le thinking about it differently. They're not as anti-nuclear. So we're going to take that nuclear asset and we're going to turn it into something valuable. Well, which one is it? Well, we got there a little late. Okay. Okay. But which one did you get? Well, as I said, a lot of the good ones were snatched up right away. Okay, you're not answering the question. Which one did you get? Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. Yeah, Three Mile Island. Never go less.

All right. And this story made me laugh. So apparently there's a story about how Jeffrey Epstein was unhappy with Google's search engine optimization because it kept surfacing negative stories about him according to the Verge. Mia Sato was writing about this. Now, weren't we supposed to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was part of some giant running the entire world backdoor thing that he had all the power of all the intelligence agencies and he had unlimited money and he couldn't get his SEO to work and he didn't know who to call. He's like allegedly we're thinking he's the most powerful man in the world between his blackmail and his money and the contacts he has and the most powerful man in the world has exactly the same problem you do which is I don't think this search algorithm is right. Who do I call? There's nobody to call.

To me that's funny that even Jeffrey Epstein had nobody to call to fix this. Not that they would have fixed it, but this problem just like yours.

All right. And I guess now we know George Soros gave a quarter million dollars to some British group that was working to censor conservative news sites and kill Musk's X. Chuck Ross is writing about that. Well, yeah. Yeah. All right. Here's the last story in the news. There's nothing to say about that except George Soros is in fact trying to destroy free speech, but only yours. Yeah. Not his.

Chris Matthews was recently on NewsNation with Leland Vittert. NewsNation's doing a good job lately, by the way. And I saw it on a Jason Cohen post. And so what Chris Matthews says is that if the political left teams up with MSNBC, now they used to be MSNBC, but MS Now, that their audience will not be able to elect them in any important federal office. There's sort of a losing frame if they enter the far-left frame and they embrace the things that MS Now is embracing that they'll just lose and it will split the party and they'll all be in trouble. And he says Chris Matthews says this is a problem and I look at them lining up and when they make these statements I go that's for MSNBC that's not for the electorate and that's a problem.

And it made me think about where real power lies. Here's a little mental experiment, a thought experiment. You ready? Thought experiment. All right. What if the talent, you know, the on-air talent of MS Now was way better than it is? What would happen? Just regular talent. There's nothing magic or special. They're just way better at it. Well, their audience would zoom because they would be more entertaining and their power in terms of their influence over the electorate would go up probably in roughly the same ratio as their audience. So who's running the country? Who's running the country? If Rachel Maddow could do better work and that would cause a bigger audience and that would cause her to have more power and that would cause the MS Now point of view to get more weight. Who's running the country? The elected people or Rachel Maddow?

Right now let me take that to the other side. You know, as I've often said, that the producers for Fox News are so much better than the producers for the other shows that it just jumps off the page. Now you'd have to be in the business as I am to maybe even notice it, but they have such better producers. Now, how much power does that give to Rupert Murdoch or Fox News just because they're better at it? They can just put on a show that looks better, sounds better, and then more people will watch it. A lot. It gives them a lot of power. So even the producers, the people you've never heard of, even they have power more than you think.

But now here's where it gets interesting. If you're looking at Fox News, let's say prime time where everything important happens. And you're looking at Greg Gutfeld's on twice, you know, he's on The Five and then he's on Gutfeld. And Jesse Watters is on twice. I'm not sure where Dana is now, but I think she has a second show. I may have lost track of her other one. But you're talking about the best people, in my opinion, the best people in the business, and they all happen to be in the same network. How much power does that give Fox News simply because they have more talent in their host lineup? Probably a lot. Probably a lot.

And we don't really think of power that way, do we? We think of the people I'm talking about as people who are talking about the power. They're not the power, the people talking about it. Are they? Are they just the ones talking about it or are they the ones who decide by the quality of their actions how many people are going to watch? And then if a lot of people watch, don't they have power? Right.

I'm watching your comments. You get a little bit quiet when I venture into new territory. But yeah, talent I would say that talent is the invisible variable that people don't necessarily recognize and call out, but there's a specific theme within talent. Let's see if you can tell what it is. There's something that Fox News hosts have as a talent that I don't believe anybody on MSNBC has and maybe I'm thinking nobody on CNN. So there's a talent, a specific talent that you'll see on Fox News hosts, several of them. I'll name them in a minute, but you'll see none of it in the others. What's the talent? You tell me. What talent do the Fox News hosts have? It might be more than one, but there's one I'm thinking of.

The answer is humor. The answer is humor. If you have not discovered that Gutfeld and Watters are hilarious and you haven't discovered that if you throw in Kennedy and you throw in Dana and you throw in Emily Compagno that you have this whole humor kind of a structure that lives within the structure of the show and it travels not to every show but it does travel from show to show you know wherever one of those characters is you're going to see humor.

Now, am I wrong? As soon as you think about it, it changes how you see the whole thing, isn't it? The Fox News people, and again, none of this happens unless you've got the right producers. Because the producers are the ones who say, you know, do more of that, do less of that. At least until the host is so successful they don't have to take advice. Eventually that happens. But am I wrong? I'm not wrong. Right. So the humor talent that apparently Fox News either got by luck, I don't think it was luck, I think they got it by looking for it and then finding it and promoting it. Obviously if you look at the show Gutfeld, obviously they were thinking of humor. So it's not like it snuck up on them