00):
become hedge funds with schools attached, are increasingly failing to
serve the public good. Much of what they call vital
quote unquote research is bogus. In addition, there's no question
that taxpayer funded research grants allow universities to fund their
obnoxious humanities departments that are politically monolithic at nearly every school.
(10:25):
They are in the business of gatekeeping the American elite
and turning out generations of activists who not only run
the show on campus, but populate newsrooms, corporate boardrooms, and
government institutions. Want to know what, Nearly everyone who runs
an elite institution sounds the same, spouts the same dogmas,
and went along with every insanity of the twenty twenty
(10:47):
great awokening.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
There's your source.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
And this is fundamentally what is going on that Trump
is targeting the power at the source.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
He's targeting the money.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
That is a big, big deal, which brings us to
another aspect of this, and that was what happened in
Congress last week with MPR CEO and PBS a CEO
there in front of Congress having to deal with what
DOGE is doing, which is cutting waste, fraud, and abuse,
and it did not go very well for the CEOs.
(11:23):
It reminded me an awful lot center of when those
the presidents of the Ivy League schools had to come
and answer questions about anti Semitism on college campuses after
the attacks on Israel, and people were just in shock
how radical they were and how they were not stopping it.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
That was very reminiscent of that.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
With NPR CEO, very arrogant, pbsco very arrogant, like, this
is what we do. We take your money, we put
out propaganda, so sue us, That's what we've been doing forever.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Well, and Catherine Maher who's the CEO of NPR ist
dripping the arrogant. She is hard left, and it was
exactly like you're right. The president of Harvard, the president
of Penn both of them lost their jobs over there, arrogant,
out of touch testimony before the House. Where she is. Look,
(12:17):
she's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She
worked for UNISEF, She worked for the National Democratic Institute,
She worked for the World Bank in access Now, she
worked for Wikimedia Wikimedia Foundation.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
She joined the Atlantic Council.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
She was part of the Department of States Foreign Affairs
Policy Board. She is a hard leftist, but look don't
take my word for it. Listen to it out of
her own mouth. And I want you to listen in
particular for this back and forth with Brandon gil Brandon
Gill is a freshman House member from Texas. He's a
(12:52):
good friend. I campaigned hard for Brandon. I endorsed him
in the primary. Brandon is a rising star in the House.
And just listen of this back and forth as he
questions her and and and and hangs her on her
own petard with her own words. Give a listen.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?
Speaker 6 (13:11):
I believe that I tweeted that.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my
thinking has evolved over the last half decade.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
It is okay, stop stop, stop, stops.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I want you to notice something she says there, Much
of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade, Ben,
what's a half decade?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Five years?
Speaker 3 (13:30):
That would be five years. Doesn't that half decades sound long?
Speaker 4 (13:33):
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade. Oh crap, what I said five years ago?
Oh no, that's a real problem. Run away, run away,
all right, go back to what he's playing with has evolved.
I just like that that that that comment. Her idiocy
only gets me laugh.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
As soon as I heard, I was like, this is
not going well. Keep listening, it gets evolved.
Speaker 8 (13:51):
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 7 (13:53):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able to say.
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Okay, do you believe that America believes in black plunder
in white democracy?
Speaker 6 (14:02):
I don't believe that, sir.
Speaker 8 (14:05):
You tweeted that.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
It's reference to a book you were reading at the time,
apparently The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
I don't think I've ever read that book, Sir.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
You tweeted about it.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
You said you took a day off to fully read
The Case for Reparations. You put that on Twitter in
January twenty twenty.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
I apologies.
Speaker 7 (14:23):
I don't recall that I did okay, I'd no doubt
that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
Okay, do you believe that white people inherently feel superior
to other races?
Speaker 6 (14:34):
I do not.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
You tweeted something to that effect. You said I grew
up feeling superior. How wide of me? Why did you
tweet that?
Speaker 7 (14:43):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experiences.
Speaker 8 (14:58):
Do you think that white people should pay rep I
have never said that, sir. Yes you did. You said
it in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (15:05):
You tweeted, yes, the North, yes, all of us, Yes, America, Yes,
our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations, yes
on this day.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came
before us.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
many How much reparations have you personally paid?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
Sir?
Speaker 7 (15:35):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Okay, just for everybody else, I'm not asking anyone. Seems
to be what you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting
is morally wrong?
Speaker 7 (15:45):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive. I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 8 (15:50):
Do you believe it's morally wrong though?
Speaker 6 (15:52):
Of course?
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Of course, then why did you refer to it as
counter productive? Very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 7 (15:59):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive as well as.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Being you tweeted it's hard to be mad about protests
in reference to the BLM protests not prioritizing the private
property of a system of oppression. You didn't condemn the looting.
You said that it was counterproductive. NPR also promoted a
book called Indefensive Looting. Do you think that that's an
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 7 (16:23):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was.
Speaker 8 (16:26):
A tweeted that you read that book.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
But I don't believe that I did read that book.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
It's amazing she tweeted that she read the book. She's like,
I don't believe that I ever read that book. So
you're either lying now or you're lying. What a half
half a decade ago is? She likes to describe it right, Senator.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
Look, that is a crushingly effective cross examination. And if
you look at at She is running away from everything
she's ever said, everything she's ever believed, because it is
indefensible when she said, as you know, she claimed on Twitter,
she took an entire day off to read a book
(17:05):
on reparations. It was so important that shed de voted
a day of her and now she has no recollection.
