st useful frames you'll ever have, the most useful frame for understanding your reality, is that people chase dopamine. They chase a good feeling. And it used to be nothing but a dopamine hose. Every moment it would make you feel smarter than those stupid MAGA people. And now you turn it on and you see some of your favorite people saying, you know what, MAGA is pretty good actually. And then you find out that the smartest, most successful entrepreneur in the world is fully in for MAGA and you're like, ah, wait, what's going on? Yeah, it's very, it's got to be very disconcerting.

Keith Olbermann is panicked. He's panicked that Elon Musk might buy MSNBC. Now Elon did ask the question, how much does it go for? And the hilarious thing about this is that the question of whether Elon Musk would or would not buy MSNBC is only the price. It's only the price. There is a price by which I guarantee he would buy it. I don't know what that number is for him, but let's say all they have left is assets, maybe contracts, some receivables, and a building and cameras and camera trucks and stuff. How much would all of that be worth if you put it all together? Fifty million? Fifty million. Because I don't even know if they own the buildings. They might be renting the buildings so that might be just a liability.

So if he could buy MSNBC for let's say 30 million net, do you think he wouldn't? I think he'd do it just for fun, just to see what happened. And then you combine it with X and start doing some shows on there. It would be amazing. So no, it's not a question of whether he wants to or doesn't want to. I'm almost positive it's just price. So if they price it at a billion dollars I'd say no, there's no way. At half a billion I'd say no way. At 100 million it starts getting maybe. Fifty is probably more likely yes than no. But I have no idea what it's priced at.

All right. Meanwhile, have you heard of NewsGuard? This is kind of funny to me. So there's an entity called NewsGuard. I think you've heard of them. So they're for-profit and what they do is they charge various platforms on the internet to help them guard against fake news. So they'll identify the fake news so that the platforms don't have to get caught with fake news. But they also offer these what they call nutrition labels for each search result. So you could do searches and as a consumer it would tell you if the reporter who wrote the story is credible or if the source of the story is incredible. So they would have the New York Times at the top of the credibility list.

Do you see the problem here? The New York Times is at the top of their credibility list. Okay, really?

But here's the best part of it. So there's an entity, NewsGuard, that is charging people and doing really well apparently. Their business model is working. It's a very robust business. And their proposition is they can tell which news is true and you can't. That's the proposition. That's what you're paying for. They can tell what's true and you can't.

Now I've got a question. If there's an entity in the world that can tell what news is true and what isn't, shouldn't they be the news? Because does it make sense that there is no news entity that knows what's true? The only people who know what true is are the people criticizing the news entities. So wouldn't it make way more sense if NewsGuard said, you know what, people, since we know what's true and all the other news entities, you know, maybe yes, maybe no, we will be your news. So the real news is through us. We're the real news.

Nobody knows what news is true. We wouldn't have massive, almost universal fake news if there was anybody who could tell the difference. They don't. NewsGuard doesn't know what's true. NewsGuard can and probably often catch things that are definitely not true, but that's a long way from knowing what's true and what's not true. It's just catching the easy stuff.

Do you know who else catches all the easy stuff? Me. I do it for free. Show me the headline, I'll tell you if it's true. If you looked at my record of guessing what is true and what is not from just first glance, it's not bad. It's not bad. And I've taught most of you how to do it because I'm not guessing. I'm using pretty well understood rules of how to spot fake stuff. For example, the one I talk about all the time is that in an election period there's always a report of an anonymous insider inside the White House who heard the person running for office say a terrible thing that you're pretty sure nobody ever said in the real world. And then I say there is no credibility to one anonymous source in the White House saying that somebody said something that nobody else heard and is really terrible. Never ever believe that story. It'll always be there but never ever believe it. I'm pretty good at that. Haven't been wrong yet.

All right, so it's just funny to me that NewsGuard could even exist without just saying why don't we be the news.

So let's see what e