Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced shurpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is the great Tim Graham, executive editor
of NewsBusters and host of the NewsBusters podcast. Tim, thank
you so much for joining us on this edition of
the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Oh my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Well, do we have a lot to talk. I don't
know if we'll have enough time to get to it all.
There's certainly fertile ground when it comes to the corporate media.
It's fertile ground because it is fertilized so well in
corporate media. You folks at NewsBusters have done just an
absolutely fabulous job over many decades now tracking the bias
in the corporate accomplice media. Let me start here, Tim,
if I could. After the results were pretty clear. On
November fifth, twenty twenty four, the President Donald Trump would
be president Donald Trump again. You heard some calls for
a kind of mia kulpa from some corners of the
accomplice media, and some were saying, you know, we really
should take a lesson from how we covered this election,
how we've covered Donald Trump, how we've covered the mega
movement in this country for the last several years, and
we need to be more honest with ourselves and with
our countrymen. I don't know if it was that dramatic,
but I heard some of those things. I also heard
right before the election from a big wig in corporate
media that if Donald Trump wins, corporate media is effectively
irrelevant because it failed its job to knock off Donald Trump.
So let me ask you this. Eighty eight days now,
coming up on the first one hundred days of the
Trump second presidency, has the corporate mainstream so called mainstream
media learned anything.
Speaker 2: No easy answer.
Speaker 3: You know, it's natural after an election for people to say, well,
we got it wrong.
Speaker 2: This wasn't the way we expected it to turn out.
Speaker 3: Or maybe they did, but they didn't want it to
turn out this way, so you sometimes do this.
Speaker 2: Well, let's take a look back and see what we did.
Speaker 3: Obviously, I think with this result they felt bad that
the Democrats didn't get rid of Biden sooner, but this
is what they were left with. So certainly you can't say,
when you look at the coverage of Donald Trump in
these first eighty nine days, that he's gotten anything approaching respect, fairness, balance,
none of that. The news seems designed to make sure
the messaging is like ninety to ninety five percent negative.
I mean, when you watch ABC or CBS or PBS
or NBC, you're going to get an overwhelmingly negative message.
So just for example, the most recent one that we
noted that they had done sixty five minutes on kilmar
Abrego Garcia wrongfully deported, basically turning him into some sort
of hero. Maryland band deported zero second for the trial
of the killer of Rachel Morin in Maryland. They're both
Maryland stories. One got sixty five minutes, one got zero.
And I think it's that kind of what we might
call in quotes news judgment that's worth questioning. And of
course that's just it's been several days since we did
that number, so there's probably another twenty minutes of kill
maar overkill.
Speaker 1: Indeed, Maryland man I mean, really, I think that if
any story does, and there are so many, and we'll
get to others, but if any story does denote just
how in the bag this so called resistance movement media is.
It's the kill mar Garcia story. They did all kinds
of coverage, you know, trying to do their very best
to vilify the Trump administration for its decision to deport
this guy. And then all of a sudden you have
information that the story that the surprise surprise that the
Provdpress has been selling you isn't true. This guy really
was a threat. There's documentation showing that he is indeed,
or at the time was in MS thirteen gang member.
He has a domestic violence record, it appears based on
a restraining order that was filed against him by his
own wife. Yet here they are doubling down, and we
have hypocrites like Chris van Holland getting all of this
attention for this bid flight to l Salvador. For the
love of God, do the American people see through this?
I guess that's the question.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think they're you know, unless you're really
following things, you're probably not getting these new details on
Abrego Garcia you're not getting the details about the restraining order.
You're not getting the details about the gang membership. They
have photos of him with the gang members wearing the
same stuff the gang members were wearing.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is a kind of a weird story.
Speaker 3: And especially Yeah, the senator from Maryland, who the mother
of Rachel Morn came to the White House to speak
in the briefing room. He's never spoken to her, you know,
but he's flying down to El Salvador to meet with
poor gang member. I guess they were having Margarita's. But
it is really puzzling. And if this is a political
mistake for the Democrats, it's a mistake that's enabled by
the Democrat media. And that's the media bias compounds upon
itself that Democrats make choices based on the way that
their media will support them. I mean, and this sort
of understands at some level why you would say, Gee,
they didn't seem to have the effect they wanted in
the twenty twenty four election. Yes, you have a large
number of Americans who do not trust the legacy media.
