Jason Hartman starts off with a discussion on the topic of real estate interest: the lack of homes available to homebuyers with a price point below $250,000.
Jason brings on Sharyl Attkisson, host of Sinclair Sundays, former CBS anchor and author of Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington. They talk about today’s atmosphere of fake news, online bullying and defamation, and how we can possibly combat them.
Investor 0:00
I really need to thank you and Sarah for being there for me, you guys could have easily said, This isn’t my problem. This is your problem. Your lack of due diligence is entirely your fault. And not done anything at all. But you guys have been there for me every step of the way. You responded on voxer at 342 in the morning, I know, it might have been 642 depending on where you were, but honestly, who works at that time. So just the fact that you guys were there for me. I appreciate it so much.
Announcer 0:31
Welcome to the creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You’re about to learn a new slant on investing some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world’s most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self made multi millionaire who’s actually been there and done it. He’s a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who’s owned properties and 11 states had hundreds of tenants and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason’s footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it. And now here’s your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.
Jason Hartman 1:22
Hey, welcome to Episode 13 21,320. Thanks for joining me today. I always appreciate having you listen to all of our episodes. And today of course, it is a 10th episode show. So we’re going to go off topic and discuss something of general interest. And this one might make some of you a little bit agitated. So stick with it. We we are known for pushing the bounds on this show and discussing some controversial things. Some of you will love it. Some of you will hate it and we’ll have our guests get to that in just a Amen. But first, I have got some great news for you. Are you ready for your great news? I mean, it is fantabulous news for you. All right, I just saw an article this morning, entitled, and it’s something I’ve been saying for years that this is coming. And clearly it is. Here is the title. What do you think? and How good does this make you feel? It makes you feel fantastic about your investments if you’ve been following my plan, because guess what, you have something that is going extinct. It’s like being in Jurassic Park and having an extinct species that is incredibly valuable, valuable because of its rarity, right? Things have value. Two main drivers of value that I’ve always taught you, things are valuable because of scarcity. And because of utility. Now, something could be scarce, but just because it’s scarce, it may not necessarily have any real value to anyone, right. It has to have some utility along with its scarcity, or it might be abundant and have lots of value. For example, oil is much more abundant than some would say. And certainly more abundant than the mouth. Susan’s in the 1970s were saying when they were talking about peak oil, the sky is falling peak oil, we’re going to run out of oil, you know, in the 1800s, they thought the world would go dark because whale blubber was scarce, you know, that was the oil used to light the lamps and the streetlights. Well, that wasn’t much of a problem was that it wasn’t much of a problem. So you always get these Malthusian idiots that don’t understand that there’s innovation, right that there’s innovation. But when you get into an area that’s hard to innovate for when it’s just atoms when it’s material, material sciences, especially something as primitive as shelter, that’s hard to disrupt and, you know, we’ve talked a few weeks ago when Hey, Chris Porter from john burns real estate consulting on the show, we talked about how the biggest innovation in construction was the nail gun, the nail gun, right? Just not that big an innovation at all. But a hard to disrupt industry is what we’re in. And because we’re supplying the atoms, not just the bits and the bytes, the information, we’re using that to leverage the power of our investments, but we are supplying a material thing. And that material thing is very hard to duplicate. So the article is entitled, no more suspense. The article is entitled, our homes under 250,000 nearing extinction, our homes under 250,000 nearing extinction, what this could mean for homebuyers under 35. And it talks about how in the third quarter of 2019, there were only 550,000 vacant homes, on the market that were priced. Under 250,000. Now, when you look at a housing market as big as the United States, that’s, you know, that’s pretty small number, right? That’s, in fact, the article says, That’s half as many as there were just seven years ago, half as many