Speaker 1: More fallout from this story that Hunter Biden has basically
Speaker 1: been working as a spy for the Chinese Communist government,
Speaker 1: had a mole at the FBI who is tipping him
Speaker 1: off as an informant of the Chinese government of any
Speaker 1: investigations into his Chinese business partners. Now, this obviously should
Speaker 1: be wall to wall coverage from the media. It is not.
Speaker 1: Why because why would you want to bring this up
Speaker 1: if you're the media, right, This just makes the president
Speaker 1: look bad. It makes a son look really bad, like
Speaker 1: he's an actual spy for China. It was being paid
Speaker 1: to do this. This is what spying is. They were
Speaker 1: making millions off of this. Just understand that millions of
Speaker 1: dollars were coming into the bank accounts of the Biden
Speaker 1: crime family, and there was something that China needed in
Speaker 1: return for this intel. When you have a spy who
Speaker 1: is giving you that tell, okay, then this is what
Speaker 1: you get. You get the intel when you're being investigated,
Speaker 1: when they're looking at you. It's called a warning. Hey,
Speaker 1: they're about to nail you. Get out of America right,
Speaker 1: flee the country, run away. Miranda Divine, who wrote the
Speaker 1: book Laptop from Hell, when on Tucker Carlson's show. She's
Speaker 1: the first one to break this reporting. Here is a
Speaker 1: little bit more about this mole and this Chinese financial
Speaker 1: arrangement for Hunter Biden to spy on the US government
Speaker 1: on behalf of China. Listen, we don't know. Miranda Devine
Speaker 1: is on the story as it developed. She joins us
Speaker 1: to me, So those are the outlines. An I apologized,
Speaker 1: apologize if I've mistated them, but we just kind of
Speaker 1: sum the suppisces an amazing story. It seems like, look, Chachery,
Speaker 1: it's actually Bizare. I mean, it's another Bizare twist on
Speaker 1: an already bizare story about the Biden family and the
Speaker 1: cast of characters involved in their influence peddling scheme around
Speaker 1: the world. And doctor gal Luft is the latest one.
Speaker 1: He is an Israeli energy expert, a professor. He was
Speaker 1: arrested in Cypress, as you said, and he's still in
Speaker 1: a Cypress jail. He's charged, apparently with gun running and
Speaker 1: para violations and various things. And he claims that he
Speaker 1: is innocent and that he's only been arrested to shut
Speaker 1: him up about what he knows about the Biden family business.
Speaker 1: And you know, a lot of his story does check out.
Speaker 1: He is regarded in his orbit in Washington, DC, as
Speaker 1: you know, he's well regarded. He's a legitimate energy expert,
Speaker 1: he's a former high ranking officer in the Israeli Defense Force,
Speaker 1: has multiple degrees. And he also talks about this FBI
Speaker 1: mole that he claims Hunter Biden used to tip off
Speaker 1: his Chinese partners that there was an FBI investigation into them,
Speaker 1: And there is some corroboration of that from the reporting
Speaker 1: that we've already done from the laptop. We know that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden did have contacts within the FBI. We know
Speaker 1: that he used them to benefit at least one of
Speaker 1: his Chinese business partners, Patrick Hoe, And when Patrick Hoe
Speaker 1: was arrested at JFK by the FBI, Hunter Biden then
Speaker 1: contacted his FBI contacts and we don't know what they
Speaker 1: did for him, but that sort of accords with this
Speaker 1: story that's coming from Gal Laughed, and Gal Laughed worked
Speaker 1: for three years in Washington, d C. With Hunter Biden's
Speaker 1: Chinese business partners. That checks out too, so he when
Speaker 1: he says that those business partners told him about what
Speaker 1: the bidens were up to the hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars that he knew about that was going to Hunter
Speaker 1: and his uncle Jim Biden every month, and their contact
Speaker 1: with this FBI mole. It does just bolsters I guess
Speaker 1: the reporting we've done from the laptop so quickly. This guy,
Speaker 1: the Israeli energy expert. As he was being arrested, he
Speaker 1: tweeted it and said, they're arresting me to shut me up.
Speaker 1: I have the facts about Hunter Biden. He's a smart guy.
