Speaker 1: You're list Saints KFI AM six forty. The Bill Handles
Speaker 1: show on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2: Our tech reporter is joining us, Mike. It's a pleasure
Speaker 2: talking to you again. It's been a while since you
Speaker 2: and I have connected, and I'm so glad that we
Speaker 2: get to because of this Tech Tuesday, and I got
Speaker 2: to find out what's going on with my Instagram. It
Speaker 2: looks like we've got a lot of well trash littering
Speaker 2: my insta feed.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So Meta is rolling out a new approach to content moderation,
Speaker 4: and that might be kind of what you're seeing in
Speaker 4: your feed, though at this point, Meta says that a
Speaker 4: lot of this stuff is still in testing that you're
Speaker 4: not actually going to see it if you're just kind
Speaker 4: of a run of the mill Instagram or Facebook or
Speaker 4: threads user. So what are we talking about here. We're
Speaker 4: talking about specifically Community Notes. This is their name for
Speaker 4: their new approach to content moderation. This is something that
Speaker 4: was first previewed back in January when Mark Zuckerberg, the
Speaker 4: CEO of Meta, announced that they're moving away from fact checkers.
Speaker 4: Community Notes is kind of the thing that's designed to
Speaker 4: take the place of those fact checkers. This is a
Speaker 4: community based system, a bunch of volunteers from Facebook and
Speaker 4: Instagram and threads. Users of those platforms are gathering together
Speaker 4: to basically write notes that will appear next to certain
Speaker 4: pieces of content on those platforms. And that content, you know,
Speaker 4: is thought to be sort of misleading or controversial or
Speaker 4: harmful in some way, and these notes are designed to
Speaker 4: add a little bit more context to those posts. So
Speaker 4: you can imagine election misinformation, misinformation related to public health,
Speaker 4: that type of thing. That's the content that we're talking
Speaker 4: about here. And they say that they're rolling this out
Speaker 4: and testing starting today, but again they want to get
Speaker 4: it right, they say, so it's probably not going to
Speaker 4: start appearing in your feed at least for the next
Speaker 4: few weeks or so.
Speaker 2: Mike, I've seen this on x before. Twitter, they've got
Speaker 2: something similar, like the community votes. How do they decide?
Speaker 2: Because if there's something that is blatantly wrong, for instance,
Speaker 2: say you've got a flat earther that posts something and
Speaker 2: then people are going to say obviously that's wrong, They're
Speaker 2: going to issue a community notes.
Speaker 5: Deal.
Speaker 2: There must be tens of thousands of people that are
Speaker 2: trying to put a community note on somebody's post. How
Speaker 2: do they pick which one they're going to go with?
Speaker 2: Is it the one that's the most popular, does it
Speaker 2: get up votes of some sort? How do they know
Speaker 2: which community note rides with that post.
Speaker 4: It's a great question, and it's part of the system
Speaker 4: that they're figuring out right now, part of the reason
Speaker 4: that you're probably not going to see a community note
Speaker 4: in the next week or two as they figure this out.
Speaker 4: So you're right to mention X there they are, of course,
Speaker 4: formerly Twitter, they have used a community notes system for
Speaker 4: the past few years, and Meta is actually borrowing an
Speaker 4: algorithm from them, an open source algorithm that X is
Speaker 4: made available to other social media platforms. This algorithm gets
Speaker 4: at exactly what you were describing there. How do we
Speaker 4: evaluate the validity of a note, the helpfulness of a note?
Speaker 4: This algorithm is designed to do that. Because metas drawn
Speaker 4: from a wait list about two hundred thousand volunteers. There's
Speaker 4: a lot of people, a lot of different opinions, a
Speaker 4: lot of different perspectives, and they kind of have to
Speaker 4: coalesce behind one common note to add to any given post.
Speaker 4: That's kind of complicated. So Meta says they want these
Speaker 4: volunteers to come from a range of backgrounds. They want
Speaker 4: people who you know, disagree normally to agree on the
Speaker 4: content of a note, and all of that is going
Speaker 4: to be decided by this algorithm. So there's still a
Speaker 4: little bit of technology at play. It's not a purely
Speaker 4: you know, like human system at the end of the day,
Speaker 4: but ultimately these notes are going to be written by humans.
