This episode of Coup Save America focuses on the political biases in the news media and how to recognize journalism that imposes an agenda. Our special guest is Joe Rippert, the founder of RIPView.com, a new website that presents both sides of world events as interpreted by the political far left and the far right, giving readers an opportunity to examine the opinions of each side and come to their own conclusions.
We are living in uncertain times, embarking upon an era of ever increasing threats, grave perils, geopolitical instability and the terse provocations of paranoid reflexes in the fog of war. Global conflicts no longer remain confined to the battlefields of afar. But instead pierce through the veil of security once taken for granted nuclear weapons, long range missiles, cyberattacks, economic warfare, terrorism and domestic strife reach across borders and into our neighborhoods.
New technology such as Deepfake photography poses the ability to even undermine our perception of reality in such times. The vanguards of objective reality. Our ever important necessity. The construct of our reality depends upon the flow and accuracy of the information that helps us to interpret global events and us frame our perceptions of the world traditionally, at least since the dawn of modern civilization. It has been the purview of journalists to inform us about the world we live in but cannot fully observe for ourselves. We depend upon a free and objective press that is far removed from the entanglements of power and the subjects which necessitate independent scrutiny.
While recognizing that human biases seep through every layer of our consciousness, imposing themselves in the narratives we present to others. The journalistic process of editorial review is supposed to guard against such infractions in the past centuries, the past few centuries and most particularly in the last few decades, the integrity of the press has steadily diminished trust in the news media continues to decline and it seems that the more people consume the news, the least, the less adequately informed they actually become. Let's try this again, folks, we are living in uncertain times, embarking upon an era of ever increasing threats, grave perils, geopolitical instability and the tourists.
Provocations of paranoid reflexes in the fog of war, global conflicts no longer remain confined to the battlefields of afar, but instead peers through the veil of security once taken for granted nuclear weapons, long range missiles, cyberattacks, economic warfare, terrorism and domestic strife reach across borders and into our neighborhoods. New technologies such as depict photography poses the ability to undermine our perception of reality in such times. The vanguards of objective reality are an ever important necessity. The construct of our reality depends upon the flow and accuracy of the information that helps us to interpret global events and thus frame our perceptions of our world traditionally, at least since the dawn of modern civilization, it has been the purview of journalists to inform us about the world we live in, but cannot fully observe for ourselves.
We depend upon a free and objective press that is far removed from the entanglements of power and the subjects which necessitate independent scrutiny. While recognizing that human biases seep through every layer of our consciousness, imposing themselves into the narratives, represent to others. The journalistic process of editorial review is supposed to guard against such infractions in the past few centuries and most particularly in the last few decades, the integrity of the press has steadily diminished trust in the news media continues to decline and it seems that the more people consume the news, the less adequately informed they actually become and when its citizens are less informed, the edifice of a free and democratic society begins to crumble public perceptions surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine epitomized perfectly the detrimental impact that can come from a pen stroke of indiscretion.
Media coverage of the conflict has conferred upon the public a narrowly crafted lens that is absent of objective facts and context, stoking the emotional, emotional ire of an already agitated populace Since the 2016 presidential elections. The process helped to manufacture a menacing Boogeyman in Vladimir Putin and the Evil Russian Empire. He commands, refusing to account for their own failures and inability to address the growing social problems affecting so many americans. The Democratic Party launched a campaign of disinformation and agitation that pinned Hillary clinton's loss squarely on Vladimir Putin's soldiers.
Donald trump was of course, trumpeted as Putin's puppet. A sinister agent of Russian intelligence groomed over the course of several decades in a plot to capture the american presidency. It was, and is an absurd ascertain ation to be sure, but nonetheless proved effective trump for his part, only added an air of legitimacy to this runaway conspiracy. Now, this is not to imply that Russia didn't engage in efforts to influence the outcome of the election. However, it was nowhere near the complicity of the mainstream news and media which devoted endless attention to every minute detail and absurdity of the trump campaign.
It was a circus of the irrelevant and profane. Also, the press could compete for ratings and increased profits. Trump was a spectacle ripe for exploitation. His every antic paraded before a public with an insatiable appetite for scandalous entertainment. An appetite the news media has long helped to cultivate under the logic of if it bleeds it leads The unprecedented media coverage conferred upon Donald Trump equal the equivalent of about $55 million dollars in free advertising space from the eight major media outlets. This is according to an in depth report from the Shorenstein Center.
The study further concluded that much of this media attention was heaped upon trump quote in a way that was unusual given his initial polling numbers end quote. In other words, trump received a higher volume of media attention than his initial polling numbers justified. The reason for this is obvious as expressed by Les Moonves than the head of cbs who proclaimed trump's presidential run was quote damn good for cbs end quote indeed trump's steady invocation of derogatory comments, outrageous lies and communiqu buffoonery were good for the news business providing the public with a live action reality show that kept both trump lovers and haters addicted and tuned in most of the coverage wasn't even particularly newsworthy, but it was always sensational Newspapers were flying off the shelves.
Cable news networks enjoyed a surge in viewership for their 24 hour news cycles and the nation got perhaps the most entertaining election in american history. It was all great until it wasn't as donald trump, ascended to the presidency. Neither the clinton campaign, the Democratic Party Northern news media took any responsibility for the role they played while trump's victory might have been bad for the nation, not to mention the world. It was nonetheless a gift that kept on giving for both the mainstream media and the Democratic Party that was quick to capitalize on the catastrophic malevolence to come.
You see fear and anger and even hate is the contagion contagion that generates constant viewership and enables politician to avoid the real issues. Instead simply professing the dangers of their opponents. There must always be an enemy, someone to hate, someone to blame. And both the mainstream media and politicians alike are quite adept at creating these enemies. Donald trump is not the enemy. To the extent that any actual enemies exist, it is the system which perpetuates and exploits fear for the pursuit of power and profits. The thin veil of american democracy that is so frequently touted as the gold standard implies that our republic is one governed for and by the people.