I'm sorry, I I you know this. This will be
before you were watching TV. But but there was an
old series. You ever watch Hogan's Heroes? Yeah, gosh, yes, okay,
well do you remember Sergeant Schultz. Yes, Sergeant Schultz, he
would say.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I see nothing, I hear nothing.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
That is that's that is Catherine Marr. She sees nothing,
she hears nothing.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
And and yet this is someone charged with spending millions
of taxpayer dollars running what is a left wing propaganda network.
You know her statement, I've never called for reparations. I
gotta say, Brandon, I think does a fabulous shop? Well
yes you did, let me read you the tweet and
she says reparations yes, oh oh well, well other than
(17:51):
when I called for reparations. But I haven't called for
it other than when I've called for it. But but
but no, no, it's not fiscal reparations. It's it's I mean,
I mean, I mean pairing the tires on their cars.
That's that that that those are the reparations.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I mean.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
She has no answer, because her answer is she desperately
wants to run away from everything she has ever said
or done. But but let me actually let's actually go
to something else that that that that she said and did,
which is what do you think she has cited as
(18:25):
the number one challenge?
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Uh? That it that that.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Is facing uh that that is facing journalism right.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Now, knowing this woman have no idea.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Okay, Here here is a quote from her at a
panel at the Atlantic Council Research Lab. Quote, the number
one challenge that we see here is, of course the
First Amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's it's so like, it's so on Brandford, that's almost unbelievable. Though,
like a woman who says that she leaves in the
public and radio and free speed says, that's the real
problem is the First Amendment. In fact, Sedator, here's the
MPR CEO in her own words, saying exactly that the.
Speaker 9 (19:12):
Number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(19:33):
trickically addressed some of the real challenges of where does
bad information come from and sort of the influence peddlers
who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
I mean, you listen to her, and it's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
If we could just do what we want and get
rid of everything we don't want and silence anybody that
says something that is disagreeing with us, and everything would
be fine in media and with our government, right, we
could just control everybody and shut everybody down we don't like.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
That is the NPR CEO saying it.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Look, the left believes in censorship, that they don't believe
in journalism, they don't believe in media, they believe in propaganda.
And you and I on this podcast covered last year
a story that was written in The Free Press by
Yuri Berliner, and it was in April of twenty four
and it was entitled I've been at NPR for twenty
five years. Here's how we lost to America's trust. And
(20:27):
I just want to read the beginning of it again
because we did a good chunk of a podcast just
on this story, but it really sets up the absolute disaster.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
That is NPR today. How Uri Billinner began.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
You know, the stereotype of the NPR lister, an ev driving,
wordle playing, tote bag carrying, coastal elite. It doesn't precisely
describe me, but it's not far off. I'm Sarah Lawrence, educated,
was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother. I drive
a super room and Spotify says my listing habits are
most similar to people in Berkeley.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
I fit the NPR mold. I'll cop to that.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
So when I got a job here twenty five years ago,
I never looked back. As a senior editor on the
business desk, where news is always breaking, We've covered up
peeples in the workplace, supermarket prices, social media, and AI.
It's true NPR always had a liberal bent, but during
most of my tenure here, an open minded, curious culture prevailed.
We were nerdy, not knee jerk activists or scolding. In
(21:23):
recent years, however, that has changed Today those who listen
to NPR or read its coverage online find something different
the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the
US population. If you are a conservative, you will read
this and say, duh, it's always been this way, but
it hasn't.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
For decades.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Since its founding in nineteen seventy, a wide swath of
America turned into NPR for reliable journalism and gorgeous audio
pieces with birds singing in the Amazon. Millions came to
us for conversations that exposed us to voices around the country,
in the world radically different from our engaging precisely because
they were unguarded and unpredictable. No image generated more pride
(22:06):
within NPR than the farmer listening to Morning Edition from
his or her tractor at sunrise. Back in twenty eleven,
although NPR's audience is tilted a bit to the left,
it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty
six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, twenty three
percent as middle of the road, and thirty seven percent
(22:27):
as liberal. By twenty twenty three, the picture was completely different.
Only eleven percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative.
Twenty one percent as middle of the road, and sixty
seven percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal.
We weren't just losing conservatives, we were also losing moderates
and traditional liberals. An open minded spirit no longer exists
(22:50):
within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience
that reflects America.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
So you see where we are with this.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
It's very clear that she was exposed for what she
believes and just how radical. You even had a Congressman,
William Timmins, who is asking her a basic question about, Hey,
you claim that you guys aren't biased, and he asked
her about her editorial board. I want people to hear
what she said about her editorial board members.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Listen, you're a rabid progressive, and do you not think
it's a problem that your political leanings make it seem
to the American people that you're not biased and you're
not doing your job because you agree that your job
is to have journalistic integrity.
Speaker 7 (23:34):
Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the
newsroom and anything that I.
