hey're actually bad for the country. So you know, I'm not sure they were ever good for the country, but at the moment it's super, super obvious that the mainstream news is fake news. It's propaganda. It's bad for the country. So why do they get free assets to be bad for the country? Because I think that's not even controversial at this point. Even people are mad at their own preferred sources. You know, people are mad at the Washington Post. They're mad at the LA Times. They're mad at CNN. And they're mad at their own side. So it's not like we're arguing that the mainstream media is good for one side and bad for the other. It's both sides say, hey, what happened to you guys? You're worthless now.

So we'll see what Vivek has in plan for BuzzFeed. If I were a younger man, I would say Vivek, BuzzFeed needs a columnist like me. But I'm not.

Anyway, do you think mainstream media is dead? I think it's premature. I think people are actually a little bit more wishful thinking. I think it's that. But the reason that the traditional media exists is not to make money. So you can't predict their fate based on economics, because clearly their propaganda is obviously the purpose of them. And I don't see any reason that they'll go away if money isn't the reason they exist in the first place and propaganda is the reason they exist. They're not going to go away because they're losing money and their propaganda. So I'm going to go counter to all the smart people who are saying, my goodness, Joe Rogan has made all the traditional mainstream media garbage. Eventually, yes. But next year? No. Next year will be exactly like this year. Yeah, I mean, you know, maybe 1 percent difference.

Why is the Joe Rogan thing better? Well, lots of reasons. Number one reason is that there's a long time period. So people are really, you know, they've got all the time in the world to answer questions. A podcaster such as Joe Rogan has all the time in the world to follow up on a question. There's nobody sitting there talking over him. Now let me compare that to three episodes of CNN. So there were three separate clips just this morning about CNN, and they all had the same quality to them. A conservative tried to say something that was both true and obvious and well known and on point, and the liberals who were there with them talked over them so they couldn't talk. Now that didn't happen on Joe Rogan, did it? Was anybody talking over anybody? Didn't need to. Three hours.

But on, I was watching Scott Jennings on CNN, and somebody mentioned the drinking bleach hoax like it was real. And Scott Jennings says, well, you know, that's a hoax. And suddenly five different people started talking over him so that the audience couldn't hear him say that it was a hoax. And I thought that is fascinating. That's something you don't see on a podcast. You'll never see a podcast where somebody is completely talked over to the point where the topic changes. And then I watched another segment where again the conservative got talked over until the time changed. And then I watched Jake Tapper interviewing JD Vance, and Tapper was using the "really?" play. I've taught you the "really?" play. It's where you don't have to give an argument. Sometimes you just say the thing that somebody believes and you look at them and you go, really? Really? That's what you believe? And it can be really good as a persuasion thing if the person would have trouble explaining why that's really what they believe. However, it didn't work with JD Vance because the question was, why are all these ex-staffers of Trump now turning against him? And Jake was trying to make the point, you know, really? Are you saying that all of these people, all of these people that turned against Trump, really they're all bad? You're saying there's something wrong with all of these people? Really? And JD Vance looks at him. He goes, yes. And then he explains they're all neocons and yes, there's something wrong with every one of them.

Now you could debate the accuracy of that statement. You know, are they all neocons and there's something wrong with them? But they all had some reason to be mad at Trump. They were either fired by him or there's something they didn't like about him or they're neocons or something else. But the key point was that as JD tried to explain his point of view, Tapper just kept talking over him. So I watched three different segments that were all really interesting, and I would have wanted to see the actual exchange, but I couldn't because CNN wouldn't allow the person they were talking to to talk.

Now, did you see that even one time on any conservative podcast that you've watched lately? The last time I saw it was I was watching also Megyn Kelly appear on Bill Maher's show, and I swear he was talking over her. Now because it's Megyn Kelly, it's not your average person. She didn't let him get away with talking over her, which is hard to do by the way unless you're really, really good at it. So in media, getting talked over is hard to get out of. But you know, Megyn Kelly is a force of nature, so she does. But watching it, it seems to me that the Democrat argument has turned into I need to make sure you don't talk. Have you noticed that? So it started with the Twitter files and trying to get the social media to censor you. You know, the whole thing with Soros funding them to get the Europeans to shut you down because they don't w