The Ben Shapiro Show - August 27, 2019


The Saddest Newspaper In The World | Ep. 848

Topics
media harassment campaign Bernie Sanders media reform proposals New Yorks's education plan and gifted programs
Hosted by
Ben Shapiro
Mentioned
Donald Trump Jr. Elizabeth Warren Bernie Sanders Joe Biden Barack Obama Pinch Sulzberger Arthur Schwartz Archive Mark Antony Samuel J. Wurzelbacher Hillary Clinton Jeremy Peters Peter Marks Jared Yates Sexton Pinch Stolzberger Bruce Springsteen Walter Cronkite Joaquin Castro Tucker Carlson Brendan Eich Eric Wemple and 59 more
Is Politics War By Other Means? | Ep. 847 Tearing Down Our Institutions | Ep. 849

Episode Stats


Length

57 minutes

Words per minute

209.21

Word count

12,026

Sentence count

895

Harmful content

Misogyny

12

sentences flagged

Toxicity

44

sentences flagged

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

The New York Times laments digging through old tweets, Joe Biden collapses in the polls, and New York proves education is about leveling and not achievement, Ben Shapiro says on The Ben Shapiro Show. The reason that all of this becomes important is because the media seem to be at wit's end about what to do about the fact that they are bleeding credibility nationally and in terms of money regionally, and that has resulted in a lack of trust in the media. And that is the twin narrative for today because on the one hand, you have the national newspapers who are complaining that they're now being targeted as political activists, and on the other, regional papers complaining that there just isn't enough money to run them. It's a crisis that could only be cured by a systemic shift in how the news is funded, on the 1 hand, and by a change in orientation toward objective journalism, if you hope to maintain brand credibility at places like the NY Times and other media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post. Ben Shapiro's full show is available wherever books are sold, including Audible, Audible and iTunes. Subscribe to the show and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts! Subscribe on iTunes Learn more about your ad choices. Rate, review and subscribe to our new podcast! The opinions expressed in this podcast are our own and may not necessarily reflect those of our parent companies' policies and practices. We do not endorse the views expressed in the books we publish. We are not affiliated with any of the products or services we mention in the show. If you're looking for a book recommendation, please contact us directly or indirectly through a third-party reseller. . We are a proud supporter of the show, we do not own the rights to any of our products, we are not doing so. Thank you for your comments, reviews, recommendations or review or review of our work, or we're looking out for our own books, and we are looking out to find out what you're reading or listening to us out there. Thanks for your support is appreciated and reviewing our work is appreciated. -Ben Shapiro's bio on this podcast is linked in the comments section. -- Thank you! -- The opinions stated in this episode is that you'd like us to send us your thoughts and review our work and review it on the next week's podcast is also appreciated, and the words you've sent us out on the podcast is