Speaker 10 (23:39):
Let's talk about the newsroom. You have eighty seven registered Democrats,
not a single Republican in your editor boards. I mean,
how does that work to give us the perception that
you're doing your job of actually delivering unbiased information.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
I would agree with you that that number is a
concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we
need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of
the American society so that we can report well for
all Americans.
Speaker 10 (24:03):
Well, I think that you are failing. I realize you
don't even there for a year, but I just really
think that while it is a small portion of your budget,
you very much should expect to restructure your revenue streams
because I don't think that MPR is necessarily worth saving.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
I love these I don't think MPR is necessarily worth
saving the fact that their editorial board has eighty seven members,
all of them registered Democrats. Center, there's not even independence.
Are like non registered people on their board. You don't
apparently become an editorial board member unless you are a
card carrying Democrat. Even independence be damned, forget Republicans, you
(24:42):
got zero. MPR is blatantly partisan in balance, that's obvious.
But then the question becomes, Okay, what happens next. We
know it, we've confirmed it, We've witnessed it. We heard
her testimony. I don't think she's going to lose her
job over this, but will she actually lose our taxpayer
(25:02):
dollars that are funding them.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, And the stat of the eighty seven registered Democrats
actually comes from that that article Uriberliner wrote in the
Free Press, and he wrote last year, he said, quote,
concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at
voter registration for our newsroom in DC, where NPR's headquarters
and many of us live. I found eighty seven registered
(25:27):
Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
None.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
So, on May third, twenty twenty one, I presented the
findings at an all hands editorial staff meeting. Now note
this is a senior editor at NPR who's reporting this.
Here's what he writes. The response was when I suggested
we had a diversity problem with a score of eighty
seven Democrats and zero Republicans. The response wasn't hostile, it
(25:55):
was worse. I was met with profound indifference. A few
messages from surprised, curious colleagues, but the messages were of
the oh wow, that's weird variety, as if the lopsided
tally was a random an anomaly rather than a critical
failure of our diversity north Star. In a follow up
email exchange, a top NPR News executive told me that
(26:16):
she had been skewered for bringing up diversity of thought
when she arrived at NPR, so she said, I want
to be careful how we discuss this publicly. Look, NPR
is nothing but a left wing propaganda out let, PBS
is the same. And the very best witness to demonstrate
this is Katherine Marr, who is an absolute zealot. She's
(26:40):
someone who, when Tim Waltz said let's put tampons in boys' bathrooms,
I'm sure Katherine Marr said, oh you hero, you social
justice warrior. That's the world she's coming from. She's someone
who I suspect only refers to latin X because Latinos
and Latinos do not exist in her elite, left wing, blinkered,
(27:06):
bizarre world. And you know what, Catherine Maher is entitled
to her opinions. I will defend her right to spout
innateities for the rest of her life. I just don't
want to pay for him, and I don't think you
should have to pay for him if she wants to
spout idiocies. She needs to find some left wing billionaire
to pay for her. It shouldn't be the American taxpayers
(27:28):
forced to subsidize her efforts at propaganda.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
So will we actually have the funding of these two platforms?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
What is your best guess now? After these hearings were
so clear.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
Look, I very much hope so that this gets to
the sixty four thousand dollars question coming out of all
of Doze, which is how much of what DOGE is
doing right now will be memorialized in legislation that Congress
can pass. And that is an open question right now, Ben,
because anything that goes through what's called regular order in
(28:01):
the Senate means that it takes sixty votes to pass,
which means that Democrats can block it. And so we
will try to use exceptions to the filibuster rule, the
most important of which is is reck budget reconciliation to
do as much of that as possible. But I don't
know if Congress will succeed on getting the job done.
(28:22):
I certainly hope so, and I can tell you this,
I'm fighting tooth and nail to make it happen.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Which center brings us to another story, and it may
have been one of the biggest fails that we've seen
a long time from the media. They grabbed onto what
they described as signal gait. They were demanding that people
resign or be fired by the president. That was never
going to happen. But really what it was they were
hoping that the American bee would turn on Donald Trump,
it would tank as approval rating and stop the momentum
(28:49):
with doge and everything else. It turns out the American
people actually care more about killing terrorists than they do
about who's on a signal chat and CBS poll numbers
are proving that to be true.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
Well, you know, the left is not subtle. The Democrats
in the media, they tell you exactly what they're doing,
and they're all monolithic because they believe in censorship, they
believe in propaganda. Every one of them says exactly the
same thing one hundred percent of the time. And listen,
it's clear they hate Donald Trump, they want to destroy him,
they hate everything he's doing. And they looked at this
(29:24):
signal text thread as their big chance. This was going
to be their Russia Russia, Russia, that they were going
to use it to go after the President. To go
after every one of his appointees. And so we've seen
for the better part of a week breathless coverage in
the media, every Democrat demanding investigations, demanding firings. You know,
one of the funniest was Eric Swalwell, who even among
(29:48):
left wing nutcases, managed to really stand out. You know,
he tweeted out every person on the signal thread should
be fired. Yeah, okay, I'm sure that's the great idea there,
the vice president, secretary of State, Secretary of Events, every
national security official in the entire administration. Okay, sure, I
know why you want that, I understand, but America's.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Not You didn't have the same guy that slept with
a spy. I just want to make sure I get
the connection here, right.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
I don't know why you'd hold that against him.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Got it? Yeah, that's a little rich from that guy,
But keep going.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Look everything they wanted to destroy Trump, and they were
convinced this was their this was their opportunity. And look,
you and I did a podcast to media after this
broke where we pointed out, yeah, it was a screw
up to include the editor of The Atlantic on it.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
That was a mistake.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
It was a pretty an embarrassing mistake, but the underlying
substance of the text exchange was great. It was actually
the president of the National Security Team taking out terrorists
who were attacking Americans, who had been attacking American shipping lanes,
who Biden had ignored and done nothing, and who had
been driving up costs for American consumers because it was
so expensive to get through the Sue Canal. And President
(31:01):
Trump said, open up the shipping lanes, take out the
houthy radical Islamic terrorists. And they did, and it was
an incredible success. So the substance of it was all
strong and successful. But yet the media and the Democrats thought, Aha,
we finally got through this mistake. The way to go
after Trump well. On Sunday CBS poll CBS released a
(31:23):
new poll, and it turns out their entire attack on
Signal Gate failed. CBS polls shows fifty percent of Americans
approve of Donald Trump, fifty percent disapprove. In other words,
their entire effort to take him down failed utterly.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Gotta love it. Don't forget me to this show Monday,
Wednesday Friday.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Hit that subscriber auto download button and share this podcast.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Please.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
You can text it to your friends. You can put
it on X or on Facebook or on Instagram. Make
sure you get it out there so other people hear
what we're doing and the Senate and I will see
you back here on Wednesday morning.