Speaker 1: Social media is still up if you want to see it.
Speaker 1: It confirms he's a very smart person. Has he had
Speaker 1: anything else to say from his jail and cypress? Do
Speaker 1: we know? Look through his lawyer, which is the only
Speaker 1: way I've been able to talk to him. He certainly
Speaker 1: has other allegations, but without documents or other evidence to
Speaker 1: back it up, you know, it's difficult to report those.
Speaker 1: He did get bail from the Cypriot courts a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, but that has been vigorously opposed by
Speaker 1: US authorities. And I'm told by Gal Luft's lawyer that
Speaker 1: the ambassador in Cyprus is putting a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: to keep him in jail. They want to extradite him
Speaker 1: to the US. On these charges of gun running and
Speaker 1: so on, which really baffle that people in Washington who've
Speaker 1: known Galla for a long time and they say that's
Speaker 1: not really in his nature. Well, he does have the
Speaker 1: profile of a gun runner. Might be worth a tip
Speaker 1: to Cyprus. O. No, I love how they've accused him
Speaker 1: by the way of being like this gun runner. The
Speaker 1: guy's like, Nope, no, that's not what I am. But
Speaker 1: when you have what he has on the Biden crime family,
Speaker 1: and then you can come out, thank goodness and tweeted
Speaker 1: out right before you or while you're being arrested and
Speaker 1: before they're trying to extradite you to the US, that's
Speaker 1: kind of an important moment. Thank goodness, that moment actually
Speaker 1: happened where this is what is being said. But this,
Speaker 1: if you're this guy, you would think that the entire
Speaker 1: media would be covering what you just said. Hey, I'm
Speaker 1: being accused of a horrible crime that could take away
Speaker 1: my life, put me in jail for a significant amount
Speaker 1: of my life for something that I never did, all
Speaker 1: because I have information that I tried to expose on
Speaker 1: the Biden crime family and now they're accusing me of
Speaker 1: being a gun runner, and without him going to Twitter
Speaker 1: and be able to say this like, we wouldn't even
Speaker 1: know about this, which is also another part of the problem.
Speaker 1: He's now in this jail in Cyprus. That's also another
Speaker 1: part of the problem. So you put all this together
Speaker 1: and you sit here and you go, all right, So
Speaker 1: was Hunter Biden working for the Chinese? And let's just
Speaker 1: deal with facts, Okay, So let's just back this up
Speaker 1: and go through the facts. Are we one hundred percent
Speaker 1: for sure that Hunter Biden was making money off of
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist government? Yes? Are we a hundred percent
Speaker 1: sure that Hunter Biden was not just making money for
Speaker 1: himself but for at least or other Biden family members
Speaker 1: the answers, Yes, Are we one hundred percent for sure
Speaker 1: that Biden had people in the government that we're helping
Speaker 1: him protect his assets in China? Yes? Are we one
Speaker 1: hundred percent sure that the FBI and the deep state
Speaker 1: tried to silence this story when one of his friends,
Speaker 1: former colleagues business partners, Tony Bobolinski, actually sat down with
Speaker 1: the FBI and told them about the Big guy and
Speaker 1: everything the Biden crime family was doing. Yes, are we
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure that the FBI was clearly compromised,
Speaker 1: and that they actually tried to get the investigation into
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, categorized Okay as a misinformation employ so that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to investigate the Biden family. The answers, yes,
Speaker 1: and are we one hundred percent sure now that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden has been protected by our federal government to protect
Speaker 1: Joe Biden by the deep state? The answer is yes.
Speaker 1: Is there anyone, based on what we know from the
Speaker 1: laptop that should be surprised by the fact that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden was in essence hired to be a spy for
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist government and had moles within our deep
Speaker 1: state the FBI, that we're giving him heads up so
Speaker 1: he could tell his Chinese counterparts that they were under
Speaker 1: an investigation by the United States of America or they
Speaker 1: were being surveyed. There was surveillance by the Chinese Communist government. No,
Speaker 1: this actually makes complete sense to me. I'm not shocked
Speaker 1: by it. We should all be outraged by it, but
Speaker 1: I'm not shocked by it. This is par for the course.