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Ben Shapiro Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 The New York Times laments digging through old tweets, Joe Biden collapses in the polling, and New York proves education is about leveling and not achievement.
00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:08.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:15.000 All righty.
00:00:16.000 Well, a lot of folks in the media seem to believe that their industry is in serious trouble.
00:00:21.000 And I think that the reason that the industry is in serious trouble is because journalism has lost its credibility with the American people.
00:00:28.000 I mean, all too often, you look at the New York Times and you realize this is an activist newspaper.
00:00:32.000 You look at CNN, you realize this is an activist newspaper.
00:00:34.000 People blame that on President Trump in the media.
00:00:37.000 They blame that on President Trump.
00:00:38.000 All the journalists say, oh, well, it's Trump shouting fake news at the top.
00:00:41.000 That's the problem.
00:00:42.000 Guys, a lot of us didn't trust you before, and we don't trust you now, specifically now that the mask is off with regard to President Trump.
00:00:49.000 I mean, it is very obvious that the New York Times and major newspapers across the country have been engaging in political activism, not journalism, for all these years, and they've really thinly veiled it.
00:00:58.000 And this hasn't just been true for the last few years.
00:01:00.000 This has been true for literally decades, going all the way back to Walter Cronkite, who was a committed leftist, going all the way back to Edward R. Murrow, who was a committed member of the political left.
00:01:10.000 I'm going all the way back to the Vietnam War when Cronkite was going on TV suggesting that the Vietnam War was lost after the Tet Offensive, which it absolutely was not.
00:01:17.000 And the fact is, the media in the United States have been monolithically left since the 1960s, and it's gotten worse, and more activist, and more open, and the American people are on to the game.
00:01:26.000 Well, that has resulted in a lack of trust.
00:01:28.000 Now, that does not mean that all of these institutions are losing money.
00:01:31.000 There were some institutional shifts that happened in the mainstream media over the last 10 years that meant that a lot of the newspapers around the country saw significant losses.
00:01:40.000 That includes places like the LA Times, particularly regional papers, saw significant losses because the only people who were subscribing were people who expected a physical copy of their newspaper on their doorstep the next morning.
00:01:51.000 Well, if it turns out that nobody wants that physical copy of the pulp newspaper on their doorstep the next morning and then get all their news for free online, then why exactly would you subscribe to the Los Angeles Times?
00:02:01.000 Los Angeles Times has been bleeding for years.
00:02:03.000 But the New York Times has found a way to make that up.
00:02:06.000 That's because they're a national newspaper with a wire service and because they have extraordinary brand credibility, despite the fact that the trust levels in the media generally are down.
00:02:14.000 And so they have a lot of subscribers.
00:02:16.000 The Wall Street Journal was the first to jump into the space.
00:02:18.000 They have a lot of subscribers.
00:02:19.000 So in other words, big national newspapers are doing fine.
00:02:21.000 Local, regional papers, those are the ones that are getting hit the hardest.
00:02:25.000 Now, the reason that all of this becomes important is...
00:02:28.000 Is because the media seem to be at wit's end about what to do about the fact that they are sort of bleeding out in terms of both credibility nationally and in terms of money regionally.
00:02:38.000 And that is the twin narrative for today.
00:02:41.000 Because on the one hand, you've got the national newspapers who are complaining that they are now being targeted as political activists.
00:02:47.000 And you've got the regional newspapers complaining that they're being put out of business because there just isn't the money to run them.
00:02:52.000 The journalistic industry is in a severe crisis.
00:02:54.000 It's a crisis that really could only be cured by a systemic shift in how the news is funded, on the one hand, and by a change in orientation on the other, moving away from activism journalism and toward objective journalism if you hope to maintain brand credibility at places like the New York Times.
00:03:08.000 Now, the reason this comes up is because yesterday we saw the most bizarre, strange response by the New York Times to a story that I've seen in a very long time.
00:03:19.000 Here's what happened.
00:03:19.000 There's a fellow named Arthur Schwartz.
00:03:21.000 Arthur Schwartz is good friends with Donald Trump Jr.
00:03:23.000 He is close with the Trump administration.
00:03:25.000 And he and some of his minions online, some of his friends online, started to go through all of the old tweets of various journalists at institutions like the New York Times, at institutions like CNN, dig those up, archive them, and use them for the possibility of deploying against these institutions.
00:03:43.000 And the New York Times is really hot and bothered about this.
00:03:45.000 So there's an article by Kenneth Vogel and Jeremy Peters that came out yesterday.
00:03:49.000 Call Trump allies target journalists over coverage deemed hostile to White House.
00:03:54.000 And the New York Times is very upset about this.
00:03:56.000 Resurfacing old tweets from journalists, that's verboten.
00:03:59.000 You can't do that.
00:04:00.000 It's one thing for the New York Times to go dig up private information on citizens and then distribute it widely.
00:04:05.000 It's one thing for the New York Times to go after people who are sort of fringe characters in politics and try and destroy their life with old tweets.
00:04:12.000 It's one thing for the entire media to go after Kevin Hart and try and knock him off the Oscars and succeed by quoting tweets from 2009.
00:04:18.000 It's another thing if somebody digs up a tweet from a New York Times editor's college days.
00:04:23.000 That's very, very bad.
00:04:24.000 That's the opinion of the New York Times.
00:04:25.000 So in this article, Ken Vogel and Jeremy Peters write a loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.
00:04:42.000 Ooh, ooh, terrible stuff.
00:04:44.000 Except for the fact, of course, that The New York Times has been doing this for literally years.
00:04:48.000 The New York Times has been going after the past of anyone they deem to be politically Politically incorrect.
00:04:55.000 They've been doing this for decades.
00:04:57.000 I'm old enough to remember when they did this to Joe the Plumber.
00:04:59.000 There's a piece by Larry Roeder back from October of 2008 in the middle of that election.
00:05:05.000 Remember Joe the Plumber?
00:05:06.000 He's this guy who just lived in Toledo, Ohio and Barack Obama was walking around his neighborhood and he stopped Obama during a visit to complain about taxes.
00:05:15.000 And suddenly he was this big story.
00:05:16.000 Well, the New York Times then went and dug up everything they could on this guy and basically ruined his life.
00:05:21.000 And made him into sort of a temporary celebrity, his lines when he was speaking to Obama.
00:05:26.000 But they turned him into a national level celebrity and they tried to discredit him as a human being.
00:05:30.000 They ran an entire story that was all about Joe the Plumber.
00:05:33.000 It's a real deal on Joe the Plumber reveals new slant.
00:05:36.000 As though the question that he asked Obama was illegitimate because Joe the Plumber was not actually named Joe the Plumber.
00:05:43.000 The New York Times says, as it turns out, Joe the Plumber, as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday's final presidential debate, may work in the plumbing business.
00:05:51.000 But he is not a licensed plumber.
00:05:53.000 They actually went and did this.
00:05:54.000 I don't know if you remember this.
00:05:56.000 For my younger listeners, this is a thing that happened in real life 11 years ago.
00:05:59.000 The New York Times went and dug up every piece of information they could on a dude who asked Barack Obama a question.
00:06:05.000 They said Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber's license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities.
00:06:18.000 His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.
00:06:20.000 He owes back taxes, too, public records show.
00:06:24.000 The premise of his complaint to Mr. Obama about taxes may also be flawed, according to tax analysts.
00:06:29.000 Contrary to what Mr. Wurzelbacher asserted, neither his personal taxes nor those of his business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama's tax plan were to go into effect.
00:06:37.000 So they went and they dug up all this information on Joe the Plumber to talk about his own personal tax records because he had the temerity to ask Barack Obama a question.
00:06:45.000 And that has continued to pace.
00:06:46.000 That process has continued to pace.
00:06:49.000 Just a couple of years ago, Jared Yates Sexton, a, quote, writer, academic, and journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, the New Republic, and elsewhere, went and dug up information about a figure online named Han Bleephole Solo.
00:07:04.000 Really, just a Twitter troll.
00:07:05.000 Why?
00:07:06.000 Because that person had created an animated gif of President Trump WrestleMania, where he's tackling a CNN logo.
00:07:17.000 I mean, this was a couple of years ago.
00:07:19.000 And it was a big thing.
00:07:19.000 How could President Trump do such a terrible thing?
00:07:22.000 And of course, it wasn't very presidential, but the guy who created the GIF was just some dude online.
00:07:26.000 And this dude online, it turns out, we had to go through all of his tweets to find out that he was a vicious racist so that we could then tie President Trump to vicious racism.
00:07:35.000 So they dug up all this guy's old tweets, and then they suggested that because Trump had retweeted the silly GIF of himself tackling a person with a CNN logo for a face, then this guy's life should basically be ruined.
00:07:50.000 And that it is definitely necessary to dig up every old thing that the guy ever said.
00:07:55.000 And then this reporter, Jared Yates, texted and he started whining about it in Politico.
00:08:00.000 He said, before the hour was up, I was receiving messages from the usual customers, anonymous accounts with Pepe avatars and bios declaring themselves ethno-nationalists and white identitarians. 0.99
00:08:08.000 Yes, I'm sure that there are lots of jerks out there. 1.00
00:08:11.000 I know because they have targeted me. 0.99
00:08:13.000 It's one of the reasons why I have full-time security.
00:08:14.000 But does that mean that it is a great idea for the media to start uncovering every bit of information about people they disagree with politically?
