Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We
love to hear from you. Molly. How's it going.
Speaker 2: It's going great. How are you doing.
Speaker 1: We'll under the weather, I think we both are, but
we'll do our best. Yes, certainly, we don't have it
as bad as people in Florida right now, especially in
the Tampa area right I mean, Milton's barreling in as
we record, and it looks like it's going to be
one of the big one, you know, biggest hurricane in years.
Speaker 2: Maybe second Yeah, I just first of all, Ball, I
want to say, the level of coverage we're getting for
Milton is more like what I wanted for Helene. You know,
I am very interested in the weather and hurricanes, and
it just seems like Helleen, both on the front end
and then in the aftermath, there just hasn't been enough
media coverage to satisfy my desire for news and information.
Whereas Milton you're getting a ton like I love learning
about how powerful the storm is, even as terrifying as
it is that it is so powerful, and they're explaining,
you know, how the small eye relates to the incredible
power and how much water is getting sucked up and
going to be dumped on people. But I also saw
on Twitter last night someone had a local weather weather
woman giving just like a completely straightforward account of this
hurricane without all of the hysteria. And I think she's
the Tampa weather person, And I was like, it is
interesting that the local weather person is so much calmer
than you go to weather channel and they're like it's apocalyptic,
everyone's gonna die, it's gonna be horrible. And then the
local person was like, you're gonna want to make sure
to stay inside between the hours of you know, two
to five or whatever. It was much calmer.
Speaker 1: Well, I think sometimes you want to maybe or on
the side of caution, and you know, I mean, especially
when you have a big storm coming. But it seems
to me like, yeah, people in Florida deal with hurricanes
all the time, and they know what they're doing most
of the time. But yeah, quickly, one thing on the
coverage of Helene. Me and my wife were watching YouTube
just locals and they, you know, going around. The locals
are doing far you know I'm talking about you know,
amateur journalists with just their phones. We're doing a better
job than any media coverage I saw. So we I
was just watching, like we were watching maybe you know,
an hour of just locals driving around showing you what's
going on, talking to people, and it was a really
interesting stuff. I mean, I'll just.
Speaker 2: Point out that when there is a hurricane, like when
when Katrina happened, and of course the real problem with
Katrina was the aftermath and Orleans with the levies breaking,
and you had every major media outlet there going through
the muck, showcasing the people who were hurt, really devoting
a lot of resources to making sure people understood how
difficult it was for the people in New Orleans in
the aftermath of Helene. And of course it covered such
a bigger area, So there might be some areas that
are doing better than other areas. There might even be
some areas where the federal government is doing a halfway
decent job and other areas where nobody has had any
government interaction. But you just don't see that much major
media attention to the Helene aftermath. Now, maybe because Florida
is more people are more experienced with hurricanes, you're going
to see better stuff there. But the media coverage of
Helene has been a true failure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. I don't know why. I mean, my
first instinct was to say that there's just a bias
against places that journalists don't know, at least national journalists
don't care about, or don't know or don't live in
those places. Then I was being more charitable, and I
said to myself, maybe they just weren't prepared for this
sort of thing out there, you know, and they couldn't
get there. That's like the charitable view.
Speaker 2: No, it's really that they just don't want to hurt
Kamala Harris, and she was in they don't want to
have coverage that showcases a poor federal response.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Then I quickly slapped myself and said, what are
you doing, David, And that's exactly what I came to.
I just don't think they want to hurt, you know,
the Kamo's campaign. And clearly I don't know that everything
people are saying about FEMA is exactly true, but it's
clear to me after like taking a deep dive that
FEMA is not doing a great job here to say
the least, and people need help and I don't know
if it's just government in competence or what it is,
but it's not good.
Speaker 2: Well, if you recall, much of the problem after Katrina
was poor local and staf response, and the corporate media
decided to make it all about FEMA, And here you
have a different situation where the local response couldn't be
better in most of these cases, with you know, even
with just communities rallying to help each other, state having
some problems and the federal government having a ton of problems.
In the media are like, well, let's explain how FEMA
is really just a wonderful agency in every way, and
that it's misinformation to complain about the federal response. It's
it's just h yeah, FEMA's like every other federal agency,
riddled with waste, fraud, and mismanagement its location.
Speaker 1: It's like one event after the next exposes one agency,
and one institution after the next is just being incompetent
and terribly run. From this you know, secret service now
to FEMA, who knows, you know what the next thing is,
So anyway, so you see the.
Speaker 2: Thing where Kamala Harris tried to make Milton be about her,
and she was claimed she like strolls up to a
bunch of reporters and she says, Ron Santas is playing
politics and he won't take my phone call. And Rond
de Santis was like, I'm literally on the phone with
the actual president, the actual person in the chain of command,
and I don't know why Kamala Harris is trying to
make this all about her. And it was weird.