Speaker 1: And why is it that the media is not answering
Speaker 1: or asking questions about this. I want to bring in
Speaker 1: a friend of mine, a guest who has got a
Speaker 1: lot to talk about when it comes to the media
Speaker 1: not covering this Hunter Biden story. Specifically Stephen Crockener. He
Speaker 1: is the author of a new book called Uncovered, and
Speaker 1: it is a phenomenal book that you should get your
Speaker 1: hands on. You can buy it wherever you buy your books.
Speaker 1: The reason why it is a critique of the failure
Speaker 1: specifically of the media. And when I say the failure
Speaker 1: of the media, the failure to cover big stories. Perfect
Speaker 1: example of this is what we just talked about with
Speaker 1: the fact that it looks like basically Hunter Biden was
Speaker 1: a spy for the Chinese Communist government and making getting
Speaker 1: big payments from the Chinese Communist government, and he had
Speaker 1: insiders who were giving him intell from the FBI, and
Speaker 1: the media virtually is silent on this outside of Fox
Speaker 1: NEWSMAC and Conservative talk radio. Stephen, Welcome to Ben Ferguson show.
Speaker 1: It's so nice to have you with us. The timing
Speaker 1: of your book couldn't have been better. And the example
Speaker 1: is this is a massive news story. You and I
Speaker 1: were talking about this during the break. It is huge
Speaker 1: that you have a president's son who apparently had leakers
Speaker 1: or intel or spies, however you want to describe it
Speaker 1: within the FBI, that we're giving him warnings and heads
Speaker 1: up so he could warn the Chinese when they were
Speaker 1: being spied on by the US government or if there
Speaker 1: were investigations open into them. Yeah, it's been I mean, look,
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I think that it is a massive story, and it's
Speaker 1: really it's something that is it's glaring in how the
Speaker 1: corporate press is not covering it, because, let's be honest,
Speaker 1: we now know that the Hunter Biden playbook going forward,
Speaker 1: as these drip drip drip, the stories keep coming out
Speaker 1: about this, we're seeing more and more with the congressional investigations,
Speaker 1: They're getting closer and closer to a truth that I
Speaker 1: think is going to really open a lot of eyes.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden is going to be fighting this, you know,
Speaker 1: talking about lawsuits, wants to sue the repair shop owner. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean it's completely absurd, but I think with really
Speaker 1: key about why the corporate press is not covering this
Speaker 1: story and is not going to be covering the other
Speaker 1: stories that are going to be coming out as much
Speaker 1: as they really should if they had you any objectivity
Speaker 1: in covering what a juicy story. This is about power
Speaker 1: and the coziness between our government officials and our elites
Speaker 1: and others in other countries like China and Uka. The
Speaker 1: reason is, frankly, as I lay out in the first chapter,
Speaker 1: I've uncovered how they covered the laptop originally the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden laptop story. In October of twenty twenty, the New
Speaker 1: York Post breaks the story, and I think it was
Speaker 1: truly one of the worst coverages that we've seen by
Speaker 1: the corporate press, frankly in the entire Trump era, because
Speaker 1: it actually signaled what was to come down the road,
Speaker 1: because instead of just covering it incorrectly, which clearly they did,
Speaker 1: they like you, pretending that it was Russian disinformation. And
Speaker 1: when they covered it at all, we then saw the
Speaker 1: next step, which was the absolute collusion, the sort of
Speaker 1: elite censorship racket between tech platforms, the posiness that they
Speaker 1: had with intel agencies like the FBI and other government
Speaker 1: agencies like we now know now thanks to the Twitter
Speaker 1: files and the corporate media themselves to censor and suppress
Speaker 1: this content to make it unprecedented. The link could not
Speaker 1: be shared to the New York Post story and there
Speaker 1: was not universal outrage in the media on behalf of
Speaker 1: their colleagues at the New York Post. Instead, it was
Speaker 1: the other direction. They were journalists who dared to share
Speaker 1: a link to the New York Post and say, I