00:08:22.000 And it was the New York Times who's jumping on the Kyle Cashew shouldn't be able to go to Harvard University bandwagon because some of his old friends had resurfaced crap that he said in a private chat two and a half years ago before the Parkland shooting.
00:08:35.000 So the media are all in on the, we can uncover nasty information about people we don't like, or we can resurface old tweets that are 10 years old in order to ruin people's careers.
00:08:43.000 But when it comes around for the New York Times, then they're very sad about it.
00:08:45.000 Then it's completely inappropriate.
00:08:47.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.
00:08:48.000 This is why the media lack institutional credibility, guys.
00:08:52.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:08:53.000 First, You know, I had braces when I was a kid, straightened out my teeth, but as you get older, if you're not wearing your retainers, you remember you leave the orthodontist office, like, wear your retainers the rest of your life.
00:09:03.000 And you're like, come on, I'm not a child anymore.
00:09:05.000 And so you just don't wear your retainers.
00:09:06.000 And then 20 years in the future, you look down at your bottom teeth and they're kind of crooked.
00:09:10.000 Well, this is where Candid comes in.
00:09:12.000 Candid has experienced orthodontists, licensed in your state, creating a treatment plan for you.
00:09:17.000 Here's how it works.
00:09:18.000 It's really convenient and really easy.
00:09:19.000 They create a 3D preview of how your teeth will look after your treatments are done.
00:09:23.000 Candid actually did this with me.
00:09:25.000 So, then they send you this kit, and this kit allows you to take impressions of your teeth and then send it back in to Candid, and then they formulate the sort of clear retainers that you need, the clear real liners that you need.
00:09:39.000 So Candid is creating custom clear liners and sending them directly to me right now.
00:09:43.000 I actually did this.
00:09:44.000 There's no hassle of going to an orthodontist's office.
00:09:46.000 Instead, you can do it from home.
00:09:48.000 Candid costs 65% less than braces.
00:09:49.000 For every liner purchased, Candid donates 25 bucks to Smile Train, and they bring safe 100% free cleft lip and palate treatment to children around the globe so you can feel good about yourself while you help straighten out your teeth at the same time.
00:10:00.000 Get straighter, brighter teeth in an average of just six months.
00:10:03.000 Learn more at CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:06.000 That's CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:08.000 And use code Shapiro to get 75 bucks off, which is a great deal.
00:10:12.000 That is CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:14.000 Code Shapiro for 75 bucks off.
00:10:16.000 My wife wants to do it as well, because, I mean, why not do it? 1.00
00:10:18.000 Makes your life easier, makes your teeth straighter and brighter.
00:10:20.000 It's pretty great.
00:10:21.000 Check them out at CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:24.000 That's CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:26.000 Even if you had braces in the past, it may be worthwhile to get your teeth realigned today because it's been 20 years.
00:10:31.000 CandidCo.com slash Shapiro.
00:10:34.000 Use that code Shapiro to get 75 bucks off.
00:10:35.000 Okay, so as I say, The media have long gone after people that they find to be politically unpalatable by resurfacing old stuff, and it's usually at the apex of their career, right?
00:10:44.000 It's about that time when somebody reaches a level of prominence, and then the media jump in.
00:10:50.000 People at the New York Times, they're reporters, they resurface, quote-unquote resurface, old tweets.
00:10:54.000 Resurfacing old tweets means you just search somebody's back catalog, you find something, you either take it out of context or you pump it out there.
00:11:01.000 And then, you suggest that this is indicative of their current thinking and try to ruin their career over it, or demand an apology.
00:11:06.000 And if they apologize, then you say you're only apologizing because you used to think this, so you're still a racist, so your career is ruined.
00:11:13.000 This is why nobody should ever cave to the outrage mob. 1.00
00:11:15.000 The outrage mob is garbage. 0.98
00:11:16.000 Now, the New York Times could be on the right side of this. 0.99
00:11:19.000 The New York Times and the mainstream media could be on the right side of this.
00:11:22.000 Instead of bothering to resurface old tweets, they could just go ask people what they think in the here and now.
00:11:27.000 Or they could hold the consistent standard.
00:11:29.000 Instead, their standard is, if they're people we disagree with, we can resurface old tweets and dig up old material about them and harm them.
00:11:35.000 And if they're people who work for us, it's very bad if you do this.
00:11:38.000 If you do this to Sarah Zhang, very bad.
00:11:39.000 If you do this to one of our other editors, very bad.
00:11:42.000 So, as I say, the New York Times is very upset about this.
00:11:44.000 They say this is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting.
00:11:52.000 Oh, that's what this is.
00:11:53.000 That's what this is.
00:11:54.000 So you're telling me that Trump and his allies are trying to target your journalists, but your journalists are sacrosanct, so they shouldn't be held to the same standard that you hold everybody else to?
00:12:04.000 That seems like a double standard to me.
00:12:04.000 Weird.
00:12:06.000 They say four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people.
00:12:16.000 who work at some of the country's most prominent news organizations.
00:12:18.000 The group has already released information about journalists at CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, three outlets that have aggressively investigated Mr. Trump in response to reporting or commentary that the White House's allies consider unfair to Mr. Trump and his team or harmful to his re-election prospects.
00:12:33.000 So again, this is very bad because they're members of Team Trump.
00:12:36.000 Releasing information about journalists if you're members of Team Trump, Very, very bad.
00:12:42.000 Operatives have closely examined more than a decade's worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said.
00:12:49.000 Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up.
00:12:55.000 The researchers said to extend to members of journalist families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.
00:13:02.000 And you know what?
00:13:03.000 This is what you guys get.
00:13:04.000 You set this standard, now you live by it. 1.00
00:13:06.000 Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 1.00
00:13:09.000 These were your rules, and now the rules are being applied to you, and you're very upset about it? 1.00
00:13:13.000 Sorry, New York Times, you don't get to play it like this.
00:13:15.000 That's not the way that this works.
00:13:17.000 You're gonna go back and ruin everybody's life because you don't like them politically?
00:13:21.000 Guess what?
00:13:21.000 You're public figures, too.
00:13:23.000 Now, this is what's hilarious.
00:13:25.000 Okay, so, the New York Times tries to distinguish between its own coverage and the coverage that is now being applied to them.
00:13:34.000 They say it is not possible to independently assess the claims about the quantity or potential significance of the material the pro-Trump network has assembled.
00:13:42.000 The material publicized so far, while in some cases stripped of context or presented in misleading ways, has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.
00:13:52.000 They say the information unearthed by the operation has been commented on and spread by officials inside the Trump administration and reelection campaign, as well as conservative activists and right-wing news outlets such as Breitbart News.
00:14:03.000 This is apparently very, very bad.
00:14:05.000 And then they say, The campaign is consistent with Mr. Trump's long-running effort to delegitimize critical reporting and brand the news media as an enemy of the people.
00:14:14.000 The president has relentlessly sought to diminish the credibility of news organizations and cast them as politically motivated opponents.
00:14:20.000 You know what the thing is?
00:14:21.000 Trump didn't have to do that.
00:14:23.000 You did it yourself.
00:14:23.000 I mean, you literally just had a leaked transcript in which Dean Baquet, your executive editor over at the New York Times, admitted that they built their entire newsroom about the Trump-Russia narrative, and then that failed, and now they're building it around the Trump-racism narrative.
00:14:37.000 So yes, you guys are exactly what you what you purport not to be.
00:14:43.000 Here's the best paragraph in this piece by Jeremy Peters.
00:14:46.000 He says, using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for or as a warning not to pursue coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
00:15:01.000 Oh, oh, so just to get this straight, if you're a journalist for the most powerful newspaper on planet Earth, then you're not in a position of power.
00:15:08.000 And so us asking questions about all of your old tweets is bad.
00:15:11.000 However, if you are a fringe member of the Trump administration, if you're an intern in the West Wing and they dig up an old racist tweet of yours and blast it out on the front page of The New York Times, that's speaking truth to power.
00:15:22.000 Got it. 0.98
00:15:24.000 Or alternatively, you guys are unbelievably full of crap, and you have decided that the best way to ruin people is to go after everything they said 15, 20, 30 years ago. 0.99
00:15:33.000 It's to go around digging up what Mitt Romney said back in 1960 while he was giving a kid a haircut, and then use that to destroy his life. 0.99
00:15:41.000 But if we ask about tweets that your executive editors were sending five years ago, then that's extraordinarily bad.
00:15:46.000 Now the real solution to all of this is everybody just goes, okay fine, people said bad stuff, They either agree with it or disagree with it.
00:15:52.000 They either apologize for it or don't.
00:15:54.000 We all move on with our lives.
00:15:55.000 But that is not the standard that the media have set up.
00:15:57.000 And the New York Times is very upset about this because they know what's coming.
00:16:01.000 They know that they can't live by their own standard.
00:16:03.000 And good for Arthur Schwartz.
00:16:05.000 Good for the people on the right who are doing this.
00:16:07.000 Not because I approve of this sort of activity generally, but because if the left, if the members of the news media are going to play this game, then the rules should be applied to them too.
00:16:15.000 There must be mutually assured destruction here.
00:16:18.000 If all of politics is going to be an exercise in digging up tweets out of context from 2009 and then using it against your political opponents, then you guys ought to live by that standard too.
00:16:29.000 And then we can all decide together, is this a standard that we think is capable of being upheld?