We have elections purportedly ones that are free and fair and that makes a democracy. It's a nice theory and perfect as it may be. But in practice, it is something else altogether. A free and fair election is defined by political science as an election in which coercion is comparatively uncommon. A free election is one in which all eligible voters are free to vote for the candidates of their choosing. While a fair election is one where all votes have equal power. While America might qualify as having free elections though, this is a matter subject to debate, it most certainly fails the test for fair elections, but I pronounced that there exist other criteria of far greater importance to have a truly free and fair election and that's a functional democracy.
The public must be adequately informed and diversified in their awareness, the social issues, problems and their causes must play a central role in the national conversation and not just within an election cycle, candidates for office must come under intense scrutiny, and power must be constantly challenged. Now it is traditionally banned. The news media's responsibility to see that these criteria are fulfilled and these present and perilous times. However, the mainstream media has not only failed in its responsibility, but they have become themselves an empire of power and corrupt ability.
Okay, five, let me say that again. Five multinational corporations own the vast majority of the mainstream media ecosystem throughout the United States. These five corporations own most of the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, motion picture studios, in radio and television stations. Each of these corporations have a diverse portfolio that includes holdings across the various media industries. The reach empower this affords these five corporations gives them more influence and control over the population than any despotic dictatorship in human history. It is a power that serves as a major force in shaping american culture and geopolitics.
The heads of these companies exercise their power by controlling every means and medium by which the american people learn about and come to understand the world. It's easy to forget that these five corporations dominate the information networks which which directly impact the world of commerce and the private lives of the entire population. It is a power that has been used to co opt political systems, direct economic policies and constrict voter choices by controlling the narrative. The consequences have been catastrophic for both the nation and the world.
Instead of challenging power, the overwhelming majority of news sources come directly from the ruling class. Former intelligence officials now appear on the mainstream news networks as qualified experts, interpreting events and foreign policies. Despite the fact that in their careers, their main job was to lie the business of news in America is just that it is a business. The field of journalism is not a monolithic enterprise governed by any adherence to concrete principles or standards. Nor are journalists, independent agents protected from the built in biases and systemic intrusions of the ruling class in depth and comprehensive reporting that actually holds power to account is a tedious and expensive undertaking, challenging power is also often fraught with danger.
Whether that comes in the form of personal or professional threats. Someone once said quote, what our country needs worse than anything is freedom from the press. The press is absolutely intolerable today. End quote, one might suspect such a sentiment to hail from the sullied high towers of Wall Street or the corrupt quarters of power where fear of exposure is palpable. What is most remarkable about this quote, however, is that it's speaker hails from the very institution that he is calling out as public enemy number one, the speaker author Temple at the time of his speech was serving as vice chairman for Temple Tex, which just happened to be the single largest stockholder in Time magazine and these remarks and the profound sentiments that they convey.
Mr Temple is castigating the very journalists and editors for which he oversees. From my perspective, it would be more adequate to say that the mainstream media and news ecosystem of the present day is an absolutely intolerable consortium of multinational corporations propagandizing the news to influence public opinion and manufacture consent and that my friends is the last word upfront. I'm sean ST heart and you are listening to coo save America, please stay tuned. We have got a great show ahead as we continue this conversation about media bias and how to recognize it when you see it.
Our guest today is Zhou Rupert, he is the founder of the rip view website and newsletter and we're going to be talking with him in just a few moments. Once again, this is sean ST heart and you are listening to coo save America work more later. Others. Yeah. Mhm. And it is now time to discuss news that wasn't in the news. This is the news that wasn't in the news briefing in the continuing cultural war against the L G B. T. Q community. At least five Republican senators have signed a letter demanding that the Tv parental guidelines mine train board expand its television advisory ratings to include warnings for content containing what they refer to as disturbing L. G. B. T. Q themes.
The senators take particular offense to programming that features quote, irreversible, irreversible and harmful experimental treatments for mental disorders like gender. Dysphoria end quote. The letter comes in the wake of a recent Disney executive expressing her support for including more diverse L G B T. Q I A plus characters and themes in their productions. The letter reads, quote to the detriment of Children. Gender dysphoria has become sensationalized in the popular media and television with radical activists and entertainment companies. This radical and sexual sensation not only harms Children, but also destabilizes and damages parental rights.
End quote. The letter goes on to include multiple references to Disney which has stoked the air of conservatives by speaking out in opposition to florida's so called don't say gay bill, which of course prohibits teachers in kindergarten through third grade from discussing issues of sexual sexual orientation or gender identity. The senators argue that the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity frequently entails subject matters, touching upon an individual's pattern of emotional, romantic and sexual attraction and that parents all over the country have rightfully expressed outraged over its inclusion in the classroom.
You see, so long as you're outrages in support of the conservative position, republicans will support it. But once you dare oppose that position, while the storm clouds of vengeance and petty retaliation will darken your every horizon, it is a remarkable contradiction that republicans love to champion the ideals of the free market except when it offends their fragile and bigoted morals. In other news somewhat related as protesters continue to gather outside the homes of Supreme Court justices to peacefully demonstrate in the wake of the recently leaked draft opinion.
That seems to indicate the High Court is ready to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe V wade decision effectively outlying abortion throughout roughly half the nation. Conservative lawmakers are calling for these peaceful protesters to be arrested and are citing a McCarthy era statue that was implemented to suppress dissent by those protesting against the prosecutions of alleged communist during the infamous red scare, mm hmm. This latest assault on the exercise of free speech is of course part of the larger right wing movement that emerged under the presidency of donald J trump to cancel, criminalize and quite literally crushed left wing dissent.
