A (0:03)

Classes in session. Hey everybody, and welcome to Unlearn 16 classes in session. Guys, perimenopause is a situation. I almost how my ear pods look. I almost just forgot the name of my podcast. I've been doing it for five years. That's wild. I also found this fidget spinner for those of you can't. It's like a. It's like a 3D printed model that you, that you slide in out, like fits together. And I don't know if it's Anna's, but now I'm super distracted. Anyways, for those who are just listening to me, it looks like a little red Christmas tree and an inner coil comes out of the bottom and then you slide it back in. Nonetheless, not the point of this video. Today you just get me. But next week I'm going to give you a teaser. Actually, you can wait to the end for the actual hint, but next week's guest is gonna be awesome. Just saying. I'm just saying she's gonna be awesome. Okay, I gave you a little bit of hint. There's a better hint coming at the end. Hopefully my ADH brain will remember the hint at the end. If I don't remember it, just put in the comments and I'll type it. What do I want to talk about today? Well, I think we have to get a legitimate and a rational view of what goes on with our news. Is it created and curated? I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Of course it is. Who's creating it, who's curating it, who has that power and to what end? And I think a lot of people like to talk about government. They like to talk about propaganda. They like to talk about, you know, sort of governmental ability to obfuscate. Is that a word? Opsificate. Cloud reality for its people to maintain power, yada, yada, yada. Sure. But I'm going to say this. I believe that the news and information in general is controlled and curated. I'm going to have a problem today, not necessarily by government, although government can be the conduit. I think it's always been controlled and curated by a certain group of people. The people with money, the people with power, in order to do one thing. And that one thing is more money, even when. And we're going to speak about it today, even when we talk about war and the government propagandizing war and, and censoring and bolstering and all of the things they do through media. Although now it's. It's much more difficult. It's Always been to the end of winning the, you know, getting support for the war and winning the war. And what is that about? It's about money. The goal is always the same. And I also want to stipulate it's been going on since the dawn of time. It is not new. In fact, I would argue that right now, maybe just before AI and I'll talk about AI at the end, but we've had the most access to the most information ever. Right now we are the least limited in news sources, drawing from different realities, different perspective, different points of view, different points of the world. Right now the problem is now it's, it's a. They flooded the zone, right? It's just so much information. How do you know what's true, who's selling it, what they mean by it, all of those kinds of things. And let's be honest, me with a cell phone somewhere is not the same as an investigative journalist going to be super clear about that. So I want to talk about the history. I want to talk because I think we need to understand it so we can stop pretending as though we're living in a unique time. We're not. We need to understand the history, we need to understand the goals. And then, and then I'm going to serve up, I'm going to give you my possible solution. And not that it's going to be perfect, but I'm going to give it a go anyways. Number one, yellow journalism. As long as there's been the spread of information, as long as there's been a way that people have tried to negotiate and gain power and gain support and change, anything in their, from their community to their cities, to their towns to their countries, there's always been a level of propaganda. I mean, that's advertising, that's selling yourself. There's so many different words. Nobody rolls into the job interview and is 100% honest. No, no, no. Same with a relationship. You put your best foot forward and later they find out you don't want to hike. But in, in more established senses, as soon as we started establishing the flow and the commercialization or the commodification of, of media and information, books, newspapers, right? We were doing it for one purpose, to sell, to make money. Now, some people could argue selling reality would make the most money. Sure. Unfortunately, and this is where people come in. People don't necessarily want to buy, understand, go through all of the different levels that it takes, all the different intellectual capacities and bridges it would take to understand the goings on of the real world. And what's happening and what reality is. We kind of want bite sized versions. I think we've always wanted bite sized versions. We've just gotten to a point where the bites are about 30 seconds. Bites have just gotten smaller. And we're not really chewing our food. We just swallow it and hope it doesn't get caught in our throat. I love a good metaphor, but let's