Gallup poll keeps finding the lowest numbers they've ever found,
and that's obviously not just Republicans, it is independence. Independence
can smell this comment.
Speaker 1: Well, what is abundantly fascinating to me is that if
you look at the two biggest issues heading into the
twenty twenty four election, they repeatedly come back. Obviously it's
always the economy, and certainly it was inflation the high
price of things at the time, but it was also
number two on that list every time was illegal immigration,
the border crisis. And man, you really have Democrats doubling
down in the policy and right there you have their
public relations agents in corporate media feeding these narratives all
for you know, the quest to diminish Donald Trump, which
they have been doing for a very long time. But
what Donald Trump is doing is exactly what Americans voted for.
The polls keep showing that. So why, I guess, why
do they keep doubling down on this when America Americans
clearly have a different agenda than the corporate media and
the Democrats.
Speaker 3: Yeah, coverage of Donald Trump in the second term isn't
much different than coverage of Donald Trump at this time
in twenty seventeen. This is where you could say, if
they learned anything is that they basically use all the
same Trumps they use all the same language, they find
all the same quote unquote experts, and they're trying to
sell these same messages. He's a racist, he's a fascist,
he's a dictator here. They're just they keep doing that.
And so what this really shows is, yes, the way
that news is selected by anecdote. So they'll say Rachel
Morin or Lenken Riley doesn't matter because that's just an anecdote.
It doesn't reflect the wider picture. So they'll try to say,
there are so many virtuous migrants, it's unfair to tag
the one murderer or rapist, whether even when the victim's
a twelve year old girl like Joscelyn nunger Ay, that's
just sensational as tabloid stuff. And yet yes, they're going
to take we have a mass deportation going on. They're
going to say, let's find one person, one anecdote and
hammer a hammer at hammering. And yes, I think the
people are like, well, why'd you choose this one? It
doesn't sound like you did a good job of choosing.
Speaker 2: But they never wanted to acknowledge that what the Biden
campaign or what the Biden administration was doing was a
mass importation.
Speaker 3: Trump promised a mass deportation. The media never described this board.
They couldn't call it a border crisis. They got mad
when you call it a border crisis, maybe because it
was something.
Speaker 2: They had planned to do, it was their policy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good point. They got mad for several years through
the brunt of the Biden administration. If you called Joe
Biden cognitively incompetent, a man who clearly appeared to be
in the throes of, you know, a serious mental downfall,
a serious dementia. But the cover up was there for
so long. To the economy. You folks did a fantastic
report on this. Recently, I reported on it in the Federalist.
The headline is report shows network News maximum slant on
Trump tariffs. There's that other big issue of the economy
and the agenda, whether you support it or not, whether
you're queasy understandably so about the volatility in the stock
market that the tariffs have caused, the trade wars have caused.
The coverage has been blatantly one sided, as one would
expect from the corporate media against Donald Trump. Some of
the numbers are extremely telling, but the one that really
stands out, Tim is that you have the corporate media
covering the hair on fire coverage of the tariffs and
the markets sixty five times more coverage on that over
a twenty four hour period than on the same day
when you had this tremendous news about a surge in
hiring two hundred twenty eight thousand jobs in March, and
yet the storyline was tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. Now it's interesting
to me the tariff story for whatever reason, and I
know some of them, it's gone away in the main.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the thing I liked the best was the job's
number comes out. I believe it was ABC that didn't
even do a story. They didn't even mention the job's numbers.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3: NBC really stuck out because they did nine seconds Unlesser
halted in this where where he said something to the
effect of even the jobs numbers failed to stop the
stock market slide, and in the background on screen are
the words Trump, tariff meltdown.
Speaker 2: It's like, subtlety is not what they do.