00:16:34.000 Or, perhaps, should we be a little bit more forgiving?
00:16:36.000 Should we be a little bit more understanding of human nature?
00:16:39.000 Should it be that people say dumb stuff sometimes and that is not indicative of their deeper character all the time?
00:16:45.000 Should it be that maybe people progress over the course of their lives?
00:16:48.000 See, the standard that the media have set up here is that if you ever tweeted anything bad, and now you are a Republican, then you must be ruined for all time.
00:16:55.000 However, if you're a Democrat, you can treat like Sarah Jean all day and be totally cool. 0.99
00:16:58.000 And you can treat overtly racist crap all day and it's totally cool. 0.99
00:17:01.000 Well, that is not a standard. 0.99
00:17:03.000 And so now we're going to hold you to your own standard. 0.98
00:17:05.000 And frankly, it's about damn time. 0.98
00:17:06.000 It's past time. 0.97
00:17:08.000 In a second, we're gonna get to the New York Times issuing this bizarre statement.
00:17:11.000 I mean, they issued, like, a full-on statement from Pinch Stolzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, very upset about all of this.
00:17:17.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:17:19.000 First, you know, it's really difficult to find good people.
00:17:23.000 I mean, just look at my staff.
00:17:24.000 You know, every morning, about the time this show is supposed to start, we have a producer.
00:17:28.000 His name is Pavel.
00:17:29.000 And Pavel will start saying how many minutes it is past the time we were supposed to launch with all the authority of the Soviet Commissar.
00:17:38.000 It's very disturbing.
00:17:40.000 He's good at his job.
00:17:41.000 But if ever Pavel were to announce the time incorrectly, we would have to find a replacement for Pavel, presumably with a similarly intimidating accent.
00:17:49.000 Paweł was Polish.
00:17:50.000 Well, if we were to do that, we would want to go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
00:17:53.000 It's why we use ZipRecruiter here at the Daily Wire offices.
00:17:56.000 ZipRecruiter sends your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
00:18:00.000 They don't stop there.
00:18:01.000 As applicants come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
00:18:06.000 ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
00:18:13.000 We're Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
00:18:17.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:18:19.000 That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
00:18:23.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:18:25.000 ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire. 0.73
00:18:27.000 Also, my entire staff loves the ZipRecruiter ads because you never know who exactly is going to get clocked during a ZipRecruiter ad.
00:18:33.000 So go check them out right now.
00:18:35.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWireZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
00:18:39.000 Okay, so the New York Times puts out a long statement from the publisher of the company called, A Campaign Targeting Our Staff.
00:18:47.000 Oh, boo-hoo. 0.99
00:18:48.000 You see, this is me.
00:18:49.000 I play the violin right here.
00:18:50.000 This is me playing the world's tiniest violin just for you guys.
00:18:53.000 Ah, it's so sad.
00:18:54.000 People digging up your old tweets? 1.00
00:18:56.000 Like, you know, the bastards who you employ who do this to all sorts of people? 0.99
00:19:00.000 I mean, I just, I, I, wow, I feel so, so terrible for all of you. 1.00
00:19:04.000 I mean, only you are supposed to be able to ruin people's lives this way.
00:19:08.000 How, how dare you? 0.69
00:19:09.000 Only you guys in the media are, are able to go through and make Justine Sacco into a national celebrity for tweeting a dumb joke about flying to Africa and then ruin her life. 0.96
00:19:18.000 Only you guys should be able to do that.
00:19:19.000 You should never be subjected to those rules, ever, ever. 0.94
00:19:22.000 Pinched Soulsburger writes this, this silly, this silly, See, because it's in retaliation, that means it's bad. 0.73
00:19:28.000 Well, have we ever exam- Like, this does not hold. 0.93
00:19:30.000 campaign by President Trump's allies to attack hundreds of journalists in retaliation for coverage of the administration.
00:19:35.000 See, because it's in retaliation, that means it's bad.
00:19:39.000 Well, have we ever, like, this does not hold.
00:19:42.000 90% of the members of the media are Democrats.
00:19:46.000 I'm pretty sure they have some political motivations in their coverage.
00:19:50.000 In fact, I know they do because they openly admit it when they're asked about it on undercover tape or when transcripts leak.
00:19:56.000 It is very obvious how you guys are covering the news.
00:19:58.000 So you guys don't get to question the motivations of people who are uncovering material about your reporters when you guys have your own motivations for doing your journalistic work.
00:20:05.000 I remember I visited the headquarters of ABC News in New York one time, and there was a big slogan on the wall about, quote-unquote, doing good.
00:20:12.000 And I thought, that's really not your job.
00:20:14.000 Your job is to report the news.
00:20:15.000 Your definition of doing good may run directly counter to my definition of doing good.
00:20:19.000 I mean, for God's sake, George Stephanopoulos was in the Clinton administration as your lead news anchor.
00:20:24.000 So I have a pretty good idea that you have some different priorities than many of us on the other side of the aisle.
00:20:29.000 In any case, the New York Times says, this unprecedented campaign Unprecedented campaign is literally a bunch of trolls digging up your old tweets, guys.
00:20:37.000 That's why you're locking your accounts and cleansing them now.
00:20:39.000 Too late.
00:20:40.000 They already have them.
00:20:41.000 This unprecedented campaign appears designed to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with independent news organizations that have asked tough questions and brought uncomfortable truths to light.
00:20:50.000 Right?
00:20:50.000 Which is completely different than what you guys did to Joe Wurzelbacher.
00:20:52.000 Completely different.
00:20:54.000 The New York Times, which has distinguished itself with fearless and fair coverage of the president, Fearless and fair cover... I love it when journalists call themselves fearless in covering President Trump.
00:21:06.000 Really?
00:21:06.000 How many journalists has he arrested?
00:21:08.000 Fewer than Barack Obama did.
00:21:09.000 When they talk about fearless, yes, it takes great... It takes... I mean, honestly.
00:21:14.000 The journalists at the New York Times sitting in their air-conditioned offices typing on computers.
00:21:18.000 I mean, when I think fearless, I think... You want to talk about reporters who are fearless?
00:21:22.000 Talk about the New York Times reporters not reporting on Trump.
00:21:24.000 Talk about the New York Times reporters over in Russia.
00:21:26.000 I talk about the ones who are over in China.
00:21:28.000 Those are the fearless New York Times reporters.
00:21:30.000 Don't give me the elite reporters at the New York Times sitting in their plush offices on Madison Avenue talking about President Trump.
00:21:38.000 Ooh, you're so brave.
00:21:39.000 Ooh, you're fearless.
00:21:40.000 Wow.
00:21:42.000 Wow, fearless and fair.
00:21:44.000 Nothing says fair like the New York Times.
00:21:47.000 They say the New York Times is one of the main targets of this assault.
00:21:50.000 Unable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting, political operatives have been scouring social media and other sources to find any possibly embarrassing information on anyone associated with the Times, no matter their rank, role, or actual influence on our journalism.
00:22:02.000 Their goal is to silence critics and undermine the public's faith in independent journalism, as opposed to when you guys target, you know, like low-level staffers in the White House comms department, and then try and destroy their lives so that you can humiliate the Trump administration and suggest that they're employing unemployables.
00:22:18.000 This represents an escalation of the ongoing campaign against the free press.
00:22:22.000 No, this is called free speech, guys.
00:22:23.000 And these are the rules you set.
00:22:25.000 People digging up your old tweets?
00:22:27.000 That is not a campaign against the free press. 0.96
00:22:30.000 That is people who are using your crap standard against your people. 0.96
00:22:34.000 End of story. 0.98
00:22:36.000 Campaign against the free press would be like Barack Obama arresting an AP reporter.
00:22:39.000 That would be a campaign against the free press.
00:22:41.000 Arthur Schwartz Archive in your tweets, not a campaign against the free press.
00:22:47.000 Not a campaign against, not in any serious way.
00:22:49.000 And if it is, I have a very easy solution.
00:22:51.000 The New York Times should just say, no matter what old stuff is uncovered, nobody's getting fired.
00:22:56.000 Also, we are not going to investigate old tweets and then take them out of context to harm people because this is an unlivable standard.
00:23:02.000 Then we could all go back to our business, right?
00:23:04.000 We would stop trying to ruin the lives of people like Brendan Eich and suggesting that it is deeply important that Brendan Eich contributed, the former head of Mozilla Firefox, that he contributed to a Prop 8 effort.
00:23:15.000 These are the same reporters who five minutes ago were suggesting that Joaquin Castro was doing the Lord's work in revealing the names of people who had donated to Donald Trump in his district.
00:23:26.000 Yeah, it was Joaquin. 0.95
00:23:28.000 This whole thing is, it reeks, it reeks of hypocrisy. 0.82
00:23:34.000 And then you wonder why we don't trust the media? 0.81
00:23:36.000 This would be why we don't trust the media, guys.
00:23:37.000 You hold one standard for yourselves and a different standard for everybody else.
00:23:40.000 This is definitional hypocrisy. 0.97
00:23:43.000 He'll get to more of Pinch Sulzberger's ridiculous statement in just a moment. 0.72
00:23:46.000 First, when the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas without limitation by their government.
00:23:54.000 That would be the First Amendment.
00:23:55.000 The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
00:24:00.000 And that is the Second Amendment.
00:24:01.000 As you know, I'm a big Second Amendment believer.
00:24:03.000 That is particularly true because we have a lot of safety threats.
00:24:06.000 Here at the office and around my house and whatever gun I own, I want it to be a gun that is going to operate in circumstances where my life and the life of my family may be in danger.
00:24:15.000 Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
00:24:18.000 Building rifles is no different.
00:24:19.000 Started in a garage by a marine vet more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional grade product which is built to combat standards.
00:24:27.000 Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.