go back to yellow journalism. So yellow journalism was this idea that if you sensationalize the heading, okay, yellow journalism, I think was born. And I'm going to, I'm going to get this wrong and somebody's going to call me on it. I believe it was born of, in a newspaper genre, I think about the, the American Spanish American War. But this idea that if you sensationalized an idea, what happened? That more people, you know, you just, you just made it a bit bigger. You made the headline a little bit bigger that people would want to buy in. So there's another famous headline that says if it bleeds, it leads, right? That people, if given, if given the option, they would rather see a headline that infers horrific, horrific catastrophic realities. And you're much more likely to pick that up in order to, in order to get the whole story. And you might be disappointed by the story, but they don't care. You just picked up the paper, so who cares? The accuracy of the story becomes a secondary issue that's been around since the late 1800s. If it bleeds, it leads. This idea of yellow journalism, sensationalized storytelling using exaggeration and hyperbole to draw you in, to leave you as a, as a cliffhanger. All of that has always been true. Why? To sell papers, guys. Ever seen the movie Newsies? Highly suggested, but it's to sell papers, it's to sell the story. Because for the most part, people's lives are boring. You know, you go to work for eight hours a day back in the 1800s, my God, you want to be. There's a level of wanting to be entertained a little bit, right? So you go through that and you see, okay, well, that makes sense. You have newspapers and very few. Let's remember that back in that day, we would have had a lot of monopolistic formation, right? But you have newspapers wanting to sell and wanting to serve a certain element of the public. Do I think there would have been an agreement or a, a tacit underpinning between major newspapers and the government? Of course, of course there will be. There will always be. But make no mistakes. It's always about money. So they Run the right stories, they get the right breaks, they give support to the right politicians, they get the right zoning legislation, or they get the right tax break, whatever the case may be. These connections, these pieces haven't necessarily been how do I control and manipulate the public? It's how do I get the public to buy in? So the bottom line is to make more money. We'll go to World War I. So World War I, I know a lot of you guys would have taken history and you would have done World War I. And one of the major assignments every teacher always does is this idea of propaganda, right? Those propaganda posters of World War I were awesome. It was awesome because there's no counterbalance to the story. So the Canadian government and the United States government and every world government puts forward advertisements to get young men to join, voluntarily join the war effort. And in Canada, it was always these really sort of pseudo cartoony drawings of, of young white men. Because let's be on. Let's be clear. In the beginning, it was considered. It was deemed the white man's war. Why? Because the Canada was horrifically discriminatory, bigoted at that time. They didn't want anybody else joining. Don't worry, they'll change their mind as soon as they need people, which is, in all fairness, how everything changes in this world. It doesn't change because we realize we're bigots. It doesn't change because we think everybody deserves human rights. It changes because the government and the people and the industry realized that we need those people to do better. And all of a sudden you get voting rights for women and African Americans have more rights. It's done for practical purposes. I don't think it's ever been done one time for ethical or moral reasons. I could cite the Civil War in the United States, but I'm not going to go that far back. So World War I, you have these pictures of these young men pointing a gun, thrown over their shoulder, huge smile on their face. And these images would say things, come. See new places, investigate new lands, protect people across the globe, whatever it was selling. Right? Clearly a lie. Clearly. Now to what end was it really? Because we thought we were the good guys, they were the bad guys. Well, not in World War I guys. World War I. And if you look at the. The foundations of World War I and how it happened and why it happened, it was never good guys versus bad guys. It was all of these leading factors. You had. You had an imperial rampant imperialism. Why do you have rampant imperialism? Well, to make more money. You had a heavy Level of militarization. Why? Well, because the Industrial revolution had just spawned all of this stuff ahead. You did have this idea, this sort of notion that. That our way of life was better and therefore we got to go teach them how to. How to be better, you know, as we are. But nonetheless, again, that was all leading to. If everybody's doing things our way, our way makes us more money, makes us more secure, makes us grow. That's the end game. And. And