Speaker 1: No, subtle subtlety is never The corporate media is strong,
so that's for sure, but you know it's it's it's
just remarkable. You see over and over again the pounding
of this message, and it raises the question how responsible
is the irresponsible prov depress to the travails that we face,
particularly on the economy and the signals sent to the
stock market.
Speaker 3: Well, obviously there is turbulence here in the with the markets,
and it seems to me, yeah, a lot of flippity floppity.
Where is he today with the president, I'm deciding, you know, well,
now I'm going to put a ninety day pause. Okay,
now the market's really liked a ninety day pause. But
it's so these are facts. You know, the president seeing
something is a fact. The market's doing what they do
as a fact. But again, so much of it is.
Then there's a whole bunch of this crystal ball speculation
about how there's a meltdown everything, We're going to have
more inflation, we're going to have a recession. Remember we
had two consecutive quarters a negative GDP, right, and they
all ran around saying it's not a recession. I mean,
so that's where you just have to say, when you
watch the nightly news, it's not reporting, its messaging. It's
like a negative campaign commercial. That's the way it comes
across to me. And so then we had the same
thing with the inflation number where it was actually declined
zero point one percent, and they gave it like eighteen seconds.
But even three networks and one of them didn't cover
it at all.
Speaker 4: And you just say, how do you expect anybody to
take you seriously in terms of managing information, because it's
extremely calculated what they decide to present and especially what
they decided not to present.
Speaker 5: The argument of Wall Street versus Main Street is a
pile of nonsense. The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski every day Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
The stock market was all over the place due to
the expected tariffs, and guess what, Wall Street still made money.
Mom and pop stores.
Speaker 1: Weren't even affected.
Speaker 5: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Is this reporting for twenty twenty six? Ultimately, that is
to say, the messaging for twenty twenty six it is
constantly to borrow a phrase from the Trump administration flooding
the zone with negative coverage of Trump, the MAGA movement,
and Republicans in general, because we see the same kind
of coverage of Congress, the Republican control of Congress. Is
this just messaging for twenty twenty six and the hope
against hope by Democrats that and their accomplished media that
Democrats will take over the House at the very least
coming up in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Well, that's surely the hope, you know.
Speaker 3: I feel like though, you know, we have elections and
then the media tries to run the country in between
the elections. So part of the reason for the negative
coverage is to just try to curtail the power of
the Republicans, is to try to say, you can't do this,
and you can't do that, You'll get murdered in the press.
And of course for many years the Republicans would do that.
When they made their political calculations, they had to calculate, well,
can we do this because the press is going to
hammer us if we take this, you know, decision A.
So let's take the less controversial path, decision B. This
is what the media wants, you know, this is what
we going way back to the nineteen eighty You know,
when I started at MRC in nineteen eighty nine, George A. H. W. Bush,
this is what he did well, Well, got to raise taxes,
you know, we got to do stuff that the media
thinks is responsible. Yes, And then of course what happened
in ninety two is Bill Clinton comes out and.
Speaker 6: Goes, George Bush, rice your taxes. You know that it
was used against him, you know, because that's what they do.
So yeah, it's it is about twenty six, but it's
also about today. And look, the Democrat Party's numbers.
Speaker 3: Are terrible right now, which is not something they want
to share with you. One of the terms that makes
me giggle right now is you can see it they
use this term.
Speaker 2: It's like, is there a vibe shift? Because good lord,
they're looking for a vibe shift.
Speaker 1: How many times did we have to hear the word
vibe with Kamala Harris because that's all they had was
this empty idea of vibes And they kept telling us
that's the thing that I just don't understand, over and
over again. And it ties back into what you just
said to him. They keep telling us over and over again.
Things that are patently not true, things that Americans should
feel but don't feel, over and over again. And what
I don't understand is why Republicans, for the love of
God ever listen to this blather and Republicans in power
and they do. They still come crawling to the New
York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and ABC.
Why do they do it?
Speaker 3: Yes, I know there's a lot of people, a lot
of Republicans and conservatives who's say you really shouldn't engage
with the press. On the other hand, you know, Trump
engages with the press constantly.
Speaker 1: Yes, And it's.