Good Monday morning. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz,
Ben Ferguson with you.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Center.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
It's nice as always to be chatting with you. And
this was a very interesting week for the Democrats, whose
secret weapon has always been use the media to Jedi
mind trick. The American people seems to not be working,
and they could also be losing their funding when it
comes to MPR and their propaganda and PBS.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Well, the gravy train is over.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
And I got to say, we're two and a half
months into the Trump administration and we have never seen
such a concerted onslaught on the entire wall of left
wing control, the elites of left wing control, and in
particular going after the money. What Doze is doing, what
Trump is doing, what Elon is doing, is going after
(00:51):
the billions and billions of funding, whether at USAID, whether
at EPA, whether throughout the administration, that are funding the
entire apparat of the left wing. And that is proving
incredibly effective. It is sorely needed, and it is causing
absolute chaos and panic and terror. Not only that, we
(01:13):
saw truly catastrophic testimony from the head of NPR before
the House. NPR and PBS are both hard left propaganda
networks funded by the taxpayers, and they're both on the
chopping blocks. And the left is panicking because again the
gravy train is over. And what we're seeing among Democrats
right now is chaos, is fear, is absolute disarray and panic,
(01:37):
and the Democrats are scattering. We're going to break all
of that down. And finally, the democrats big attempt, the
media's big attempt to take down President Trump in these
first couple of months was Signalgate. Signal Gate. They thought, okay,
we've got them, we can take you down the entire
national security team. It was breathlessly reported on every TV
(01:58):
station around the clock. Democrats called for resignations. Every one
of them went out and bought pearls just so they
could clutch those pearls. And yet the polling has come
through now and the president's approval ratings remain historically strong.
Signal gait has failed despite the Democrats and the media's
full court press.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, it really is incredible, and we're going to dive
into all of that as well. I want to talk
to you real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians
and Jews. After more than a year of war, terror
and pain in Israel. The need for security essentials and
support for first responders is still critical. Israel must be
prepared for the next attack, wherever it may come from.
(02:40):
As Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides. That
is where the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has
supported and will continue to support the people of Israel
with life saving security essentials, and your gift today will
help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored security vehicles,
armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flat jackets and bulletproof vests and
(03:05):
so much more. Your generous donation today will help ensure
the people of Israel are safe and secure in the
days to come, as threats of tear remain imminent. So
give a gift to bless Israel andenter people by visiting
SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ dot org.
(03:27):
You can also call to give eight at eight four
eight eight IFCJ that's eight at eight four eight eight
if CJ eight eight eight four eight eight four three
two five or supportif CJ dot org. All right, so, Centater,
let's start with something and again this goes back to
(03:48):
money is power. The Democratic Party has figured this out.