let's be crystal clear. War is about making countries money, selling to the right people, creating all of these munitions, creating guns, creating tanks, creating bullets. All of this, stu, had huge, huge economic impacts. To who? Only the winning country. War is a money maker to the country who wins. So it makes perfect sense that that level of propaganda would be pushed there. Now, when we're talking in the late 1800s and early 1900s, we talk about literature and who. Who was allowed to write and why they were allowed to write. Well, it was all meant to. Particularly it was all white men. Well, to what end? Well, because they controlled that industry, right? That culture, that belief system. Any woman that tried to write, well, they used pen names, they used fake, they used pseudonyms in order to get their work published and in order to get it distributed, because it had weight, it had meaning, it had purpose. But gatekeepers were there in order to make sure that only certain people's ideas got heard. Well, to what end? The. The publishing gatekeeping is probably one of the most significant things that nobody ever really talks about, right? We don't have that issue anymore. But if you have a place like Random House or Penguin or whatever, whatever publishing company, they get to decide what has value and what doesn't. But I promise you, they're deciding what has value and what doesn't based on the market of the day. Not what is good, not what is true, not what is brilliant, not what has foresight, what will sell. Let's take that in. Because I think it's so incredibly important when we look at the shape of things, because as World War II ramps up, everything shifts a little bit as well. Because World War II is about to bring with it television, right? Is about to bring with it certain video imagery of what went on in World War II. And so now we need to carefully curate that. What gets on tv? How does it get on tv? Who has access to that technology? Who has access to that messaging? What messaging is going to serve the nation? And why do we want it to serve the nation? Say it with me. Because it makes us money. So in World War II, the propaganda wasn't, you couldn't really sell it the same way as you sold the first one, right? Because all those young men who were convinced and those families that were convinced to send their 18 year old boys off to war, that it was going to be this incredible, amazing experience and, and it, you know, everybody would want to join this adventure. You can't sell it that way anymore. It doesn't work because they're like, you are lying. So what do they do? Well, they shift. Now Obviously World War II has some evil, horrific villains. Obviously, there's no question about it. But funnily enough, in Canada, those villains, the rise of that, of that kind of mentality and ideology that was rampant over Canada. It was rampant over Canada as well because we just gone through the Great Depression. Everybody was desperate, nobody had money. It was scary, it was violent, it was devastating. And so in that condition, people tend to turn to radical, extreme ideologies that say, don't worry, I know who's to blame them over there. And them always changes them over there. I'll get rid of them, I'll deal with them and I'm going to make your life better. And what is your life? What is the primary driver of your life? Economic security. Economic security. So listen to me. So we had huge problems in Canada. Want to know why we didn't care about World War II? Even though, you know, we joined relatively early. We joined relatively early because we want to be on Britain's team. We want to be on the winning side. I wish it had to do with morality and ethics. I do not believe it did. There's a reason why World War II really started when Germany took over the port in Poland, right? And then it was about a six months of a phony war. Nobody wanted to go to war because A, they know it was horrible, B, they can't, they have no way of convincing anybody of how to join. And the only time we ever had a significant push wasn't with the, the destruction of minorities, wasn't with taking away their civil rights, wasn't with the horrific levels of anti Semitism, anti communist sentiment, the way they treated gays, the Romani. It doesn't matter. None of that mattered. As soon as they stepped into Poland and took that port, we went rut row. Well, why money. So now we have a shift in propaganda, right? We have a shift to say, well now we're fighting evil. And then you started seeing it was no longer propaganda imagery of the kid pointing and saying, oh, I'm gonna have a great Adventure. It was propaganda of her, the evil on the other side. And so now the images were, you're not joining to get a better life, to see the world. You're joining to fight evil. The Japanese and the German. Now again, I'm not going to disagree with the evils of war and what was going on, especially in Germany. But I am saying this right before we invaded and chose up a team, our government didn't care. Our people didn't care. Some of the biggest billionaires in the United States, well, not billionaires, time millionaires at the time didn't care. And they sided with what was Germany was doing. Want to know why? Because he was a capitalist. So you had big money making decisions and pushing in different ways to ensure certain things happened in order to make more big money and secure more money. So World War II rolls around, that ends, people get stories. And as it comes back, television is sort of front and center, right? 