Speaker 3: True that he gets zero credit for that. You know,
Joe Biden, that team wouldn't put him in front of anybody,
and he was never anti press, you know. You know,
So what you'd want to say is, I think that
Republicans should try to engage on these networks if you
come in with a certain understanding of you know, what's
going to be discussed. You know, I mean, you being
one and I don't know if you want to set conditions,
but you clearly want to signal to your interviewer here's
what's going to happen, Here's what I'm going to say
if you try that, so that they're not surprised. But
I mean it's very clear. Yes, well, you watch the
Sunday shows, you know that they have a Republican on
and the host, whether it's Margaret Brannan, it's Kristen Welker,
it's Martha Ratt's whoever it is Deafnopolis, the Republican gets
hammer and tongs and then they're like, and here comes
Bernie Sanders, how are you did you comb your hair today?
I mean, it's it is very much a different approach
they take. And so what I'd like is Republicans to
take the interview and be combative, you know, channel some
Scott Jenny's let them have it.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. The answer, by the way, to your question is no,
Bernie Sanders did not Collis yet today, and he didn't
comss Harry yesterday.
Speaker 2: And I'm likely that they're all in with the with
Bernie's vibe.
Speaker 1: But you know, Bernie's vibe is is uh, I'm still alive.
That's what Bernie's vibe is.
Speaker 3: The New York Times is out there going, you know,
AOC and Bernie electrify the Democrats. It's like, well, maybe
they're electrocuting the Democrats.
Speaker 2: But you know you do you.
Speaker 1: Well, uh, there there are times when I wonder I
look over and Bernie's, you know, sitting preparing to climb
up to the stage and give his usual you know
Bernie talk whether they need to electrify him as bring
in the paddles and see if this guy is still there.
We are having a conversation with the great Tim Graham,
executive editor of NewsBusters and host of the NewsBusters podcast,
obviously talking about the built in bias of the corporate media.
It is clear to anyone with eyes and ears that's
what we're dealing with. I want to talk about repercussions.
Is there will there be accountability for this nonsense that
we've seen for so long. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr,
of course, recently took aim at Comcast, accusing the media
giants news outlets of misleading the American people, particularly on
this kilmar Garcia front the Maryland Man story. He said
this in part, when the truth comes out, they ignore it. Comcast,
that is, Car wrote ont X. Comcast knows that federal
law requires its licensed operations to serve the public interest.
News distortion doesn't cut it. It is clear to me
that this is news distortion. What do you think about
that characterization and what do you think about the consequences
for news distortion?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I'm going to agree with Brendan Carr
on that. I think what's really funny is that, you know,
the FCC has a very narrow charter. It is to
regulate the broadcast networks. Now, obviously people get their news
on cable, they get their news all over the internet,
and the FCC is only responsible for the broadcast media.
But you know, brand Carr is doing something different, and
he is you know, it's the same interesting thing he
was doing about the underwriting announcements on NPR and PBS
and calling that into question.
Speaker 2: I mean, I know when.
Speaker 3: I watch the PBS News Hour, they have commercials at
the start of the show. You can call them an
underwriting an at but they look like a commercial, yes,
you know. And of course the liberals are all like, oh,
you want to take away our federal funding and call
us out on the underwriting.
Speaker 2: You're so unfair.
Speaker 3: But obviously, yeah, obviously the news media thinks that the
public interest quote unquote is you know, is them whatever
they think is the public interest. They lecture the public,
tell the public what to think and say. You know,
they are the public interest. You know, they define what
the public interest is and you just have to accept it.
Speaker 1: On that front, we had a very interesting hearing, a
dose hearing on public broadcasting on National Public Radio, in
which it was one of the weirdest moments I think
of any congressional hearing I've ever seen, where you have
the CEO of NPI are talking about how fair and
balanced it is striving to be as they roll out
tweet after tweet, it's Marxist, leftist woman talking about, you know,
burning down the government and you know, the righteousness of
the Black Lives Matter of movement and how much she
hates Donald Trump and all of this sort of stuff.
Do you think NPR and public television will survive funding
cuts in the future.