vacant properties. And what that means is properties for sale. Why they don’t say that, but I’m assuming they’re mostly talking about properties for sale in that price range. So half as many as there were just seven years ago. The article goes on to say, capital economics, the name of the company, attributes part of this to lower housing inventory. De Okay, Einstein didn’t have to be a genius to figure that one out. But hey, you know, they don’t know who’s reading their articles, so they have to explain it right. Overall, the number of vacant single family homes for sale has dropped 25% in the last seven years. Now, here’s what this article doesn’t tell you. By the way, I hope you’re reading between the lines, because it’s not talking about the velocity of Those homes turning over. It’s just saying, here’s a snapshot in time. Here’s how many are vacant back then. And right now, it’s not talking about the velocity. So the same vacant homes might not exist in three weeks, right or might not exist next week. So it doesn’t address that. And that would be a sign to consider as to understanding the dynamics of what’s going on here. Right. But the point is, the point is that as the millennials are entering the housing market for rent or for purchase, and Gen Z Generation Z that we’ve talked about, is now even joining the housing market. The lack of affordable homes, is hampering their home buying prospects, and both generations are taking on historical amounts of student loan debt. Increasing home prices are not a welcome reality. Well, guess what? Congratulations. Because you probably if you’ve been listening to me, you probably own a lot of those homes that are under 250,000. And they still have lots of utility maybe more than ever, maybe more than ever given the demographics. And they also have definite, obvious scarcity, right? The two big value drivers utility and scarcity. Congratulations investors. If you want to try and and pick up the last remaining homes under 250,000. Go to Jason Hartman, calm, reach out to one of our investment counselors, and make sure we are helping you find them because Wow, wow, it’s a pretty good thing for investors that have been following my plan. That’s Jason hartman.com. And I got to get back into my mastermind meeting. I’m still here in Sarasota, Florida, and one of our venture Alliance members, Jeff is going to come down and join us for a little while and sit in on this mastermind meeting. hearing a lot of pitches, a lot of investment pitches, some not to sound Talk about them later. But that’s it for now. We gotta go to our guests and I gotta get back to my meeting. So here is our 10th episode show guest topic of general interest.
Jason Hartman 8:14
It’s my pleasure to welcome Sharyl Attkisson. She is host of sinclairs Sunday’s TV program full measure. She’s a five time Emmy Award winner, former correspondent and anchor at CBS News, PBS and CNN. She’s a New York Times bestselling author of stonewalled my fight for truth against the forces of obstruction, intimidation, and harassment in Obama’s Washington in the smear how shady political operatives and fake news control what you see what you think and how you vote. Cheryl, welcome. How are you?
Sharyl Attikisson 8:48
I’m great. Thank you for having me. It’s good to have you on the show.
Jason Hartman 8:51
You know, I call cyberbullying trolling, defamation. This is the crime of our time and gets a lot of attention when it comes to children at school and that kind of thing. But it really doesn’t get much attention or play when an adult is the victim. And you have certainly had your share of this, unfortunately, I’m sorry to hear that. Tell us about some of the things that have happened to you, if you would, let’s get into any any possible solutions or remedies one might have as well.
Sharyl Attikisson 9:23
Well, on the level of bullying, I guess it’s you’re referring to. There are organized campaigns now that understand how to use social media to stop either to further a narrative or stop a line of factual reporting. And this has been going on for probably 15 years, it’s gotten more and more sophisticated. I wrote about this in the smear. I spoke to some of the smear operators that do this for a living. And you’d be surprised how in the words of one smear artists he said, you can start an entire movement with a handful of Twitter accounts, fake Twitter accounts at 147 characters. That’s pretty scary. No, yeah, they know how to put the full force of social media to give the appearance. I call it astroturf, that there’s widespread support or opposition to something where there may not be. But it picks up steam on the internet and social media, you get bullied and shut down. And if your bosses don’t know better, and you work in the media, they kind of are subjected to it and don’t understand what’s going on. They just say why, look, everybody’s criticizing us. And they don’t understand the nature of the organized nature of this.