All while the Republican Party heralds themselves as the champions of freedom, let's not forget when it comes to right wing protest, which are seldom peaceful, Such as the failed insurrection on January six. Republicans are all too fervent in their support of these flashpoints of anger and violence. It is also worth mentioning that the Supreme Court in a previous ruling not that long ago all, but gave their blessing to conservative protesters protesting outside the homes of abortion providers instead of addressing the justified fear and anger over a radicalized court ruling that effectively denies women their bodily autonomy and would literally force women to carry their pregnancies to term republicans are engaged in a manufactured campaign to distract the nation's attention to defame the outrage over the incredulous pursuit of the leaker of the Supreme Court briefing sadly, the mainstream media seems to be taking debate, serving yet once again as the mouthpieces for the ruling class and bowing to the easily agitated minority of right wing extremists by fretting over the identity of the leaker and giving credence to the debate over whether protesters should be allowed to exercise their rights to non violent resistance against the government if you're planning on attending a protest whether it is related to abortion, black lives matter whatever happens to be, I would like you to please go and learn more about your rights as a protester, as protected by law by visiting the american civil rights union and specifically their know your rights guides?
They have many of them. One of them is dedicated specifically to protesting and you can find these guides at a c L U dot org forward slash no hyphen your hyphen rights and again scroll down halfway through the page on the right hand side, you'll see a link to their protesters right guide. So go ahead and click on that. And again, this is a very helpful guide uh that includes information such as you know, your, your rights during the protest, how to interact with the police, the you know what the police can and cannot do.
Um and you know, things that you should bring with you, things that you should leave home. It's an amazing guide. And if you are going to be attending a protest, I I strongly advise that you go there and you study your rights and again, that is a C L U dot org forward slash no hyphen your hyphen rights and that my friend is this week's news that wasn't in the news briefing. Let's bring in our guest joe Rupert to continue our conversation about bias in the mainstream news and discuss his new fairly new website and newsletter that is designed to help eliminate and reduce the impact of this media bias.
During my initial interview with joe robert. One of the questions, the first question actually that I asked was what led him to create the website review dot com. Uh and why did he feel that it was necessary to try to develop a website that would combat media bias and present both sides of the issues? And his answer was rather interesting and unfortunately again it was too echoey to include. But what he said was that he actually had friends both on the liberal and the conservative side and he was finding them in various groups and circles.
All right. He was noticing that the media preferences of his friends, rather they were liberals who watched MSNBC or conservatives who watch Fox news, that they tended to have perspectives that that almost perfectly lined up with the media narratives of their preferred media channels. Again, whether it's MSNBC or Fox news and he wanted to combat that bias and and create a website that would present both views of the issues and also that would kind of show the media bias underlining each headlines and so on his website.
He includes no more than five of the days, um most compelling headlines, the ones that are most discussed and talked about in the mainstream news media Any percents, both the leftist perspective and the right perspective. And what's interesting about his website is that he also kind of highlights how each headline is presented differently based on a left versus right wing perspective. One of the examples that you have for today's news on your site is a headline that reads the buffalo shooters and manifesto relied on the same white supremacist conspiracy pushed by tucker Carlson.
And I wonder if you could maybe talk about that and why you, why you included that in your site as an example. Yeah. So on the left side, the buffalo shooter, you know what I've noticed and I curate these news articles, so I get exposure to both sides, which is great for me personally. And if you look at the left leaning narrative right now, it's that the rights being very quick to, um, you know, there you the left is going very much to Fox news and what's the genesis of that mindset to where someone would want to commit such an ungodly act against other humans.
Uh, and, and they're fact is both gun control, but then also, um, and disruptive narrative that might be caused on the right side. That's brainwashing for lack of a better term americans to have so much hate in their heart to commit such atrocious crimes. And that's the narrative we see on the left, the one on the right is that, You know, the good guy with the gun mentality, there weren't enough guns in the room that this is not a gun issue. This is a mental health issue.
The left is quick to pull political size any everything and everything. It only took them 60 minutes before they started causing a scene about racism and causing a scene about gun rights and things like that. So very polar? Um, it's very, a little bit more defensive on the right, I would say. But nonetheless, my point holds true that all news is biased on either side and you just got to be able to sift through the narratives. So I guess what you're saying is that tucker Carlson is not after all responsible for the buffalo shooting.
No, that's not what I'm saying sean, I'm not, I'm not talking about my political views at all. Just that the media is biased and the left right now would have you believe in their articles that tucker Carlson is to blame? But the bias is not on one political side in news. It's both, both are culprits of being biased and, and spewing or biased narrative. Um, I can't speak for myself. No, I was just just joking because that is the um, you know, my, my leftist friends that is of course the narrative going around that tucker Carlson, of course, if it hadn't been for tucker Carlson, this shooting would not of course have happened.
Um, so how should this story be covered? Because on the one hand, there is obviously this racial component to these shootings, there is obviously a mental health component and there's also the, the gun components and it's very difficult to sort of just tangled all of that. So what would be a more appropriate way of covering that issue? Do you think in my opinion it would just be the facts, the number of people that died, you know, with just the facts is what I would look for in the news.
Like very much just factual, here's how many died. Here's what time that occurred here is where it occurred. Here is the manuscripts that he he wrote and allow the americans to judge them form their own opinion. I'm just sick and tired of watching the news and having to watch through through and sift through. Am I allowed to curse on here Sean? Okay. Having to sift through the bullshit of everyone's own political agenda, whether I'm watching MSNBC or Fox News, I just want the points. So I'm really reviews is trying to solve that by being hyper polar and only showing the polar sides of both articles.
So I can't tell you sean exactly what I would say. I'm human and I have my own opinion. I just want an easier place to find news that is either calling out its bullshit or not, not including it at all, which is almost impossible to find these days. Oh, absolutely. I mean, to be honest with you, I, I try to stick with independent news sources whenever, whenever possible. Um, there is something to be said. I think facts are, are important. Don't, don't get me wrong about that.
There is something to be said for the context as well, I think. Um, so for instance, I think that there is a, if a, a point at which you should introduce the discussion of, okay, well let's talk about gun rights in America. Let's talk about what kind of weapons are being used and how that, so I think that these, these news stories do offer a vehicle into that. Um, but I do agree with you that what we see on both sides is it's politicized and it's often, I mean the focus tends to be away from the actual event that happened and more about making a political point in advancing an agenda and you're exactly right and they're not going to get the eyeball falls on their channel.