Speaker 3: Well, they would survive defunding because you know, it's so
funny that the NPR runs around and Stay says, we
only get one percent of our funding directly from the
federal government.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's take away your federal funding. We'll die. Well,
all our stations will close. You know, it's like you
got to pick one. But it's Yeah.
Speaker 3: The funniest part of that hearing I was, I was
in the front oh, like Bob Buker, the.
Speaker 1: Uh yes, yes, yes, bless her soul.
Speaker 2: Yes, Mike, I'm a Brewer fan. That's got to come out.
Speaker 3: Mike Gonzalez from Heritage invited me and we had we
worked together in these issues, and so I was right
there in the front row when she's when NPR CEO said,
I've never found any example of political bias, and it's like, well,
the answer to that is you've never listened to it.
You're the CEO of it, but you've never turned it
on ever, you know. And now she did. She did
a they did an interview with NPR did an interview
with their own CEO on Wednesday night, and she said, well,
Marjorie Taylor Green said you can hate us on your
own dime, to which you say, what and mar says,
we don't hate anyone in public media. It's like, okay,
let's list all the examples.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: You know, just last week, I'm listening to NPR in
my car and they have this artist who painted Michelle
Obama's portrait for the government, and she called herself a
counter terrorist against people who oppose DEI and that's where
you're just like that would seem hateful to me to
describe the Conservatives as terrorists.
Speaker 1: What an absolute bubble in which they exist? It is,
it is, It is amazing. So all of that said,
you poor man, your job. Your job requires you to
listen to a great deal of National public radio. It
requires you to watch a great deal of the pabulum
that is broadcast as news but is truly messaging. But
I think it's incumbent on all of us to get
news from both sides and certainly see what the PR
agents for the Democratic Party are doing. But man, do
you get casually paid for your work? How does that
all work out? Yeah?
Speaker 3: We always do it, you know, since I started in
nineteen eighty nine, have always sort of it's been my uh.
I've taken this on NPR and PBS because it's always
upset me that they take tax money to put on
all this leftist broadcasting. The idea that there's something unique
or different than MSNBC is wrong. Nprs MSNBC, PBS is MSNBC,
and which just not necessary for that reason. And the
thing that upsets me the most is it's defined as public.
So when they go to the post the posters go
to the people and say, well, do you find public
broadcasting credible? And they just hear the words and go
must be uh, And that's that's upsetting. So yes, I
mean we have that Doge committee got so much paper
from us or or so much so many links, and
some of them were used in the hearing. But I mean,
it's it's it's unquestionable that these are left wing propaganda networks.
And yet this is why when the Democrats got a
chance to question, they ask stupid questions about whether Elmo
is a communist because he's read. You can't seriously say
they're not helping the Democrats. The Democrats know.
Speaker 1: That, Oh it is ridiculous, It really is. And I
guess my question to you before let me rephrase it,
because I didn't mean it in the way that will
NPR and PPS survive. I don't care if NPR and
PBS survive. If they do, I want them to survive
without my tax dollars. That's I guess. The question is
will these Republicans have the courage finally to say, nope,
we're cutting off the spigot. You are weaned off the
teat will they have the kahone is to do that.
Speaker 3: Well, you could say, well, gee, it didn't happen in
the first Trunk term when the Republicans had control. I mean,
they just wasn't a push like this. You been seeing
this since New Gingrich came in nineteen ninety five, and
they were hearings about PBS and NPR, and I do remember,
I think Nancy Pelosi was there and Nita Loewi and
one of them had puppets, Sesame Street puppets on their hands,
and they always have the same they always have the
same defense. But so, I mean, I think it's I'm
generally pessimistic about these things, but this really is I
think the closest we've ever been, in part because the
Congress is going to listen to the president.
Speaker 2: President's been quite clear.
Speaker 3: The President the White House put out a statement full
of links about NPR and PBS.
Speaker 2: We some of them are ours, a lot of them
were not.
Speaker 3: But they were all demonstrations of just how tilted to
the left, and especially on the culture issues NPR and
PBS are.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's possible. I feel like the
House will pass it.
Speaker 3: Here's what worries me, Lisa markows D, you know, Susan Collins.