Jason Hartman 10:30
Right, right. Well, who are these smear artists? I mean, can you place an ad on a job posting board for smear artists? Are they PR people? Are they social media people? Are they just disgruntled people who are sitting in a basement eating pizza? Are they are they Russians?
Sharyl Attikisson 10:48
Well, I think a bit of a bit of all of it. When these narratives take hold, there are disgruntled people in the basement that run with them. Maybe they don’t even know you know where the origin came from, but the ones behind it. These are public relations firms. A lot of times it’ll be called crisis management, or some sort of emergency management. They are global law firms that have employees that do this LLC, nonprofit, blogs, super PACs is all kinds of groups I talked about in the smear that do this sort of work. It’s a multibillion dollar industry. Now, it’s very Washington centric. That’s not all here, but it’s Washington centric. And you know, once you start looking into it, you can start seeing it everywhere. And now I’m at the point where I see a narrative on the news or TV and I know, that was started or generated to a rather sophisticated or organized effort of talking points and narratives and people who are trained and disseminated and using nonprofit to make it look like this is coming organically from real people.
Jason Hartman 11:48
It’s fascinating. It’s the ultimate era propaganda, isn’t it? I mean, we you know, when we were kids, we were in school, and we used to hear about how the Soviet Union during the Cold War US propaganda, right? There’s that North Korean movie, which is actually pretty interesting. I think it was pro North Korea, but it was about it’s called propaganda. I don’t know if you saw that. I heard about it. Yeah. It’s pretty fascinating, actually. Are we in an era Cheryl, where people have become more gullible? Or are they seeing that a lot of this stuff is fake. And, you know, even if it’s a micro scale in one person’s life, I mean, I’ve certainly been a victim of trolling by competitors that are trying to steal my business. It’s just terrible. And, you know, you don’t get the chance to explain you don’t get the chance. You don’t get your day in court. You never get to face your accuser, because these are anonymous drive by shootings, you know, on the internet. And of course, you know, thankfully, I’ve now become very skilled with working with cyber investigators and things like that. And you really can get these people most of the time because they’re always going to leave some fingerprints. But again, then what do you do you go to court? It’s just a very difficult thing. You know, some I’m just wondering like, if life in this vein is is better with the internet, or maybe it’s a lot worse, in the old days, if someone was smearing you, you could probably find out who it is. And you could go and face your accuser nowadays. Not so much, right?
Sharyl Attikisson 13:22
Well, yeah, in the old days, I mean, one of the first things I learned in journalism school was when someone brings you a press release or a narrative or talking points. That’s propaganda. That’s what they want to report. And that’s not what you ever report or hardly ever report. Now, there may be nuggets of newsworthy information in there. But it’s it’s one bit of it and you have to go out as a reporter, if you think it’s an interesting story, and find the facts, but too often Now, the reason I think there’s more of this than ever, we haven’t put that firewall up. We now take this stuff and put it on TV. We made it easy to smear people and easy to disseminate that process. Canada and they know it, you know how to get in through it when I first came to Washington and I would see as a reporter at CBS, wow, New York Times Washington Post gets all these scoops, you know, some official told them X, Y and Z, I came to real life. You know, they do some very good in depth reporting as well, right. But a lot of those things we thought of his scoops were just disseminating propaganda, because a government official knew who they could call and they put it on the front page. And instead of saying, Wait a minute, exactly what the government wants us to think now, what’s the truth? Maybe it’s there, maybe it’s not but let’s look at that instead of just vomiting it out without any critical reporting,
Jason Hartman 14:37
no question about it. And you know, what’s really scary about that is the way the media gets to report things. Now, look, we need a free press. We need reporter shield laws. You know, we need the First Amendment so that you can get anonymous sources, but even a publication is credible, in my opinion, is the Wall Street Journal. You know, they constantly say things like, you know, a source close to the matter sad, or, you know, where’s the accountability here? If you don’t have to name any names ever, people familiar with the subject say,
Sharyl Attikisson 15:14
you know, I could be your neighbor. I know.