00:24:30.000 They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment that people at BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life or death situation by a responsible citizen, a law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
00:24:42.000 To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
00:24:46.000 You can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.
00:24:49.000 That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
00:24:51.000 If you need more convincing, find out even more about BCM and the great people who make their products at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
00:24:58.000 Their videos are terrific.
00:24:59.000 Check them out again.
00:25:00.000 BravoCompanyMFG.com.
00:25:03.000 Great folks, great product.
00:25:04.000 BravoCompanyMFG.com.
00:25:06.000 So as I say, we're going through Pinch Solsberger's statement from the New York Times.
00:25:09.000 Very, very upset at people on the interwebs who are targeting their reporters by digging up old stuff.
00:25:16.000 And again, they've been doing this on an ongoing basis nearly daily.
00:25:21.000 It was a front page New York Times story when Media Matters started digging up old clips from Tucker Carlson on Bubba the Love Sponge, and this was considered national news.
00:25:29.000 So if you guys are doing this to go after Tucker Carlson's advertisers, well then I think that it's perfectly fair to go after you and go after your advertisers. 0.96
00:25:38.000 This is all dumb, but this is the religion of leftism. 0.95
00:25:41.000 The religion of leftism suggests that That there is no such thing as sin. 0.99
00:25:46.000 There are only sinners.
00:25:47.000 Sinners are people who don't believe in the religion of the left.
00:25:50.000 So the difference between a sin and a sinner, from the normal sort of traditional religious perspective, is that everybody sins, and we are all sinners, and therefore you have a lot of tolerance for sinners, but little tolerance for sin.
00:26:01.000 The perspective of the left is you have a lot of tolerance for sin, because there's no such thing as a sin, but there's no tolerance for sinners, meaning people who disagree with the left.
00:26:09.000 Those people have to be exposed.
00:26:10.000 They can never be forgiven.
00:26:12.000 There is no purpose in issuing an apology.
00:26:14.000 There's no purpose in getting better.
00:26:16.000 That's the left standard at play.
00:26:17.000 Well, now it's going to be applied back to you.
00:26:19.000 And the New York Times is super upset about it.
00:26:21.000 Pinch Solzberger says this represents an escalation of an ongoing campaign against the free press.
00:26:26.000 For years, the president has used terms like fake news and enemy of the people to demonize journalists and journalism.
00:26:32.000 Now, I, as a commentator, I've called out President Trump when I think he is applying the label fake news to non-fake news.
00:26:38.000 I don't like when he uses the term enemy of the people to describe the media.
00:26:42.000 But, you guys, you have to admit that your credibility started to decline long before President Trump was President Trump.
00:26:48.000 They are not.
00:26:49.000 They are using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
00:26:53.000 Do they have mirrors over the New York Times offices?
00:26:54.000 in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures.
00:26:58.000 They are not.
00:26:59.000 They're using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
00:27:03.000 Do they have mirrors over the New York Times offices?
00:27:10.000 Like at all?
00:27:11.000 They're using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
00:27:17.000 I'm fairly certain that just described the entire New York Times editorial board.
00:27:21.000 You guys literally just ran a 1619 project suggesting that America was born in 1619 with the advent of slavery, not in 1607 with Jamestown, not in 1775, in 1619.
00:27:33.000 And then you ran pieces that were purportedly journalism about how American capitalism has its roots in slave plantations.
00:27:40.000 I'm pretty sure that that is a description of what you do for a living, using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.
00:27:47.000 In fact, the New York Times editorial bent is a disgrace to many of its own reporters, many of whom are terrific reporters.
00:27:53.000 The New York Times actually does have a bunch of really good reporters, but the editorial bent of the New York Times makes their reporting less valuable, not more valuable.
00:28:01.000 I mean, it's the New York Times that has had, they ran a full-scale anti-Semitic cartoon in their international edition like four months ago.
00:28:08.000 The New York Times admitted back in the late part of 2018 that they had not reported on hate crimes in New York City because it didn't fit a political narrative.
00:28:15.000 Insinuating and exaggerating to manipulate the facts for political gain is basically your stock and trade, guys.
00:28:21.000 Sulzberger says, I want to thank the journalists at the Times and elsewhere who brave this type of pressure daily to bring essential information to the public.
00:28:29.000 Slow clap, guys.
00:28:31.000 This is the scene in the movie where we get the slow clap, we get the backlit, pinched Sulzberger speaking to his journalist, and then they stand slowly, and the slow clap builds into a wild round of applause.
00:28:41.000 Yeah, you know, you need to stretch your arm out there like Mrs. Incredible in order to pat yourself on the back there, Pinch. 1.00
00:28:47.000 He says, under intense scrutiny and routine harassment, they remain undeterred.
00:28:51.000 When our reporters learned of this campaign to attack journalists, they did what our colleagues around the globe always do.
00:28:56.000 They went to work and started reporting.
00:28:58.000 Well, I mean, they sort of had to do that because if they didn't, then you would fire them because they presumably would not be doing their jobs.
00:29:03.000 He says, I also want to be clear.
00:29:04.000 No organization is above scrutiny, including The Times.
00:29:07.000 Well, then why are you saying they're above scrutiny?
00:29:09.000 Because that's what you're doing.
00:29:11.000 He says, we have high standards, own our mistakes, and always strive to do better.
00:29:14.000 Oh, do you?
00:29:15.000 Oh, freaking really?
00:29:18.000 If anyone, even those acting in bad faith, brings legitimate problems to our attention, we'll look into them and respond appropriately.
00:29:23.000 See, this is where they want to uphold the double standard, right?
00:29:27.000 I mean, he can't just say, maybe this has all been a mistake.
00:29:31.000 They can't just say, maybe our pseudo-journalism, where we dig up people's old garbage in Twitter, and then pretend that that is representative of their worldview, and their worldview today, They can't just say that's a bad idea.
00:29:31.000 They can't just say that.
00:29:44.000 Instead, it's, if you bring it to our attention, maybe we'll consider it and maybe we won't.
00:29:47.000 But if it's you, we'll go after you with hammer and tongs.
00:29:51.000 He says it is imperative that all of us remain thoughtful about how our words and actions reflect on the times, particularly during this period of sustained pressure and scrutiny.
00:29:59.000 We all play a part in upholding our commitment to give the news impartially without fear or favor.
00:30:04.000 What's the proper response to a campaign like this?
00:30:06.000 Even in periods of pressure and change, the New York Times has the benefit of the long view, writes Pinched Soulsburger.
00:30:11.000 We have served the public for 168 years now.
00:30:13.000 We've covered 33 presidents.
00:30:15.000 We know a free press is vital for our freedoms in our society.
00:30:18.000 We've been attacked and threatened before.
00:30:19.000 We all know how to do our jobs under fire.
00:30:21.000 Sorry, you're not braving the Alien Sedition Act here.
00:30:24.000 You're not braving Woodrow Wilson.
00:30:26.000 You're not braving the shutdowns of the press under President Lincoln.
00:30:29.000 Like, give me a break.
00:30:31.000 So our response is the same as always.
00:30:33.000 We will continue to cover this administration, like any other, fairly, aggressively, and fearlessly, wherever the facts lead.
00:30:38.000 Oh, and the hero music swells. 0.98
00:30:41.000 Well, even other folks in the media left are looking at the New York Times going, guys, you're ridiculous. 0.95
00:30:46.000 Eric Wemple, who is certainly not on the right, has a piece over at the Washington Post today talking about how dumb the New York Times response to all of this is. 0.93
00:30:53.000 And he is basically correct.
00:30:55.000 I know words that I never thought I would say.
00:30:56.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:30:58.000 First, President Trump made a lot of promises during his campaign, and many of them he's kept.
00:31:02.000 He's appointed conservative justices.
00:31:03.000 He moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Israel.
00:31:07.000 He's cut regulations.
00:31:08.000 He's cut taxes.
00:31:09.000 He's done a lot of really good things.
00:31:10.000 And he's running that re-election campaign in part on that record.
00:31:13.000 There's still one promise that he made that he's trying to pursue, and that is bringing down the cost of prescription drugs.
00:31:18.000 But many in the left and the press, even some big government Republicans, are making it hard for that actually to happen.
00:31:25.000 The result is that, amazingly enough, some in the Trump administration, in the name of claiming victory, would like to push some form of price controls from the top down.
00:31:31.000 That is not a good idea.
00:31:32.000 Price controls rarely achieve their policy goals.
00:31:35.000 They generally result in lack of innovation, lack of investment, in particularly the area where you have imposed a price control.
00:31:41.000 Well, what area do you need innovation and investment more than in prescription drugs?
00:31:45.000 That is the area where you need new cures and new treatments.
00:31:48.000 Price controls are not going to be the solution.
00:31:50.000 Putting price controls on America's medicine makers could lead to less R&D, which leads to less medical innovation.
00:31:55.000 There's a reason that half of all medical innovation on planet Earth happens in the United States.
00:31:59.000 That's why I'm asking you to go to DontCapMyCare right now and help FreedomWorks stop the Senate from capping your care by signing their petition right now.
00:32:06.000 Again, that is DontCapMyCare.com.
00:32:08.000 DontCapMyCare.com.
00:32:10.000 Go check them out right now.
00:32:11.000 DontCapMyCare.com and fight back against price controls.
00:32:14.000 OK, we're going to get to more of this on the press in a second.
00:32:16.000 Plus, Bernie Sanders has a plan to save the press.
00:32:19.000 Which should make all of your alarm bells start to go off.
00:32:22.000 If Bernie Sanders has a plan to interfere with the freedom of the press, that is not saving the press.
00:32:27.000 That is just re-enshrining the kind of press that he likes.
00:32:29.000 We'll get to that in one second.