You know, it's when you start counting to fifty in
the Senate where you can get nervous. It's not a
mistake that these people dragged out the CEO of Alaska
Public Broadcasting to the hearing and all over their networks,
trying to claim somehow that Alaska weirdly, somehow doesn't have
any private media. That's the way it sounds like, you'll
never hear anything. There's no news in Alaska. There's no
newspapers in Alaska. Apparently there's no television stations in Alaska
except the public ones. I mean, that's that's the kind
of sound that they're putting out and it's not true.
But you know they always do this. Once again, you
go back to nineteen ninety five, sixty minutes to a
story all about how the radio station in sit Alaska
will close. You know, they always use the same playbook,
and that's probably because, well, it's worked before. So we
shall see whether we'll get enough Republicans.
Speaker 2: In the Senate. I think that is the question.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know this, Tim, but after
they deported and rightly so, Ernie from Sesame Street. The
media billed him as a marilynd Man. So the messaging
is still there. If you tie Sesame Street into anything,
you can have a successful message. Let's talk about corporate
media again, and we talk about PBS and NPR and
you know, federal funding. That's not really corporate media. Although
we have found out, thankfully through the DOGE that corporate
media outlets have received a whole lot of taxpayer money
in very expensive subscriptions. Those apparently are going away, but
the numbers tim are dismal for or the accomplish media.
How long can they hang on in their current form
based on what we're seeing in terms of ratings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3: The danger there, I guess, Matt is they'll be like, well,
if the network news goes away, what you're going to
do at NewsBusters. You've always joked we'd find something else
to do. But back in the nineteen nineties they said, well,
the network news casts they're not going to last. Well
they're still on. They are still dominant. Even though their
dominance is numerically smaller, they are still the dominant game
in defining what the public issues are.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: What's interesting, yes, is to some extent as a business proposition,
they're not doing great.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: This is why Jeff Bezos will make these noises about
how he's going to do this or that. The reporters
at these newspapers simply do not care about the business,
you know. They treat this like it's a commune for
their wokeness, and they get very upset when the owner
of the newspaper tries to set a policy. Now, the
weird thing about Bezos is that he'll set a policy
and then there's no proof it actually exists, you know. So, yes,
they didn't put out an editorial explicitly endorsed Kamala Harris,
but they put out seventy five anti Trump editorials that
let you know what they think.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: So I haven't seen this dramatic shift on the Washington
Post editorial page where it's all free markets.
Speaker 3: But you know, you have people like David Folkenflick at
NPR who whose job is to report from the woke
news centers at these papers and say, you know, Bezos
is ruining everything soon showing it. Los Angeles Times is
ruining everything, you know, because they are trying to be
a little less woke. The wokeness is what's going to
cost them the profits, but they just don't want to
accept it.
Speaker 1: That raises a good point. How much do our JA schools?
How much do these public and private universities across the country,
How much do they have because it seems like they
are raising the next generation of you know, liberal Democrat
party Marxist over and over again. I think about Taylor
Lorenz and the story you know this week, the story
of the former New York Times Washington Post reporter and
her you know girl fan crushing on, you know, an
alleged cold blooded murderer. Where have we gone to in
America where we have these kinds of journalists with such
a platform.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, and Taylor the Renz worked at the
New York Times and the Washington Post. I think she
was trouble for both of them. But you're absolutely right
that what are the journalism schools turning out? And yes,
you know, in these cases where these woke caucuses are
trying to take things over. You can hear it in
Uri Berliner's expose of NPR. These are young people. They
come in with their pink hair and their non binary
or whatever, and they change, try to change everything, and
they're not. They don't believe in structure or authority. You know,
they don't care what the owner thinks. They don't care
what the publisher thinks. They probably don't care what the
editor in chief thinks. They think they're running these media
outlets to the extent that they can get away with it.
But you know, yes, I think we should suggest the
Columbia Journalism School not sending people in to be fair
and objective, any of the real prestigious journalism schools, Metal
and Northwestern, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: They are.
Speaker 2: You know, they're not sending.
Speaker 3: Anybody who's committed to any sort of old fashioned ideal.
