The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 366 - Media Wages War Against Whistleblower

00:00:00.000 11-6-19. Yesterday's date, a date that will live in infamy. As I stand now in the aftermath of

00:00:13.460 yesterday's tragedy, surveying the wreckage, I have trouble making sense of it, of understanding

00:00:20.440 it. And I think like a lot of people, we're just trying to get on our feet again and move forward,

00:00:26.280 and not even understanding which way is forward in the haze of this tragedy. The news reported by

00:00:34.580 outlets across the world, Daily Mail, Fox News, ABC, NBC, they were all on top of this story.

00:00:41.080 Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth unfollowed each other on Instagram. That's the story. According

00:00:48.040 to a report in People Magazine, this is the latest, says almost three months after announcing their

00:00:52.380 separation, fans have noticed exes, Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth, have seemingly unfollowed each

00:00:58.880 other on Instagram. Now, while it's unclear when the two made the split social media official,

00:01:05.000 or who first made the move, Cyrus26 still follows Liam's brother, Chris Hemsworth.

00:01:11.020 And Liam29, I know now your question is, does Liam follow Miley Cyrus's family,

00:01:16.760 Billy Ray Cyrus? Yes, he still does. Both stars also have left their old posts that featured the

00:01:24.780 two of them together. The posts are still there. So there's a lot we don't know, and early reports

00:01:29.860 often with these things are misleading. So you want to be careful about that. But what we know for sure

00:01:33.840 is that they no longer follow each other, and two of the iconic Instagrammers of our time

00:01:38.860 have gone their separate ways. Never to follow each other again, most likely. Never to like

00:01:46.060 another post. Never to comment on another pic. Never to leave another emoji. We have now only the

00:01:57.860 memory of what once was. And a hole in our hearts, and a hole in society, in our culture, that will never

00:02:09.980 truly be filled. Okay. On to lesser news. The story about ABC and Jeffrey Epstein. Well, ABC,

00:02:21.860 after being exposed for, of course, squashing the Epstein story, suppressing it for three years.

00:02:28.000 So not just, we should remember this. It's not just that they killed the story one time. This was

00:02:32.340 according to the reporter who accidentally revealed all this to the public. This was an ongoing effort by

00:02:38.800 them to suppress this story over the course of three years. But ABC now is doing some real

00:02:44.060 investigative work. Not into Epstein. No, they're not going to do that. But into the person who exposed

00:02:50.000 them. That's what they're investigating. Now, before we get into this, before we get into the

00:02:54.240 latest, I think let's go back in case you didn't see this clip. But even if you did, I think we should

00:02:58.940 play it again to refresh our memories. And this is just something we shouldn't forget. I think that we

00:03:04.040 should just play that this should be played every day. So we remember what what the media is really

00:03:08.940 all about. So let's go back and play this video that was was released by Project Veritas, James

00:03:16.060 O'Keefe. This is the video of the ABC reporter revealing the conspiracy by ABC to suppress the

00:03:23.040 news about Epstein. I've had the story for three years. I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts.

00:03:27.240 We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who

00:03:32.100 that is. This is a stupid story. Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about 1.00

00:03:38.800 Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to

00:03:44.860 interview Kate and Will that we that also quashed the story. And then and then Alan Dershowitz was also

00:03:53.440 implicated in because of the planes. She told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything.

00:03:58.400 She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us.

00:04:03.040 It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton. We had everything.

00:04:08.760 I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it's all coming out. And it's like these new

00:04:14.260 revelations. And I freaking had all of it. I'm so pissed right now. Like every day I get more and

00:04:21.220 more pissed because I'm just like, oh, my God, we it was what we had was unreal. Other women backing

00:04:28.060 it up. Hey, yep. Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying like like we there will come a day

00:04:36.380 where we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.

00:04:41.060 I had it all three years ago. By the way, ABC has mostly tried to ignore all of this publicly.

00:04:46.900 Um, most of the mass media has also mainly ignored the story. Well, they've paid it minimal attention.

00:04:53.080 They basically done the bare minimum. And that's what the media does with stories. They don't like

00:04:57.300 where they, they don't want to be in order. If, if, if they could, they would just not report it at

00:05:03.500 all, but they know they can't get away with that. So they reported a little bit and then they can

00:05:07.840 always point to that and say, no, we reported it. Look, um, which is why the bias in media

00:05:13.860 is often not what they report or how they report it. Well, there's bias there too, but it's often

00:05:20.200 what they choose not to report or how they, how they choose to stack their stories and which stories

00:05:25.860 are in the lead and which ones are buried. That's, that's where you find most of the, uh, or at least

00:05:30.460 the most sort of insidious forms of bias in media. Um, but not only do we have media ignoring this story

00:05:38.360 for the sake of ABC, but also in some cases actively running cover for them. Brian Stelter

00:05:43.560 is the media reporter over at CNN. He's the media reporter. His job is to report on the media,

00:05:49.140 to cover stories about the media. And yet this story broke, I think of what, what was it on

00:05:53.600 Monday? It was on Tuesday, I think. And it took him all day. He was tweeting about a bunch of other

00:05:57.980 things, but it took him all day to even acknowledge that this story was going on, which is kind of like

00:06:02.620 considering this is the biggest media story of the year, biggest of the decade, arguably a very

00:06:08.260 big story. This is kind of like, if you're a, the sports reporter for a network and the Superbowl

00:06:13.840 is going on and you you're tweeting about stuff, you don't even acknowledge it. Um, but Stelter

00:06:20.560 finally, at the end of the day, on the day that it broke, he, he, he released a newsletter where he,

00:06:26.840 where he finally acknowledged it for the first time, but he, he, he put it is the last thing he

00:06:31.820 covered in his newsletter. Let me, um, but what he's doing here is he's actually covering for,

00:06:36.940 he's not really covering the story. He's covering for ABC. So here's what, let me read part of his

00:06:42.960 newsletter anyway. Um, it says Vox's Jane Koston reports. Yes, of course he gives us Vox's,

00:06:50.940 he gives us the report from Vox on, on this story, obviously. Uh, and then it summarizes the story.

