this is really interesting, but also not really sir.
Amazing because when we watch presidential debates, including the recent Democratic primary
debates on NBC and CNN respectively, the obvious realization that anyone who watches should
come to, if they're paying attention, is that there are narratives that the networks are
deliberately pushing. There are storylines that the networks and their moderators will
just crow bar into the debates and the networks are not playing sort of a bystander role of
just facilitating the debate as moderators, as the term moderator would suggest, they're
active, they're writing the storyline. And before the CNN debate, I believe it was, there
were all sorts of teasers and promos on social media and on, on CNS website about will Beto
confront p Buddha judge or vice versa about something. And it was just such a completely
fabricated and bogus narrative suggesting that the big thing everyone's looking forward
to is what's going to happen when Beto and booted judge square off.
That was a totally fabricated narrative. Like no one cared about that. But it was a storyline
created by corporate media. And the network clearly goes in with a plan. This is not just
CNN, uh, to create confrontations. They set up candidates to respond directly to often
inaccurately framed quotes from other candidates. They try to force disagreement, they try to
get someone to attack somebody else. And it's so obvious and it's so brazen that it's actually
pathetic if you understand what's going on. They reinforce the polling by giving the people
who are leading more time to talk and in a sense I understand that, but it becomes very
transparently a a sensational when you realize that they basically reinforce the polling
in terms of speaking time, except if there is a storyline that they want to push that
benefits from giving a lower polling candidate more air time. For example, if a lower polling
candidate goes in and is just aggressively attacking others, that's going to get them
more speaking time than their polling might suggest because it's all sensationalized.
Okay? That's the setup. So Andrew Yang was on the age three podcast the other day and
straight up said it's even more rigged than we thought. And honestly, there's no reason
to question this whatsoever because it makes perfect sense. It confirms what seems pretty
obvious when you watch the debates. Take a look at this.
You know, one thing I'll share with you all is that some of the campaigns are in touch
with the TV network ahead of time to talk about what sort of attack they want to love
on the stage. They're like an attack on a [inaudible]. Yes. This question would be,
would play really well or yes, the campaign says, Hey, um, we're going to make this attack
against Biden and then the network goes, okay, like we get it and then they helped create
that opportunity. What a nightmare. I mean, what a farce. Yeah. It's, it's quite a disaster.
And I want to share with you the perspective. It's like I'm, I think like a lay person who
happens to find themself on the presidential debate stage being like, what the hell? Like
why have you know what's happening? I've gotten on this conference call.
Yeah. So this is just not surprising. I mean, the, how many problems are there with the
debates that we've talked about? Problem number one, the format just doesn't let us learn
anything about what the candidates really would do. Important policy questions are expected
to be answered in 30 seconds. Uh, sometimes rebutted in 15 seconds. It's laughable and
the problem is lot of people can sound okay in 30 seconds, but really no nothing in depth.
So it's actually a disservice to figuring out who knows what they're talking about.
Second problem, there are too many candidates that will get solved soon. That's not really
CNN or NBC fault that that's just a problem that's going to be solved soon. Problem number
three, the debates are, as Andrew Yang Assange rigged to set up candidates for attacks or
kill shots at the expense of substantive debate. Number four, as you know, I've talked about
debates need to be public domain.
Okay, we're picking the president or who is going to run for president. These cannot be
for profit events to be monopolized by one network. This hurts us as you know, we wanted
to do commentary on the CNN debate. They shut us down on Youtube. They gave us a copyright
strike, their VP of who knows what was attacking me on Twitter. So that's bad, but it also
allows the networks to turn it into a boxing match effectively rather than an impo important
public service. And this is not just the networks, obviously the networks are going to do it,
but the DNC, the RNC, the commission on presidential debates, they could all say we are not going
to be complicit. We will insist on a format that is actually better for figuring out who
knows what and their positions on issues. We are going to insist as a prerequisite that
these be effectively public domain events like the state of the Union address.
So yeah, the networks will do what's best for them and for ratings and for clips and
we know that. But the DNC, RNC and commission on presidential debates are also complicit
in it and that needs to change. So love that Andrew Yang is just saying it the way it is,
not surprising, it seemed pretty obvious just from watching the debates that this is what
was going on. Uh, but be that as it is, um, this is what we're dealing with and these
are not events that really let us figure out who would be best at solving issues for the
country, who is most knowledgeable in any sort of depth beyond one or two talking points
on any of these issues. And uh, it's been a complete disservice to the democratic process
as I've been telling you.