00:32:30.000 First, The Daily Wire has now turned four years old.
00:32:33.000 So congratulations to us and to you.
00:32:35.000 As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code BIRTHDAY.
00:32:41.000 For all of August, as we celebrate this milestone, we are giving away a free first month for new premium monthly subscribers.
00:32:47.000 Again, just use the code BIRTHDAY.
00:32:49.000 Time is quickly running out, so come on over and join the fun.
00:32:52.000 It's pretty great.
00:32:53.000 Also, tune in today, 7 p.m.
00:32:54.000 Eastern, 4 p.m.
00:32:55.000 Pacific, for our latest episode of The Conversation.
00:32:57.000 Host Michael Moles will be answering your questions live on air, so make your questions better than his answers surely will be.
00:33:02.000 The episode It's free to watch on Facebook and YouTube.
00:33:06.000 Only subscribers can ask the questions.
00:33:08.000 So subscribe to Daily Wire right now, get your questions answered by Michael Molls today at 7 p.m.
00:33:12.000 Pacific, and join the conversation.
00:33:12.000 Eastern, 4 p.m.
00:33:15.000 Also, just subscribe generally to DailyWire.com.
00:33:17.000 When you do, as we say, you get that special deal because you use that promo code BIRTHDAY and you get that free month.
00:33:22.000 Beyond that, you also get the Leftist Sears Hot or Cold Tumblr if you get the annual subscription.
00:33:26.000 It is glorious.
00:33:27.000 It is magnificent.
00:33:28.000 You will enjoy every moment of it.
00:33:29.000 So go join us.
00:33:30.000 Help protect us against the nastiness of the left that has a double standard for sure when it comes to coverage in the media and when it comes to the right versus the left.
00:33:39.000 We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
00:33:42.000 So Eric Wemple over at the Washington Post, the media critic over there, even he who's on the left is ripping into the New York Times for their response to this news that people are going through old tweets of journalists.
00:33:59.000 He says, Just what would the damaging information uncovered be?
00:34:00.000 Illicitly obtained DMs?
00:34:01.000 Gossip about sexual habits?
00:34:02.000 HIPAA-protected information?
00:34:03.000 Nope.
00:34:03.000 journalist and they read Twitter very carefully.
00:34:05.000 These are the contours of an alarm rung on Sunday by the New York Times.
00:34:09.000 Just what would the damaging information uncovered be?
00:34:11.000 Illicitly obtained DMs?
00:34:13.000 Gossip about sexual habits?
00:34:14.000 HIPAA protected information?
00:34:16.000 Nope.
00:34:17.000 Apparently, it's just old tweets.
00:34:19.000 Among the central players in the network notes the Times is a combative 47-year-old conservative consultant to Arthur Schwartz, a man who makes no apologies for his work.
00:34:28.000 As the article notes, the network has surfaced anti-Semitic and otherwise offensive posts from other reporters in the mainstream media.
00:34:35.000 And Wimple says, Sulzberger has all but admitted that the information supplied by Schwartz and company can be relevant to the management of the New York Times.
00:34:42.000 It's good.
00:34:42.000 There's an incompatibility in the Times story and the Sulzberger's memo.
00:34:46.000 On one hand, there's an attempt to tire the motivations of the loose network of conservative operatives.
00:34:50.000 On the other, there's a stubborn admission that they have brought actionable information to public attention.
00:34:55.000 For decades now, representatives of the mainstream media have answered conservative critiques by imploring, judge us by the work we produce, not by the fact that more than 90% of us are liberal democratic.
00:35:05.000 Mainstreamers cannot have it both ways.
00:35:07.000 Cut the idle and unverifiable talk about motivations.
00:35:09.000 If the tweets presented by the loose network of conservative operatives are racist or anti-Semitic or otherwise problematic, take action.
00:35:15.000 If they're nonsensical distractions, ignore them.
00:35:19.000 Even the Washington Post pointing out at this point that the New York Times wants a double standard.
00:35:23.000 And so that is correct.
00:35:25.000 That is correct.
00:35:25.000 Now, the credibility of the media is in the toilet.
00:35:28.000 That is one problem for the media.
00:35:31.000 And the media have basically become overtly partisan at this point.
00:35:34.000 That means that they are trying to buy subscribers with negative news coverage of President Trump.
00:35:40.000 Basically, Dean Beckett announced that in that leaked transcript to Slate.
00:35:44.000 He said, our people who read our newspaper are rooting against Trump, and we basically know that.
00:35:48.000 That is one problem for the media.
00:35:49.000 The other problem for the media going forward is that there have been institutional changes in how the media operates.
00:35:54.000 This is particularly true on the local level.
00:35:56.000 So local newspapers have been shutting down.
00:35:57.000 Why?
00:35:58.000 Because it used to be the only way that you could get the local sports, the only way you could get the local news, was for the newspaper to be delivered to your doorstep on a daily basis, and you'd have to pay for it.
00:36:07.000 Well now, there are all sorts of local sites that are running the news for free, and so you don't have to pay for anything.
00:36:12.000 It's killing local news.
00:36:14.000 So there are a bunch of alternative models that have been suggested.
00:36:18.000 People giving charity so that journalists can go out and do their work on the local level.
00:36:18.000 501C3 models, right?
00:36:22.000 And this seems to me a perfectly fine model.
00:36:25.000 If you have a profit-driven model, that's good.
00:36:27.000 We have a profit-driven model over at Daily Wire.
00:36:29.000 The New York Times has a profit-driven model based on subscriptions.
00:36:32.000 That's fine.
00:36:33.000 On the local level, 501C3s are probably gonna have to crop up.
00:36:36.000 And then there is the move by Bernie Sanders to insert the federal government into the business of protecting local news.
00:36:45.000 This is dangerous stuff.
00:36:47.000 A lot more dangerous than the vicissitudes of the market.
00:36:50.000 If people don't want to buy your newspaper, that's a you problem, as I'm fond of saying.
00:36:55.000 That is a problem for you and your newspaper.
00:36:57.000 Doesn't mean it's a problem with you, again.
00:36:59.000 I'm going to define you a problem.
00:37:00.000 That is a problem for you to solve.
00:37:01.000 That is not a problem for government to solve.
00:37:03.000 But Bernie Sanders thinks the government should step in and protect particular types of news.
00:37:07.000 I can't imagine how this is going to go wrong.
00:37:09.000 The federal government stepping in and protecting certain types of news, but not other types of news.
00:37:13.000 Certain types of journalists, but not other types of journalists.
00:37:15.000 I definitely trust the federal government to make those sorts of judgments.
00:37:19.000 Bernie Sanders has a big piece over at the Columbia Journalism Review talking about how he wants to save journalism.
00:37:27.000 He says, Real journalism is different from the gossip, punditry, and clickbait that dominates today's news.
00:37:33.000 Tell me more about real journalism, Bernard McSanders.
00:37:37.000 Vacationing, shirtless in the Soviet Union.
00:37:39.000 Tell me about real journalism.
00:37:41.000 Real journalism, in the words of Joseph Pulitzer, is the painstaking reporting that will fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, and always fight demagogues.
00:37:49.000 In other words, real journalism is the kind of stuff that you like.
00:37:53.000 Because I have a feeling that Bernie Sanders defines progress and reform very differently than I define progress and reform.
00:37:59.000 That he defines injustice and corruption very differently than I do.
00:38:02.000 And demagogues, I mean, he is a demagogue.
00:38:05.000 So I don't think he means that people should report more stringently on his campaign.
00:38:09.000 But Bernie Sanders says, we have to fight the advent of the new market in journalism.
00:38:14.000 Real journalism requires significant resources, so we have to crack down on Facebook and Google, which is the way that a huge number of people get their news.
00:38:22.000 Also, he wants to ban conglomerations and hedge funds from buying local newspapers.
00:38:28.000 Which, by the way, is not going to stop these newspapers from going bankrupt.
00:38:31.000 I mean, local newspapers are going bankrupt, whether or not a hedge fund comes in and saves the newspaper or not.
00:38:38.000 What are his standards?
00:38:39.000 I mean, this is such a mockery.
00:38:41.000 So Bernie Sanders' standards for saving the media is that he would like to ban consolidation in the media.
00:38:49.000 So you shouldn't be able to buy more than one newspaper, basically.
00:38:52.000 He says that he wants to put in place policies that will reform the media industry and better protect independent journalism at both the local and national levels.
00:39:01.000 Yes, I think a socialistic top-down government control guy should definitely help reform journalism.
00:39:06.000 No danger there at all.
00:39:08.000 He says he's going to reverse the Trump administration's attempts to make corporate media mergers even more likely in the future.
00:39:13.000 So he'll ban proposals to merge big companies.
00:39:18.000 He said he he opposes media consolidation.
00:39:20.000 He opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has made.
00:39:25.000 Enormous strides, by the way, in terms of speed of the internet and the ability for broadband networks to be built.
00:39:32.000 He says, in the spirit of existing federal laws, we'll start requiring major media corporations to disclose whether or not their corporate transactions and merger proposals will involve significant journalism layoffs.
00:39:42.000 So now he wants the federal government to start punishing media corporations for laying off journalists, which, by the way, does not add to profit incentive, does it?
00:39:50.000 How exactly does it make businesses more profitable to find them?
00:39:54.000 He says employees have to be given the opportunity to purchase media outlets through employee stock ownership plans.
00:40:00.000 So you're gonna mandate.
00:40:02.000 Who the hell's gonna start a new newspaper under these conditions?
00:40:05.000 Who in the world isn't going to just take their newspaper into bankruptcy and sell off the assets immediately if all of this were going to take place?
00:40:12.000 There are answers to the death of local journalism.
00:40:13.000 And as I say, they lie in 501c3s.
00:40:16.000 They lie in non-profits.
00:40:17.000 I mean, there are plenty of places that do have non-profit journalistic centers.
00:40:21.000 That's fine.
00:40:21.000 That's good.
00:40:22.000 They do not lie in government regulation from the top.
00:40:25.000 And yet now you have Bernie Sanders using the death of local journalism as an excuse for the government to jump into the business of regulating journalism.
00:40:32.000 Can't see how this is dangerous in any way, shape, or form.