They've exploited to their advantage. And there was a very
intering article that was written about the money and the
shutting off of that valve by Bhi. Donald Trump, by
government funded patronage networks, explain this to everybody listening.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Well, it's an article that was in the Daily Signal
and it's entitled how Trump is decimating the Left's patriotage
networks by Jarrett Stepman. I want to read the beginning
of it because it's really, I think, quite powerful. President
Donald Trump has launched a political counter revolution in the
early days of his second presidency. One of the most
profound ways he's doing this is by effectively cutting off
(04:27):
the left's massive government funded patronage networks. What's making Trump's
move so effective is that many of these networks are
based on government functions that long ago either waned in
usefulness or have completely abandoned their purpose. Environmental Protection Agency
administrator Lee Zelden appeared on One American News Wednesday and
(04:47):
explained how the left has insidiously transformed the federal government
into a Democratic party funding apparatus. Zelden explained how the
EPA under the bided administration was used as a slush
fund to give money to activists. Quote the EPA was
absolutely being used to push out this green slush fund
(05:08):
to their friends, Zelden said. Quote by design, the director
of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund leaves one of these NGOs,
goes to work for the Biden administration to design this
whole setup, and then sees his former employer get five
billion dollars. Zelden said the scheme applied to contracts large
(05:31):
and small, to both green non governmental organization executives and
to low level activists. The EPA has been acting as
a conduit to transfer huge amounts of taxpayer money to
the left's base. Quote are we providing clean air, land,
and water? Zelden ast rhetorically, this wasn't money spent towards
remediating environmental issue. This was money going through their friends.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Indeed it was.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Zelden has canceled hundreds of contracts worth one point five
billion dollars that were tabbed to go essentially to left
wing activist networks focused on quote environmental justice. Democrats are
apoplectic about the move. Of course, big surprise, Zelden is
(06:17):
going hard on other climate change initiatives too, where the
big money is at stake for the less green client network.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
One of the real misunderstandings about the modern administrative state
was demolished in recent years is that it's operated by
nonpartisan experts. Instead, it is now a funding stream. And
this is me talking and not the article on it.
It's a funding stream for the left. And understand what's
(06:51):
gone on. Whether it was USAID, whether it was the EPA,
whether it was every single department, the Department of Education,
the Department of Agriculture, that Apartment of Justice, every cabinet agency.
What the left has done is taking these funding spigots
and spent billions and billions of dollars funding all of
(07:12):
their friends, funding all of the attack apparatus. If you
wonder why things seem sometimes so skewed left and right,
a big part of the reason is the left has
been addicted to this funding. But Ben, that's what's so
powerful about cutting it off. Listen the right. You know,
when conservatives are in power, when Republicans are in power,
(07:32):
we don't do this. We don't fund our buddies, And
I'm glad we don't. I don't want us to. But
one strength of that is that means conservative organizations are
not addicted to the government cash. We're not suckling at
the teat of the federal government. The left right now,
they don't know what to do because their entire ecosystem everybody,
(07:54):
and understand this is from the big senior poohbas to
the most junior, green haired left wing radical who dropped
out of school. They're all dependent on the government money.
And it's why, you know, when you and I interviewed
Elon Musk and he was saying, you know, I asked him,
why do they hate you so much? And if you
(08:16):
remember his answer, he said, well, I'm taking away their goodies.
I'm taking away their money. This is what's fundamentally happening.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Well, and the way you said it is exactly the
way he was. Just kind of like, look, they're in
deep trouble because they don't know how to operate on
their own without it, and if you take it away,
then it can literally disappear, and also their reach disappears overnight.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
That is so powerful.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Make it on your own, but not with my tax
hour subsidizing your radical agenda.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
That's exactly right. Let me read a little more of
this Daily Signal article. Like many of the federal government's projects,
USAID is in many ways a relic of a bygone
era when the US aimed to stop the influence of
communism around the globe. Sometime after the fall of the USSR,
it became a vehicle to fund various leftist projects around
the globe with little relation to US national interest. In fact,
(09:13):
many of these projects were downright loathed in countries that
weren't too pleased with the US government funding pride parades
in their capital city. The Trump administration is also pulling
the plug on the unofficially established Church of the Left too.
They are withdrawing or threatening to withdraw hundreds of millions
(09:36):
of dollars in grant money directed at colleges and universities
that failed to protect their students from anti semitism on campus.
They are threatening schools with removing even more funds if
they continue their illegal, racially discriminatory DEI programs too, and
one might add that the problem goes far beyond anti
semitism and DEI. American universities, which have in many cases
(10:00):
become hedge funds with schools attached, are increasingly failing to
serve the public good. Much of what they call vital
quote unquote research is bogus. In addition, there's no question
that taxpayer funded research grants allow universities to fund their
obnoxious humanities departments that are politically monolithic at nearly every school.
(10:25):
They are in the business of gatekeeping the American elite
and turning out generations of activists who not only run
the show on campus, but populate newsrooms, corporate boardrooms, and
government institutions. Want to know what, Nearly everyone who runs
an elite institution sounds the same, spouts the same dogmas,
and went along with every insanity of the twenty twenty
(10:47):
great awokening.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
There's your source.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
And this is fundamentally what is going on that Trump
is targeting the power at the source.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
He's targeting the money.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
That is a big, big deal, which brings us to
another aspect of this, and that was what happened in
Congress last week with MPR CEO and PBS a CEO
there in front of Congress having to deal with what
DOGE is doing, which is cutting waste, fraud, and abuse,
and it did not go very well for the CEOs.