Speaker 1: I thought that desantish when he was I think it
was on Sean Hannit he asked him about that, and
his answer is just amazing. I mean he first of all,
he's so it's so weird for me to watch a
politician speak and coherent, succinct sentences about the topic at hand,
answer a question, look and feel, exude competence. But that's
what to me, Ron DeSantis was doing when he answered
this question. Why on earth would he take a call
from the vice president? And this he pointed to this
out who he's never who's never called him in other
hurricanes that have happened, he has. And then what I
loved was that Joe Biden completely undercut Kamal about saying that, yeah,
he's doing a census, is doing a great job. He
as my number we talk. I don't know if he's
doing that. People seem to think that he's trying to
sink Kamala. I'm not sure about that.
Speaker 2: But it just seems more like it's a return to
the Joe Biden of old, the one that was, for
whatever his many faults, was a kind of a likable,
decent guy. He went into that full I'm trying to
get my enemies killed mode where he did the dark,
dark Brandon, you know, fascist speech, saying his enemies are
all the worst people in the world. And it was
it was awful, but it was also kind of unlike
what he had been known as. He'd been a more lovable,
likable figure from Scranton. So a couple of weeks ago,
do you remember when he went and visited the fire
station near where flight ninety three went down, and everyone
in the everyone in the venue was so for Donald Trump,
and he's a little uncomfortable, but then he ends up
kind of joking about it, and the guy wants him
to put his Trump on and he does it, and
it was it was just kind of a return to
a less hostile political environment.
Speaker 1: And then he's not running again yet, and.
Speaker 2: Everyone thinks he's going after Kamla because he's saying things
that are true. So he's you know, people, she's trying
to do this weird. She's not actually trying very hard
at this apparently, but we were told that she's trying
to separate herself from Joe Biden. And so then Joe
Biden was asked, if you know some question, He's like, oh,
Kamala Harris was one hundred percent my vice president or
is one hundred percent my vice president, and she's active
in everything, and everyone's like, oh, he's being mean to
her without realizing like it is just true. She is
the incumbent vice president. He did pick her. They have
been a team for four years. Like he's not actually
sabotaging her. No, everyone's acting like it is because they
want to separate them.
Speaker 1: And think about his point of view. In his from
his perspective, he's a good president, and he's trying to
praise her by saying she took part in all the
decisions he made. That he thinks that is praise. He
thinks that is helping her.
Speaker 2: I do want to say one thing about what actually
separates them. You know, the media are all trying to
separate her from Joe Biden. The thing that actually separates
them is what we're just talking about. She's a much
more radical person than he is, and I think that
explains why she's struggling so much in the polls. And
you could say, well, is she really struggling. She's up
two points in the Real Clear Politics average. That's absolutely true.
She's up two points in the RCP average. Biden on
this date are on this, you know, twenty eight days
out or twenty seven days out of the race. In
twenty twenty, he was up ten. So yeah, she's eight
points behind Biden. You're seeing her struggles with men, and
I think it does relate to how her radicalism is
more difficult to hide and she doesn't have the political
chops that Joe Biden has. So Joe Biden was able
to push some pretty far left policy ideas while presenting
himself as a moderate. I think it was a big
reason why he was able to win in twenty twenty.
He won by forty three thousand votes across three states.
But the idea was he's moderate, he's calm, he's in charge,
he's an adult, will have less chaos. He's like normal,
and she's unable to hide her extremism. And this is
best represented by those two ads that the Trump campaign
is airing in Swing states everywhere during football games and
baseball games, so people are actually seeing them, you know,
like if you don't er him in live events, you
can just fast forward through ads, but not when it's
a football game. And it's these ads showing that she
was so proud of herself for pushing taxpayer funded genital
mutilation surgeries for violent criminals and illegal immigrants. And it
sounds crazy, but it's absolutely true. And so you've got
her in her own words on these ads out there
talking and people are starting to freak out, Like I
saw today the New York Times and Semaphore and NBC.
I think they all have stories like these trans ads
are really helping Trump, so they're bad. And Joe Scarborough
was freaking out. He said he like motions to the
men quote unquote men at his table, and he's like,
these ads don't affect men like us, but they do
affect like real men in Swing states and.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Kamala could not when she was asked by sixty
minute minutes what differentiates her from Biden? After that, nothing does.
She could not answer that question. It was one of
her vapid you know word salads, platitudes all that. Then
she goes on Colbert at night and he because he's
a complete hack, I don't care that he's a late
night guy or not the same question, so that she
can she has a redo like a whiffle ball, and
she cannot answer it. Again, she cannot answer a question.
I've never seen something like this in my life, never
in a presidential.
Speaker 2: Candidate, So it is shocking to see. Although I'd kind
of like to discuss what would be a good answer exactly,
meaning any answer she gives will then beget more questions.
Speaker 1: A good answer would be, I'm listen. I was his
vice president. I was loyal to him. I did it
was his agenda, not my agenda, so I helped him.
I would have done things differently on AB and C.
It's very easy to answer that question if she actually
had any kind of belief system prom with her.
Speaker 2: Let's say, let's say she would have done something to
control the border. Wouldn't that lead to questions about, oh,
why before you were his VP, were you wanting a
completely open border with every possible gift to illegal aliens,
and why when you were listening charge of the issues
did you not do anything?