Speaker 4: The algorithm will just dictate kind of the people who
Speaker 4: are able to contribute to.
Speaker 3: Each specific note.
Speaker 4: So that's their idea that they're using this algorithm to
Speaker 4: kind of draw from a range of different ideas and perspectives.
Speaker 4: It's all part of this broader effort from CEO Mark
Speaker 4: Zuckerberg to make things a little bit less moderated on
Speaker 4: their platforms. He says they're stepping away not just from
Speaker 4: fact checking, but from moderating content in general, handing it
Speaker 4: a little bit more over to the communities on those platforms.
Speaker 4: He says this is all part of an effort to
Speaker 4: cut down on bias. He says this is a better
Speaker 4: way to address bias on these platforms. He says the
Speaker 4: old fact checking system made too many mistakes and overly
Speaker 4: censored these platforms, and this is a better way to
Speaker 4: do it.
Speaker 2: I'm interested in this, Mike, because the philosophy geek in
Speaker 2: me says, doesn't this doesn't this invite by doesn't this
Speaker 2: invite group bias?
Speaker 5: In Uh, it doesn't.
Speaker 2: It isn't necessarily more accurate as much as it's it's
Speaker 2: more of a democratic system where whatever the popular opinion
Speaker 2: is will be considered the community.
Speaker 5: Note, I suppose.
Speaker 2: But is that less is it less biased or are
Speaker 2: we just playcating a different bias.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is popularity correct necessarily, and that's the sort
Speaker 4: of that's a very philosophical question at the end of
Speaker 4: the day. That is a problem with the community note system.
Speaker 4: This is something that you've seen crop up on X before,
Speaker 4: which is that these are kind of easy to game,
Speaker 4: these community notes. You can imagine people who are volunteers here.
Speaker 4: They can kind of get together and make sort of
Speaker 4: a jokey note or a note that might not be
Speaker 4: totally correct, but you know it agrees with their politics
Speaker 4: or their viewpoint or whatever it happens to be. That
Speaker 4: is a potential way to gain this system.
Speaker 3: That's something that Meta is going to need to figure out.
Speaker 4: In addition to that, there's also just a logistical problem here, right,
Speaker 4: Things so viral very quickly on these platforms. Billions of
Speaker 4: people use metas products, and many of them get their
Speaker 4: news from these platforms. That means that the length of
Speaker 4: time it takes for a note to go from being
Speaker 4: thought of to something that you can actually see in
Speaker 4: your feed, it's going to be really important if something
Speaker 4: goes viral and is seen by a lot of people
Speaker 4: before a note shows up. As people are as the
Speaker 4: volunteers are trying to figure out specific wording or whether
Speaker 4: a note is helpful or not, you know, the damage
Speaker 4: might have already been done by the time that note
Speaker 4: shows up, and that's another thing that they're going to
Speaker 4: need to address as they continue to roll this out
Speaker 4: over the.
Speaker 3: Next few weeks or so.
Speaker 4: For what it's worth, these notes aren't going to impact
Speaker 4: the relative virality of any given post and the old
Speaker 4: way of doing things in the fact checking system, you know,
Speaker 4: a subject matter expert, a lawyer or political scientist, a doctor,
Speaker 4: what have you would go in and say, yes, this
Speaker 4: is definitively a piece of misinformation that could do harm. Right,
Speaker 4: this is misinformation about the pandemic, for instance. Then Meta
Speaker 4: would go in and down rank that piece of content,
Speaker 4: they would allow it to not show up in as
Speaker 4: many people's feeds in order to cut down on the
Speaker 4: potential harm for it to do. Mark Sarthborg says they
Speaker 4: overdid that, right, They over cranked that lever, and they
Speaker 4: ended up with a biased system. These notes will not
Speaker 4: impact the virality of any given post. Just because a
Speaker 4: post has a note on it doesn't mean that it
Speaker 4: won't go viral. That you might still see it. You'll
Speaker 4: just see it with a note next to it.