Speaker 1: wonder what the sourcing on this or as I wonder
Speaker 1: if the Biden campaign will respond? They were locked out
Speaker 1: of their account, and as I recount through uncovered, they
Speaker 1: then apologized for daring to link to this story. It
Speaker 1: was an embarrassing moment. And then frankly, Ben, that's exactly
Speaker 1: why I think we're not going to get the coverage now,
Speaker 1: because if we did, that would mean that the introspection
Speaker 1: it would take in how they covered it originally, how
Speaker 1: they cover that laptop and the contents of that laptop,
Speaker 1: would be too embarrassing for them to look at, because
Speaker 1: it was very clear that they were not serving the
Speaker 1: purpose of being objective journalists, of having principles. They didn't
Speaker 1: do that in a moment, and I think that if
Speaker 1: they cover it now, it only exposes what they did
Speaker 1: wrong in the first place. You mentioned one aspect of
Speaker 1: this story, and I want to get your take on
Speaker 1: another part of it, and that is if you went
Speaker 1: back ten years, fifteen years. You've been working in media
Speaker 1: as long as I have. We both started this industry
Speaker 1: very young. There was an obligation, even if you were
Speaker 1: a liberal journalist, to cover a story as massive as
Speaker 1: the president was Sun his essence was spying on behalf
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Party, who was paying him for this,
Speaker 1: that would have been covered. Is it fair to say
Speaker 1: that journalism as a whole is completely dead? And now
Speaker 1: it is one hundred percent propaganda, pick aside, And that's
Speaker 1: where we are now, and there's no change in sight.
Speaker 1: Because you also look at the Twitter files, and it
Speaker 1: was clear that there were journalists that were taking orders
Speaker 1: from the Democratic Party, the DNC. They were taking orders
Speaker 1: from Hillary Clinton's campaign, They were taking orders on the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier, they were taking orders from Fusion GPS, and
Speaker 1: they were taking orders to sell a lie to the
Speaker 1: American people. And if you really go back to forget
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's name, I'm just talking about the actual impeachment.
Speaker 1: It was a it was a coup attempt, and the
Speaker 1: media was the ones that were selling and leading the
Speaker 1: coup attempt. I do think look at Benna. I was
Speaker 1: at CNN not too long ago. I know a little
Speaker 1: bit before where you were at that one point. But
Speaker 1: when I was there from twenty ten to twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: that was not that long ago. And there were valid
Speaker 1: criticisms of CNN at the time, for sure, and I
Speaker 1: recount some of those stories in Uncovered in chapter six,
Speaker 1: where I talked about my own experience there, but buying large,
Speaker 1: what I found was that yes, journalists in that news
Speaker 1: that I worked with likely leaned left, They likely voted
Speaker 1: for Democrats when they voted at all. But there is
Speaker 1: still the thought of we need to try to be objective,
Speaker 1: we need we are a rare occupation where we need
Speaker 1: to suppress our personal feelings on behalf of what our
Speaker 1: job description is, which is to give the truth, no
Speaker 1: matter where it leads, serve the audience. That was still
Speaker 1: the goal. But what we saw in subsequent years, beginning
Speaker 1: I think in twenty fourteen, but certainly accelerating during the
Speaker 1: Trump era and thanks to Trump, is that the guardrails
Speaker 1: completely came off and no longer was it about objectivity
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, in the book, I have more
Speaker 1: than two dozen interviews, all of them are on the record.
Speaker 1: One of them which I was very, very transparent and
Speaker 1: very Candid was a former New York Times journalist who
Speaker 1: told me that there are people in the newsroom now,
Speaker 1: younger people who believe that objectivity is akin to white supremacy.
Speaker 1: And when you have people like that, and those people
Speaker 1: can exert real power through social media and through pressure
Speaker 1: of pains, can get their bosses to take actions one
Speaker 1: way or another, those are the kinds of people that
Speaker 1: are controlling the news rooms and controlling the direction of journalism.