Jason Hartman 15:17
Yeah, it’s just meaningless, right? And a reporter doesn’t even have to tell anybody at their own organization who this sources they can keep it 100% of themselves. How do we reconcile that and have a free press at the same time, a free but credible press?
Sharyl Attikisson 15:33
Well, I think there’s a problem there because I’m certainly not for clamping down on, you know, our freedom to operate. But I also like you see that we’ve many of us have done it irresponsibly, the use of anonymous sources I mean, we have pretty strict rules, but all my stories that were of any note, investigative wise, I put through lawyers at CBS and I do at my current job full measure, voluntarily. No one makes me do that. That’s just what I do for my protection and they go through the list of questions of what we should be asked and how we can support this and that that exercise apparently doesn’t exist in most places for most stories because most reporting it on these types of things wouldn’t have been allowed or approved or checkmark by the Warriors ideal with nor should have it been, because of the reasons you explain. I mean, our rule was, sometimes you do have to use anonymous sources, but it’s rare. It’s a last resort. It should be I use them mostly just to confirm other reporting or the lead me somewhere. I try not to use them much in my actual stories, they lead me to somebody who can then go on camera, the knowledge or the inflammation leads me elsewhere. And then when we use them, we’re supposed to describe with as much specificity as possible. Number one, why we can’t name them. And number two, how they’re related to the issue. So the people at home can decide whether they’re conflicted. They have a right to know is this a disgruntled former employee, you know, just some tidbit of information to help wait What you’re telling them and instead I’ve seen the most well reputed formerly well reputed news organizations just tossing out one charge after the other unverified or they themselves say about Trump with no evidence, right, making claims based on anonymous sources and being wrong. And again,
Jason Hartman 17:17
it even gets worse than that everything has become such an agenda. Now Cheryl, you know, when you look at Jeff Bezos, who you know, after he purchased the last Washington Post, I mean, he literally assigned a group of some 20 odd reporters to go after Trump. I mean, it was like a known thing.
Sharyl Attikisson 17:38
I mean, I say most of these organizations I know did a version of that, including my alma mater, CBS, I mean, they had teams they started putting out notes. Here’s how you can contact me confidentially. If you have insight information on the Trump administration. I mean, not that there’s anything wrong with getting stories, but they suddenly got this shot of investigative vigor Suddenly in 2016, and particularly after Trump was elected that they didn’t seem to have prior to that. I know.
Jason Hartman 18:07
It’s something else here. It really is. Is there anything else that we can do about it? I mean, see, in the old days of media, reporters and anchors and so forth, they really had it, at least they seem to have like a real sort of reputation that they were concerned about. Nowadays. Everybody’s in the media business. You know, we’re all little mini publishers and PR firms, even on Facebook, right, with our own small group of friends. Should there be some criteria to be in the media? Should there be a license? I would hope not, but it makes you question. No,
Sharyl Attikisson 18:43
I don’t think so. Because actually, some of the good reporting that the so called mainstream media that would have licenses will not do is being done by outside sources. Yes, raised by outside so at least we have that. I think, you know, I fought long and hard about things you could do and none of them. I don’t know where to go with. But one of them is, we should voluntarily have sort of a criteria or station that we say we subscribe to certain standards. And then we get a checkmark on the organization of the news program. If we do it no check mark, if we don’t like what I just said about anonymous sources to be used rarely. And if they are us, we try to do X, Y, and Z certain tenets. Problem is the people that make judgments, the people that stepped in to do fact checking media literacy, deciding who’s right and wrong, they’re conflicted themselves and many of their some of the conflicted players telling everybody else well, this stuff’s true. And your stuff isn’t when in fact, it’s a matter of dispute. So I’m worried when we start talking about third parties intervening in any way.