00:06:56.520 Um, he says in the video Robach clearly thinks she's just speaking privately to a colleague.

00:07:03.100 What she has heard describing is roughly what NPR's David Fulkenflick, Fulkenflick,

00:07:09.620 that's his name. Great name. David Fulkenflick. That is a dangerous name to say. Uh, I don't,

00:07:17.800 I can't say that too many times. That's a dangerous name to say too many times on the air. David Fulkenflick.

00:07:22.920 NPR's David Fulkenflick reported earlier this year that, uh, ABC interviewed the woman who was

00:07:32.040 accusing Epstein and, um, in 2015, but decided not to air the tape. Fulkenflick's story suggested that

00:07:38.580 lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz were involved in scuttling the plan segment. Um, uh, and then he

00:07:46.320 says Robach put out a statement saying that she was disappointed the interview didn't air, but she said

00:07:51.000 that, but she acknowledged that it didn't meet our standards. That was her. After this video came

00:07:56.260 out, now she's saying that, Oh yeah, I mean, I, I, I'm disappointed it didn't air, but it didn't

00:08:02.220 meet our journalistic standards. Yeah. Well, that's not what she said in the tape. That is not, she didn't,

00:08:06.800 you, you saw the tape for yourself. She didn't say anything about, well, it didn't meet our journalistic

00:08:10.320 standards. She was very clear that it did meet journalistic standards. It was corroborated. It was a

00:08:14.800 good story and they didn't run it. Um, Stelter continues. Nonetheless, Tuesday's video clip

00:08:22.160 caused widespread, widespread outrage, particularly on the right with many commenters using it to

00:08:27.700 stoke hatred of the media writ large. Personally, the most troubling part for me is Epstein's usage

00:08:33.360 of high profile, high price lawyers to intimidate news outlets. Um, ABC news executives say their

00:08:39.500 journalists were simply not able to corroborate the details of the reporting sufficiently for broadcast.

00:08:43.460 Folk and Flick wrote in his story on Tuesday. Okay. Um, so Stelter is taking ABC's excuses at face

00:08:50.880 value. He's giving us Folk and Flick's version. Um, and one of his main concerns is the hatred of the

00:08:59.420 media that is being engendered by this story, the hatred from the dreaded right wing commenters.

00:09:06.520 That's his concern. Now it gets worse though. Yashar Ali is a journalist who's worked for various

00:09:12.800 different outlets and he's been following this story this week. Let me read a, some of a tweet

00:09:17.140 thread from him with some breaking news in it. Um, first from last night, it says, uh, ABC news

00:09:23.780 execs believe they know who the former employee is who, who access footage of, uh, the reporter

00:09:29.060 expressing her frustrations about her shell Jeffrey Epstein story. The former employee is now at CBS

00:09:34.040 and ABC execs have reached out to CBS about that employee. And then, uh, in a statement, ABC news

00:09:42.620 says we take violations of company policy very seriously, and we're pursuing all avenues to

00:09:48.000 determine the source of the leak. Isn't squashing a good story because you don't want to get Democrats 0.62

00:09:54.720 and the Royal family in trouble. That's not a violation of company policy. Is it at least a

00:09:59.240 violation of journalistic standards? If you have any of those. Um, and then most recently

00:10:04.580 he says, update two sources familiar with the matter. Tell me that CBS news has fired the

00:10:08.520 staffer in question. This comes after ABC informed CBS that they had determined who accessed the

00:10:14.200 footage of Amy robot expressing her frustrations about the Epstein story. So this is, this is pretty

00:10:18.880 amazing. Uh, first of all, you got ABC more focused on running down the source of the leak

00:10:23.840 than addressing the thing that was leaked. Namely, that would be the fact that a corroborated account

00:10:30.160 of a serial rapist and well-connected sex trafficker was killed by ABC because they didn't want to, uh,

00:10:35.960 they were worried about the optics for Democrats. They didn't want to, uh, destroy their access

00:10:39.880 to the Royal family. You know, they didn't want to, they wanted to have interviews and that sort of

00:10:44.420 thing. ABC isn't looking into any of that. They just want to know who exposed them. That's the thing

00:10:48.200 they're concerned about. And then they find this person working for a different network now.

00:10:51.820 And that network fires him. But wait a second. And to be clear, the network, so CBS fired one of

00:11:03.480 their own staff for embarrassing a rival network. But, but hold on a second. Isn't this staffer then

00:11:12.420 a whistleblower? Isn't he blowing the whistle on a major scandal? And hasn't the media spent the last

00:11:20.340 several months shouting about protecting whistleblowers and extolling the virtues of whistleblowers and,

00:11:26.560 and, and condemning anyone who outs whistleblowers? So now all of that passion for whistleblowing is out the

00:11:32.580 window. Pretty incredible. This, this, this guy, I don't know if it's a guy or not, this person who released

00:11:42.720 this footage, this is, this is, this would qualify as a whistleblower. This is a scandal. It's a major

00:11:48.220 scandal. And this is someone who has exposed it. And really the only way to expose it was to release

00:11:55.160 the tape. Because if someone who works at CBS now, used to work at ABC, had just come out and claimed,

00:12:05.840 asserted that ABC had this story and killed it, nobody would believe it. It could easily be deflected

00:12:12.360 and denied. So the only choice was to take the footage, to take the proof and put it out there,

00:12:17.860 which was the right thing to do is the moral, ethical, and I think courageous thing for this

00:12:22.740 person to do, putting their own career at risk, which obviously apparently now is destroyed.