Speaker 1: And so, yeah, I think that no longer there's even
Speaker 1: a goal of objectivity in a lot of these cases,
Speaker 1: and that's really concerning. Yeah, the fact that there doesn't
Speaker 1: even seem to be a goal here of objectivity. Another
Speaker 1: example that you talk about, and at one that I
Speaker 1: think it's also very glaring here is you go back
Speaker 1: to the controversy Steve about and again, grab your book.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible book right now that is out. You
Speaker 1: can get it wherever you get your books uncovered. This
Speaker 1: book also talks about some of the bias and the
Speaker 1: fact the other United States Senator Tom Cotton, who wanted
Speaker 1: to write an op ed that was not controversial for
Speaker 1: the New York Times, and the fallout from that moment
Speaker 1: remind people of just how insane that the media. And
Speaker 1: I say the media because they're the ones that lost
Speaker 1: it in the newsroom at the New York Times went yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, but I spend a lot of time covering
Speaker 1: this story in chapter ten of Uncovered, because I think
Speaker 1: it was it was a really pivotal moment and explained
Speaker 1: so much of where journalism is today. So yes, June
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty were imagine this time, we're in the
Speaker 1: height of COVID, the especially people in New York and
Speaker 1: DC newsrooms, like where so many of our selling media
Speaker 1: is based, Like in the New York Times, they are
Speaker 1: lockdown in their own apartments. They're spending way too much
Speaker 1: time on Twitter and watching cable news and not interacting
Speaker 1: with people. And then the Tom Cotton op ed hits,
Speaker 1: which is basically an argument. It was titled Sending the Troops.
Speaker 1: It was an argument to get the military involved when
Speaker 1: there were riots, not in protests, not in peaceful protests,
Speaker 1: but in the riots that were happening as offshoots of
Speaker 1: these social justice protests. After George Floyd. And first of all,
Speaker 1: as I explained Tom Cotton, this was his third time
Speaker 1: writing an OpEd for the New York Times. He was
Speaker 1: he was a regular writer there, but this one really
Speaker 1: took off and it happened. I quote people that were
Speaker 1: in those New York Times meetings, the Zoom meetings, that
Speaker 1: people were crying. There was a description of a writer
Speaker 1: who was crying because he said that his friends wouldn't
Speaker 1: talk to him anymore because he worked for the New
Speaker 1: York Times, which published this horrible out ed and then
Speaker 1: it's spilled out publicly, and a bunch of journalists at
Speaker 1: the New York Times and activists got together and tweeted
Speaker 1: a phrase that was publishing this column puts the lives
Speaker 1: of black New York Times staffers in danger. And it
Speaker 1: was that implication that it was dangerous to publish this
Speaker 1: column that got action from their bosses. They fired the
Speaker 1: opinion editor, James Bennett at the time. There was further
Speaker 1: fallout from it. And what it really shows is a
Speaker 1: couple of things. First of all, they were able to
Speaker 1: see that even at the New York Times, the height
Speaker 1: of journalism in theory, they could get these people could
Speaker 1: get really get action and get someone fired for no
Speaker 1: reason at all. But also it's a fundamental misunderstanding these
Speaker 1: people that believe that publishing words is dangerous, They don't
Speaker 1: belong in journalists, and then yet they are the norm
Speaker 1: now out the exception. And that's we've seen this play
Speaker 1: out in story after stories where in years later that
Speaker 1: there is this fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is supposed
Speaker 1: to be. And these are the people in a lot
Speaker 1: of cases that are controlling these newsrooms. Steve and I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about COVID. We forget just how
Speaker 1: insane the media went on the issue of COVID. We
Speaker 1: know that doctor Fauci was sending emails to silence and
Speaker 1: censor different people that he didn't like. We know that
Speaker 1: Twitter from the Twitter files was getting emails directly from
Speaker 1: our government on things and stories and to take down.
Speaker 1: You look at overall the COVID coverage and the manipulation,
Speaker 1: it is just completely shocking how the media worked as
Speaker 1: a propaganda machine, as a pr machine of doctor Fauci
Speaker 1: and others around him who wanted to lock down and
Speaker 1: shut down and silence anyone that asks basic questions about
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Ra, about Ghana function research, anybody
Speaker 1: that was asking tough questions. They wanted them silence. This
Speaker 1: included elected officials. Yeah, you know, but I I spend
Speaker 1: a lot of time on COVID in my book because
Speaker 1: I actually think that this is a media story as
Speaker 1: much as it is about the medical establishment, about the
Speaker 1: Faucis of the world, because you know, one of the
Speaker 1: people who Fauci specifically censored was doctor j. Bodcaria. I
Speaker 1: speak to him on the record in the book about that.