50s television, 50s and 60s TV was on all the time. As soon as everybody could afford that one black and white in their living room, it was on 24 7. What did we put on that television station? Entertainment. How do we entertain? How do we get families to focus? And in the beginning, in the 50s, we had this huge economic boom. So it was flat out entertainment at all times. How do we draw people in? How do we make them laugh? How do we give them a break in their day? How do we keep them watching? And you keep them watching for one reason, so that they watch the advertisements. So the advertisements that are paid pay for the program that they are watching. The program survives based on the advertiser's revenue of that program. Now, do I think that advertisers could have a vested interest in certain political outcomes in order to bolster? Sure. Can advertisers then kill the news and television programs? Of course, I'll get to that soon. But again, even when it seems as though it's a politician, it's strictly political and ideological. I still make the argument it feels ideological to make more money. It's not ideological. I am. They are not fighting for moral and ethical reasons to gain something objectively right. Their morality will never cost them money. And there's a reason for that. Because their morality and their ethics do not come first. The governments, the companies, period. So we then roll into Vietnam. And Vietnam is this. Well, I guess pre Vietnam we realize the power. I mid Vietnam, we start to realize the power of television. So Vietnam becomes the first, and let me be very clear, only fully televised, almost uncensored war Because I. I don't know if they knew the ramifications. It was all of this ability to garner kind of footage, throw it on tv. And this is actually quite interesting because everybody says it's the media that shut that war down. Well, I'm going to say two things. It didn't shut the war down, you understand? The war went on till 1975. All the protests in the streets didn't amount to anything. It ended when it ended, because it was done, because money didn't make sense anymore. But I'm also going to say this. The reason why it was a fully televised war is because people wanted to watch. It might have drawn a lot of criticism. It might have drawn a lot of criticism. People might have hated the war, right? And they did. A lot of people did. But man, did it make people glue to their seats, watch that war. So there was this controverting or counterbalance to. Well, on a television show, they want to sit down, they want to watch tv. And they're watching all of this footage because it's brilliant and because they know and it keeps them in their seats. And they watch the advertisements because they're waiting for this horrific footage to come out. Because again, if it bleeds, it leads. Make no mistake. It had this negative side effect. But the war itself made money. Made money for those television stations, made money for those news programs. It made money. It captured people in their seats. So there's a reason the government didn't have a blanket censorship law, right? What's more powerful propaganda? You don't think the government could have shut it down and this. Of course, of course they could have. Bigger fish to fry, guys. Bigger fish to fry. It's actually probably an example of how money wins out over politics and governmental propaganda. Money wins out the money of war and televising, it wins out over the propaganda or the needed control factor. The government would have wanted in order to spin that war. But it is the last fully televised war and there's also reading reasons for that. Now, in the middle of this war, you also have the power of TV come into play again, a little piece of propaganda, a little piece of, of how do we control, how do we manipulate? And I'm saying all this not just to say the oligarchs and the government and people in power, but guys, we bought in, right? Let's not undervalue the only reason money is getting made throughout yellow journalism, whatever form it's going to take throughout the years, whether it be a newspaper by Hertz and Pulitzer in the 1800s or the National Enquirer or Entertainment Tonight, it doesn't matter. We're buying in. That's us. That's our weakness, that's our failure. That's our short sighted ability and desire to want to be entertained rather than informed. That's on us. I can't blame somebody else for that. So right around that same era, you would have had JFK going up against Nixon in the first place. Televised political debate. And right here you're about to learn that the perception of things is the only thing. So you have jfk, young, good looking guy coming on TV for the