00:12:27.540 That's a whistleblower. So just keep this in mind when we're talking about Trump and, and impeachment

00:12:33.800 and the whistleblower in that story, every time the media talks about protecting the whistleblowers and

00:12:40.660 everything, remember what they're doing here. Because when someone blows the whistle on them,

00:12:46.260 now they're going to hunt that person down and destroy them.

00:12:49.600 All right. So there's this video making the rounds on social media, a different video.

00:12:54.780 It's a, it's a compilation of Paula White. Paula White is a, the faith advisor to President Trump.

00:13:01.660 She's also a prosperity gospel fraud and an embarrassment to Christianity and a heretic. 1.00

00:13:07.860 Um, she's a pastor who's been married three times, makes millions of dollars, owns a private jet, 0.97

00:13:15.920 I think, or used to own a private jet, um, lives in a mansion, preaches the most hideous mangling of

00:13:23.340 the gospel that I have ever heard. And that is quite a statement these days, but her, the gospel that

00:13:30.740 she preaches is, is, is disgusting. It's revolting what she's doing. So here's a, here's a little bit 0.98

00:13:39.100 of the greatest hits compilation that's been circulating on, on social media.

00:13:43.700 Wherever I go, God rules. When I walk on White House grounds, God walks on White House grounds.

00:13:51.980 I had every right and authority to declare the White House as holy ground because I was standing there

00:13:57.880 and where I stand is holy. To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God.

00:14:09.840 And there, and I won't do that. We are in a spiritual war right now. Let every demonic network

00:14:15.160 that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it

00:14:20.520 be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus. You want me to tell you what my thoughts are? 0.99

00:14:25.140 The thoughts of the King of Kings, the thoughts of the Lord of Lords. I'm downloading heaven.

00:14:37.100 Okay. Now the one thing I'll say, um, in defense of Paula White, the one thing I'll say is that the

00:14:46.620 bit where she says, uh, saying no to Trump is saying no to God. I believe what she's referring to her to,

00:14:53.280 to there was her decision to work for Trump. She was saying that I think, anyway, I think the context

00:14:57.660 was that she was saying that she felt called to work for President Trump. God was calling her to it.

00:15:03.620 Um, which he wasn't, by the way, I think we were pretty sure about that. I don't think God was

00:15:07.920 calling a heretic to go into the White House and influence the president. Um, but she was saying she 0.99

00:15:13.980 felt called to it. So to say no to Trump would be saying no to her calling, thus saying no to God.

00:15:19.080 Uh, so it's not quite as bad as it sounds, but it's still an awful and troubling way for a so-called

00:15:26.260 pastor to phrase it. And, but the rest of it though, is exactly what it sounds like where she,

00:15:31.660 she, she, where she walks is holy ground. She has the power to sanctify any place she walks into

00:15:37.720 because she's so righteous and holy. Um, she, and you could store up favor in, in heaven by giving her

00:15:44.660 money. God will bless you with material riches. If you're a good Christian, and especially if you

00:15:50.700 buy her books and you give her money on and on, uh, Paula White is an absolute charlatan. She 0.95

00:15:57.320 exploits people for money. She preaches a false gospel and she makes millions on it. Um, it, it really 1.00

00:16:05.180 boggles my mind that people would go to a church, a quote unquote church, massive scare quotes around that.

00:16:14.660 I think what's the name of her church? Well, she left her church. Uh, she stepped down from her

00:16:19.080 church and her, I think her kid now is, is the, is the lead pastor or something. I don't, I read what

00:16:24.780 the name of this so-called church is. It's a, I want to say, is it city of destiny? I I'm pretty sure

00:16:32.880 that's the name of her church. Something like that city of destiny or something. Anyway, um, it's,

00:16:39.600 it's in one sense, kind of mind boggling that people would go to a place like this and sit

00:16:45.000 and listen to this obvious fraud bragging about herself, which is so much of her, of her, again, 0.94

00:16:54.240 scare quotes ministry is focused on her and how great she is. Quite a ministry there.

00:17:01.140 But this, uh, this, unfortunately, this wolf in sheep's clothing has been elevated, um, to a

00:17:10.940 prominent position by the president who made her into a faith advisor. Um, and that's what makes it

00:17:16.520 all the more important for us to denounce what she is doing and to make it very clear that this is not

00:17:21.280 Christianity. This kind of thing is so damaging. I mean, a million anti-Christian zealots could not

00:17:31.420 possibly do the kind of damage to the church that people like Paula White do. Um, they could,

00:17:39.720 they couldn't possibly do it because when she's out there as this obvious transparent fraud and 0.99

00:17:48.660 charlatan exploiting people, then it gives everyone else who's not a Christian a chance to point to 0.86

00:17:54.880 her and say, yep, you know, that's what Christianity is all about. It's all scam. 0.99

00:18:00.520 I really hate it. I really, really hate it. Okay. Uh, speaking of things I hate, 0.92

00:18:05.960 there's a movie coming out called Finding Jack. It's a, uh, a Vietnam war movie and the studio behind

00:18:13.120 the film has settled on one of their lead actors for this movie that's coming out.