Speaker 1: It was not just that Fauci and the medical establishment
Speaker 1: censored him, but they worked in concert with places like
Speaker 1: the New York Times and other outlets to spin this
Speaker 1: narrative that they were quacks, that they were dangerous people,
Speaker 1: when really j Ja Bodataria was a Stanford expert medical professor,
Speaker 1: and he understood that in his plan, the Great Barrington
Speaker 1: Declaration was simply about focused protections. Instead of walking down
Speaker 1: the entire country, we need to, you know, target the
Speaker 1: senior citizens and candle that in a different way and
Speaker 1: not so you know, one size fits all. That was
Speaker 1: all he was saying. And he was treated so poorly
Speaker 1: by the media because they were being spun by the
Speaker 1: Faucies of the world. And I think it's such an
Speaker 1: important example because Frankly Bennett, I don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of hope for the corporate media getting better anytime soon.
Speaker 1: So what I try to do and uncovered is arm
Speaker 1: the readers with the tools they need to sniff out
Speaker 1: when the press is lying or misleading them. And I
Speaker 1: think that the COVID lab link theory, which you mentioned
Speaker 1: is one a good example of this, because here you
Speaker 1: have a case from the very beginning you have to
Speaker 1: at the bare minimum, there was evidence on both sides there.
Speaker 1: It could have been the lab leak, it could have
Speaker 1: been natural origin. But but what was interesting was one
Speaker 1: side was saying the other side was dangerous, that the
Speaker 1: Lableak theory was this dangerous piece of disinformation and racist.
Speaker 1: And what does that tell us? And I quote Nate
Speaker 1: Silver of ABC in the book, who says that when
Speaker 1: you have an argument and this applies beyond just the
Speaker 1: lableak theory, and there's evidence on both sides, and there's
Speaker 1: experts on both sides, but only one side is concerned
Speaker 1: with policing the discourse, concerned with shutting the other side up.
Speaker 1: That's the side you need to be skeptical, and that's
Speaker 1: the side that's usually wrong. And I think we see
Speaker 1: this in so many examples in the media, and certainly
Speaker 1: did with COVID. When you see Fauci and also the
Speaker 1: way that he was working behind the scenes, there had
Speaker 1: to be a whole other level of comfort from him
Speaker 1: and others that and I would argue they didn't just
Speaker 1: learn this during COVID. They had been doing this and
Speaker 1: communicating behind the scenes where there's barely any difference between
Speaker 1: the media in DC and the elected officials in DC.
Speaker 1: This wasn't their first time to basically send these backdoor
Speaker 1: messages and what to cover, what to not cover, what
Speaker 1: to silence. This was part of their game plan the
Speaker 1: entire time, and they've been doing it for years. They have,
Speaker 1: and I think one of the great I have to
Speaker 1: say benefits of Twitter, because I actually think Twitter is
Speaker 1: disastrous for the corporate medium. It's one of the five
Speaker 1: big problems and that I lay out and uncovered. But
Speaker 1: I think it's good for the public because what it
Speaker 1: does is it pulls back the curtain. The veil is
Speaker 1: now off now because the media, the corporate press, is
Speaker 1: one of the few occupations that streets Twitter like it's
Speaker 1: their diary, and yet it's all public. We can all
Speaker 1: see it, and for the first time, you can actually
Speaker 1: begin to understand how these narratives are built. You see
Speaker 1: the sausage and how it's made. You see even there
Speaker 1: might be good journalism being done, but then it's undermined
Speaker 1: by the people themselves, who then spill their opinions on
Speaker 1: all sorts of topics on social media for the world
Speaker 1: to see. And I think it's a really valuable service. Look,
Speaker 1: two percent of adult Americans send out ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the tweets when it comes to news and politics. That is,
Speaker 1: it's so unrepresentable. It is just a bubble. But it
Speaker 1: is important because it's what the press uses to talk
Speaker 1: to each other. And now we can actually see it,