first time. But his camp understands the media a little bit. But he gets a tan, he calls ahead, he finds out the background is going to be a light color background. So he wears a dark suit. Right. Every time he speaks during that debate, for the most part he speaks directly to the camera as though he were speaking to the American public. Nixon, who's way, way more accredited, way more experience, in all fairness, way more intelligent politically. Whether you agree with him or not, neither here nor there. When he gets to the stage, he realizes, oh, Kennedy had a tan. So I'm going to use makeup. He uses makeup. Halfway through the thing, the heat of the lights is melting him like a wax figure, number one. Number two, he wanted to wear a light color suit to look like more of a man of the people. He blended right into the background because he never thought to check that, to check that background coloration. And number three, every time he spoke, because he was used to debating and winning a debate in real time against an opponent, he looked directly at Kennedy. He wasn't used to having to win over the audience. He was used to beating his opponent. And when you look at your opponent and you make points and you make them uncomfortable and you make, that's how you win. So anybody who listened to the debate, Nixon won hands down, Democrat and Republican alike. Anybody that saw that debate said JFK won it hands down, Democratic and Republican alike. Well, what does that say? Everything we are just shifted. Now. It's not to say that prior to that there weren't gatekeepers what made the news, what didn't make the news. And I also want to point out this, it's just as important to check bias about what makes the news. Are you telling the full story? Because I think the full story. I think we've undervalued a lot of our investigative journalists because I think they're incredible about how they research the story, the vetting, the, everything that goes into before you put that Kind of stuff on a news broadcast or in a paper. What we don't talk about enough, I don't think, isn't the, the ethics or the goal of those reporters to do their job. It's not the bias of the stories that are told, but the bias of the stories they chose not to tell. I think the biggest method of control is limiting information. I think that's changed today, but is limiting information what was left out purposefully, what was left out because our culture and our intelligence and our awareness is limited? Or what wasn't being said? Because as a citizen, as an educator, as a. As a student, I can't possibly understand the bias about what wasn't said. How do I know the stories that weren't told? I can check now, the stories that are told, and we'll talk about that in a bit. You check the bias. You. You double check information. You can vet it. You can. Well, you can try to vet it yourself. It's not as important. It is important. But what didn't get told, what story wasn't covered? And not just because they've decided it's not worth it, because the people don't want to listen to it, because it's too hard to understand. It's too complicated. That's problem number one. Problem number two is also, what story doesn't make us money? Problem number two, meaning, does it cost us more money than it's going to make us? Does it cost us money with advertisers? Does it cost us money with governments? What. What's going to cost us money? There's a ratio there. And number three, and this is the real scary one, we live. We have for quite a while, and I'm assuming every country does, we live in this. In this cultural echo chamber about what's important, what has value, what has weight, and what do we just simply not understand? The reason why diversity is so incredibly important in our media outlets and is for diversity of thought is to stay. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This story in Sri Lanka that you're missing, you don't understand it because you don't understand the culture. You don't understand the language. You don't understand the history and the ripple effect because you're so wrapped up in what happens in North America or Western Europe. Those are incredibly important caveats. And like I said, I mean, all of this is shifting today. But with the shift that we have today comes something else. So we have Vietnam, we have the shift to television, to televised war, and then we come to the Gulf War, the first Gulf War 91. And the American government recognizes, as does everybody, war on TV makes money. But if we can curate war on TV, it can make news money. We can use propaganda to control it, and then we can still make money off the back end as well as a government. And I think a deal was hatched. So in this war, for example, you didn't have. It wasn't unfettered journalism, right? It wasn't fully televised and uncensored. It was heavily, heavily curated and censored. So if you were part of the media, you would be put in media pools. You would stay in one particular hotel, a general would walk in once or twice a day, give you the news of the day. You're not going to find it. You're there just to hear it in, in country. But in a very closed, limited curated system, if any journalist was going to leave that system, they would. And they would do this. They would have to go with military escorts. And those military escorts would take them to places they wanted to take them when they wanted to take them, and they would make sure that the picture and the imagery was exactly what they wanted them to see. And then CNN ran that war for 24 hours a day for the entire duration. My mom watched it as though she thought she was watching reality. Smart bomb after smart bomb after smart bomb, hitting the target. You know, in that war, number one, they use the same video on loop. Number two, only 7% of all the bombs dropped were smart bombs. 