If they just talked the facts right there, they're getting paid, they're getting the sponsorship dollars to be hyperbolic and be kind of controversial and have clay Travis is of the world or, or the tucker Carlson's of the world or um, you know, any, any, any far leaning in either direction person on to say something that's passionate and strong if they just went on and said the fact they probably wouldn't get the views, but there is a need in there to call it because there's so many people that will watch Rachel made at matt out and just think what she says is gospel and everything she says is exactly right and then there's the same people with tucker Carlson, all I'm asking and trying to solve with reviews is that you get a little flavor of both if you're gonna if you're gonna want to go extreme go extreme both sides don't just force yourself into the narrative, you agree with you.
And you know, I used to actually, wow, this was I guess during the trump era watch red tomato and I would say that I watched the show for a couple of months and then it became quite obvious that it wasn't really news. It was a manufactured perspective. It was, you know what I mean? Obviously it's scripted and I sort of have a problem with this scripted news and I mean, you know, Rachel Maddow is a brand not and she she used to do good journalism, but she's more of a brand now she's and and this is the problem.
I mean these people are paid millions of dollars to, I mean they don't do any actual journalism and their whole show is based upon sort of identity politics sort of about, you know what to expect. I mean, Rachel Maddow made well, MSNBC, I mean they did this whole Russia Gate thing, which is just I found very absurd. Um and of course, if you look at now that's kind of coming back uh you know now the right wing is kind of bringing that back now you have another article that you have today.
Nebraska governor wants no rape or incest exception for abortion. Now I saw the same story. Um I can't, maybe it was on facebook even and the same story was being advertised as Nebraska Governor wants to legalize rape and incest. So it was the same story from the same provider. I don't know who, who, who I cited for that one today, but um, and it was just manufactured essentially to tell the opposite side. Yeah, yeah, Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe it was on facebook and I saw that and because I had the same video from CNN that link to it.
And of course, when you go to the actual article, it talks about again wanting to have no exceptions for rape or incest. It does not talk about wanting to legalize rape or incest. Right, Right, Right. And that also is just it's all about gaining eyeballs. The more clicks, the more eyeballs you can get the that's that's their motivation, right? And if I said, You know, 49% of Americans agree with banning abortion and 51% disagree. That's not a very entertaining article I want to click on. That's not something I want to click on.
And that's what drives and cultivates this biased media narrative that we see across the country and you give a great example of that you have to have um, hyperbolic parabolic, you have to have a parabolic headline to gain the clicks because if you don't gain clicks you're not going to stay alive. Yeah. And and the the problem too is that a lot of people will not read past the headline, that is another problem. And the only click on headlines that they agree with, which is only going to drive us apart as a nation if we're not open, you said you watched Rachel Maddow, so I, you, you, that shows a maturity that I hope all of us can get in, that you watch Rachel Maddow, but you have something that you don't blindly follow that narrative.
Same thing with tucker Carlson open yourselves up to seeing both sides. And my hope is that people will join my newsletter at reviews dot com and be able to see a taste every day of the top three of both sides. I pissed people off, I pissed people off. I had a buddy who was super right wing, he unsubscribed because he was so sick of seeing the left wing articles that I was going to post every day. But my goal is to have no of my own point of views in these conversations and just show both polar sides of common news stories.
Yeah, no, and and that is the problem with, with most everything in America today is the over polarization of politics and it is dividing this nation and I mean you no matter where you, I mean the left loves to attack fox news, that's almost become a sporting event and I try to say, okay, yes, Fox news is biased, so is the MSNBC and the channels that you subscribe to. And your I mean, I can't stomach watching any mainstream news media just because to me it's just not news and it's just very divisive.
But unfortunately, and even for people that don't consume mainstream news media, they do end up consuming it or some portion of it on social media. And unfortunately, there is that tendency to not click on headlines and just to use headlines to automatically assume that the news in the narrative fits your own personal perspective and people are not talking, you know, we're not discussing. I mean, there's again in the Nebraska governor wants no right princess exception. We should talk about the rape and incest exception. And and and we should talk about what I mean, obviously abortion is a very complex issue.
It's not a clear cut. Uh I mean, I happen to be pro choice, but I mean, even in that, that on that political spectrum, well, when should you know, what limits should there be an abortion? At what point should we not allow the termination of pregnancy? Obviously there's going to be healthcare exceptions and emergency exceptions, but we're not having those issues. And and people seem to be stuck on this extremism about abortion, it's like, oh, abortion is either. But when we're not talking about the finer points.
And so without talking about those finer points, we're not going to end up resolving this issue or even coming to a compromise? I totally agree and you triggered something in my head in the sense that the news that we call the news on MSNBC and Fox news is more entertainment than news at this point. We're watching it because it's entertainment. It's no longer news. What you're describing is true news, right? It's just the facts. Right? What are the consequences if there's someone can terminate the pregnancy in month 12345, whatever it is, those are kind of the facts.
And you form your own opinion by reviewing those facts and pure review with other americans and that, and, and that's more genuine and that's healthier and that's more of a new source than an entertainment source, which is the MSNBC and Fox news I pick on those two because it's the most yeah, notorious, but there are hundreds of thousands of bias news. And so we just need to call out the bullshit and it's fine. If you like entertainment, conservative entertainment, please watch Fox news. Just don't think it's news.
And if you like entertainment and you agree with the left point of view, please, by all means watch MSNBC, but just don't believe it's truly just the news. They're, they're trying to be polarizing. They're trying to drag you one direction or the other. So it's just about having that consciousness when you turn on that channel or you open that article to know that um is the important part and you know, there, um I, you know, I know some people that, that have, have worked in the, the news industry, including for Fox news and such and um and I'm just reporting what they said, but some of them actually have heard like tucker Carlson and um uh there was another guy that O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly um that would say, you know, I'm just performing, you know what, when my on air personality is just performative and I'm playing a part now, whether or not that's true, I don't know, but I do think that it's true across the board, I think that they are for the most part they're actors, they're actors reading a scripted news program and what people don't seem to understand.