Jason Hartman 19:47
No, I agree. Look at Snopes. I believe you did a an article on your blog about it. You know, everybody used to consider that to be a credible News veter. But it was discovered that that was, you know, snow had its own agenda, right? Everybody’s got an agenda nowadays, in media just regardless of what side of the aisle anybody listening is on. It always leans to the left. It just does. That’s the type of person generally that I think gets into media. You know, not not completely, of course, but by and large, I mean, am I wrong on
Sharyl Attikisson 20:23
that? I don’t think you’re wrong. I mean, that’s been my experience looking back. But I also would say that for a lot of my career, that wasn’t an issue. Because if you’re trained properly, you suspend your personal opinions. You try to see things from different sides. I work really hard almost every day to do that. And it took me some time to understand I wasn’t always doing that coming from, you know, liberal education, but I had a fair background and fair mind. And I really started to think critically about things people were accepting without supporting evidence. Why did we as journalists, I remember my first job, we all hated the Republican Congress, local con But we like the Democrats. And I didn’t know why. Because I don’t even know the difference between Democrats and Republicans. And I remember walking around the office asking, well, what’s the difference? And why do we like Maggie her challa. So we don’t like this guy. And I started thinking about these ways we report and the unintentional bias. But again, I think it worked for many years. And in many instances, I worked at CNN and PBS and local news and CBS and there was a lot of great fair reporting done. But now it’s almost as if the green light has been given for people’s own biases to come out. We used to be discouraged from bringing that out in the story, and now we’re rewarded for it. So you suddenly see all of that coming out.
Jason Hartman 21:39
Where are we going with this? What are we going to do?
Sharyl Attikisson 21:41
I think fewer and fewer people are believing it. I mean, I still think a lot of people do because they don’t pay close attention. But among those who do pay attention, I say that’s how Donald Trump got elected because, as you know, Hillary Clinton spent far more money there was far more positive media coverage on hillary Trump and far more positive social media on her and lots against him. How did he win unless there were a substantial number of people that have tuned this out and understood the nature, the manipulated nature of what we see online? So I think that’s number one. Number two, as they since this those who try to control the narrative, they’re further trying to control what we see that’s these efforts to do media literacy and teach fake news in school, what they’re trying to teach kids. And some instances are. Well, if you see it in the New York Times, that’s good, but don’t believe that stuff you don’t see elsewhere. And these Google searches shouldn’t return these outlying studies and information and websites, because we’ve decided that’s not true. It’s a way to further narrow information to curate it for us in a way that’s conflicted. And I think we’re going to see more and more of that.
Jason Hartman 22:49
Yeah. So the media is is really their own worst enemy because they’re just losing credibility,
Sharyl Attikisson 22:54
aren’t they? They are. But I think again, I talked about this in the smear. It’s not As it happened by accident, real journalists didn’t want to see this happen. But it’s slowly we allowed it to happen. And I spoke to the lawyers at CBS, you know, 1015 years ago when I would see these organized efforts against our stories by big global firms, law firms, and so on before and after they aired behind the scenes. And I said, you know, we need to have something in place that fights back against this propaganda effort. All we’re doing is reacting. And we’re too busy covering the news to come up with a strategy plan, but they’re spending billions of dollars on their strategy plans. And we just never did have one. So what they did meaning the people that want to advance their narratives, they got their personnel trained, they got them hired inside the media, they got them hired as pundants where they’re allowed access to newsrooms. They’re invited on every day. They found all kinds of ways to get their nose into the tent and now you know, when they make mistakes, so the news is bias to the reputation is hurt. They don’t care. These people aren’t journalist at heart. They’re propagandists, and they’re happy to have their side of the story out there. Enough later, there’s some crossover being incorrect says they’re not journalists. Hmm,
Jason Hartman 24:04
yeah. It’s a crazy time. You know what concerns me maybe more than anything is the big tech platforms, whether it be Twitter, Facebook, Google, probably the scariest company on earth is Google. I’d say second scariest is Facebook, the way they are sorting news. And maybe I’ve been completely out of the loop here, but I really never heard the term used to any degree, any real degree, the term fake news, until the morning after Trump was elected. Suddenly, there was this giant concern from Google and Facebook about fake news. And, you know, who’s to decide how can anybody or any algorithm or any AI decide what is real and fake? It’s just impossible. And when you see the way these platforms have shut down people. And I’m not even saying I agree with these people just understand that I just, it’s like that old quote, maybe it was Voltaire. You know, I, I don’t know, maybe it wasn’t Voltaire, but whoever, who said, You know, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death, your you know, to protect your right to say it,
Sharyl Attikisson 25:17
right. Agreed. Yeah,
Jason Hartman 25:19
yeah. And so these platforms, these tech companies with where nobody has any recourse or literally revising the First Amendment. Yeah, it’s insane what they’re doing the way they kicked alex jones off the payment platforms, PayPal, you know, Facebook, Google, Twitter. I mean, they destroy people’s businesses because they can control what you it’s not what you see necessarily. It’s what you don’t see. Right? You just make sure you’ll become irrelevant. They can make you relevant. click of a mouse.