(11:23):
It reminded me an awful lot center of when those
the presidents of the Ivy League schools had to come
and answer questions about anti Semitism on college campuses after
the attacks on Israel, and people were just in shock
how radical they were and how they were not stopping it.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
That was very reminiscent of that.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
With NPR CEO, very arrogant, pbsco very arrogant, like, this
is what we do. We take your money, we put
out propaganda, so sue us, That's what we've been doing forever.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Well, and Catherine Maher who's the CEO of NPR ist
dripping the arrogant. She is hard left, and it was
exactly like you're right. The president of Harvard, the president
of Penn both of them lost their jobs over there, arrogant,
out of touch testimony before the House. Where she is. Look,
(12:17):
she's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She
worked for UNISEF, She worked for the National Democratic Institute,
She worked for the World Bank in access Now, she
worked for Wikimedia Wikimedia Foundation.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
She joined the Atlantic Council.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
She was part of the Department of States Foreign Affairs
Policy Board. She is a hard leftist, but look don't
take my word for it. Listen to it out of
her own mouth. And I want you to listen in
particular for this back and forth with Brandon gil Brandon
Gill is a freshman House member from Texas. He's a
(12:52):
good friend. I campaigned hard for Brandon. I endorsed him
in the primary. Brandon is a rising star in the House.
And just listen of this back and forth as he
questions her and and and and hangs her on her
own petard with her own words. Give a listen.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?
Speaker 6 (13:11):
I believe that I tweeted that.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my
thinking has evolved over the last half decade.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
It is okay, stop stop, stop, stops.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
I want you to notice something she says there, Much
of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade, Ben,
what's a half decade?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Five years?
Speaker 3 (13:30):
That would be five years. Doesn't that half decades sound long?
Speaker 4 (13:33):
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade. Oh crap, what I said five years ago?
Oh no, that's a real problem. Run away, run away,
all right, go back to what he's playing with has evolved.
I just like that that that that comment. Her idiocy
only gets me laugh.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
As soon as I heard, I was like, this is
not going well. Keep listening, it gets evolved.
Speaker 8 (13:51):
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 7 (13:53):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able to say.
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Okay, do you believe that America believes in black plunder
in white democracy?
Speaker 6 (14:02):
I don't believe that, sir.
Speaker 8 (14:05):
You tweeted that.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
It's reference to a book you were reading at the time,
apparently The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
I don't think I've ever read that book, Sir.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
You tweeted about it.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
You said you took a day off to fully read
The Case for Reparations. You put that on Twitter in
January twenty twenty.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
I apologies.
Speaker 7 (14:23):
I don't recall that I did okay, I'd no doubt
that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
Okay, do you believe that white people inherently feel superior
to other races?
Speaker 6 (14:34):
I do not.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
You tweeted something to that effect. You said I grew
up feeling superior. How wide of me? Why did you
tweet that?
Speaker 7 (14:43):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experiences.
Speaker 8 (14:58):
Do you think that white people should pay rep I
have never said that, sir. Yes you did. You said
it in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (15:05):
You tweeted, yes, the North, yes, all of us, Yes, America, Yes,
our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations, yes
on this day.
Speaker 7 (15:14):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came
before us.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
many How much reparations have you personally paid?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
Sir?
Speaker 7 (15:35):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Okay, just for everybody else, I'm not asking anyone. Seems
to be what you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting
is morally wrong?
Speaker 7 (15:45):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive. I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 8 (15:50):
Do you believe it's morally wrong though?
Speaker 6 (15:52):
Of course?
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Of course, then why did you refer to it as
counter productive? Very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 7 (15:59):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive as well as.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Being you tweeted it's hard to be mad about protests
in reference to the BLM protests not prioritizing the private
property of a system of oppression. You didn't condemn the looting.
You said that it was counterproductive. NPR also promoted a
book called Indefensive Looting. Do you think that that's an
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 7 (16:23):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was.
Speaker 8 (16:26):
A tweeted that you read that book.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
But I don't believe that I did read that book.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
It's amazing she tweeted that she read the book. She's like,
I don't believe that I ever read that book. So
you're either lying now or you're lying. What a half
half a decade ago is? She likes to describe it right, Senator.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
Look, that is a crushingly effective cross examination. And if
you look at at She is running away from everything
she's ever said, everything she's ever believed, because it is
indefensible when she said, as you know, she claimed on Twitter,
she took an entire day off to read a book
(17:05):
on reparations. It was so important that shed de voted
a day of her and now she has no recollection.
I'm sorry, I I you know this. This will be
before you were watching TV. But but there was an
old series. You ever watch Hogan's Heroes? Yeah, gosh, yes, okay,
well do you remember Sergeant Schultz. Yes, Sergeant Schultz, he
would say.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I see nothing, I hear nothing.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
That is that's that is Catherine Marr. She sees nothing,
she hears nothing.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
And and yet this is someone charged with spending millions
of taxpayer dollars running what is a left wing propaganda network.
You know her statement, I've never called for reparations. I
gotta say, Brandon, I think does a fabulous shop? Well
yes you did, let me read you the tweet and
she says reparations yes, oh oh well, well other than
(17:51):
when I called for reparations. But I haven't called for
it other than when I've called for it. But but
but no, no, it's not fiscal reparations. It's it's I mean,
I mean, I mean pairing the tires on their cars.
That's that that that those are the reparations.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I mean.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
She has no answer, because her answer is she desperately
wants to run away from everything she has ever said
or done. But but let me actually let's actually go
to something else that that that that she said and did,
which is what do you think she has cited as
(18:25):
the number one challenge?