And I said this in my opening monologue that five corporations own the mainstream media, they own the newspaper. So, you know, you've got the same company that owns Fox News, they own multiple different newspapers, they own film and Tv studios. And and the same is true for, you know, MSNBC. And most of these companies at the very top are owned by the military industrial complex, you know, military contractors. And as Noam chomsky said, the media, the mainstream media that we have today is designed to manufacture consent pure and simple and they all advance a narrative that is for the working class and it's it's, it's obvious when you're, when you think about it in that, in that in that terms, but you do get sucked into, I mean Rachel Maddow, she's a likable character, you want to like her.
She, so therefore you want to trust her, you want to try and you believe and she talks, I mean it's like she's forming a relationship with the viewer, a friendship relations, you know, type of thing. And so you just naturally want to trust her and you're not even thinking for yourself about what you're being told. And I'm guessing that that's the same with tucker Carlson. I don't know if you're familiar with jimmy Dore, I've heard the name. Um I enjoy him quite a bit, he's a comedian and he does a news program on Youtube and he frequently appears on tucker Carlson and of course the left goes just ballistic every time he does that.
And of course he gets called a right winger and, and you know, all of this stuff, um, but he's the first to say, but you know, MSNBC is not inviting me on at least tucker Carlson is inviting me on his program and I'm able to reach half the country, I want to go on there because he goes on there and he advances a left wing, you know, perspective and so I, you know, you have to, instead of giving tucker Carlson credit for that and instead of vilifying people for going on tucker Carlson, that is half the country that you're able to reach out to, I mean, so why demonize, but that's where we are and it's just insane to me and I also want to give tucker Carlson credit.
I mean he's, you know, he's one of the few for, for whatever reason that are allowed to go on their advance, like an antiwar type of objective, I mean people are all upset about his position on Ukraine and what have you, but there's sailing details that he's reporting that other media networks are intentionally leaving out. Um, so my advice to people would just be to stay away from the mainstream news media as much as possible. Um and try to find independent sources, which is getting incredibly difficult to do and this is why a website like yours is so vital.
Um no, unfortunately, um, you know, there's only so much that so many news stories that you can cover every day. Um how do you kind of determine which ones are going to get your, your attention? Yeah, so I'm a news aholic if that's even a phrase, so I consume news. Um just personally I enjoy consuming news and one thing that's been nice and reviews, I have a twitter account at reviews and I follow probably 100 different accounts and they're all very much spread across. So I scroll through my timeline and I get a great flavor of two polar sides of America and get a feel throughout the day of what's the most divisive topics.
Um and it's fascinating. So, um, one thing I've noticed, I'm still relatively young in this reviews journey, I've just started about a month ago and I'm just starting to get my foot out there. So I've gotten down a pretty good process of, kind of, formulating okay, what are the top three stories today? And then I I look at both sides from there, and um that daily newsletter is where you get it each day, but then the website publishes each monday. Um and it's become personally beneficial for me to digest the news this way, but then also coming up with it, it's just been a good process overall that I've seen people with uh gotten a lot of value out of it.
The one thing I was gonna say that I've noticed is take the sometimes where I say, okay, you know what an interesting story for today is, is the, I forget, I'm not going to know the exact time the title of this new person that the biden administration appointed, but it was like, the truth czars, right wing would say, call it, I apologize for not knowing the exact title, but the right wing was just harping and harping at news all day, talking about the truths are, and this newfound office that's being created within the administration, couldn't find a word about it from the left, right.
Uh And so they didn't mention it at all. So what I've also noticed is that there's sometimes where there's a news article that's going on, like, crazy or a theme that's going on, like crazy on one side, that doesn't even exist on the other. It's not just the right, the left has it too. There are examples of the left is talking, I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but it's really popular and left mainstream media, but it's not even existent on when it comes to the right side of the media.
So, that's another thing I battle as well as their priorities are not the same. The, even the top three stories on the right side of the Universe are not the same as the top three stories on the left side of the universe, because they're playing on what's going to help their cause. Absolutely. And, uh, yeah, the the whole Ministry of Truth thing as it's called. Um, and that's, I think that's really the name that the right, maybe he has given it now, I have substantial issues with this whole thing.
I understand what it is and the, the both the left and the right, um, and talking about it are presenting something that it's not largely, um, it is not the so forth, you know, so called Ministry of Truth. And that is going to the goal is not to to reach out into the public at least not as of yet. And that, that's my concern what it is right now seems relatively confined, what it could become though is where I get concerned because again, you give government a little bit of leeway and they take that too two extremes down the road and I just think it's a dangerous thing to be doing in the first place.
But that said, you know, it's it should not be a left right issue and if you're going to be talking about it, you need to be talking about what is it right now? What what is this or you know this, it's within the Department of Homeland Security, it's got a very limited authority enroll. It is not as widespread as what it's not just, you know, um George or wellington type manifestation as of yet. It could very well become that we can talk about whether or not it's a good idea in its present term.
But again, as you pointed out, that's not what's happening, you've got one side that's ignoring it and the other side that's turning into something that it absolutely is not. And if you put a lot of quivers, it looked to me to put a lot of arrows in the quiver of the right. Um So I don't know if it was good or bad, but I know that you and load up on the right and took advantage of inflation is another one right now. Um you hear some stories about tax right now that's hide about how we can curve inflation on the left a little bit about that, but that's being weaponized on the right as well.
They're talking about inflation on the right and where the current economy is, and not hearing much about it on the left, there's some reference to trump era tactics that might have gotten us to this point or trump decisions that have gotten us to this point, where in Ukraine is another one that's talked about it often times getting us to this point, but it's being weaponized on the right, so the left is going to need to come up with something if we're going to stay to be polarized and again, sean, I don't want to I don't want to get away from the point.