Sharyl Attikisson 25:51
Right. Think about that. And you know, you stated this is obvious, but the one reason things can’t be arbitrated. First of all, they’re being arbitrated the facts. arbitrated by conflicted players who wants you to think a certain thing, number one, number two factor in disputes and opinions are in dispute. Right now, there’s a huge movement to make sure nobody knows about the link between vaccines and autism. Even though the government’s own chief scientist, who was defending vaccines in court, he’s very pro vaccine, claims that he told the government years ago, there was a link and they covered it up. Well, you know, under the rules of Google and Facebook, they’ll just say, That’s not true right now, which isn’t true, but they’ll say that’s not true. That won’t show up on any search. If you look for it, his information knows no studies will be there, because they’re going to prematurely and incorrectly determine that that’s not true. And that’s what scares me.
Jason Hartman 26:43
So scary. You know, YouTube, I just saw you know, Prager University. Dennis preggers group is suing Google and YouTube but you know, same company, obviously. Let’s hope they get somewhere. I don’t know if they will, though, the way the laws are written with the communications decency act, and so forth. This is just it’s an uphill battle. But YouTube, I just saw an article the other day that said they’re going to stop indexing, conspiracy theories and search results. Well,
Sharyl Attikisson 27:12
do you know that? Yeah, here’s the theory. And secondly, I write about this and conspiracy theories are often true, by the way,
Jason Hartman 27:21
mostly are afraid.
Sharyl Attikisson 27:23
The phrase conspiracy theories and controversial lies that started with the CIA, after the Kennedy assassination. This is well documented. Many things are conspiracies. I mean, Bonnie and Clyde was a conspiracy. ISIS is a conspiracy. The mob is
Jason Hartman 27:37
running. Let me give you let me let me add to your conspiracy list. The United States of America was a conspiracy against Britain. I mean, what someone reported on that in 1776 This is insane.
Sharyl Attikisson 27:51
Right here, you
Jason Hartman 27:52
know, I know it’s, it’s it’s absolutely crazy. What I think needs to happen with these tech companies who really scare me more than The mainstream media is they need to make their algorithms public and open source so everybody can see why the results are the way they are in those search results, or they need to be regulated like utility companies, or they need to be busted up under antitrust laws. And let’s hope either one, two, or all three of those things happen, because these companies are larger than many governments. And you can say, the stupid libertarian thing that I’ll always hear. And by the way, I consider myself to be somewhat of a libertarian, but it’ll be well just don’t use Facebook, just don’t use Google. That’s like saying, don’t use the phone company. It’s, it’s an absurd comment, right? You have to use those things. They’ve crowded everybody out. And so there is no other option. These companies are way too big. They need to be split up into smaller parts of the way to at&t was split up. There needs to be transparency and why the results the search results are the way they are.