00:18:17.680 Um, and the lead actor is going to be James Dean. Yes. The, the dead one. Now he died more

00:18:24.560 than 60 years ago, but he's going to star in the movie. And what they're doing is they're taking

00:18:28.240 old pictures of him and old footage, and they're going to use it to create a CGI version of James

00:18:35.160 Dean. They're going to have a stand in, uh, probably someone in what you remember, you know,

00:18:40.560 like Andy Serkis, all the, when he played Gollum and Lord of the Rings, he was wearing the suit and

00:18:45.040 they just grafted Gollum over top of him. Same thing they did with the planet of the apes movies,

00:18:49.920 um, that, that came out. So they're going to be doing that only with an actual human that once

00:18:55.040 lived and they're going to be grafting him over somebody else. And they're going to hire a voice

00:18:59.300 actor that sounds like him. We have now reached a point where Hollywood is remaking people.

00:19:06.100 So if you thought the remake and the sequel phase was, was going to die out, no, it's,

00:19:13.500 it, you were dead wrong. So to speak, it's, it's, that's now they've just gone to phase two. Now

00:19:18.420 they've, they've only ramped it up. Not only are we going to remake movies, we're going to remake the

00:19:23.200 people in the movies. So it's going to get to a point, and this isn't even a joke. It's going to

00:19:28.600 get to a point where they're going to remake, you know, like Gone with the Wind with all the

00:19:36.520 same actors in the original movie who they've recreated with CGI. That's, that's, that's where

00:19:42.420 we're headed. Um, and it is, uh, it is utterly grotesque, uh, and, and dystopian. And there are a

00:19:51.020 lot of very good actors out, you know, in, in Hollywood, Hollywood for all of its flaws. There are a lot

00:19:57.120 of really talented people and actors, I think, and they would all do a fine job acting in a Vietnam

00:20:02.280 war movie. Literally thousands of actors out there would do a fine job in a Vietnam war movie. But

00:20:09.220 instead of going to one of those people, one of those real live humans, they're going to dig someone 0.95

00:20:14.220 out of the grave to do it. And why is it? Because it's a, you know, because a reincarnated fake James

00:20:19.820 Dean is really the best man for the job or fake man for the job. No, it's a stunt. Of course,

00:20:26.880 it's a stunt, which exploits a dead person and forces him to be in your movie, um,

00:20:33.420 without his consent, which is a whole separate issue. But I think this is why I think this,

00:20:41.200 this kind of puts a, a face on, on what's Martin Scorsese has been talking about and why

00:20:47.460 Martin Scorsese came out against Marvel movies the way he did his whole point. Not that Marvel has done

00:20:53.340 this yet, yet they'll get around to it. But his whole point was that movies are just these days

00:20:59.340 turning into a collection of marketing stunts and gimmicks. And that's what movies are now.

00:21:04.240 It's just a marketing thing. And there's no artistry to it. He wrote, he wrote an article.

00:21:09.560 I think it was in the New York times. He wrote an article a few days ago, which is worth,

00:21:11.820 worth reading. I think it's an excellent article where he's fleshing out his criticism of Marvel,

00:21:16.600 Marvel movies. And the one thing that he talks about and he keeps going back to is with real art

00:21:23.580 and real films and cinema, there's, there's of course, artistry to it and there's emotional

00:21:29.320 risk. It's like you're, you're saying something as an artist, you're putting yourself out there

00:21:35.600 and presenting something unique and something that is you, that is from you as an artist.

00:21:42.620 Uh, he talks about the, you know, a real movie is, comes from the vision of the people involved.

00:21:51.980 And there's a sort of single, uh, unified vision that's being put on the screen. But with these

00:21:58.620 Marvel movies and these franchise films, it's not like that. This is, these, this is, you know,

00:22:03.320 you got focus groups and marketing research and all of that's all tailored and stitched together

00:22:08.020 to put on the screen with the sole purpose of just making money. There's no other reason to it.

00:22:13.580 Like I talked about last week when we're discussing this, you know, I think the, the, the primary

00:22:19.740 purpose of a movie, um, is very simple. It should be to tell a story and all of the artists involved

00:22:28.900 in it, their primary motivation should be to tell this story. They also want to make money and they make

00:22:36.100 a lot of it and that's fine. I don't begrudge them that you make a billion dollars on a movie. Good

00:22:40.760 for you. But if these, if the primary and really sole purpose of the movie was simply just to make

00:22:47.880 a billion dollars and the story was secondary to that, then I think that's not even a real movie.

00:22:54.320 What's the point of even watching it? They're telling you a story that they don't even care

00:22:59.040 about. The storytellers themselves don't care about the story they're telling you. They just want

00:23:04.560 your butt in the seat so that they can make money off you. That's the only reason. Uh, and this is 0.98

00:23:10.400 a perfect example of that. If you really can, if you really wanted to tell this story about the

00:23:16.840 Vietnam war, I don't know what the specific story is they're going to tell, but there are a lot of

00:23:20.920 great stories there. If you really wanted to tell the story, then you would just tell it. You would

00:23:24.680 hire an actor who can do the role and you would tell the story, but instead they're going to make it

00:23:28.460 into a grotesque marketing stunt, um, which we're told is okay because James Dean's family has

00:23:37.300 signed off on it. His, his, uh, ancestors 65 years later say that, Oh yeah, sure. You can piss a bunch

00:23:45.480 of money and put his, his likeness up on the screen as if that makes it okay. All right. Um,

00:23:51.980 Matt wall show at gmail.com. Matt wall show at gmail.com is the email address. Get to some emails.