7%. So even if the smart bombs were 100% effective, let's assume they were. They weren't. But let's assume they were. Let's assume that every video they show this idea of a smart bomb, 7% of what was dropped. But that's all we ever talked about during that war. During that war, they created playing cards like, like bubblegum baseball cards. Operation Desert Storm, Yellow Ribbon campaign. You could trade, you have a. There was gum in the packages. You could trade an Osama bin Laden for a George W. Bush for this missile, for that tank. Baseball cards. They created this yellow ribbon campaign. You tie a yellow, yellow ribbon around a tree, show your support for the troops. You know what all those things have in common? Heaven help us. They all make money. Again, the curation and control of information. What's going to keep people in their seats? What's going to make them buy the baseball cards? What's going to make them turn on their television? Buy the paper? What's going to make them buy into what up? What's going to keep them there? Number Two, if I can partner that with what emotionally keeps them invested and supporting the war, if I can do both things at the same time, there's money to be made on both levels. And so here we are, and not to mention again, owners of major publications and major television networks. Direct ties, direct links to the people who get elected, direct ties and direct links to the laws that get made, to the restrictions that get enforced, whatever the case may be. So we have that war and then we have the shift. And I realize I'm skipping a lot, but like, and then we have the shift in the early 2000s and we have the shift and the creation of the Internet, I think this changes everything. And it changes everything. And this shift in, in a crazy way also coincides with 9 11. So you have 911 happening 2001, September 11, obviously. And then you, you almost right on its tail end, right on its tail end. You have the explosion of the Internet information at mass. And then you have the, the, that, that overwhelming access to information, the opsification of what's, you know, who we're fighting, why we're fighting. You have this idea of the war against terror. So rather than clearly legitimize what's going on in war, you cloud it all. You cloud it all in like, you never know where they're going to be. They could be over there. They could be over there. 911 cost 3,000 lives, but what it really cost was a boatload of economic potential. Not only like you can't find Osama bin Laden, all of a sudden there's a gear shift going into Iraq, arresting Saddam Hussein, him getting hanged in their public square. Why? Power, money. If you were American after 9 11, you were terrified that that was going to happen twice. How did the biggest industrial militarized power in the world not see that coming? And how come we couldn't stop it? Well, because will, will, the will to get something done will always, will always surmount, overcome military might. It just will. And nobody wants to talk about that, so they distract from that. And then all of a sudden you started seeing the advent of entertainment news. And I think it was twofold. Number one, we were freaking overwhelmed. We were overwhelmed with news, we were overwhelmed with information. And we wanted a way to shut off our brain. And eventually CNN wasn't playing fake wars. They were talking about the Kim Kardashians latest breakups. We liked it. That's us. We turned off real news programs in favor of Fox News because it was entertainment. It's been, it's been categorized as such. We did that. We didn't pick up a newspaper anymore. We picked up an Enquirer. We did that because all of a sudden we realized that actually being informed was hard work. We didn't want that. It was exhausting. And with the advent of the Internet, we have all of this information at our fingertips. And what do we look up? Latest rumors of cheating scandals in Hollywood? What? What? It's an amazing distraction, though. It's an incredible distraction. We wanted it. We have everything at our fingertips, and we're still claiming to be controlled. Why? Well, now what's happened is there's been a flood of information. So on the Internet, how do you discern what is true, what is real, what is manufactured? And you used to be able to sort of delineate between sources, but now our real problem is the advent of AI and with the advent of