Speaker 2: Again, more popular means more eyeballs on it, and spreading
Speaker 2: the misinformation is allowed, especially if you get more people
Speaker 2: in their community and notes that spread their own biases. Interesting, like,
Speaker 2: it's very it's very interesting. Mike Debusky is our ABC
Speaker 2: News technology reporter. Mike, stick around for just a second.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about I'm seeing some stuff about
Speaker 2: Apple and people are mad at Apple for over promising
Speaker 2: and under delivering. I want to talk about that, and
Speaker 2: if you don't mind, I'll slide in some of the
Speaker 2: astronaut news here when we come back as well. We'll
Speaker 2: continue with Tech Tuesday.
Speaker 6: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 6: six forty.
Speaker 2: Joining me is Mike Debuski, our ABC News Technology reporter.
Speaker 5: It is Tech Tuesday. Mike.
Speaker 2: I'm very excited. I wanted to just share this audio briefly.
Speaker 2: This is the This was the sound as our an
Speaker 2: astronauts made their way away from the space station. All
Speaker 2: hooks are open, open hookers and on doc and confirmed.
Speaker 5: Freedom is free of its moorings. Freedom is free. Sonny
Speaker 5: Williams and Butch Wilmore began a lot there.
Speaker 2: It is on their way home from ABC. Uh So, Mike,
Speaker 2: that's exciting. It's been months or something since they.
Speaker 5: Were up there.
Speaker 4: That's yes, I believe I'm writing saying that there. It's
Speaker 4: the longest uh time that anyone has spent up there,
Speaker 4: or at least a much longer than they planned.
Speaker 2: Certainly they planned right, a little shy of the record.
Speaker 2: I think the record is just over a year. But yeah,
Speaker 2: they were supposed topt there for what a week?
Speaker 4: And then yeah, that's these I understand it. It was
Speaker 4: kind of just a routine mission and then you know,
Speaker 4: one thing led to another and.
Speaker 3: Here we are.
Speaker 4: As a matter of fact, we spoke here at ABC
Speaker 4: and Radio Department to one of the astronauts who was
Speaker 4: supposed to be on that mission who ended up being
Speaker 4: cut from it originally to go up and relieve those
Speaker 4: astronauts who are up there, and that was in sort
Speaker 4: of June of last year.
Speaker 3: So, you know, good ed its decites that they've been.
Speaker 4: Up there for a long time, but it's good to
Speaker 4: know that they're coming home.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Mike, I know that there was a bit of controversy.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to put you on the spot on this.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to wax here not so poetically for
Speaker 2: a moment. There was a bit of controversy around that,
Speaker 2: especially when we had a president that came out and
Speaker 2: said Biden left them up there, just totally abandoned them,
Speaker 2: ditched them in space there, left them up there.
Speaker 5: Not exactly the case.
Speaker 2: There's always a contingency plan if something goes awry, there
Speaker 2: are supplies that are sent.
Speaker 5: And there was another.
Speaker 2: Mission that was planned to bring other astronauts back home
Speaker 2: that had already been up there. So then the decision
Speaker 2: had to be made, did we bring the other astronauts
Speaker 2: back on schedule, or do we bring these astronauts back
Speaker 2: and then leave those other ones up there that have
Speaker 2: been up there already for a long period of time.
Speaker 2: They decided, let's stay on schedule, We'll create another mission
Speaker 2: to go get Butcher and Sonny. So that's what they
Speaker 2: That's what they ended up doing. So it's part of
Speaker 2: the reason that they were up there that long, is it.
Speaker 2: That was the decision that was made. It wasn't anybody
Speaker 2: about He's on the bus.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, it seems like.
Speaker 5: In the spacecraft, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Maybe what we need to come up with this is
Speaker 2: an extra long space craft, like like we have the
Speaker 2: Suburban Excels or something.
Speaker 5: Right exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I'm seeing a lot of stories that pop
Speaker 2: up on my homepage.
Speaker 5: You talk about Apple.
Speaker 2: Kind of losing track of the narrative here when it
Speaker 2: comes to their Apple Intelligence. And I got an iPhone sixteen.