00:23:57.120 This is from Adam says, I appreciate what you've said about children having a right to a mother and

00:24:01.040 a father. However, as you spoke about this issue, I heard the opposing voices screaming in my head.

00:24:05.800 The studies all show that children of same sex couples turn out no worse than those of traditional 1.00

00:24:09.780 couples. I'm not well versed in the literature concerning this issue. So do you know of any studies

00:24:14.680 that do support your position on this matter? Um, yeah, this is where I think we have to be

00:24:20.260 careful about trotting out studies, Adam. One of the peculiar things about debates and discourse

00:24:27.320 these days in America is that people think they can win the argument just by broadly citing, not even

00:24:34.700 citing, but simply mentioning studies without themselves. Have they been, it's the people haven't

00:24:41.020 read the study. They're not familiar with the methodology that went into the study. They think

00:24:46.120 if they can just say, Oh, studies have shown this and maybe provide a link to a study or a news article

00:24:53.460 about a study, having not even read the news article, much less the study itself. This is how debates

00:24:59.640 work these days where it's a, it's a contest of who can compile the most studies that might vaguely

00:25:07.240 sort of vindicate your position, but you don't even know because you haven't read them. Um,

00:25:12.720 so yes, I'm familiar with the claim that out of the 70 or 80 studies that have been done on, uh,

00:25:22.080 children who are raised in same sex households, the claim is that all but a handful have found that

00:25:27.760 the kids turn out fine. Now I haven't read all 80 studies. Okay. And I doubt that anyone has,

00:25:34.120 but from the outset, before I even get into any of these studies specifically, which I will in a

00:25:40.560 second, from the outset, my BS detector is going haywire. And I'll tell you why. Before even looking

00:25:50.360 at the studies, I am extremely skeptical because first of all, same sex adoption has not been a

00:25:57.100 widespread phenomenon for very long. So if we want to know how children turned out

00:26:02.500 with same sex parents, we would need to look at people who are now over the age of 18 were raised 0.52

00:26:09.740 by same sex parents. That's over. And now we can look at how they turned out. Um, the problem is 0.98

00:26:15.680 that there just aren't that many people over the age of 18 who have been raised by same sex parents

00:26:20.640 because it's, it, it, it was certainly not very common 18 years ago. And it's still not very common

00:26:28.380 though. It's more common now, 20 years from now, I think you'll probably have a pretty large sample

00:26:34.120 size for better or worse. But as it stands right now, if you want to know how do kids turn out

00:26:39.860 being raised that way, it's going to be really difficult to find a study that can give you

00:26:46.860 relevant results because there isn't much of a sample size to choose from. Also, I'm wondering again,

00:26:53.340 before even looking, I'm wondering how are these studies conducted? Who are they asking? Are they

00:27:01.280 asking the parents themselves about how their kids are doing? And if so, are these blind studies,

00:27:08.200 do the people involved know that this is a study about the effectiveness of same sex parenting?

00:27:14.600 And if they do, wouldn't that wildly skew the data? If they know, if, if you're a same sex parent

00:27:23.020 and you know that someone is doing a study about how effective same sex parenting is,

00:27:28.960 aren't you going to be really biased in how you respond to the questions? Um, and also do these

00:27:36.200 studies have a control group? Are we, do we have another group that we're comparing it to? Um,

00:27:42.100 are these studies looking at a representative cross-section of parents in all different

00:27:46.240 socioeconomic conditions? There are a lot of questions to consider here. So whenever someone

00:27:52.200 talks about studies, whatever the subject is, your immediate question should be, what was the

00:27:57.460 methodology? How did the researchers arrive at this conclusion? Just because something is called

00:28:03.540 a study doesn't automatically mean that its findings are compelling or even legitimate.

00:28:08.560 So let's take a look here. Um, I'll give you two examples. If you Google same sex adoption studies,

00:28:16.500 which is what everyone does on this, and this is how they come up with and they, and they find,

00:28:19.980 Oh, 80 studies have been done. Um, well I Googled it too. And, uh, but I took the extra step of

00:28:26.440 actually reading what some of these studies have to say. One of the first things that pops up,

00:28:30.800 at least for me was, uh, it's an American psychological association article. So that sounds pretty

00:28:36.860 science-y and legitimate, right? So on the, um, APA.org website, there's a headline that says

00:28:44.080 adopted children thrive in same-sex households study shows. Okay. So you've got the APA saying

00:28:51.140 there's a study that shows, shows children thrive with same-sex parents. Now let's read the article.

00:28:57.400 Okay. Radical step. Let's actually read the article. It says new research shows that children adopted

00:29:02.220 into lesbian and gay families are as well adjusted as children adopted by heterosexual parents and follow

00:29:06.440 similar patterns of gender development, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the

00:29:12.460 University of Virginia. Patterson discussed the results of a study in, in press in applied

00:29:17.120 developmental science at an APA annual convention symposium on same-sex marriage. Patterson and

00:29:21.640 coauthors, Rachel H. Farr, a psychology doctoral student at UVA and Stephen Forsell, PhD, a George

00:29:28.400 Washington University of George Washington University studied 106 families, including 56 same-sex couples

00:29:33.840 and 50 heterosexual couples who adopted children at birth or in the first few weeks of life.