AI, you can't trust your eyes, you can't trust your ears. I can't trust a picture anymore. You can't trust a video. And if you can't trust those things, investigative journalism becomes very, very difficult to. To trust at all. And now, and this is where the current administration of the United States is unfortunately, very, very intelligent at this. The. The creation of fake news, the idea that some news, not all news, is actually justifiable, is actually real. If you highlight that enough, people start to question everything. And as soon as people start to question everything, especially with the rise of AI because now there's this legitimate reason to question everything, they can believe nothing. And if they believe nothing, if they can't believe anything, then they're truly at the mercy of individuals who can best wield and manipulate a story in order to sell. So you believe in them, not in the story. That's what it's come down to. If I can make you believe in the person, in the cult, in the individual themselves, everybody's lying to you guys. Just trust me. I know what the truth is. And the, And. And the goal is still the same. The goal is still about money. You think that bad stories about Trump and him threatening news agencies and all of this stuff, it's all play. It's all a play, guys. It's all political theater, right? The slow monopolization of media is a play. It's a play to make us not trust that media ever. Well, if you don't trust that media ever. If I can't trust a story ever. If I keep waiting for the newsroom. You guys ever see the newsroom with Jeff Daniels? Incredible show. If I keep waiting for billionaires to Decide they're going to use their power and their ethics to. To spread the truth. We have two problems with that. Number one, I don't know if that person exists, might be waiting a hell of a long time. And number two, how will we know in this era, in this time, if that's the truth? Because they've been able to discredit all clear lines of reporting and of truth telling. And number three, and this is the worst one, are you ready? I don't think the public wants the truth. The truth about the economy, the truth about the political system and representation, the truth about the environmental degradation we are putting upon this planet. I don't think any of us want the truth. I think for the most part, we want comfortable lies. We want a clear enemy so that you go off and that person, you're going to get rid of that person. Because that group of people, whoever they are. And remember, it doesn't matter who they are, as long as they're a minority that can't fight back and can't really control the narrative, I can. I can get rid of them. I can control your future better. You will have more food on the table, a house, you know, a nice house and roof over your head. Your kids will be fine. They'll go to school. Everything's going to be okay. Your way of life's not going to change. I'm going to promise you that. Just believe me. Everything else is background. Just believe me. Don't look too deep into economics. It's too hard, guys. It's too hard for our brains. We're not educated enough. Don't look too deep into politics. It's too convoluted. Don't try to understand history too deep. Don't try to play. You don't have time. You work, you know, eight, 10 hours a day. You have three kids, you have a family. You got to make sure that roof isn't leaking. You worry about you. I'll worry about the rest. I don't think the public wants it. We want a National Enquirer. In this age of we can know everything, we literally almost want to know nothing. We want to think the solutions are simplistic and painless. We want to think technology will save us. And for the most part, the majority of us are all waiting for the billionaire to come along with a conscience to lead the world down the right path, whatever the hell that means. So do I think we have a problem? Do we have the solutions? Absolutely. I think part of the solutions would establish that if you want to consider yourself a democratic nation, a truly democratic nation in the pursuit of truth. You have at least one television station dedicated to such one television station that nobody touches, that has a consistent economic basis, that is that that is required to have different perspectives on that show. That is required to vet and be held accountable by the court system, by judicial, you know, externalities to make sure they are telling and when they don't tell the truth, that they own it, that they, that they go back and then they actually change the it needs to not be contingent about who's in government, what advertisers they're putting on air. But the second part of that solution is the real big problem. Let's assume we could create that this diverse news agency that did nothing, did nothing but run news story, heavily vetted and, and, and diverse in its opinion and its background in its agency and everything 24, 7. Because the second part of that story that nobody wants to admit, that everybody wants to throw their hands up and say, but that's not the real problem is us. Are we going to watch it dismissed?