Sharyl Attikisson 28:56
It’s absolutely here’s what here’s my two thoughts on that. I think that People want their information curated, you should be able to check a box, let them do it. No, I don’t think they should do it automatically that or default you into that. And secondly, one reason I don’t think they’re going to be broken up, you have to think like two layers past. So the government wields a great deal of control. And I don’t mean a single politician, I just mean in general, those who want to control the narrative, they control that by allowing Facebook to exist, they may press and complain about it, but they can threaten Facebook and therefore makes Facebook develop these algorithms that are favorable to the position they want to take. And then they have control over the information. So sort of a one hand washes the other and I don’t think the government wants to regulate them or make them you know, look like the monopoly that has to be broken up because then the power brokers lose their control over these major companies. Well, that’s true, but they made this up. It’s like the schools you know, the schools have become brainwashing institutions. The universities have become brainwashing Institute In the tech companies have become brainwashing institutions. And it would seem if anybody is willing to tackle this, it would seem like the Trump administration is. It’s just
Jason Hartman 30:11
Yeah, I know. It’s centralized power. I agree with you. I’m not saying it’s likely to happen. But I’m just saying that’s to happen. Something needs to happen. The idea, think about it, Cheryl, the idea that you could be on the telephone and have a conversation on the phone, and the phone company would say to you, we don’t like what we’re talking about, we’re not going to provide service to you. They cannot do that because they are utility and utilities are regulated. And I’m no big fan of regulation. Okay. But they can’t do that. They can’t turn off alex jones or whomever. Right? Because their utilities, their infrastructure, and everybody has a right to access them. They just have to pay the fee. Right and here we’ll pay in with our information. Obviously, something has got to change. I think that’s the tech companies are the biggest The issue of the mall, you know
Sharyl Attikisson 31:02
what I urge your listeners to visit gab calm which has been smeared and falsely portrayed as some sort of white supremacist Twitter alternative when in fact it was a Silicon Valley guy that supported Trump that was shut out by social media and attacked and decided start his own platform. And there are people that actually start fake accounts on there to make it look like a big place for white supremacy. Yeah, you can you can tune anything out just like Twitter. You can block it you can shape it so you not to say anything hateful and you can shape it you know accordingly and they censor nothing except that which is illegal. They will not take your political speech. Even if this tasteful on either side. You the user censor it out, but they don’t do it for you. Well, they have been knocked off, you know of the app, you can’t get on iTunes, their service provider cancelled them, their host canceled them. I mean, they’ve been so controversial eyes and they’re just sticking in there and really trying hard to make a go of it. Every large company in the government being against them and the smear campaign being used against them but I would urge your listeners to check it out gap calm Yeah, thanks I’m looking at it now. Would you join with your own mamaan dab calm your own username your real name or
Jason Hartman 32:16
Yeah, just kind of curious yeah good stuff. Well Cheryl give out your website and tell people where they can find your work and then also tell them about that recent article you have that’s been widely circulated.
Sharyl Attikisson 32:29
Thank you Well, Sharyl Attkisson calm, even if you misspell it it should come up in a search theoretically for now. Anyway, Sharyl Attkisson calm. And the popular article I was there plenty of lists of all of Donald Trump’s back errors. But we were making so many in the media and nobody was resting sort of like it was a one way street. So I started compiling some of the big errors in what I call media mistakes in the Trump era. All of them so far have been made in his disfavor. In other words, it starts to look like more And just honest mistakes when all of them are made against him. And I started with 50 I think I’m up to 69. I try to add to it when I can. So if you look through search under media mistakes, you’ll find that article and then full measure news is my independent TV program on Sundays but you can see replays there anytime we try to cover the stuff no one else is covering because all they do is cover Washington and Donald Trump 24 seven, there’s really a lot of other stuff going on in the world. And we try to be like more like the old fashion news stations used to be and bring some of that to you. Excellent.
Jason Hartman 33:32
Cheryl, thanks for joining us today. really fascinating interview and keep up the good work. Thanks a lot for having me. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website heart and Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.