You're exactly right. What I'm talking about is the entertainment of news of if we're gonna do is we're gonna play entertainment. I'm gonna show you both sides and let's play. But right now, this is what the rights equipment themselves with um in the left, I should think of something they need to do to counteract inflation economy, um, narratives like the Ministry of Truth. Um again, I don't know if that's the right term, I think, and I don't know what it's called, but the rights loading up and I think in turn, in time for midterms to come up and it seems that it's not occurring as much on the left.
Well, I have to disagree a little bit on that. I I do think that the left is recognizing. See the thing is that the left does it a little bit differently than the right and it's a little bit more subtle and veiled under a more intellectual I I suppose sort of framing. Um and I don't want to say that there's nothing intellectual on the conservative side. I'm just saying that you know, the left tends to try to polish things a little bit more refined them. Um The salient point though is that we're not talking about the issues and we're not talking about the issues in a way that is productive, for instance, what are the causes of our problems?
What are the fundamental root causes and what can we do about that? We don't have to agree necessarily. Um And I think the left problem is with labels to right, I mean like defund the police. I mean, it's it's these labels that that the right gets to attack and we don't talk about anything beyond the labels. It's all about the label and you have to support it. If you're on the left, if you don't, if you don't follow the certain narrative then you're not a true leftist.
This happens all the time on twitter. I mean, I've been attacked, I've been called a Russian times a Russian asset for for for pointing out. Well, no Russia does have some legitimate concerns with with NATO and the expansion that's happening, that we should talk about that. I'm not just and I am very careful to paraphrase and say, I do not agree with what, you know, what Putin is doing, I don't agree with the invasion, but um simply to demonize him and and, and and if you don't, I mean the big thing too is, you know, you have to, you know, condemn what what Putin is doing as if that's going to stop him, because if you don't condemn them, then you know, that that's all you're supposed to do on twitter is, is condemned Putin and and that's it.
You're not supposed to talk about the context or anything else. And so this polarization has steered us away again, it is entertainment. And I think it's also meant though to distract us from the actual issues that are affecting this country and affecting americans because as long as we're fighting, as long as we're hitting the other side, we're not focusing our attention where it actually needs to be. Um and so I imagine that that yeah, you probably are going to get um a lot of hate from both sides um for for trying to, so you've actually lost friends over this or you or you've gotten into fights over this, not lost friends, but I have friends that don't have an appetite to see opposing views to theirs and reviews is all about that.
I'm gonna show you both sides of the story and people tend to be on polar sides and um I have conservative uncles that read it. And have you ever heard of the phrase hate porn? It's just something you like to watch, even those who hate it. I have a lot of people that take it as hate porn and it just kind of gets under their skin as they're drinking their coffee in the morning, but they kind of enjoy it in a weird way to read the other side and it allows them what I think is a way to counteract the arguments that are coming from the opponent if you would, as far as not the side they agree on.
So I wouldn't say I lost friends, but I do have friends that just said, I can't look at your section that goes over the articles from the far left or the far right. And so they say, I'm I'm I'm not gonna, you know, read this anymore. And so that's fine, that's fine that I don't want you to I certainly hope that people read it that disagree with the articles that I'm showing you, but I'm gonna show you both sides evenly and they're both gonna be polarizing on either side.
Now, the other on the on the right, on your website, you've got it divided, as you say, you got on the left, rightfully. So on the left side of the page, you've got the left perspective and then on on the right, you've got the right now, on the right, you have a article that reads profanity, vulgarity and abortion. Thousands gather at Washington Dc, abortion rights rally have been turmoil over row now. Um what's the um what's the issue with this particular article that that you see? Yeah, they're making it seem like even if you look at the picture associated with it, it's tough to without seeing it, but they're making it seem like the pro abortion group is just vulgar um using slurs and inappropriate phrases and kind of demonizing the the cities that they're protesting in because they might have reproductive organs on their sign that there holding up in that they are just, you know, hide your kids if you see this group coming down the street type of thing.
And that's the spin. They're really playing with it. And sometimes sean what's interesting I've I've noticed you can have the same story with the same headlines, but the picture tells you everything that's going on there and what they're trying to really spin. And if you look at that picture, you truly see what they're trying to spin, biden gets this a lot, biden will get this a lot in the sense that if it's left, you'll see a flattering picture where he kind of um looks presidential and on the right the same exact headline, but he's going to look a little confused and his eyes might not be directly on the camera where it would have been on the left.
And so they know what they're doing. And this was a call out to this, that sometimes you The words aren't everything in the picture is saying 1000 times that Yeah, and the picture essentially is basically a vagina giving the middle finger um, right, Which is, I think it's kind of clever, but you know, and the interesting thing too is, um If you look at like January six, for instance, the insurrection, I would argue that that was pretty vulgar as well and you did not hear a great deal about this from conservatives during that event.
Of course, I'm sure that the left was, it was an uproar about about that, although I think it was probably a little bit more to do with insurrection than the language, but but no, that is because I was reading the, the headline in the article on your site and I was like, oh, I wonder what I mean. I kind of was guessing that's where you were going, but I wanted to be sure that's why I asked about it. So, so yeah, so the right is that's there and of course there are also their big focuses on the leak itself finding liquor rather than the issue and and you know, go ahead please, you can click on the link and it will actually take you to the article itself if you want to read what they're actually saying, but you bring up jane and six and I felt bad because I was giving a lot of ways that the right was weaponizing left items, but dancing is a great example, The left weaponize is jan six, you know, a lot of ways and the insurrection there, but it is all his mom on the right, right, You you don't hear a word from it on the right there, they're going quiet in that regard.
So if that was a news story, there's a committee right now in place that's reviewing it and there's subpoenas going out, you don't hear anything about that in the right arena. Whereas the left is weaponizing it alternative to inflation right now, which is doing it on the other side. So I just wanted to include that example because I felt bad only including right weaponizing left items that should be noted that that's occurring as well. You know, I, I like to also point this out to people that, you know, when it comes to the whole, the whole concept of even an interaction was actually legal in the United States up until uh, fairly recently.