00:29:39.180 Okay. It's all sounding pretty great so far. And I think that most people, when they're looking for

00:29:42.900 studies, they stop right there. Um, if, if they even read that far, they're going to stop right there

00:29:47.300 because, okay, it sounds sciencey. We've got PhDs involved, uh, and okay, it all sounds great.

00:29:52.980 We're good to go. Now already there are problems. It's not a huge sample size.

00:29:58.020 We're not told anything about whether these couples represent various socioeconomic conditions

00:30:03.420 or not, uh, which would be very important for a study like this, but at least you got the control

00:30:08.600 group with the heterosexual couples also included. Um, so, okay, maybe we've got something legitimate

00:30:14.760 here, but then things go wildly off rails. It continues. In the study, parents assessed their

00:30:23.560 own parenting styles and relationship satisfaction. They also filled out the preschoolers activities

00:30:29.700 inventory, which assesses whether gender role behavior conforms to expected patterns or not

00:30:34.520 and the, excuse me, and the child behavior checklist. Teachers and daycare providers were asked to

00:30:42.160 complete the caregiver teacher report form, which assesses a child's somatic complaints, anxiety,

00:30:47.360 depression, and withdrawn behaviors. By looking at parents' self-reports and reports of others,

00:30:51.740 the researchers found that the children of gay and lesbians were, uh, gays and lesbians were

00:30:55.860 virtually indistinguishable from children of heterosexual parents. Okay. Do you see the

00:30:59.720 massive problems here? Problem number one, the self-reporting of parents is basically useless.

00:31:05.960 Parents are notoriously biased in favor of their own parenting and their own kids.

00:31:11.240 Problem two, we're not told whether the parents, uh, and the teachers knew what the study was about.

00:31:17.800 Did the teachers filling out the survey know what this was, what was going on? And if so,

00:31:24.940 wouldn't that give them an ideological incentive to be more generous in the answers that they provide?

00:31:30.340 Problem number three, if these are preschool teachers filling this thing out,

00:31:34.280 are they really around the child enough to make reliable assessments about the child's well-being?

00:31:39.140 If a teacher says that a child seems fine, as far as they can tell, um, does that mean the child is

00:31:47.500 actually fine? Would you take that as definitive? Problem four, and this is a big one. These

00:31:53.900 apparently are preschool aged children. These are very, very young children. How in God's name could you

00:32:01.860 possibly purport to prove anything about same-sex parenting by looking at kids who have only been in

00:32:08.140 that environment for a few years at most and who have not, who have not developed at all really

00:32:14.920 psychologically? You know, we, we need to see, this is all about their psychological development.

00:32:20.420 They haven't had any psychological development yet. So what, what could you, what could that

00:32:24.900 possibly, okay, well, a bunch of preschoolers seem happy. All preschoolers seem happy. Have you ever

00:32:29.700 been around preschoolers? Tells you nothing. Now, if a kid seems fine to his parents and his

00:32:36.280 teacher's at the age of four, that doesn't mean he's going to be fine at, at 10 or 12 or 14 or 22.

00:32:43.120 This, it's embarrassing. This is an embarrassingly weak, uh, study that have all these PhDs involved,

00:32:49.960 and this is what they come up with. And the APA publishes it without criticism. Okay. Um,

00:32:57.300 so, but let's look at another study. There's, there's a much touted study, a much cited study

00:33:03.760 that takes a longer range view, which is what you need to do. Think progress has an article about it.

00:33:10.060 Headline kids in the longest running study of same-sex parenting are doing just fine at 25. 0.67

00:33:14.940 Okay. Longest running study doing just fine. That sounds powerful. Let's take a look.

00:33:19.800 The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study has been following a contingent of lesbian families

00:33:28.760 since they first started to plan to have kids in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those children are

00:33:33.840 now about 25 years old, and the researchers have confirmed that they're doing swimmingly.

00:33:37.860 Compared to their peers who were not raised by same-sex couples, researchers found no significant

00:33:41.860 differences with respect to adaptive functioning, behavioral or emotional problems, scores on mental

00:33:46.840 health diagnostic, diagnostic scales, or the percentage of participants with a score in the borderline of

00:33:51.400 clinical range. Uh, in short, the longest running study of same-sex parenting found that kids raised by

00:33:57.880 same-sex couples turn out pretty much the same as everybody else. Okay. Major, major, major, major 0.99

00:34:04.160 problems here. In fact, this study is garbage. This study is useless. I'll put it that way. And I had to 1.00

00:34:11.280 look around a little bit to do some more research about this research to get all the facts.

00:34:16.840 Um, first of all, the people conducting the study are not objective researchers. These are activists

00:34:24.880 with an ideological agenda. And this study is funded by people with an ideological agenda.

00:34:31.260 They are out to prove that same-sex parenting is fine. They actively want to reach that conclusion. Now, if 1.00

00:34:38.820 you go into a study rooting for a certain conclusion, it doesn't necessarily mean your conclusions are wrong,

00:34:44.440 but it does make your entire methodology and everything suspect because that is not the

00:34:50.880 scientific and legitimate way to go about these things. You're not supposed to want a certain

00:34:56.080 result. You're supposed to just, all, what you're supposed to want as a researcher is to find out what

00:35:01.420 the result is. Um, it is obviously an issue with the people conducting a study strongly favor one

00:35:07.540 conclusion over another. Second problem. This is not a random or representative sample. They only studied

00:35:15.260 lesbian parents. There are no men in the study. And the participants are mostly upper middle class,

00:35:21.420 employed, college educated, basically well off. Third problem. The participants all know they're

00:35:29.280 involved in a long-term study to prove that same-sex parenting is good. The participants were,

00:35:34.740 in fact, eager to participate in a study like that. And wouldn't you know it, all of these politically

00:35:41.040 engaged, well-off lesbian women, when asked, will tell you that lesbian women do a great job 0.79

00:35:47.140 parenting kids. Wow. I mean, that, isn't that shocking? Fourth problem. The study contradicts almost

00:35:55.260 everything we know about child development. For example, the study found that these lesbian 1.00

00:35:59.180 relationships broke up at a pretty high rate, a higher rate than, than in the national average.