00:40:36.000 Yes, I definitely trust the same media that digs up people's old tweets, ruins their lives, and then complains about it when people do the same for their journalists.
00:40:43.000 And I definitely trust the media that have built up Bernie Sanders, a man who wants to use taxpayer dollars and the power of the executive branch in order to quote-unquote protect the journalists that seek to cover him.
00:40:53.000 Yes, I think this will all go beautifully.
00:40:55.000 And meanwhile, let's take a look at this Democratic 2020 race.
00:40:59.000 There's a new poll out that is just devastating for Joe Biden.
00:41:02.000 Joe Biden's entire pitch is that he is going to win.
00:41:05.000 Joe Biden's entire pitch for the presidency is not that he's a good candidate.
00:41:09.000 It's that he is the guy who is leading in the polls versus Donald Trump, and he is going to win.
00:41:13.000 Well, the problem is once that balloon is punctured, the air is out.
00:41:16.000 And once that balloon pops, it ain't a slow leak.
00:41:18.000 The balloon is popped and you're done.
00:41:20.000 For Joe Biden, if he is seen as vulnerable, he's toast.
00:41:24.000 He can brag as much as he wants about the general election, but if he never makes it there, it ain't gonna matter.
00:41:29.000 There's a new poll out from Monmouth today.
00:41:31.000 It shows that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are in a statistical tie, all three of them.
00:41:36.000 Apparently, Sanders is at 20, Warren is at 20, Biden is at 19.
00:41:41.000 Now, I would say this is an outlier poll, except for the fact that this is actually the second poll that we have seen in the last two weeks that suggests that Joe Biden has now receded all the way back to the field.
00:41:51.000 There's an Economist YouGov poll that shows Biden at 22, Sanders at 19, Warren at 18.
00:41:57.000 Now, the polls are really all over the place.
00:41:58.000 It's bizarre.
00:41:59.000 There's a political morning consult poll that is also out today.
00:42:02.000 And that one shows that Biden is still steady at 33% with Sanders at 20% and Warren at 15%.
00:42:09.000 So where exactly is the momentum?
00:42:10.000 It isn't with Biden.
00:42:12.000 And it certainly isn't helping him that Biden is a terrible candidate.
00:42:15.000 He just keeps gaffing over and over.
00:42:17.000 Yesterday, for example, Joe Biden was in New Hampshire and he forgot which state he was in.
00:42:22.000 That tends to happen when you don't actually visit Denny's for the early bird dinners and refill on the energy before you go out on the campaign trail.
00:42:30.000 I've been here a number of times.
00:42:31.000 Last time was, I think, all the way back in 2014.
00:42:36.000 But I've been here before that.
00:42:37.000 I love this place.
00:42:38.000 Look, what's not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it?
00:42:41.000 And what a neat town.
00:42:43.000 I mean, this is sort of a scenic, beautiful town.
00:42:46.000 The mayor's been a good guy.
00:42:48.000 Everybody's been really friendly.
00:42:49.000 I like Keene a lot.
00:42:51.000 Okay, so you're in the wrong state.
00:42:53.000 Also, he then went out on the campaign trail and announced that he is not going crazy, which is a fantastic campaign slogan, by the way.
00:43:00.000 Biden 2020, I'm not going nuts.
00:43:03.000 Okay, Joe, that's, yeah, all right.
00:43:08.000 I just spoke at Dartmouth on healthcare, at the medical school, or not, I guess it wasn't actually on the campus, but the people from the medical school were at the, I want to be clear.
00:43:21.000 I'm not going nuts.
00:43:22.000 I'm not sure whether it's the medical school or where the hell I spoke, but it was on a campus.
00:43:29.000 Oh man, he sounds like he is just... I mean, he does sound like he's 80, right?
00:43:34.000 You know why?
00:43:35.000 Because he's close to 80.
00:43:37.000 That's why.
00:43:38.000 So Joe Biden is having troubles of his own.
00:43:40.000 And then the media obviously want Elizabeth Warren to be the nominee. 0.99
00:43:42.000 Why?
00:43:43.000 Well, she checks all of their boxes.
00:43:44.000 She is a woman, which is intersectional, at least mildly so.
00:43:49.000 That would have helped her, but she's not.
00:43:49.000 She's not Native American.
00:43:52.000 She is an ideas person by which they mean she has a lot of bad ideas that do not mirror her ideas from earlier in her career when she was sort of moderate.
00:43:59.000 Now she is a wild, wild eyed progressive. 0.87
00:44:02.000 And she also has the cadences of an upper class An upper class elite from Massachusetts, which is where she's been teaching for the last 20, 30 years.
00:44:12.000 So she fulfills all of their boxes.
00:44:14.000 She makes them feel smart.
00:44:15.000 If you actually want to do well in a Democratic primary, you have to make the press feel flattered that they agree with you.
00:44:20.000 And they feel so smart because, oh, Elizabeth, she taught at Harvard Law.
00:44:23.000 That means she's smart.
00:44:25.000 Just like Barack Obama.
00:44:26.000 Barack Obama made them feel super smart.
00:44:27.000 Well, you know, I'm saying intelligent things.
00:44:29.000 And they're like, yeah, he's so smart.
00:44:32.000 I feel so smart when he's in the room.
00:44:34.000 Oh, it's wonderful.
00:44:35.000 And then doing the same thing with Elizabeth Warren.
00:44:37.000 Bernie Sanders doesn't make them feel smart because Bernie Sanders can't make anybody feel smart.
00:44:41.000 It's like being hit in the head with a socialistic two-by-four.
00:44:44.000 Okay, Elizabeth Warren makes them feel smart because she's got plans, man. 0.73
00:44:47.000 She's got plans and doctrines.
00:44:49.000 So, the media are covering her with, I mean, they are just ladling the gravy of joy upon her.
00:44:57.000 It's unbelievable.
00:44:59.000 Okay, the Washington Post ran, on the front page of their website, a piece called Elizabethan.
00:45:04.000 Warren knows the power of words.
00:45:07.000 I'm not kidding you.
00:45:08.000 This is it.
00:45:09.000 Our journalistic firefighters!
00:45:11.000 We should certainly trust them.
00:45:12.000 I can't imagine why people don't trust the media.
00:45:15.000 I can't imagine it.
00:45:16.000 Peter Marks is their theater critic.
00:45:18.000 Okay, and the Washington Post ran this piece.
00:45:20.000 I'm sure- I remember when they did the same about Marco Rubio.
00:45:24.000 No.
00:45:25.000 I remember when they did this about- Nope.
00:45:26.000 I remember- Trump- Nope.
00:45:28.000 Needless to say, rave reviews from the critics.
00:45:30.000 Critic reviews the performances of the Democratic candidates.
00:45:33.000 Needless to say, rave reviews from the critics.
00:45:36.000 Peter Marks, he says, she enters in an ordinary blouse and slacks, not a toga.
00:45:42.000 And yet, when Senator Elizabeth Warren takes the stage of a music hall in the sweltering Sunbelt City, it is with a command of the occasion that might have Julius Caesar's Mark Antony taking notes.
00:45:52.000 I'm never going to stop vomiting.
00:45:56.000 It's just going to be a continuous stream of vomit.
00:45:59.000 It's going to be like that scene in Team America where the puppet just vomits.
00:46:02.000 That's what this is.
00:46:04.000 But it gets better.
00:46:05.000 You ready?
00:46:06.000 Journalism-ing!
00:46:07.000 Peter Marks says, the vocal modulation, the oratorical rhythm, the instinct for a good story.
00:46:13.000 She's got the ingredients for a magnetic performance. 1.00
00:46:15.000 And she delivers!
00:46:17.000 When Warren speaks, you lean in.
00:46:20.000 Okay, I've been, like, I took a sample class with Elizabeth Warren when I visited Harvard Law School, this would have been back in, like, 2004, and she was fine.
00:46:29.000 I mean, she's somewhat charismatic, but this is wildly overstated.
00:46:34.000 Have you watched her speeches lately?
00:46:36.000 What made her interesting in a small crowd is not what makes her interesting on a big stage.
00:46:39.000 On a big stage, all of the charm that she has in small crowds is lost.
00:46:43.000 She seems mannered, she seems over the top, She is a slightly souped-up version of Hillary Clinton on the campaign stump. 1.00
00:46:51.000 But according to the Washington Post, she's like Shakespearean.
00:46:55.000 She's Olivier.
00:46:58.000 They literally put this on the front page of their website.
00:47:01.000 Friends, Romans, Countrymen, is not exactly where the talk goes in her 45-minute strut upon the Tempe stage on this August evening in the Marquis Theatre, capacity 2,500.
00:47:09.000 It is so packed, some of the crowd must remain outside in the 100-degree heat.
00:47:14.000 Still, the sense of drama Warren radiates replicates the momentum of an actor at the climactic point of a play.
00:47:21.000 Her speech may not convey the compact, lyrical eloquence of Marc Antony, but the sights and sounds of her presentation deliver the centrifugal emotional force of a potent soliloquy.
00:47:32.000 Just as Antony fashioned an address to provoke a passionate response in which every wound of Caesar should move the stones of Rome to rise in mutiny, Warren has a gift for infusing a call to action with raw, clarifying emotionality.
00:47:45.000 Antony appeals to the crowd's desire to control its destiny.
00:47:49.000 So does Warren.
00:47:50.000 I mean, this is what I thought when I saw her dancing in Minnesota.
00:47:53.000 I mean, that's what I see right there.
00:47:55.000 I think Mark Antony.
00:47:56.000 I don't see awkward Elaine from Seinfeld.
00:48:00.000 I don't see Grandma at the Bar Mitzvah.
00:48:03.000 I see Mark Antony when she's doing this.
00:48:06.000 Folks, you should subscribe just so that you can actually see the tape of this so you know what I'm talking about.
00:48:10.000 It's not good.
00:48:12.000 It ain't good.
00:48:13.000 Are you seeing Mark Antony here?
00:48:15.000 This is our moment in American history, she exclaims, her voice catching.
00:48:18.000 Dream big.
00:48:19.000 Fight hard.
00:48:20.000 Wow, I mean, deep words there.
00:48:22.000 Dream big.
00:48:22.000 Fight hard.
00:48:23.000 I mean, it's not like she's running for third grade secretary or something.
00:48:23.000 Wow.
00:48:28.000 The audience response is so high decibel, her signature closing line is all but drowned out.
00:48:32.000 You mean her fans are fans?
00:48:34.000 That's crazy!
00:48:36.000 But according to the Washington Post, deployed their theater critic to write this.
00:48:41.000 Warren's tempeh appearance was the first time in my travels as a theater critic on the 2020 campaign trail, in which I was moved by a politician's oratory, and I could feel I wasn't the only one.
00:48:51.000 Warren's team seated about 120 people on the venue stage to cheer her on, and one exuberant young man in the first row was clapping so ferociously, I thought his hands would bleed.
00:49:01.000 That kind of enthusiasm is difficult to manufacture.
00:49:04.000 No, it's not, actually.
00:49:06.000 It really is not.
00:49:07.000 I remember when people went crazy for Hillary Clinton.
00:49:09.000 I do.
00:49:10.000 I mean, we can pretend that didn't happen, but that was a thing that I know is embarrassing for everyone.