And I forget when that was that when the law was actually passed. Um, I think it was during maybe the red scare or something like that, but people, I don't, I don't even like calling what that was an insurrection really, I'm not even sure what to call it. I mean it was a protest that got out of hand. Um, I think that it's been overly politicized as everything else has been. Um and I think that um I think that so much focus has been, I mean, again, let's talk about the cause that that brought people, it was not just the rhetoric around the stolen election.
There is a built up anger and frustration and desperation in this country that stems from you know, socioeconomic issues and you know, the whole election thing in the donald trump that was just mainly an outlet. I mean that was an exploitation of you know, these these deeper systemic issues. It was not that they, you know, they weren't they didn't store in the capital merely because you know, they thought that do I mean if if people had, you know socio economic stability and access to health care, if people had the essentials, they would not be up in arms and hyper focused on this stuff.
And so that was just another distraction. And then to me, I just feel like all democrats have kind of done since taking, you know, the majority is to focus on. I mean, it's almost as if they think donald trump is still president. I mean it and of course it's also the fear monger that he might become president again. And so it's like we're not focusing on the issues and and and you're right, it's if the news provides a source, would you think, do you think it's fair to say now you mentioned hate porn.
I would, I would say that, I think that a lot of people probably watch the news specifically because they want an outlet for anger. It's sort of an enter, it's like a therapeutic um release in a sense. Would you, would you agree with that? Do you think? I wouldn't, I wouldn't, it's I I I don't have and I'm I'm generalizing just from my own personal people I know, but I don't know a lot of conservatives that watch MSNBC because the hate porn theory and I don't watch no, a lot of liberals that watch Fox news because they want some kind of that feeling as well.
But I do know online almost in private when no one can see is where I think they might be clicking on the articles. I don't know if there's anything to that, but it's just kind of, I don't, the conservatives I know watch Fox news and the liberals. I know watch MSNBC news when it comes to MSNBC news that when it comes to the cable television. So, um, and the same thing my friends on the right are reading drudge report and Fox and my friends on the left are reading huffpost and uh, MSNBC, so it's I don't know if there is a degree to that, I'm hoping to provide that to people and that they can unabashedly and they don't have to feel their embarrassing their friends or letting down their friends by reading the other side and hopefully reviews can be the vehicle to allow people to do that because they're not they're not searching for the other side.
Now, I'm just providing it to them as a counter to their there are plural plural agreement. So, um I don't I don't have much thought there sean, I I do think there is some level of hate porn numbness going on. I just can't quantify it, I guess. Well, I guess what I was actually saying is like, for instance, the one problem that I see with your site is that there's a and I come from a sociological psychological perspective on this, there is this tendency of people to tie their entire identities to to the the conventional narratives and the fear that people have is that if they click on one of the opposing art, then their identity is threatened, right?
And so there's this fear, they don't want to see the opposing side because that threatens their identity. And so it's just automatically discounted, and even if you get them to the other article, it's that's fake news or that's propaganda. Um, and so it's very difficult, unfortunately, to get people to, because again, our identities have become politicized, and so, you can't, you know, just like I found this with the Ukraine situation, it does not facts, do not matter emotions matter, and people are invested in these emotions. And so the example of hate porn was, I guess it was that it's not that liberals are watching Fox news is that when you're watching MSNBC for instance, you're doing that more to validate your own identity and to validate your own beliefs than anything else.
I guess that's what I was kind of meaning. And you mean anybody rationally, you could say, hey, if you're going to, if you're going to, you know, target tucker Carlson, do you watch tucker Carlson? Have you seen this program? And most people are going to say, well, no, but I've heard ah you've heard but you haven't seen now That I merely suggesting that people might, you know, well why don't you watch Tucker Carlson Watch one episode? Well that, again, people are not willing to do that because that, that's seen as an attack of their belief system and they also, I'm not going to support tucker Carlson, you know, I don't, I don't think your support or you tuning in is really going to make or break to, you know, tucker Carlson um and so unfortunately there's a lot of that self validation that that sort of goes into this and it's very, very difficult.
Um and I know a lot of very smart, rational, intelligent people on the left that will not diverge from these identity politics type issues. I mean there you can tell that they're emotionally invested in a certain narrative and if Rachel motto says it, then it's got to be true and there's no, you know, if the ands or buts about it. Um, so have you, have you heard from anybody that you've sort of broken through to with your site? Um, one I've never thought of it as an identity piece.
That is extremely interesting that I'm gonna now noodle on for the next day and a half. I imagine think about the identity relationship to the news following. So that's, that's a fascinating thought. Um you know, this is a month of going into month number two of reviews going along and I can see who, what people click on in the newsletter if they click on the left or the right and kind of get a feel for it. And it's um, I, I know I have people at least opening their counter views.
I can't say that I've had anyone sway. I don't think it's almost impossible sean didn't get anyone through just sharing an article to say, hey, you know what something I feel so passionate about now. I feel the other way, I don't think that's ever going to happen. Um, so I don't know if I'll ever get anyone to change their mind and that's not my goal of reviews. My goal is just to call it what it is and it's entertainment, It's news that's packaged in the form of entertainment and there, there is a narrative behind each of the sides and you need people need to acknowledge that there is a narrative that's being forced down their throats with with when they click on the main news articles on either side.
So um I can't say that I've swayed anyone's opinion or anything like that, but hopefully I pull back the veil a little bit on people thinking Fox or MSNBC is actually news, it's it's not, it's just bombastic entertainment um for the sake of being bombastic, and I would argue that that is if we're going to blame anything on, you know, the mass shootings, I would say that the way that the media, because everything is politicized and people, this just serves to fuel people's anger. I mean when you see this day in and day out, um I mean, so instead of blaming tucker Carlson, we need to blame the system of sorts, that's that's creating all of this, this anger and hatred in this country and it's being done for entertainment.