Speaker 2: It is my first new phone in six years or so,
Speaker 2: so I held off. This is supposed to have Apple Intelligence,
Speaker 2: This is supposed to be the hot new thing, and
Speaker 2: there seemed to be a lot of delays in rolling
Speaker 2: this out, at least the full version of it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is absolutely the case, and it's expected to
Speaker 4: be the major topic of discussion at a pretty high
Speaker 4: profile meeting of Apple executives this week. This is their
Speaker 4: top one hundred meeting, Their top one hundred executives at
Speaker 4: the company meet at an off site location. We don't
Speaker 4: really know where, but.
Speaker 3: It's expected to be very.
Speaker 4: Fancy and presumably very minimalist and glamorous in the Apple fashion.
Speaker 4: And this is a tradition at Apple that has stretched
Speaker 4: back to the Steve Jobs era, and it's generally meant
Speaker 4: to get all the sort of leading lights at the
Speaker 4: company together so they can discuss the future of Apple,
Speaker 4: this hugely prominent and hugely valuable company. Big topic of
Speaker 4: discussion is expected to be Apple Intelligence and their continued
Speaker 4: struggles with that technology. As a refresher, Apple Intelligence was
Speaker 4: first introduced last year at their WWDC Developer conference in
Speaker 4: the springtime. They promised a lot with regards to that technology,
Speaker 4: that these new AI features were going to reshape how
Speaker 4: we interact with our phones and our tablets and our laptops. Well,
Speaker 4: almost a year later, a lot of those features have
Speaker 4: not yet come to fruition, and that is raising some
Speaker 4: major eyebrows at Apple. Bloomberg was the first to report
Speaker 4: that kind of the big headline feature of Apple Intelligence,
Speaker 4: which was this AI infused version of theory, This big
Speaker 4: revamp of their Voice assistant, which had kind of fallen
Speaker 4: behind competitors in the space. That is delayed, and Apple
Speaker 4: actually confirmed last week that AI theory does not have
Speaker 4: a firm release date. They just say it will be
Speaker 4: out sometime within the next year. That was all over
Speaker 4: the marketing for a lot of Apple intelligence features. This
Speaker 4: sort of reason to upgrade your phone or upgrade your
Speaker 4: device was to get access to this thing that now
Speaker 4: we don't know when it's going to come out. This
Speaker 4: really appears to underline this tension between Apple, their AI team,
Speaker 4: specifically the people who are building the technology, and the
Speaker 4: marketing department. Right the technology is still imperfect. We talk
Speaker 4: about this all the time with generative AI. It makes
Speaker 4: things up, makes mistakes, it hallucinates. That's not something that
Speaker 4: Apple once associated with its three trillion dollar brand, and
Speaker 4: I think that's why you're seeing the slow rollout of
Speaker 4: this technology. Clearly the marketing department didn't really get that memo,
Speaker 4: because that was a big part of the argument for
Speaker 4: upgrading to the iPhone sixteen, which, as you outlined at
Speaker 4: the beginning here, still doesn't have a lot of these
Speaker 4: key features.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it seems like Apple is one of these companies
Speaker 5: that is a little bit.
Speaker 2: So they allow for Samsung for the Android phones, for
Speaker 2: the Google phones, to introduce some other tech, and then
Speaker 2: Apple comes in later and really tries to offer a
Speaker 2: more perfect version of that tech. We've seen this play
Speaker 2: out in the past, but it seems with this AI
Speaker 2: they are they're over promising and under delivering in all regards.
Speaker 2: What are they going to provide that could potentially be
Speaker 2: anything better than we're seeing from what is a Gemini?
Speaker 4: What is the The Google is Gemini and Samsung is
Speaker 4: Galaxy AI. Yeah, and you're absolutely right that Apple is
Speaker 4: rarely the first to the party, or at least modern
Speaker 4: tim cook. Apple is rarely the first, you know, in
Speaker 4: a given market segment. They like to sit back, They
Speaker 4: like to watch everyone else try something, fail, maybe learn
Speaker 4: from those mistakes, and then they arrive kind of late
Speaker 4: to the party, but with a really polished product. That
Speaker 4: seemed to be the approach they were taking with Apple Intelligence.
Speaker 4: Google and Samsung both beat them to market with quote
Speaker 4: unquote AI phones. However, there's the larger context here, which
Speaker 4: is that the impetus is on Apple to innovate. Right,
Speaker 4: the iPhone has not changed in several years. Neither has
Speaker 4: the Google Pixel, neither has the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. Right,
Speaker 4: they are updated every year, but not in a radical way.
Speaker 4: You mentioned at the off that you haven't updated your
Speaker 4: phone in six years, and I think a large part
Speaker 4: of that is because these phones don't really change radically
Speaker 4: from year to year. Maybe every couple of years there
Speaker 4: is a big upgrade, but you know, beyond that, it's
Speaker 4: tough to get people excited about the smartphone market, in
Speaker 4: large part because these phones are pretty good at what
Speaker 4: they're intending to do. They all connect to the internet,
Speaker 4: make phone calls, good cameras and so on. So AI
Speaker 4: kind of came along as this potential game changer, right,
Speaker 4: is this thing to get people excited about the market again,
Speaker 4: get people to upgrade their phones. But as we've been saying,
Speaker 4: the technology is still imperfect. It's still not quite there yet.
Speaker 4: And I think that's also the pitfall that you're seeing
Speaker 4: Apple fall into. They wanted this to be the thing
Speaker 4: that got people excited about upgrading their phones every year,
Speaker 4: but it just doesn't quite measure up to their standards
Speaker 4: of very polished technology.
Speaker 2: Mike Debuski, our ABC News technology reporter, on a Tech Tuesday. Mike,
Speaker 2: great catching up with you man, Really appreciate I always
Speaker 2: let's talk with you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, happy to do it. Take care, Verry good.
Speaker 2: Mike Debusky, ABC News pleasure. Can't wait until the next
Speaker 2: time we get a chance to talk with Mike. Is
Speaker 2: it possible that all the can conspiracy theorist were right?
Speaker 5: And if we don't have.
Speaker 2: Evidence that they were right, does that mean that the
Speaker 2: conspiracy runs deeper than we ever thought it did.
Speaker 5: We'll find out because we could be getting the truth,
Speaker 5: the whole truth, and not all the truth. What next?
Speaker 6: You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 6: six forty.
Speaker 2: Last time when he said it, he meant it, but
Speaker 2: then they redacted a bunch of stuff. Very very bad,
Speaker 2: very bad people redacting a lot of things. He now says,
Speaker 2: there's a lot in here. I haven't read them all,
Speaker 2: but they're very interesting. I haven't read it, but it's
Speaker 2: very interesting. This is sort of like me giving a
Speaker 2: book report on Little Women. I know it's a classic,
Speaker 2: never read it, probably not going to tell you how
Speaker 2: interesting it is.
Speaker 5: Very interesting, very good read.
Speaker 2: The President said there's about eighty thousand pages that are
Speaker 2: going to be released that's.
Speaker 5: A very very lot of pages.
Speaker 2: Most people have never even heard of that many pages.
Speaker 2: It's like a very big book. It's bigger than a dictionary.
Speaker 2: Nobody's ever seen anything like that before. It's like it's
Speaker 2: like all the Harry Potter books. Is even bigger than
Speaker 2: Harry Potter. It's like Encyclopedia Britannica. I had the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Speaker 5: I had all the volumes except for Q. It was
Speaker 5: very small.
Speaker 2: Nobody needed Q. There's nothing in the Q volume at all.
Speaker 2: It's the worst of all the volumes. But you're gonna
Speaker 2: love this. Gonna be unredacted. There's gonna be no redactions,
Speaker 2: very few redactions, probably no reactions. I was thinking about redacting,
Speaker 2: but I'm not redacting. Haven't read it, but it's unreducted.
Speaker 2: That's what we can expect, according to uh, the President.
Speaker 2: I guess, So what are we going to learn? Are
Speaker 2: we going to figure out that there were actually other
Speaker 2: gunmen on the Grassy Knoll? Are we gonna find out
Speaker 2: that CBE was behind it the whole time, that this
Speaker 2: was all part of Castro's plan? Are we going to
Speaker 2: find out that the CIA was in on it? That's
Speaker 2: a good question. So I turned to News Nation, who
Speaker 2: was talking about the potential for JFK conspiracies coming to light.
Speaker 7: Joining me, now, I have Phil sheenan investigative journalist and
Speaker 7: author of a cruel and shocking act, The Secret History
Speaker 7: of the Kennedy Assassination. Phil, good morning to you, I mean,
Speaker 7: as some of those who has dedicated his career to
Speaker 7: Kennedy's assassination. Your hopes and expectations for today, sir, I
Speaker 7: look good.
Speaker 5: We really have no idea.
Speaker 8: This seems to have caught everybody by surprise yesterday.
Speaker 2: The guy who is the one of the leading experts
Speaker 2: has no idea what to expect.
Speaker 5: That's great. This could be a total surprise, could be
Speaker 5: a total dud.
Speaker 8: Eighty thousand documents. I really don't even know what that
Speaker 8: refers to. We've previously been told that about thirty four
Speaker 8: hundred documents were held back. Now these may be documents
Speaker 8: related not to JFK, to his brother RFK, or to
Speaker 8: Martin Luther King. But there's a great mystery about what
Speaker 8: this is and when it will be released.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and it was also fascinating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he said the Kennedy files, So are they
Speaker 2: just rolling it all into like all Kennedy's. We got
Speaker 2: to find out that Joe Kennedy had the business dealings
Speaker 2: overseas too, or this is not about JFK? Is this
Speaker 2: about all Kennedy's.
Speaker 7: Yesterday when we heard the President say he's going to
Speaker 7: leave these eighty thousand pages unredacted.
Speaker 2: Actually the headline from the New York Times is Trump
Speaker 2: promises again to release all Kennedy assassination files. Maybe they
Speaker 2: do mean more than just JFK. Yeah, more than one
Speaker 2: Kennedy assassinated.
Speaker 7: Ask them to be untouched. Do you think we walk
Speaker 7: away with anything new and earth shattering?
Speaker 8: You know, I doubt it in the sense that you
Speaker 8: know these We've had these releases periodically since President Trump's
Speaker 8: first term, and most of them have turned out to
Speaker 8: be pretty unrevealing. You know, there's certain names and addresses
Speaker 8: we hadn't seen before. I don't think anything in these
Speaker 8: documents will substantially change the history of the assassination. I
Speaker 8: don't think they'll point to a second gunman in Dallas,
Speaker 8: for example.
Speaker 5: Oh that's what we're all hoping for.
Speaker 2: Although if the official documents don't point out a second gunman,
Speaker 2: that must mean that there are unofficial documents hiding somewhere
Speaker 2: that we're not being privy too.
Speaker 5: What is the government hiding?
Speaker 8: But there have always been these reports that Oswald told
Speaker 8: people what he was going to do before the assassination,
Speaker 8: and those people might have helped him or encouraged him,
Speaker 8: And in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
Speaker 8: a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you bring up the fact that.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, what was the conspiracy That he told
Speaker 2: other people that he was going to do it, and.
Speaker 8: Those people might have helped him or encouraged him, and
Speaker 8: in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
Speaker 8: a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay, so he acted alone, but that other people
Speaker 2: were like, good idea, Lee.
Speaker 7: I guess you bring up the fact that for years
Speaker 7: he's been kept private because of identities being kept confidential.
Speaker 7: Has that been the crux of why this has all
Speaker 7: been secret for so long? Just people's identities who worked
Speaker 7: on this case.
Speaker 8: I mean a lot of these documents do identify law
Speaker 8: enforcement informants or secret sources for the CIA, people whose
Speaker 8: identities should have been protected forty years ago. If those
Speaker 8: people are still alive, they'd be very old right now,
Speaker 8: and it's not quite clear why they would need to
Speaker 8: be protected. And I think a lot of the reason
Speaker 8: for withholding all these documents over the years has been
Speaker 8: the fact that both the CIA and the FBI had
Speaker 8: Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance, pretty aggressive surveillance in the
Speaker 8: weeks before the assassination and after the assassination. They didn't
Speaker 8: want to admit that. They didn't want to admit that
Speaker 8: they knew a lot about this man. A lot of
Speaker 8: these documents refer to this surveillance that's never been fully explained.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, so they're surveilling the guy and then
Speaker 2: the guy goes and kills the president. They don't want
Speaker 2: that revealed because the people are going to go, wait
Speaker 2: a minute, they were watching this guy, how could this
Speaker 2: happen under your nose? And it would have been an
Speaker 2: egg on their face. So they didn't want that to happen. Obviously,
Speaker 2: Jay Edgar Hoover had a lot of control over information
Speaker 2: that was released at the time, and he didn't want that.
Speaker 2: He didn't want that embarrassment either.
Speaker 7: If the files were to reveal major new evidence of
Speaker 7: a cover up, which I'm assuming I mean you and
Speaker 7: I both know what happens when you assume, but I'm.
Speaker 5: Assuming I know what happens you make an ass of
Speaker 5: you and me.
Speaker 7: If that were the case, these wouldn't be revealed today.
Speaker 7: But what would that mean for public trust in the
Speaker 7: government moving forward?
Speaker 5: Nothing?
Speaker 8: Well, you know, any effort at transparency is welcome, even
Speaker 8: though it's kind of fifty years late. And you know,
Speaker 8: the Kennedy assassination really was the mother load of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 8: It's what sort of gave us this era of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5: Ooh, he's kind of right.
Speaker 8: The Vietnam War, Watergate, it ran contra everything that followed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but then the Pentagon papers came out and it
Speaker 2: proved a lot of those conspiracy theories were true, so
Speaker 2: that was a bummer. And then the Watergate proved that
Speaker 2: a lot of conspiracy theories about what was going on
Speaker 2: behind the scenes were true.
Speaker 5: So yeah.
Speaker 2: The trouble with these conspiracy theories is that in the
Speaker 2: sixties and seventies, a lot of them panned out, So
Speaker 2: that gave curt blanche to everyone to use their imagination
Speaker 2: of whatever could be the wildest of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 8: People believed.
Speaker 5: After the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 8: The government wouldn't even tell them the truth about how
Speaker 8: their president had died, and that suspicion I think has
Speaker 8: sort of metastasized into the world we live in today.
Speaker 5: Yeah, totally true.
Speaker 2: So are we going to get any information that changes
Speaker 2: anything we know about the Kennedy assassination?
Speaker 5: No, we're not. You're not going to get anything.
Speaker 2: Eighty thousand pages unredacted, and what we're going to learn
Speaker 2: is like what hotel room he stayed in when he
Speaker 2: was visiting his mother, something like that.
Speaker 5: I mean, that'll be it. That's it. That's what you're
Speaker 5: gonna get.
Speaker 2: Eighty thousand pages of just what TV shows he watched
Speaker 2: when he was falling asleep. That'll be it. I hope
Speaker 2: I'm wrong because I would love for there to be
Speaker 2: blockbuster news, but there won't be, and the conspiracy theories
Speaker 2: will continue to flourish simply because there isn't validating information.
Speaker 2: It's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, for every day
Speaker 2: that you don't validate the conspiracy theory, it grows stronger
Speaker 2: than it must be true, and that the conspiracy runs deep.
Speaker 5: There's a good chance.
Speaker 2: If you look around your house you take a look
Speaker 2: at those family photos, and there is one. There is
Speaker 2: one in that photo you love more than all the others.
Speaker 2: It's not the middle child either, as much as they
Speaker 2: want to brag about it, it's not. You'll find out
Speaker 2: who we're loving the most in the family photos.
Speaker 6: Next, you're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf
Speaker 6: I AM six forty.
Speaker 2: If you're visiting a friend and you you walk in
Speaker 2: and they've got that picture up in the living room
Speaker 2: and it's the whole family. They're so excited. You've got
Speaker 2: dad who's standing tall. You've got mom who's on a stool,
Speaker 2: and Dad's arm is on her shoulder. She's got one
Speaker 2: hand on her on her own knee, and then another
Speaker 2: hand around one of the children, and the other child
Speaker 2: just sitting to the other side of that ratty kid.
Speaker 2: So many ratty kids, all piled up. And then below
Speaker 2: them is the is the family dog, just happy as
Speaker 2: could be to be in the family photo.
Speaker 5: And you look, you look, you look at this, and
Speaker 5: you think, what what a lovely family. Right?
Speaker 2: Would you assume that the parents in that photo have
Speaker 2: a favorite family member? They all look so happy together.
Speaker 2: The answer is yes. First, they have a favorite one,
Speaker 2: and it's the dog. Pet Owners are spending over four
Speaker 2: grand every year on their pets. Gen z Is lead
Speaker 2: the way. They spend over six thousand dollars on their pets.
Speaker 2: Millennials at five thousand. Boomers not pets are accessories. They
Speaker 2: spend less than twenty five hundred dollars a year on
Speaker 2: their pets, and that probably includes medical spending as well.
Speaker 2: Pet Owners are willing to make significant sacrifices for their pets.
Speaker 2: Sixty three percent say they give up years of their
Speaker 2: own lives to stend their own kids. What else would
Speaker 2: you give up to extend your pet's life? Would you
Speaker 2: forego alcohol for a year? Two thirds say yeah? Would
Speaker 2: you get off social media? Two thirds say yeah. Half
Speaker 2: of people would give up three years of vacations, half
Speaker 2: would give up ten thousand dollars, and about two out
Speaker 2: of every five would pass up a job promotion if
Speaker 2: it meant prolonging their own pets life.
Speaker 5: And this is turning.
Speaker 2: These stats are turning into a business decision. Pet Co
Speaker 2: says their plan is to win back customers that were
Speaker 2: lost after the pandemic by letting them know that their
Speaker 2: fur babies are indeed their own a pet parent. Where
Speaker 2: this turns into troubles. I have a friend of mine
Speaker 2: I lose. I use that term loosely. So this friend
Speaker 2: of mine goes to one of these restaurants. It's offering
Speaker 2: free meals for Father's Day. My friend doesn't have kids,
Speaker 2: he's not married, he's not even dating anyone.
Speaker 5: He doesn't, he doesn't have any kids.
Speaker 2: But he goes into the restaurant and he's wearing a
Speaker 2: shirt that says cat Daddy on it. And he sits
Speaker 2: down and then he says, I'm here for the free meal.
Speaker 2: They gave it to him. They gave it to him. Hoffman,
Speaker 2: Is that a ya or an a free meal on
Speaker 2: Father's Day for pet owners?
Speaker 5: That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 9: I love I love my dog, but I wouldn't consider
Speaker 9: myself my dog's father. Nope, No, because I saw his
Speaker 9: mother and I'm not his mother was a bitch.
Speaker 10: You guys, hey, as a lady, I would like to
Speaker 10: defend my brethren. Where I almost said something totally cross,
Speaker 10: let's just let's just say restraint has been shown early.
Speaker 5: We're off the rails.
Speaker 10: I think that's more of a people who don't have
Speaker 10: kids things.
Speaker 5: But even I don't know.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 5: No, that's not true.
Speaker 10: I know people who call their their pets their babies
Speaker 10: when they've had kids.
Speaker 5: So much lower maintenance. So I don't know.
Speaker 10: It all seems way too much for me.
Speaker 2: I've raised three kids and four dogs. They'll think the
Speaker 2: dogs any day of the week.
Speaker 9: How old are your kids?
Speaker 5: Thirty twenty? What seven? You like? Thirty? Yeah?
Speaker 2: No, I married old lady with three used kids. So oh,
Speaker 2: you know, all broken in a little.
Speaker 5: Bit, broken in a little I'm going to walk away.
Speaker 5: Smart move Gary and Shannon up next. I'm looking forward
Speaker 5: to the show. Guys. Thanks off on the right foot.
Speaker 1: Love it you've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 1: Catch my Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
Speaker 1: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.