I read it and it says, I don't see that. I see them wanting to serve their audience, to give their audience the news that the audience is most interested in. As citizens of the United States, is that nothing? Is it nothing that there's an enormous audience that has an intense interest in a specific story? That's not nothing.

Now, even no matter what your personal feelings were, as long as you were talking about the facts and opinions around facts, I think it's perfectly appropriate to give the audience the news they crave the most. They're the country. The audience is the country. You have half of it or a third of it or something. So how is that embarrassing?

But they try to make it. There's the newest one. Apparently Tucker Carlson was reported in some email to somebody else or something that he would be basically glad that Trump was out of the scene because he was sick of reporting on him. And he passionately hates Trump. He passionately hates him.

Now keep in mind that the context was immediately right in the middle of Trump complaining about the election, which sort of put Fox News in a bad situation. Now here's the thing. Is that embarrassing? Is it embarrassing that maybe the most prominent Fox News opinion person... Let me just finish the reframe here.

Here's my reframe. Somehow I didn't know that. I didn't know that I watched Tucker Carlson during that entire period and I did not know that he had a bias against Trump, like a personal bias. And I guess Tucker went on to say that he hadn't accomplished much. Now how is that an insult? How is that embarrassing? In what world is it embarrassing that his audience couldn't even tell? And I couldn't tell. I didn't see a bias. I thought he reported Trump right down the middle. You know, as his opinion matched up with the facts. I feel like that was almost a compliment. The fact that the audience couldn't tell that he had a very serious bias. How do you do better than that? Like what's the level above that?

I mean, to me they just reported he's the pinnacle of objective reporting. Yeah, not objective about his own opinion because he's an opinion guy, but objective about who was the president of the United States. I don't know. To me that's worthy of applause. And that's the best that CNN can come up with.

All right. I'm going to give you... Oh, and here's another one. I think they were trying to embarrass Murdoch or something. Murdoch must have testified and I guess the lawyer said, quote, "You've never believed that Dominion was involved in an effort to delegitimize and destroy votes for Donald Trump, correct?" That was a Dominion lawyer asking Rupert Murdoch. And Murdoch says, quote, "I'm open to persuasion, but no, I've never seen it."

Okay, that's why he's rich. Is that not the perfect answer? How do you beat that answer? Am I right? That is the perfect answer. See, he starts the answer with, yeah, probably assuming that this would get out. He starts the answer by respecting his audience. That is respectful of the audience. I'm open to persuasion, but I haven't seen the evidence. You can't beat that.

And they're reporting it like it's maybe a little embarrassing or something. No. If Murdoch were my boss, I'd be pretty darn happy about that. That's a good answer. Especially so. This is a persuasion lesson as well. Saying you're open to persuasion doesn't even say it's necessarily going to be facts that change people's minds. That's like the highest level you can talk about. We can be persuaded, but I haven't seen anything that persuades me. What a perfect answer that is. That's the way you should answer questions like that. So respect who you need to respect, say you're open-minded, talk about the evidence. Can't beat it.

All right, here's your next persuasion lesson. This one comes to us courtesy of Newsom, Governor Gavin Newsom in California. Now I've talked about this before. I'm going to add a little flavor to it.

So apparently, as you know, reparations is a big question. And Gavin Newsom told the people interested in reparations to form a little committee and come back with a recommendation. Now I've told you already that that's a brilliant way for any bureaucracy or any boss to make an idea go away without saying no. You just make them go away into a committee. All right, so that's the first persuasion lesson. But I'm going to go deeper.

So if the only thing that Gavin Newsom did was tell the reparations people, yeah, I'm open to persuasion. I'm open to persuasion. Right, just like Rupert Murdoch. I'm open to persuasion. Can you go show me the facts? Give me something I can say yes or no to. See, that's good technique. He's respecting his public, saying go form a committee. And they're like, yes, finally we're being taken seriously. Good technique.

But here's the brilliant part. It's not just about the fact that it will die in bureaucracy and infighting. It's about the fact that in the end they have to put it in writing. They have to put it in writing.

Here