00:36:03.980 But amazingly, it also found that the breakup of these homes had no effect on the kids.

00:36:09.640 You know, they all turned out fine. Which contradicts almost all research, not to mention common sense.

00:36:16.740 Um, you know, which, which tells us that kids in broken homes are at a disadvantage.

00:36:21.160 So, summing things up here. This is an ideologically driven study involving exclusively well-off lesbian 0.74

00:36:28.600 women who know what the study is about. There is no control group. There is no economic diversity

00:36:34.700 represented in the sample. And it relies largely on self-reported data from people who are both

00:36:40.400 ideologically and personally committed to a certain conclusion. So this, again, is just embarrassing.

00:36:45.700 And I would suspect, having not looked at all 80 studies, I would suspect that most of them probably have

00:36:53.240 one or all of the problems represented by the two studies that I just shared with you.

00:36:58.700 And I, and those two studies are not cherry-picked. These are, these are the ones that are often cited the

00:37:03.060 most, considered, you know, the most legitimate and so on. Um, all right, let's move on. Um, there was one

00:37:12.360 other thing I wanted to, this is from Jeff, says, hi, Matt, caught the stream of your talk the

00:37:15.640 night. I thought your speech was one of the best I've ever heard. Honestly, I thought you handled

00:37:19.180 the Q and a very well, but I did have a question about one of your answers. Someone asked you if

00:37:24.200 society has an, if society has an anti-white bias and you said, no, that seems to contradict your

00:37:29.900 past statements. Do you just say that because you didn't want to give any more ammunition to the

00:37:33.480 idiots asking questions? I understand if so, but I was confused by your response. Yeah. Fair question. 1.00

00:37:39.540 Yeah. I was asked. Um, I believe that was the exact phrasing was, uh, does society have an anti-white

00:37:45.540 bias? Pretty sure that was like, I have to go back and look, but I think that was how it was phrased.

00:37:50.960 Um, my actual answer was, no, I think the bias is based more on ideology. And I stand by that.

00:37:59.660 I don't think society in general is set up to, uh, you know, keep the white man down. I think that

00:38:06.660 if you're a white person in our society, you can do quite well, obviously, and encounter very little

00:38:13.300 resistance or discrimination. If you tow the ideological line. So a liberal, especially a,

00:38:21.280 an upper middle class, urban white liberal, I think we'll have to deal with very little bias

00:38:28.240 and, and we'll live it. We'll, we'll live a very privileged existence. Um, now if he's a conservative

00:38:34.960 Christian, that's a different story. If he's blue collar, if he's from a low income area, particularly in

00:38:40.840 the South and so on, um, then there will be more of a societal bias. Also remember something I've

00:38:46.780 talked many times about the victim hierarchy in society, uh, with of course the irony being that

00:38:52.560 people who are the most, who are, who are most considered to be victims actually have the most

00:38:57.280 privilege and have the most sort of social capital that that supposed victimhood affords them.

00:39:02.300 Well, at the top of that hierarchy, as I have literally drawn and for you in the past, um,

00:39:08.000 uh, at the very top are LGBT and they're at the top of the victim hierarchy in society. 1.00

00:39:13.660 And there are plenty of white people up there. There are even plenty of white men up there.

00:39:17.880 Um, doing, doing very well in terms of, of, uh, of how society treats them. Now,

00:39:22.240 if you want to get more specific and start talking about specific institutions,

00:39:26.440 then you can start to see a more generalized anti-white bias affirmative action.

00:39:30.900 For example, in the education system, that is obviously anti-white bias. It's, it's,

00:39:35.520 it's intended to be that it is institutionalized codified anti-white bias. Um, it's also anti-Asian

00:39:42.120 bias, but, but even that, you know, that is focused more on men than it is on women. So that's how I

00:39:51.020 would break this down. I don't think it's quite accurate to say society has an anti-white bias. I

00:39:55.900 think society, the culture is much more concerned with ideological conformity, but, but, uh, the

00:40:03.380 explicit racial bias starts to creep in much and become much more apparent in, in certain

00:40:08.720 institutions. So maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs there, but I, I, I think that this is an

00:40:14.220 important distinction and it's important for us to be specific in how we talk about this. I know many

00:40:17.840 times in the past, I have not been specific about it, but, um, we have to keep this in mind that,

00:40:21.980 that the elites in our society, academic elites, people in government, Hollywood, so on, many of

00:40:27.940 them, probably most are white. And what are they up to? What's their agenda? Are they white people 0.54

00:40:34.120 with an anti-white bias? No. Uh, you know, that to me is like, is like when a black person comes out 0.99

00:40:39.660 as conservative and then he's accused of, of being self-loathing and bigoted against himself.