Speaker 2: You know, journalists, what do they aspire to do? They
aspire to change the world.
Speaker 3: They don't aspire to report, because, let's face it, to them,
reporting is boring. Reporting is somehow just by reporting what's happening.
It's like, you know, not not engaging with the world,
you know. So uh, you know, journalism schools are any problem.
They are not a solution, and that should be questioned.
But you know, the journalism school professors, when you see
them on cable, you're just like Jeff Jarvis, you know.
Speaker 2: It's like, whoa you know, this is what people are
being taught.
Speaker 1: I just don't understand how they continue to have jobs
because these the people they're hiring are the people that
they're counting on to save them from ruin. That is
to say, the owners, the publishers, CEOs of these organizations
to keep making the same mistakes over and over again
to their economic peril. It would be one thing. You know,
maybe it's maybe it's for some of these guys. It
seemed to me Basos in Washington Posts that yeah, you
buy the Washington Post because it's kind of like you
buy the Atlanta Braves. You know. Ted Turner needed a
hobby and he liked baseball, so he bought a team.
But that doesn't mean that most billionaires who buy franchises
don't want the franchises to be successful, at least economically speaking.
I don't know. It just seems to be a divorce
in that notion at places like The Washington Postcion and
New York Times and what happened you. But let's finish
on this. Give you the old human resources question. It's
two parts. Where do you see this corporate media, this
accomplice media five ten years from now? Where do you
see Tim Graham, five ten years from now, you said,
you know, maybe if eventually these folks get the message,
they fully understand that they really do need to change
their formula for what they've been doing, that it drives
a NewsBusters out of business. I don't think that will happen,
but you could be like the Department of Education, you know,
the secretary of the Department of Education, where she says,
you know, my job is to drive myself out of
a job. But where do you see all of this
going a decade from now.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, once again, I think that it has changed, but.
Speaker 2: It's still the same.
Speaker 3: In some ways. It does remind me Tom Brokaw, the
NBC incurrent the two thousand and four one of the conventions,
probably the Democrat convention. They're giving him an interview, and
I just always loved this point where he was like.
Speaker 2: Brent Bozell's trying to drive up our negatives. And this
is correct.
Speaker 3: But I mean the other answer is NBC sees it
as their job to drive up the negatives of the Republicans,
and so it's two.
Speaker 2: Sides of the same coin.
Speaker 3: Maybe I am not the retiring tight retirement sounds boring.
To me, So you know, I hope to still be
doing this ten years from now. Yeah, I don't think
that anybody is going to be more reasonable. You know,
Donald Trump has driven them all into a much more
hyper mode. I don't know how they're going to come
down off the roller coaster, but it'll be interesting to watch.
Speaker 1: You've left open. I think a question. I think that
we could spend a lot more time talking about we
don't have that time, but quickly, will this hyperbolic messaging
service for the Democratic Party end up getting someone killed?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not.
Speaker 3: I am the sort of person who always says when
somebody shoot, somebody, blame the shooter. Conservatives generally believe you
blame the criminal and not his environment. And this is
the sad thing is that a lot of times the
liberal media goes looking to blame something on well Trump
caused this shooting, and when somebody shoots Trump, it's exactly
the opposite. And you know, we are not going to
find out anything about this shooter. We're not interested. And
you know, it's the same thing obviously when they had
the Softball shooting with Steve Scales nearly died, and it
was quite apparent that the shooter loved Rachel Maddow and
uncombed Bernie Sanders. And you know we didn't say Rachel
Maddow shot the Republicans.
Speaker 2: So I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'll say this though, I don't think they've ever thought
this through of if we call him Hitler on a
daily basis, what might happen to him?
Speaker 1: Good point, Good point, Saul, Really appreciate your perspective. And
you know you've done this for a long time. You've
seen a lot of things change. As you said, you've
seen a lot of things stay the same. It is
a remarkable industry, to say the least. These are remarkable times.
Thanks to my guest today, Tim Graham, executive editor of
NewsBusters and host of the NewsBusters pot Cast. You've been
listening to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm
Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom
and anxious for the Fray.