Speaker 3 (18:28):
Uh? That it that that.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Is facing uh that that is facing journalism right.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Now, knowing this woman have no idea.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Okay, Here here is a quote from her at a
panel at the Atlantic Council Research Lab. Quote, the number
one challenge that we see here is, of course the
First Amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's it's so like, it's so on Brandford, that's almost unbelievable. Though,
like a woman who says that she leaves in the
public and radio and free speed says, that's the real
problem is the First Amendment. In fact, Sedator, here's the
MPR CEO in her own words, saying exactly that the.
Speaker 9 (19:12):
Number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(19:33):
trickically addressed some of the real challenges of where does
bad information come from and sort of the influence peddlers
who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
I mean, you listen to her, and it's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
If we could just do what we want and get
rid of everything we don't want and silence anybody that
says something that is disagreeing with us, and everything would
be fine in media and with our government, right, we
could just control everybody and shut everybody down we don't like.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
That is the NPR CEO saying it.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Look, the left believes in censorship, that they don't believe
in journalism, they don't believe in media, they believe in propaganda.
And you and I on this podcast covered last year
a story that was written in The Free Press by
Yuri Berliner, and it was in April of twenty four
and it was entitled I've been at NPR for twenty
five years. Here's how we lost to America's trust. And
(20:27):
I just want to read the beginning of it again
because we did a good chunk of a podcast just
on this story, but it really sets up the absolute disaster.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
That is NPR today. How Uri Billinner began.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
You know, the stereotype of the NPR lister, an ev driving,
wordle playing, tote bag carrying, coastal elite. It doesn't precisely
describe me, but it's not far off. I'm Sarah Lawrence, educated,
was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother. I drive
a super room and Spotify says my listing habits are
most similar to people in Berkeley.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
I fit the NPR mold. I'll cop to that.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
So when I got a job here twenty five years ago,
I never looked back. As a senior editor on the
business desk, where news is always breaking, We've covered up
peeples in the workplace, supermarket prices, social media, and AI.
It's true NPR always had a liberal bent, but during
most of my tenure here, an open minded, curious culture prevailed.
We were nerdy, not knee jerk activists or scolding. In
(21:23):
recent years, however, that has changed Today those who listen
to NPR or read its coverage online find something different
the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the
US population. If you are a conservative, you will read
this and say, duh, it's always been this way, but
it hasn't.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
For decades.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Since its founding in nineteen seventy, a wide swath of
America turned into NPR for reliable journalism and gorgeous audio
pieces with birds singing in the Amazon. Millions came to
us for conversations that exposed us to voices around the country,
in the world radically different from our engaging precisely because
they were unguarded and unpredictable. No image generated more pride
(22:06):
within NPR than the farmer listening to Morning Edition from
his or her tractor at sunrise. Back in twenty eleven,
although NPR's audience is tilted a bit to the left,
it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty
six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, twenty three
percent as middle of the road, and thirty seven percent
(22:27):
as liberal. By twenty twenty three, the picture was completely different.
Only eleven percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative.
Twenty one percent as middle of the road, and sixty
seven percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal.
We weren't just losing conservatives, we were also losing moderates
and traditional liberals. An open minded spirit no longer exists
(22:50):
within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience
that reflects America.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
So you see where we are with this.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
It's very clear that she was exposed for what she
believes and just how radical. You even had a Congressman,
William Timmins, who is asking her a basic question about, Hey,
you claim that you guys aren't biased, and he asked
her about her editorial board. I want people to hear
what she said about her editorial board members.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Listen, you're a rabid progressive, and do you not think
it's a problem that your political leanings make it seem
to the American people that you're not biased and you're
not doing your job because you agree that your job
is to have journalistic integrity.
Speaker 7 (23:34):
Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the
newsroom and anything that I.
Speaker 10 (23:39):
Let's talk about the newsroom. You have eighty seven registered Democrats,
not a single Republican in your editor boards. I mean,
how does that work to give us the perception that
you're doing your job of actually delivering unbiased information.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
I would agree with you that that number is a
concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we
need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of
the American society so that we can report well for
all Americans.
Speaker 10 (24:03):
Well, I think that you are failing. I realize you
don't even there for a year, but I just really
think that while it is a small portion of your budget,
you very much should expect to restructure your revenue streams
because I don't think that MPR is necessarily worth saving.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
I love these I don't think MPR is necessarily worth
saving the fact that their editorial board has eighty seven members,
all of them registered Democrats. Center, there's not even independence.
Are like non registered people on their board. You don't
apparently become an editorial board member unless you are a
card carrying Democrat. Even independence be damned, forget Republicans, you
(24:42):
got zero. MPR is blatantly partisan in balance, that's obvious.
But then the question becomes, Okay, what happens next. We
know it, we've confirmed it, We've witnessed it. We heard
her testimony. I don't think she's going to lose her
job over this, but will she actually lose our taxpayer
(25:02):
dollars that are funding them.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, And the stat of the eighty seven registered Democrats
actually comes from that that article Uriberliner wrote in the
Free Press, and he wrote last year, he said, quote,
concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at
voter registration for our newsroom in DC, where NPR's headquarters
and many of us live. I found eighty seven registered
(25:27):
Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
None.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
So, on May third, twenty twenty one, I presented the
findings at an all hands editorial staff meeting. Now note
this is a senior editor at NPR who's reporting this.