00:40:44.320 I think that's absurd. I don't think the human mind works that way. Not going to be bigoted

00:40:48.100 against your own group. Um, now I think there, there is this sort of performative

00:40:53.420 self-loathing thing that white people can do. I don't, but I don't think it's sincere.

00:40:59.780 Um, I think these are people with a white savior complex and they want to be seen as especially

00:41:05.520 woke and enlightened. So they pretend almost to be self-loathing. I don't think they actually are.

00:41:11.440 So I think the agenda of these elites is, is one, as I said, ideological conformity.

00:41:16.600 There are certain ideas, a certain worldview that they're trying to impose. And if you go along

00:41:22.880 with it, if you repeat the lines that they give you, if you follow the script, you'll have smooth

00:41:26.860 sailing. White, black doesn't matter. Uh, as I said, a white person with the quote, right ideology 0.99

00:41:33.060 and who says the right things and has the right worldview and has the right attitudes about sex

00:41:38.000 and, um, especially comes from the right socioeconomic stratum will lead a very privileged

00:41:44.020 existence. Um, same for anyone of any race who falls into all those categories.

00:41:50.580 And one other thing, the question, if I remember correctly, the question was about

00:41:53.760 anti-white. It wasn't anti-white male. It was anti-white. Um, I do think that society is in many 0.81

00:42:02.500 ways, especially the education system, bias against men, against boys and against manhood in general.

00:42:09.020 Um, but I mean, think about a, a well-off liberal, sexually enlightened white woman. 1.00

00:42:20.500 I would say someone like that is basically going to encounter no bias anywhere. I mean, that, that's,

00:42:26.280 that, that's one of the easiest existences you can have. That's, that's one of the easiest existences

00:42:32.060 currently on offer in the world is that, especially in the education system. I mean,

00:42:38.600 our education system is designed for people like that in that category. And the woman part with the 1.00

00:42:46.580 girl, that's, that's a very important aspect of it. The education system is designed for girls

00:42:51.760 and it caters to them, which is why huge coincidence, right? That, uh, when you find that,

00:42:57.760 that, that, uh, boys in the school system are drugged for ADHD at a much higher rate than girls.

00:43:03.960 Why is it? Because the system isn't really made for the boys. It's made for the girls and the boys

00:43:08.540 who are not able to learn like girls learn, uh, and, and, and, and aren't able to sort of, um, 0.86

00:43:15.780 uh, you know, uh, conduct themselves in a similar way. Then we just say that they're

00:43:21.140 mentally disordered and we drug them. So that again, is that, is that a racial thing? No,

00:43:26.400 I think it's, I think it's deeper than that. Um, so that's my point. All right. Last question.

00:43:31.780 This is from Jude says, Matt, great show, but what's up with the banjo in the background? Can

00:43:36.720 you actually play that thing? If so, can you play us a song? Well, Jude, um, yes, the banjo in the

00:43:43.580 background, which I, it's usually in the background, but I have it right here because I was waiting for

00:43:47.800 this question. Now, first of all, um, why would you even ask me if I can play it? Do you really

00:43:59.000 think that I would have a banjo on display in my office that I can't play? I mean, what kind of

00:44:04.260 poser do you think I am? What kind of poser has a, an instrument on display that you can't even play

00:44:09.860 that, that, that, that you would even ask me that is I, I'm in effect that you think I'm that kind

00:44:14.120 of person. I mean, goodness. Um, no, I, in fact, I can play the banjo. I play it every night for my

00:44:21.840 family. Uh, they all gather around and I play a tune on the banjo. We call it banjo hour. All the

00:44:30.180 kids are excited, you know, every night there's a, when, when is banjo hour? It's a whole hour of

00:44:34.900 banjo. It's kind of maybe a little bit excessive. Anyway, can I play you a song? Uh, yes, I can.

00:44:41.240 I will. Look at this bad boy tuned up here. You always got it. You always got to tune your

00:44:47.500 instruments, um, before you just got to get it all tuned up, ready to go. Now this is an original

00:44:54.580 composition that I'm going to play for you here. Um, you weren't expecting a musical interlude

00:45:00.840 for the show, but here it is. Okay. I'm going to start playing this song.

00:45:16.300 You know, I, I'm something of a, what we call a minimalist musician. Um, it's not everyone's

00:45:26.660 style. It's a little abstract, very, it's a very sort of heady way of playing the instrument.

00:45:34.180 Um, really makes you think, but that was my song. So thank you for giving me, thank you for giving me

00:45:41.260 the chance to share my music with you, which really is my greatest passion in life. And thanks

00:45:48.920 everybody for watching. Thank you for listening. Godspeed.

00:45:52.960 If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the

00:45:59.060 word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available

00:46:02.980 on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out the other

00:46:08.140 Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the Andrew Klavan show.

00:46:13.040 Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer,

00:46:18.260 Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay, supervising producer, Mathis Glover,

00:46:23.500 supervising producer, Robert Sterling, technical producer, Austin Stevens,

00:46:27.760 editor, Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Mike Coromina. The Matt Wall show is a Daily Wire production,

00:46:32.820 copyright Daily Wire 2019. Democrats impeachment attempt isn't merely a hoax or a witch hunt.

00:46:39.880 It's a coup and you don't need to take my word for it. That's the word being used by the lawyer

00:46:44.840 for the whistleblower who kicked off the latest impeachment push in the first place.

00:46:49.520 We will blow the whistle on the whistleblower's coup. Check it out on the Michael Knowles show.

The Matt Walsh Show - November 07, 2019

Ep. 366 - Media Wages War Against Whistleblower

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript