Back to episode — Episode 2749 CWSA 02/13/25
Context —
at least in the news business there aren't too many funny Scots. But Scott Jennings is just lapping me lately. I just had a belly laugh over this one. So Scott Jennings is commenting this morning over someone else's post. Well, it was a story actually on Fox News. So his comment, I'll just read it in the order that it's written. So Scott Jennings posts on X. He says Trump lets cut taxes, shrink t…
← Previous segment →thing early in her career where she had some kind of USAID connection or in Russia. And he said possibly Taylor Swift. There's no evidence that Taylor Swift was connected to any of this, but there is a video of somebody in the intelligence community suggesting that she would be the type of person that they would want to influence. There's no evidence that they have.
So you probably heard that the AP, Associated Press, they lost their White House press access because they refused to call the Gulf of America the Gulf of America. They're sticking with the old way, Gulf of Mexico. And I didn't really understand why. Like why would they be the one entity that does that? Well, their argument is that they're an international news entity, and if the other countries around the world don't know what the Gulf of America is, they can't refer to it that way because, you know, it would be against their style guide. So they have a style guide that they'll, I guess, they'll use whatever is most internationally recognized.
But that also means that they're not doing America First. America First would be use America's names for stuff and let the other countries work it out. I mean, you could always put it in parenthesis: used to be called the Gulf of Mexico. So it's not the worst defense in the world, but it does feel like they're not quite on Team America here. So Trump's letting them know, I guess.
Here's a story I hope there's more context to this one, because if it's exactly what it looks like, it's pretty bad. So apparently Reuters, which does a lot more than news stuff, according to the Musk account I was reading, that DOGE found a document that actually says that a part of Reuters was being paid a lot of money for doing what is actually listed on the invoice. This is actually on the invoice: large-scale social deception. What? Is that real? Did our government pay Reuters to implement a large-scale social deception?
Now before I say that that's true, it's being reported, but before I say it's true, I'd kind of want to hear what Reuters said about it, which I haven't seen yet. Do you think Reuters is going t
Context —
o say something like, no, no, no, we were supposed to guard against it. So we were working against large-scale social deception. It's just listed that way on the invoice. So now we're against large-scale deception. We're trying to end it. You think that's possible? You know, it wouldn't be too weird if something on an invoice was ambiguous, but it would really be weird to me if they put in direct…
Next segment → →