Here's what he writes. The response was when I suggested
we had a diversity problem with a score of eighty
seven Democrats and zero Republicans. The response wasn't hostile, it
(25:55):
was worse. I was met with profound indifference. A few
messages from surprised, curious colleagues, but the messages were of
the oh wow, that's weird variety, as if the lopsided
tally was a random an anomaly rather than a critical
failure of our diversity north Star. In a follow up
email exchange, a top NPR News executive told me that
(26:16):
she had been skewered for bringing up diversity of thought
when she arrived at NPR, so she said, I want
to be careful how we discuss this publicly. Look, NPR
is nothing but a left wing propaganda out let, PBS
is the same. And the very best witness to demonstrate
this is Katherine Marr, who is an absolute zealot. She's
(26:40):
someone who, when Tim Waltz said let's put tampons in boys' bathrooms,
I'm sure Katherine Marr said, oh you hero, you social
justice warrior. That's the world she's coming from. She's someone
who I suspect only refers to latin X because Latinos
and Latinos do not exist in her elite, left wing, blinkered,
(27:06):
bizarre world. And you know what, Catherine Maher is entitled
to her opinions. I will defend her right to spout
innateities for the rest of her life. I just don't
want to pay for him, and I don't think you
should have to pay for him if she wants to
spout idiocies. She needs to find some left wing billionaire
to pay for her. It shouldn't be the American taxpayers
(27:28):
forced to subsidize her efforts at propaganda.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
So will we actually have the funding of these two platforms?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
What is your best guess now? After these hearings were
so clear.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
Look, I very much hope so that this gets to
the sixty four thousand dollars question coming out of all
of Doze, which is how much of what DOGE is
doing right now will be memorialized in legislation that Congress
can pass. And that is an open question right now, Ben,
because anything that goes through what's called regular order in
(28:01):
the Senate means that it takes sixty votes to pass,
which means that Democrats can block it. And so we
will try to use exceptions to the filibuster rule, the
most important of which is is reck budget reconciliation to
do as much of that as possible. But I don't
know if Congress will succeed on getting the job done.
(28:22):
I certainly hope so, and I can tell you this,
I'm fighting tooth and nail to make it happen.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Which center brings us to another story, and it may
have been one of the biggest fails that we've seen
a long time from the media. They grabbed onto what
they described as signal gait. They were demanding that people
resign or be fired by the president. That was never
going to happen. But really what it was they were
hoping that the American bee would turn on Donald Trump,
it would tank as approval rating and stop the momentum
(28:49):
with doge and everything else. It turns out the American
people actually care more about killing terrorists than they do
about who's on a signal chat and CBS poll numbers
are proving that to be true.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
Well, you know, the left is not subtle. The Democrats
in the media, they tell you exactly what they're doing,
and they're all monolithic because they believe in censorship, they
believe in propaganda. Every one of them says exactly the
same thing one hundred percent of the time. And listen,
it's clear they hate Donald Trump, they want to destroy him,
they hate everything he's doing. And they looked at this
(29:24):
signal text thread as their big chance. This was going
to be their Russia Russia, Russia, that they were going
to use it to go after the President. To go
after every one of his appointees. And so we've seen
for the better part of a week breathless coverage in
the media, every Democrat demanding investigations, demanding firings. You know,
one of the funniest was Eric Swalwell, who even among
(29:48):
left wing nutcases, managed to really stand out. You know,
he tweeted out every person on the signal thread should
be fired. Yeah, okay, I'm sure that's the great idea there,
the vice president, secretary of State, Secretary of Events, every
national security official in the entire administration. Okay, sure, I
know why you want that, I understand, but America's.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Not You didn't have the same guy that slept with
a spy. I just want to make sure I get
the connection here, right.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
I don't know why you'd hold that against him.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Got it? Yeah, that's a little rich from that guy,
But keep going.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Look everything they wanted to destroy Trump, and they were
convinced this was their this was their opportunity. And look,
you and I did a podcast to media after this
broke where we pointed out, yeah, it was a screw
up to include the editor of The Atlantic on it.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
That was a mistake.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
It was a pretty an embarrassing mistake, but the underlying
substance of the text exchange was great. It was actually
the president of the National Security Team taking out terrorists
who were attacking Americans, who had been attacking American shipping lanes,
who Biden had ignored and done nothing, and who had
been driving up costs for American consumers because it was
so expensive to get through the Sue Canal. And President
(31:01):
Trump said, open up the shipping lanes, take out the
houthy radical Islamic terrorists. And they did, and it was
an incredible success. So the substance of it was all
strong and successful. But yet the media and the Democrats thought, Aha,
we finally got through this mistake. The way to go
after Trump well. On Sunday CBS poll CBS released a
(31:23):
new poll, and it turns out their entire attack on
Signal Gate failed. CBS polls shows fifty percent of Americans
approve of Donald Trump, fifty percent disapprove. In other words,
their entire effort to take him down failed utterly.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Gotta love it. Don't forget me to this show Monday,
Wednesday Friday.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Hit that subscriber auto download button and share this podcast.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Please.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
You can text it to your friends. You can put
it on X or on Facebook or on Instagram. Make
sure you get it out there so other people hear
what we're doing and the Senate and I will see
you back here on Wednesday morning.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!