00:49:15.000 I remember when there were lots of people who did this for Ted Cruz and the Republican Party.
00:49:20.000 But, again, they deployed their theater critic to do this!
00:49:22.000 I trust the media so much, guys.
00:49:25.000 They say in this hall it came across as genuine in part because the speaker seemed to be seeking that kind of intensity.
00:49:30.000 One of the most seductive attributes of great actors is that they create the impression they are giving you more of themselves and asking you as an audience to give them more in return.
00:49:38.000 A worn performance is a polished act of seduction.
00:49:43.000 Dude, take a cold shower.
00:49:45.000 I mean, goodness gracious.
00:49:47.000 That's what I see again.
00:49:48.000 Polished act of seduction right here.
00:49:53.000 Polished act of seduction. 0.62
00:49:55.000 Wow, I'd hate to see what an unpolished act of non-seduction looks like.
00:49:58.000 My goodness.
00:50:00.000 As the candidate makes plain and even makes fun of herself for, she's got a plan for everything except maybe what you should have for dinner. 0.99
00:50:07.000 But I'm drawn to something more elemental and just as vital for someone auditioning for the role of Communicator-in-Chief.
00:50:11.000 How does a politician convince you she understands the way you think?
00:50:14.000 How does she share enough of herself for you to not only imagine you know her, but also want to side with her?
00:50:19.000 With Warren, this seems to be a holistic mission, one in which she skillfully integrates who she is with how she reveals to you who she is.
00:50:27.000 She knows how to bring you into her spotlight, even when the focus remains entirely on her.
00:50:33.000 At other times, Warren can summon a bit too fiercely her disapproving inner school marm.
00:50:37.000 But unlike Vice President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Warren has a fully evolved performance style.
00:50:42.000 In a gritty, poetic way, her spiel is akin to that of a folksy troubadour.
00:50:46.000 She is the Springsteen of campaign 2020.
00:50:49.000 Well, there it is again, Springsteen.
00:50:51.000 Take a look.
00:50:52.000 Look at that.
00:50:53.000 Bruce Springsteen making the magic happen out there.
00:50:57.000 And by the way, Bruce Springsteen, wildly overrated.
00:50:58.000 Alright, I can't do this anymore because I actually have to- I'm getting dizzy from the need to vomit at this point.
00:51:04.000 Well done, Washington Post.
00:51:05.000 Journalism-ing!
00:51:06.000 Getting your journalism everywhere.
00:51:08.000 Hot journalism all over the place.
00:51:10.000 Well done, everyone.
00:51:11.000 Okay, time for a thing I like and then a thing I hate.
00:51:14.000 Things that I like today.
00:51:15.000 So we talked yesterday about the deep and abiding problem with the Chinese government, the fact that they are a strong geopolitical foe, that they have a long term vision and that they are attempting to expand their reach.
00:51:27.000 There's a good book on this by Bill Gertz.
00:51:28.000 It's coming out very shortly called Deceiving the Sky Inside Communist China's Drive for Global Supremacy.
00:51:34.000 The book is is well researched.
00:51:36.000 Bill Gertz is a longtime reporter for The Washington Times.
00:51:39.000 And this is a particularly good book.
00:51:40.000 Again, Deceiving the Sky.
00:51:42.000 Inside Communist China's Drive for Global Supremacy, he talks about the history of it, what exactly they're trying to do, everything from using Huawei to invade privacy, building 5G networks.
00:51:51.000 Check out the book again, Deceiving the Sky.
00:51:52.000 OK.
00:51:54.000 Time for a quick thing that I hate.
00:51:56.000 Should we do one?
00:51:57.000 OK, fine.
00:52:01.000 So, quick thing that I hate.
00:52:03.000 So, one of the beautiful things about the left's perspective on education is it's not about educating children, it's about leveling the playing field.
00:52:09.000 By leveling the playing field, what they mean is that no one should actually perform well.
00:52:13.000 How do we know this?
00:52:14.000 Listen to this.
00:52:15.000 The New York Times reporting on New York's education plan.
00:52:18.000 Desegregation plan. 0.95
00:52:19.000 Eliminate all gifted programs in New York.
00:52:23.000 You got that?
00:52:24.000 So in order to achieve racial parity in the programs in New York, they want to eliminate the programs for the smartest kids, who are disproportionately Asian in the city of New York, by the way.
00:52:34.000 For years, according to Eliza Shapiro, no relation, New York City has essentially maintained two parallel public school systems.
00:52:41.000 A group of selective schools and programs geared to students labeled gifted and talented is mostly filled with white and Asian children.
00:52:47.000 The rest of the system is open to all students and is predominantly black and Hispanic.
00:52:51.000 Now, a high-level panel appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio is recommending that the city do away with most of these selective programs in an effort to desegregate the system, which has 1.1 million students and is by far the largest in the country.
00:53:05.000 De Blasio, who has staked his mayoralty on reducing inequality, has the power to adopt some or all of these proposals without input from the state legislature or city council.
00:53:14.000 If he does, the decision would fundamentally reshape a largely segregated school system and could reverberate in school districts across the country.
00:53:22.000 So now, they're going to shut down the gifted programs in selective schools, specifically because not enough Hispanic and black kids are getting in.
00:53:31.000 Asians are wildly overrepresented at these schools. 0.88
00:53:33.000 This obviously is because New York is a deeply racist place.
00:53:36.000 Or alternatively, it is because there are racial differentials in test performance that are reflected in who is getting into what school.
00:53:41.000 So the solution is to get rid of the possibility of better schools and make sure that everybody goes to the worst schools.
00:53:48.000 Great job, New York City.
00:53:49.000 Obviously, you care about kids.
00:53:52.000 The proposals may also face opposition from some middle-class black and hispanic families that have called for more gifted programs in mostly minority neighborhoods.
00:54:00.000 That would be a better plan, would it not?
00:54:03.000 Still, the plan could resonate, says the New York Times, with black and Hispanic families who believe that these selective programs unfairly divert money and attention from neighborhood schools.
00:54:11.000 The plan includes all elementary school gifted programs, screened middle schools, and some high schools, with the exception of Stuyvesant High School and the city's seven other elite high schools, whose admission is partially controlled by Albany.
00:54:23.000 The panel says, quote, gifted programs and screened schools have become proxies for separating students who can and should have opportunities to learn together. 0.98
00:54:32.000 This is such absolute crap. 0.95
00:54:34.000 Studies do not show that when you put gifted students in a room with non-gifted students, that the non-gifted students benefit. 1.00
00:54:39.000 All they show is that the gifted students underperform.
00:54:41.000 I'm aware of no study that shows that gifted students perform better when they are placed in a mediocre classroom, and that students who are not gifted perform better when they are placed in a class with gifted students.
00:54:51.000 In fact, precisely the opposite.
00:54:54.000 In my own personal experience, I've been in and out.
00:54:57.000 When I was growing up, I was in public school, and then I was in private school, and then I was in public school again, and then I was in private school.
00:55:02.000 We bounced around a lot, depending on my parents' financial fortunes at the time.
00:55:06.000 Well, when I was in my original public school, I had to skip a grade because the classes couldn't keep up with where I was, so I skipped third grade.
00:55:13.000 And then I went to a private school and the private school couldn't keep up with where I was on the secular side.
00:55:18.000 So my parents put me in a highly gifted magnet here in Los Angeles area.
00:55:24.000 And the highly gifted magnet classes were disproportionately Asian and they were separate from the other classes in the school.
00:55:32.000 Now, do I think that I would have learned better if I had stayed at the private school, not even the public school, the private school where they didn't have the capacity to deal with me on an academic level?
00:55:40.000 I probably lost a year in math because I was in a class where the teacher literally did not know how to deal with me.
00:55:46.000 The teacher was teaching algebra, I was already past algebra, and the teacher literally just handed me a geometry book and said, learn it.
00:55:54.000 I think I was nine or ten at the time.
00:55:56.000 Needless to say, I did not learn geometry that year.
00:56:00.000 Hey, do you think that you're doing these gifted students any favors?
00:56:02.000 And do you think you're doing the non-gifted students any favors by basically pushing the gifted students down into a crappier system?
00:56:11.000 This is insanity, and it demonstrates full scale that the left does not give a damn about achievement.
00:56:16.000 The left only cares about equality of outcome, and that means that if they have to force gifted students into worse classes, they will do it.
00:56:21.000 They're not about raising other students up.
00:56:24.000 They're about pushing the great students down so that you can assure that parity is achieved.
00:56:28.000 Even if that means mediocrity through parity.
00:56:31.000 Unbelievable.
00:56:32.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
00:56:35.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
00:56:36.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:56:36.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:56:37.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
00:56:45.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.
00:56:46.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
00:56:49.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
00:56:51.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
00:56:53.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
00:56:55.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.
00:56:57.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
00:56:59.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
00:57:01.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
00:57:02.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
00:57:05.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
00:57:07.000 Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
00:57:10.000 You know, people are saying that America has never been so divided, and they can say that all they want, but it's completely and utterly untrue.
00:57:17.000 What is true is that there's never been a time, at least not in my memory, when the elite establishment has been rooting so hard against the country that it's given them everything they have.
00:57:27.000 I'll show you what I mean on The Andrew Klavan Show.