Speaker 1: we can actually see all of the propaganda being made
Speaker 1: as it's happening. Last day, I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about TikTok. We've seen the CEO of TikTok basically admit
Speaker 1: that China is spying on everyone that has this app
Speaker 1: on the phone. Half of Americans apparently have the TikTok
Speaker 1: app on their phone. Democrats are still out defending it, saying, well,
Speaker 1: this is no different than Facebook on your phone. That's
Speaker 1: actually not true at all. Why do you, I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at this even Jimmy Kimmel got this wrong
Speaker 1: on his show, and I played this earlier. Jimmy Kimmel
Speaker 1: was laughing about TikTok spying on you, and I was
Speaker 1: sitting there just scratching my head. I'm like, you don't
Speaker 1: get it. They realize that a social media app was
Speaker 1: the drug that they needed to get you addicted to,
Speaker 1: and the dopamine that you get from watching videos was
Speaker 1: what they needed, right, was what and they figured it
Speaker 1: out early on. This is a once in a lifetime
Speaker 1: opportunity to masquerade a app, social media app for spying purposes,
Speaker 1: and it worked. We also know that China has come
Speaker 1: out since the hearing saying we will not allow for
Speaker 1: TikTok to be sold to an American company. So if
Speaker 1: you don't think that Chinese communist government is running TikTok,
Speaker 1: you're an idiot. And you look at this, and yet
Speaker 1: Democrats are still out there defending TikTok, saying, oh, it's fine,
Speaker 1: Oh people are overreacting. Oh it's really not that big
Speaker 1: of a deal. Yeah. I think this is a This
Speaker 1: is a key example because, as you mentioned, it's not
Speaker 1: just Democrats but also a Washington Post tech reporter who
Speaker 1: apparently is having lunch with the CEO of TikTok and
Speaker 1: then on social media is essentially acting as their publicist,
Speaker 1: and yet he's treated like he's an objective reporter. What's
Speaker 1: happening here, Well, it really relates to one of the
Speaker 1: more nuanced biases that we see in the media that
Speaker 1: I write about and uncovered. It's not just ideological, it's
Speaker 1: also a response mechanism. A lot of times the people
Speaker 1: that are ideologues. And again this is not most of
Speaker 1: the country, even people on the left. In most of
Speaker 1: the country and Texas where I am and you are,
Speaker 1: people are not ideological in that way. So but in
Speaker 1: the corporate press they are. And what happens is a
Speaker 1: story is being is bubbling up in right wing media.
Speaker 1: The story is bubbling up among Republicans and Congress and
Speaker 1: is an instant reaction. They just go the other way,
Speaker 1: depends them, just goes the other way with it with
Speaker 1: an instinctual it's not they don't even think about it,
Speaker 1: and they treat the one side as if it's toxic
Speaker 1: and contaminated. And I lay this out in so many
Speaker 1: examples in the book, and I think this is a
Speaker 1: very clear case of that here. If you step back
Speaker 1: and you really think about it, why is the left
Speaker 1: against this concept that TikTok is spying on us and
Speaker 1: that China's in bup and we need to look out
Speaker 1: for our kids. This is just genuine, normal conversation and
Speaker 1: it makes sense to any rational persons. But as an
Speaker 1: instant reaction from the corporate press, from the Democrats in Congress,
Speaker 1: this is what we get and it doesn't serve the
Speaker 1: audience because of course they want a nuanced discussion about it,
Speaker 1: and they are not getting it. Yeah, they're definitely not
Speaker 1: getting it. As you said, the book, it's great uncovered.
Speaker 1: Get it wherever you get your books. Stephen Cracker, I
Speaker 1: appreciate you coming on. Congrats on writing this and it's
Speaker 1: a lot of good intel in there. Grab a copy
Speaker 1: of it today and we'll have you back against sin
Speaker 1: brother hey man, thanks so much, appreciate it. Don't forget
Speaker 1: to share our podcasts with your family and friends so
Speaker 1: more people can hear what we're exposing for you. Also,
Speaker 1: please write us a five star review. It helps us
Speaker 1: reach a new audience and we'll see you back here tomorrow.