Speaker 1: Or well, Molly Hemingway that here it is, I you know,
there is. When you're campaigning sometimes you see the world
differently from when you're actually in the White House. When
you get to the White House, you realize how difficult
things are. You realize that it's not so simple. World
is more complicated. I would not have enacted those policies.
I would have done AB ANDC whatever. I mean. These
people have a whole teams of people who are supposed
to be writing and coming up with answers for them
and all of that, and she doesn't seem to add
any well.
Speaker 2: And partly that's just a result of her unique political history.
So she won races in California, and she has never
won a race outside of California, with the exception of
being Joe Biden's VP, which is a big one. But
she wasn't really it wasn't really her responsibility to message
a more moderate or conciliatory tone. In fact, when he
was picking her to be his VP. The whole point
was that she would keep the crazy left flank of
the party confident enough to vote for him.
Speaker 1: Right, that was also an identity political identity pick, which
she had promised.
Speaker 2: But yeah, for sure, okay, and she she didn't have
to moderate at all, even in that presidential run. And
so Joe Biden again, say what you want about him.
He's been in office for about one hundred and eighty years,
which is a lot of elections to win, and it
means reaching out across political divides, or at least figuring
out how to present yourself as a moderate. You know,
you say, I'm totally for ripping a baby from the
womb at nine months, but you figure out how to
say it in a way that doesn't that people can't
capture that sound bite. Whereas she was having the almost
exact opposite situation. She was having to sound even crazier
than a normal you know, than a normal crazy lefty
in order to win primaries, in order to make a
name for herself. You know, when she was on in
the Senate, she wanted to raise money for a presidential run.
You know, she clearly is very ambitious, and the lane
she chose was crazy, crazy lefty, and so she just
doesn't have any experience moderating how she sounds. Plus, she's
clearly not smart, and I don't know, it is so
rude to talk about intelligence this way, but she is.
She is a dumb not a dumb individual. But you know,
at the height of affirmative action. She went to Howard
and Hastings law School. She failed the bar exam the
first time. She's not like a true idiot. But she's
also not winning any intellectual awards.
Speaker 1: Right, I think that's part of it. But I also
think what's part of I don't think she's a radical
in the way let's say Barack Obama was a radical.
I don't believe she has any principles. So her radicalism
is that she will take any authoritarian position to further
her own power. It's not like left wing or right.
I mean, I think she would say anything for power.
And the problem with her is that it's not that
you need to switch a position or to or even moderate.
You need to change everything you said in the past,
so you can't even really you're not a real person anymore.
I don't even know that she knows what to say,
because she doesn't believe anything. I mean, that's just my
theory on her. So you listen, if you ask, if
someone asks you a question, you're going to answer it
because you have a belief system, right. You know what
you think about abortion, for instance. I think she would
take any position to win, and more than most politicians.
And I just think she just doesn't know how to
answer a question. And we might have mentioned this last week.
I also think the problem is these people never have
to answer tough questions. They're not used to it. They
are not practiced. They don't know what to say. Donald
Trump say you what you want about him. He's out
there answering crazy questions all the time. And Jade Vance
is a more polished candidate because he's out there answering
tough questions daily. Whereas Tim Walls, as soon as he
was asked a tough question, he fumbled, he didn't know
how to answer it. So anyway, you mentioned I.
Speaker 2: Want to keep talking about the media tour, but I
have a quick digression here on jd Vance. So yesterday,
an Afghan translator who had been brought to the US
on that special refugee status after the end of the
war in Afghanistan was arrested for plotting a terror attack
in Oklahoma for election day. And it was really interesting because,
well it's really interesting and horrible first of all, but
when the Biden administration, with the support of a ton
of establishment Republicans, did this fast track to bring in
unvetted Afghans, a lot of people were critical of it,
including jd Vance who said he would like to prioritize
getting Americans out of Afghanistan before we do this special
refugee thing. And Chris Wallace had Ben sass On to
talk about this and he's like, jd Vance says he
cares about Americans, please respond And Ben sass was like, well,
you know, we have an obligation to these people. They're
welcome to be my next door neighbor. You know what
could possibly go wrong? And at the time, I remember
Philip Bump wrote a piece saying like jd Vance has
evolved into the type of candidate he used to abhor
because it was all about Jade Vance sounding the alarm
about unvetted Afghan translators. Did this people ever go back
and think about how it played out, you know, like
exactly what jd Vance said would happen, which also is
exactly what Donald Trump said would happen happens, and then
like the Philip Bumps and the Chris Wallaces and the
Ben Sasses of the world, like do they just move
and Ben's out of political life now, but do they
just like move on or do they think hmm, I
got that wrong. Maybe I should also evolve as a
person when I'm presented with new information.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they evolve. That's not the reaction
of any kind of pundit or politician. Usual reaction is
just to figure out ways that you can prove yourself right.