You know, I also sit on my monologue, Les Moonves of cbs. Um and when we're talking about donald trump, you know, he had made a comment that, you know, hey donald trump is really good for cbs, good for profits. Yeah, he was, and if we're going to blame anybody for electing Donald Trump, look at the media that that literally just gave him $55 million dollars in free political advertising because they knew he was going to say something outrageous, something sensational and it was going to bring viewers in and people were going to sort of hate watch it or and to me that was the they should have been at least a wake up call like wow.
Um this is really out of hand, I mean this is getting I mean they turned the news and in the entire election into a reality show that was every bit as offensive as anything that I've seen and yeah, yeah, I guess it's kind of toned down a little bit because you don't have, you know, donald trump front and center at the moment. Um but you are seeing it with, I mean you are seeing a lot of trumpism in candidates, marjorie, taylor Greene for instance, who just the other day actually said something that I agreed with um you know about saying something she was commenting to aOC about, you know, well how do you think this proxy war with Ukraine is doing for the, you know, for the for the environment?
Um but you can't, you can't, you know, you can't agree with these people um because otherwise you're you're an enemy. And so I think your website is great. Um I'm fascinated by the examples that that you have, I will point out, I do have an issue problem accessing your site on the safari browser. Mm hmm I'll look into that right now. I'm focusing primarily on the newsletter that comes out each day. So I got to put some time into the web developer web development and I'll look into that as well.
But my main focus is kind of a morning joe like when you're drinking your coffee in the morning, just a quick flash of open your email and you're going to get a taste of three both sides of three stories. And that's how you can start your day with a fresh perspective from both sides. Um there, you know, there's work to be done on the website, but that's going to come once I I get the newsletter um that's where I've been focusing most of my attention. Okay. And I just I guess I just checked just now and now it's working fine.
But early when my producer, I have been trying to access your your website and I was just using Safari for the last few days and I kept getting site not found, site, not found. And so finally, I, my producer had me try a different browser and then it showed up, but now it's working fine. Safari, so go figure, Yeah, still work to be done. And I'm still new to this. I'm still hoping to, you know, on shows like yours and I've really enjoyed this time today, you've got a lot of perspective I haven't really thought of and also say, I'm encouraged to hear you talk about, I don't know your political affiliation, but I've heard you agree with both sides.
And that's rare these days that someone's willing to agree with, I don't haven't heard aOC but you agreed with something Taylor Greene said. Made during Taylor Greene said. And um you know, I think that's what we need a little bit more of is not just toe in the political lines 100% and be willing to read other articles and other points of view and formulate an opinion from there and don't just watch what's really mainstream entertainment in the form of huffpost and Fox news and drudge report and CNN and really, really try to consume it all if you can and then form your opinion from there if you're going to read bombastic.
But really part of his discussion and making sure you're talking to others and getting down to the root cause and keeping your passions out of it and I think we'll be better as a country if we can do that. Absolutely. So go ahead and give us your site one more time please. It's www dot reviews dot com. And then on all social media reviews, R. I P views V I E W s. And please sign up for the newsletter to get a daily monday through friday seven a.m.
Central time email in your inbox. That's going to give you a fresh perspective of both sides of the news for the top three stories of each day. And I just signed up for the newsletter by the way and I'll be following you on social media. Look, thank you so much for your time and please folks, please, please please visit the website, sign up for the newsletter and just open your mind because as he said, we need to be talking with each other as opposed to talking at each other and getting a fresh perspective.
And hey, you know what, if you look at the site, it's very, it's very quick, It doesn't take a lot of time. You know, there's, there's that, do you usually just do four stories a day or does it kind of vary? It varies, but no more than five. No more than five. So it's very easy to to, you know, you can get a quick rundown, you click on the the articles and you know, now, did you also? Oh no, I guess that's that's um it looks like one of them had a label um super compassionate, but I think that's part of the article. Not.
Um but anyhow, it's it's refreshing to see a site where you can go and you can quickly get a glance at the top stories of the day and you can see how they are being politicized and um, I really thank you again for for for setting up this site and for taking the time to talk with us because I think what you're doing is something that is vital for our democracy or what we have, you know, what's left of our democracy anyhow. Um because this polarization is just going to continue to, to send a to fracture our country and I I think that I'm starting to fear that we are encroaching upon some sort of a civil war type event because there's only so much of this that a nation can, can, you know, endure before there is a breaking point.
So we need to have more, you know, more site and resources like what you're offering. Um so again, please go and visit the website. R. I P V R I P views dot com. Sign up for the newsletter and just check it out every day. I mean just take a few minutes every day to check out the website. Look at the stories again, there's no more than five and you know, dare to think differently. So I want to thank you again for joining us. Hopefully you'll come back and absolutely, and you have a great day and I'm sorry for all of the technical problems were going to try to get this worked worked out.
There's no problem in the world of teams and and Skype. I get it. So, totally get it. It's what we've got to adapt to, but I really appreciate the time today, Sean. Thanks for having me on and look forward to continuing this conversation. Yes, thank you very much. All right, take care, ladies and gentlemen, that is coo save America. I want to apologize to all of you out there for the the technical problems that we're experiencing. We actually did have to terminate our video feed and and go right back to our roots at radio.
Um so we will be publishing this, this this audio podcast on our platform. We also have a brand new site. Ladies and gentlemen coo save America dot com. We've also got a new facebook page. We've got a new twitter account for crusade America. Uh so you can find all of that on our website at ku save America dot com. And again on that site, you can look and you can see our youtube page, you can see our twitter profile, our facebook page uh at some point in the future we may even have some some merchandise that we throw up there for people.
Uh there's also a newsletter. We have a newsletter as well. So visit CU save America folks. I want to thank you so much for listening. It means a great deal to me. We will be back hopefully next Tuesday next Tuesday at 2:00. Thanks again. Have a great week
I am a news curator passionate about showing that there are 2 sides to every story. All media is biased and it is important that we recognize that bias but also expose ourselves to all bias, not just the narrative we agree with. Ripviews is a daily newsletter showing both sides for the main stories of the day for the subscribers to make educated decisions from there.