I myself am am a person who I think would
have welcomed I don't know think I wrote about it
would have welcomed Afghans here. But I have always also thought,
and I'm sorry people get manned when I say that,
that when you're coming from certain Islamic countries with certain
kind of traditions and certain kinds of organizations, you need
a much higher level of you know, I don't know
what to call it. A process. We need to know
a lot about you, and if we don't, you can't comment.
But a translator for us, that means it was helping us. Right,
So it's a tough spot, right No, because you assume
these people, you assume someone is helping you, there is
probably going to be okay no oh.
Speaker 2: I mean for wrying out loud. No, Like, at the
very least you have them relocate to a another place
where they can go through extensive vetting. But also it's
just this idea that we don't have to care about
whether we're importing terror into our country, Like you get
to care about it, and maybe it's bad, like maybe
when you're going to war against people and some and
because they murdered three thousand of your citizens, you might
be working with different groups. It doesn't necessarily create a
lifelong obligation. It's this very neo con approach to like,
well what about the other people? It's like, how about us?
How about we care about us?
Speaker 1: It is not a neo Khan approach to say we
were in Afghanistan, whether we should have I don't think
we should have been there for that long. I do
think we should have gone there initially. But when we're leaving,
we take our time. We Latin Americans leave, we vet
our allies there and help them so they're not murdered.
And I think a lot of translators who are abandoned
there would have been murdered by the Taliban because for
helping the West. And I think we do have some
sort of responsibility to those people, and not over Americans,
but some And I don't know what the process was here,
but obviously we need much better vetting when we're letting
lots of people coming in, you know, to come in
from places where there's high levels of terroristic activity. I mean,
I agree with that. I'm just saying I was surprised
that it was someone who helped us there complicated my thinking.
I'm just saying I have to think about my my
positions as well on this. So I'm just saying, I mean,
I don't think most people do that, and I'm saying
I'm better than most people, but it is something to
think about. I mean, I am better than most people,
but not you.
Speaker 2: Know, that's okay.
Speaker 1: Most of the people were talking about.
Speaker 3: Right now, is Kamala trying to earn the dumb vote.
The watch Dot 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, Kamala Harris
is pitching twenty five thousand dollars for first time home
buyers while trying to build millions of new homes with
government funds, all while using small businesses as straw men.
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the watch Dot on Wall Street podcas with
Chris mccowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Back to the media blitz. So, Kamala Harris announces that
she's doing a media blitz, and she announces this last weekend,
and I just, first off, think it's worth noting when
you're announcing a major campaign strategy. And the campaign strategy
prior to this blitz was to hide her in a
basement much deeper than the Joe Biden basement he was
hidden in in twenty twenty. It suggests that they know
they're needing to switch something because what they're doing isn't working,
and it's just kind of an obvious thing, but it
needs to be said because like if the Trump campaign
were dramatically changing their strategy, there would be stories in
every major publication and on every major network, being like
he's flailing, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's having
to switch things up, and yet when it happens with her,
it's just kind of like unremarked upon. So her first
thing was the Call Her Daddy podcast, which I thought
was interesting. We're now seeing a bunch of things. That
was definitely the one she felt most comfortable in and
had fewer of her weird tics and like voice changes
and things like that, And I think that's just interesting
that it took like a radical pro abortion sex podcast
for her to feel comfortable. That might be a good
thing for her to do in her future because the
other ones that deal more with like foreign policy questions
or domestic policy questions, she just struggles to understand or
competently respond to the question.
Speaker 1: I don't think she knows anything about foreign policy. Like
I bet you if I asked her what's the capital
of Syria or something, she might not know what that is.
And I'm not joking. Her answer in sixty Minutes on
Israel was so embarrassingly stupid that a ninth grader could
have done it. And did you see that sixty Minutes
had released that clip and then they truncated it to
make it sound much more coherent, and maybe even spliced it.
I'm not one hundred percent sure about that yet. It
is insane. They would never have done this for George
Bush or anyone else who is a ramble on, you know,
in an answer.
Speaker 2: Actually, I need to investigate this because I at first
thought that what happened. So so on Monday they release
a snippet of a question and answer, And first of all,
I just want to say the guy who asked the
questions did a very good job.
Speaker 1: I thought, yeah, he was pretty good.
Speaker 2: He just asked kind of very straightforward questions. We're not
really talking about how unfair a question is, or how
or even like how brutal a question is, because he
just didn't make himself the centerpiece of that.
Speaker 1: I was surprised. I was surprised when he asked her,
for instance, why have you changed your mind on every everything?
I don't know what you stand for. A person doesn't
know what you stand for, and she couldn't answer that
question either, But go on, sorry, do.
Speaker 2: You know him at all before? What's his name? I'm sorry,
but I just thought it was it was okay, So
I did I did just watch the thing that you're referencing.
So on Monday they release a snippet he asks her
about who in Israel and she gives a complete disaster
word salad response the kind you're familiar with, where she says,
you know, the fundamental thing is that we think strategically
about the circular motion and the passage of time. You know,
she does that thing and it's very, very bad. Then
they air a snippet later and it's different, and I
don't think it's just truncated. I actually think it's different.
It's a different answer, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's a transcript out that has a different Listen.
I just saw this, so I'm not one hundred percent sure,
but there's a transcript of the interview and apparently it's
different than the answer she gives on the tape. So
either someone got the transcript wrong they spliced her answer.
Something is up there and she needs the help, by
the way, because she literally was asked, is Nettayao an
ally of the United States and said no, which is
saying Israel is not an ally. The democratically elected leader
of our allies, not our ally. Because she doesn't't offend
people in Michigan or whatever.
Speaker 2: But anyway, I do want to say she did say
the people of Israel are are allies, So it wasn't
as bad as it sounds. They well, they elected, they elected.
I mean it was a weak response, but it wasn't
like she was saying Israel wasn't our ally, you know.
It's it certainly could have been worse if she were
being real Kamala. So I do want to point out too,
I just read Brian Stelter has a propaganda newsletter that
he puts out every night. It's called Reliable Sources, and
he did not cover this issue of creating a forgery
in this interview with sixty minutes, which seems to be
a major issue for a media critic to note, he
has a whole thing. The only mention is Donald Trump
for some crazy reason. Once the unedited transcript out, how
crazy is that? You know? And it's just a weird
thing to have everyone just kind of moving on. Do
you remember when Dan Rather fell for a forgery when
someone tried to say that George W. Bush had not
what was the forgery about it, like, hadn't.
Speaker 1: Served He hadn't served in the Texas Reserve. I think
was at the Air Force reserve. I forget what reserved,
but it was a very obvious forgery that bloggers immediately saw,
like within an hour.
Speaker 2: And expl and my husband was part of the debunking
effort for that, which was really cool. So he fell
for a forgery, which is bad, and it ruined his career.
What if you're creating the forgery, which is what sixty
minutes appears to have done here. I mean, we need
to find out what their answer is, but they're not
even being asked for an answer. This level of election
interference and manipulation is why people loathed the corporate media.
Speaker 1: Yes, let us talk about Tanasi Coats and his interview
with CBS News. I think it was in the morning.
To me, this is an amazing story, not because I
have a real dislike of Tanasi Coats, whose new book
is just just garbage. I reviewed it. If anyone's interested,
I have a long review up. But I think it's
a microcosm of the real problems of journalism. So what
happened was he went on the show in the morning,
CBS Mornings, I think, and he was interviewed by a
guy named Tony Ducoppel. I think you pronounced it. I'm
not sure who asked him completely legit, you know, respectfully,
but you know, forcefully in the you know, asked him
some legitimate questions about his book. And what happened afterwards
was apparently the entire staff of CBS News just had
to meltdown. They had to call in like one of
these special DEI counselor folks to talk about it. They
had a big struggle session and the guy who asked
the question apologized tearfully or whatever it was, and he regretted, what,
you know, some of the stuff he had done. And
in a, it shows that the left is never especially
it's intellectual class or whatever, never has to actually answer
any questions or debate or stand up for their ideas
or explain them, just emotional appeal anyway. And B that
we always talk about the reporters that are terrible, but
it's actually an entire staff from the bottom up that's terrible.
It's the editors, it's the producers, they're all terrible. It
reminded me of like when Kevin Williamson was fired because
the staff couldn't handle him being there at the Atlantic,
and there was another incident I can't remember right now
where someone was fired. They just simply cannot have anyone
who disagrees with them. They can't answer any questions. This
is very authoritarian thinking and it's pervasive, pervasive in the
establishment media. Not a single person, not a single reporter,
have I seen stand up for this guy in the
establishment media and say it's wrong to punish someone for
asking a question, and that's what they're doing.
Speaker 2: That's a really good point. I do want to highlight
that there was one reporter who deserves to be called
out favorably for at the moment that the suits started
coming down on a guy for doing journalism, she expressed
her grave concern with what they were doing and asked
for clarification because she did not notice anything, you know,
that was worthy of being called out negatively. And that's
Jan Crawford, the Supreme the Supreme Court reporter at CBS,
and she was very polite when she said it, but
she also was pretty fierce. And to do that in
a meeting when you've got all of these crazy people
around you, I just think takes courage and it deserves
to be noted. I am beating myself up because for
a few months I've been wanting to highlight how CBS
has gone from bad to horrific and now everyone you
know sees it and knows it. But they seem to
have been completely taken over by like far left wing
of the journalistic class. And they used to actually have
something of a reputation for being the least bad of
the of those three you know, TV Networks, ABC, NBCC,
and it's so bad now and I just you know,
want to point out tanaheis Coats or however you say
his name, gets asked real questions by a real journalist,
and the entire staff of CBS revolts, or almost entire staff.
CBS also did that craptastic debate you know, where they
were doing false fact checks of JD. Vance and they
were asking absolutely stupid, crazy left wing questions and being
annoying and discrediting themselves. No staff revolt, no outside revolt.
They also just did this sixty minutes forgery where they
are faking the interview with Kamala Harris. No staff revolt.
If there was one, it would be about him asking
real questions, I'm sure.
Speaker 1: And may I interjecting quick things? How about this a
year ago one of the fathers of a person who
had been kidnapped by Hama was on that same exact show,
and Gail King, who is another person on that show,
asked him all about how about the Palestinian children, how
about the Palestinian this, how about the Palestinian that? There
was no revolt over that, No one was upset about that.
And this is just a civilian father, not a journalist
who wrote a book about Palestinians, and no revolt at all.
And by the way, I just what quickly want to say.
Tanasikats was on an interview somewhere else and he said
that Gail King he felt bad for Gail King because
she didn't ask get to ask questions during this interview
that she had sent to him before the interview, so
he knew they were coming. That is on journalistic I.
Speaker 2: Want to defend that. Yeah, please, I don't think that's
quite what he said. He said that she pulled them
aside before the interview and she's like, I'm going to
ask you about this. I'm going to ask you about that.
I don't think that's necessarily a journalistic failure. You know,
if you say I'm gonna you know, it helps someone prepare, yes,
and it's certainly not something they give to their political opponents,
but it's not necessarily bad to say, I'm going to
ask you about that story you told about your mother.
I'm going to ask you about how you took a
day trip to Israel and think you're now an expert
in the Palestinian condition. You know.
Speaker 1: But if this other guy CBS says he didn't live
up to the network's journalistic standards, have yet to explain
what standard he broke. But yet I know, spulling side
your buddy that you know for years and telling them
what you're going to talk about seems to me. Maybe
it's not as bad as you say, Maybe it's not
as bad as I think, but it's certainly worse than
asking being a journalist and asking the guy questions. And
yet she will never be reprimanded for anything but anyway.
Speaker 2: Right, if you were going to reprimand one person, it
would be her, not him, or journalistic shortcomings. But I
just want to point out that on the right, you
can be humiliated or not. You can be like treated
horribly day after day after day after day after day
for decades, and the response of like the institutions that
support the right like the Republican Party or they're elected leaders.
Is to say, we got a debate on CBS News yay,
And meanwhile you do one interview with mildly like realistic
questions and you have a complete staff revolt on the left.
Like the left knows how to keep the corporate media
in line, the right doesn't like. What's being done to
the right is horrific. What's being to the left is nothing,
nothing at all. Like literally, there were questions of a
guy who was out promoting his book, not even tough questions,
just like normal questions, and they're losing their mind over it.
But in a way, I wish the right would learn,
like losing your mind over poor treatment is a good
thing to do if you don't want more poor treatment.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe you're right about that, though I think oftent.
I think that jd. Vance being attacked by the journalists
and walls in that debate was good for him. I
think he handled himself really well.
Speaker 2: Uh you know what would be even better tough questions walls,
tough questions, highlighting extremists walls. So yeah, like that, you
can oh, oh he handled this really difficult situation. Well, okay,
But when was the when was the message pushed from
the right, Like why must it always be like, oh,
he thought to a draw under difficult circumstances. How about
just being fair then, Like imagine how much JD. Vance
would have utterly crushed all the opposition if it were
a real debate.
Speaker 1: I think the media you already could well media bias
and corruption is not The right talks about it constantly.
I mean, it's not as if they completely ignore this thing.
It's a big issue. It's been a big issue since
Rush Limbaugh was calling them the dry by media. It's
not like people don't talk about it.
Speaker 2: The last time. When's the last time they got a
reporter to cry up and repent of what they did,
which is what the left got in twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: And let's actually now talk about sixty minutes in the
sense that it was Leslie's All a few years ago
who fact checked Donald Trump in an interview over Hunter's
laptop and was wrong and is the reason why Donald
Trump won't go on. He wants an apology I believe
from her or whatever correction and then he would go
on and everyone, you know, Kamala is out there saying
he's scared to do interviews that I laughed out loud
when she when I heard her say that, because she's
the one who doesn't do interviews. He interviews with everyone basically,
and he is right in this instance. But no, no
one's crying, no one. I don't think they corrected their
Hunter laptop stuff at all, right, I mean.
Speaker 2: Far from it. They actually defended it this week. And
propagandist what is that guy? The propagandist at the Washington Post.
I know I need to narrow it down. Glenn Kessler,
he said she didn't say anything wrong. She just said
it hadn't been verified, which is a lie. She said
much more than just that it hadn't been verified. But
like also, the Russia collusion hoax was never verified and
it didn't prevent people from winning Pulitzers for participating in it.
You know, the standards are frustrating to talk about.
Speaker 1: Totally.
Speaker 2: Christopher, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: No, no, I was just saying, I completely agree with you.
It's corrupt. I'm just saying that if I have a
book coming out and if someone which will never happen
invited me on CBS to talk about it, I wouldn't
be scared to go on because I know what I wrote.
It is true and I believe it and I can
back it up. And if I made a mistake, i'd
say so. But Tannasi Coats has never never had to
face that. So are the These are the intellectuals on
the left. They cannot stand up to any scrutiny. I'm
just I'm kind of segueing it into what we were
talking about with politicians who don't answer questions, like Walls
and Kamala Harris. The intellectuals don't answer questions either. Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, And I mean your piece critiquing the Coat's book
is probably as much as I will read about him.
But traditionally having that kind of interplay, you know, someone
makes an argument, someone responds to the argument. They respond
to the response to the argument, that actually just makes
the world a better place. But what I gathered from
your review that just cracks me up is I mean,
really does seem like he took a field trip to
a foreign land and then pretended to be an authority
figure on the complexity of the situation there, and he
would never have like if someone was like I took
a week to study race relations in America and now
here's my book. People would mock that. You know, Tony
Heazy Coast would mock that person, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't want to bore people to get
too deeply into his book because he is not a
bright person. He's a great writer, he's not a good thinker,
and he's a liar. But he you know what he
does in this book instead of actually learning about Israel
or Palestinians or anything. Really he has very limited knowledge.
He's made at least a dozen clearcut factual errors in
his book that I could think of. He just he
also went to South Carolina, so he just makes the
Israeli Palestinian situation a stand in for race relations in America.
So it's the only thing he knows in high school.
Had to read his book, and that is is just gross.
He is not a smart person. And anyway, I don't
want to go I don't want to just insult him.
I think mostly though, my biggest insult to him is
that he's a coward. I don't think he could stand
up to the scrutiny of a real interview or a debate,
and I doubt he's ever really had one. But you
know what, here's why I think it is important, Molly.
It's because he's like number one on the bestseller list
this week. Millions of people are going to read that book.
Young people are going to read that book, and they're
going to believe the things that he says, which are racist,
anti Semitic, historically illiterate and lazy, lazy thinking. And I
think that's a problem. I think he represents a big
problem in this country. So anyway, but god forbid someone
ask him a question on sixty minutes. You know that
guy's going to end up being fired or quit probably, right,
I mean, you know, he's just there's gonna be so
much pressure on him now anyway.
Speaker 2: Honestly, I just feel if he doesn't have the courage
to defend his own journalism, he should quit.
Speaker 1: Cold.
Speaker 2: You have noticed it that report of the story about
him tearfully like repenting of it.
Speaker 1: Come on, be a man, this kind of struggle session,
I would.
Speaker 2: I mean, I do think people don't realize how easy
it is. Okay, sorry that you build up in your
mind this idea that standing up to mobs is going
to be impossible, but sometimes just practicing it and doing it,
like taking advantage of opportunities. You have to show some
courage makes you realize that you actually have it within you,
and I've had to. I remember when I was writing
about why marriage is different from other institutions and why
it's inherently based on the complementarity of men and women.
I was a little scared to be out there with
that argument because it's so contrary to what everybody was
saying at the time. And when I said it, I
definitely got a lot of pushback. I also got a
lot of law you know, a lot of people being like,
you're the first person to articulate why we treat marriage
as a heterosexual institution different than all other relationships, like
or you changed my mind, which is very rewarding. But
I also got a lot of people yelling at me
and threatening me and saying bad things, and I kind
of realized that was all they had, Like they didn't
debate me on it, they just called me names. And
when I realized that was it, I was like, Oh,
I can handle that. You know, that's not really a
big deal. And it helped me be more courageous for
future battles as well. And so we're talking a big
game like oh, come on, man, defend your journalism, but
for people who are listening, you know, who are dealing
with this in their workplaces, with all sorts of people
being you know, trying to get them to accept various
crazy like far left gender stuff and putting pronouns and
bios or something. I do think just practicing through a
proper way to handle it, you know, like I'm not
going to do this, and it makes me feel uncomfortable
when you're telling me I have to do this and
then just doing it. You may be surprised at how
well it goes for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I should take a step back. I got over
my skis there. I don't know. It's difficult for a
person who has a career to just stand up and lose.
He has a family to think about. I don't know
if he has kids, you know, or in god, you know,
who knows what his world is like. He doesn't want
to destroy his career or over something like this, and
it's difficult. The thing is that you'd be surprised how
many people will then pipe up and stand with you,
like you just need one person to say, actually, I
was just asking a question, and I bet you other
people at CBS if they saw that, there would be
other people who would stand with that reporter, don't you
think I mean, I think bravery is or whatever you
call it, is infectious a bit, and it's just that
people don't want to be the first one to stand up.
Speaker 2: I was even talking about this recently with a family
member about how it relates to openly supporting Trump in
this country. We had a reader at the Federalist who
was saying that you are allowed to openly support Harris,
but not Trump. And this just does not match with
my experience at all, having witnessed family members openly supporting
Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. They don't get
hardly any almost none, almost no negative feedback, and they
get a ton of positive feedback. And I think people
build up in their mind a worse situation in the
country than there is when it relates to that. And
we're talking about many, many anecdotes I have now of
people being told when they wear a Trump pad or
Trump shirts, might thatt like, oh, I love I love that.
That's great, you know, from people who you wouldn't necessarily expect,
and so but it also helps to practice those small
acts of courage in the face of you know, authoritarianism,
and a propaganda press, just so you can get better
at it. When when it comes to things that matter
even more, I.
Speaker 1: Think it depends where you are. You know, if you're
living in Manhattan, then you put a trumpad on, it's
going to be different than when you're in middle of
America and vice versa. Frankly, I mean, you know, I
don't know how people react to liberals in conservative place.
Speaker 2: Just witness this weekend someone wearing Trump paraphernalia in the
middle of Manhattan and getting yeah, maybe a little bit
more pushback, but a ton of positive feedback. Trump just
announced he's doing a rally in Madison Square Garden later
this month. I mean it's actually fine. I mean, tons
of listle for you, and they'll be encouraged by.
Speaker 1: Your I'm just I guess lasting on this for me
is that there's also difference between a journalist and a
regular person. If you're in an office it's filled with
liberals and you don't want to make your life uncomfortable,
there's really no you know, I get that why you
don't want to speak out about your politics. I don't
really even think it's a place to be in my neighborhood.
By the way, we have a we have a tradition
here that no one puts out political signs so that
we don't have to, you know, that we can be
neighbors and not worry about that or not argue. I
like that. But anyway, But if you're a journalist, if
you're if you're in the in the world of ideas,
if you cover, if you're in the world of politics,
like you shouldn't have to be scared to take a position.
If you're going to be a journalist, you should be
open to having people disagree with you. Should be ready
to have people point their finger at you and be
mad at you. That's part of the job. Don't you
think I don't know what we got about.
Speaker 2: It's now definitely part of the It's definitely part of
the job now to just push propaganda and to be
maybe the worst example of groupthink in our country. But
you're but I agree with you otherwise, Okay.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about culture watch. Can I start with something? Actually,
I went to the most magical play. I've been there
before in my life, a different one, but I went
to the most magical place in America. When people tell
me and they act like America's turning into this third
world country. I just say the words bass pro shops
because that place is amazing. Have you ever been.
Speaker 2: I like bess Pro shops.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: They have thousands of different plastic worms to fish for bait,
fish for bass. I mean, it is my boggling that
place boats guns, all kinds of guns, like it's a
supermarket for like the American man. I'd say, is that
going to be insulting? But it's like if you're from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, women don't know how to fish, so of course
it has to be for.
Speaker 1: Not saying women don't know him fish. I mean that
like men are probably more prone to fish. I guess
when I go fishing, I don't see many women there. Yeah, anyway,
so I did that that. I went to a best
pro shops because I'm a best fisherman, and it was
a lot of fun. I haven't been in a long time.
Just an amazing place. That's all. That's all I had.
Speaker 2: Well, I went to Brooklyn this weekend. I went with
my two best friends from high school, who are these amazing, beautiful,
wonderful women, and we went to see soul Coughing, Which
do you like? Soil coff?
Speaker 1: I know of them. I don't, I don't. I don't
know any of the music.
Speaker 2: Oh really, So it's just a great band. And they
did much from Ruby Room, this iconic album that they
put out many many years ago. And it was fun
being in Brooklyn. We the concert was at Brooklyn Steel
and just kind of I hadn't been in Brooklyn in
a couple decades. Really well, I guess that's not quite true,
but I hadn't spent a ton of time there, and
there's just something to that place that's fun. And there
was this great bar. We went to a cocktail bar
called I can't remember, it was called.
Speaker 1: So Good.
Speaker 2: It was like this small Japanese themed bar in Williamsburg anyway, Pokito,
that's what it was.
Speaker 1: Sounds very hip, sound like just like a hip experience
going to the Japanese cocktail bar and seeing still coffee.
I have some other stuff I saw. I guess I
should mention I've been on a tear of Michael Kine
movie from the sixties. I watched this documentary my generation.
I think it's on Amazon. It's about the sixties mod
scene and Michael kin and the acting and the pop art,
you know, like David Hockney and all that stuff. I
don't know if you're a fan, but it's really good
and it got me thinking that I should watch Michael
Kaine movies. And I watched The Hypcris File and The
Billion Dollar Brain. Those two movies. Both of them are
are based on books by this writer that I discovered,
whose name is Date Len Dayton. He's a spy writer.
The books are great. Another book I read, Oh, since
We're here, Since I'm here podcast? Did you ever? Did
you ever read Charles Portois books? Like what's the movie?
So I'm reading his book Masters of Atlantis. It's a
novel and it is one of the funniest novels I've
read in many, many years, and I highly recommend it.
Highly recommend it.
Speaker 2: I just remember in part when Mark read True Grit
out loud to the kids and he got a little emotional.
My husband does not get emotional at all, and it
remains one of my favorite moments watching my husband take
care of our children.
Speaker 1: I went out and bought all his novels, like I
was enjoying the so much reading it, and I'm like,
this is amazing. I don't know why I haven't read it,
and I bought. I forget the names of all the
other ones, but true Grid obviously is one of them.
Is the most famous novel. And that's all I have
this week. It was nice speaking to you, Molly, and
for everyone else, we'll see you next week. Until them
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray
Speaker 2: Wi and the amountain