Business off of these lies.

What do you want to say to her and the other people that are putting these lies out into the world right now?

Stop.

That's it.

That's all I have to say.

Stop.

Stop.

Welcome back to posting through it.

I'm Mike.

I'm Jared.

We're getting close to the end of the year here, but folks, we are going to go out with a bang.

We've got a great episode today and a couple more that I think you're really going to enjoy in the weeks ahead, including another to close the year.

Who the hell is series installment?

We know folks love those.

They are a bitch and a half to put together.

But.

I've been sitting over my desk like sweating.

I smell like an ox.

I need to shower before we record this one.

Yeah.

But I, I think, I think folks will be really interested in this one.

Mike has done so much work on it and I'm I'm very excited to record it.

Later we got a funny guess too.

Yeah, yeah.

So keep your eyes peeled for that.

A few more things off the top.

The femdom shirts, you know, which started as a joke that Mike made on an episode a month or two ago looking at Erica Kirk in the Turning Point USA Freedom shirt and being like, yeah, well how about a shirt that says femdom?

There is a pre-order link in the description of this episode.

The 25 bucks, 100% of the profits that we generate from those shirts we're going to donate to a charity.

So it's a goofy shirt, silly shirt.

It's funny.

It'll confuse your friends and family.

Why don't you just get one?

And thanks to all the people who have signed up for the Patreon over the last week or two.

We continue to be amazed.

If you sign up there again, there will be a link in the description.

You can get access to our weekly premium episodes of one of which kind of previewed what we're going to talk about today, this sort of schism of infighting going on in mega media.

And also you can learn about all the accusations about extremely straight Conservative champion Benny Johnson.

Mike, you've got a book up for pre-order.

That's not the only pre-order.

Well, we've talked about before here, but if you're hearing it for the first time, we will put a link in the description here.

If you use the code Strange 20, you get 20% off of my book which comes out on April 7th, 2020.

Sixth.

Too long, didn't read version of all that.

Read the episode description.

There's links to some good stuff in there.

With that, I think we should bring in our guest.

Yeah, let's go down the what was the jar?

The the rabbit?

What?

Rabbit Trail.

The rabbit trail.

Let's go down a rabbit trail, joining in posting through it.

This week we have Angelo Carosone is the president of Media Matters for America.

Angelo, what's up?

Not too much.

How you doing?

Thanks for having me.

Pretty good.

We haven't talked in a while.

Folks who don't know I started, I guess it's a career.

Feels bizarre that this is anybody's job, but I started it at Media Matters.

So yeah, Angela and I, we go back.

Angela, Angela, just for people who don't know who you are, what's your background like?

How did you get mixed up in this hell hole of right wing media tracking and research?

Procrastination I was in law school is my second year.

I was in Wisconsin and Clips is right when Glenn Beck had just started to explode as a TV personality.

He had been a radio host for the longest time, but he had really taken off.

And there was just something really scary about him from my perspective.

Because what he was doing that was different than everybody else is that he was basically taking like really far right conspiracies, things that Alex Jones was pushing but elsewhere.

And he was like wrapping them in a way that allowed them to be more palatable to like the Fox News audience.

He was really giving them a thing that they actually hadn't been getting it till that point.

And he he's.

Kind of like it was like proto Maga in many ways.

Oh yeah, I mean, totally the tea, right.

And even, you know, proto Tea Party in a way 'cause the 9912 project really started and kicked off this idea before it and he.

So that's how it would happen.

I basically like jumped on Twitter.

My handle was stopped back at the time and I used to, I listened to his radio show obsessively and his TV show and I used to basically contact advertisers with like highlighting things that he was saying and sort of where it came from.

And like, eventually that just became a hyper fixation.

And I sort of, that's why I graduated.

I, I bullied my way to media matters.

They did not hire me originally as a researcher and I'm still very bitter about that.

But I, I, I basically launched a social media campaign against them until I shamed them into giving me a job.

And I and I've been there there and trapped in their fever swamps ever since.

That's kind of the tenacious attitude you need to have to be effective in that field, though.

Totally.

I think that's right it.

It is.

You have to be like impervious to pain, basically psychological pain, everything.

Yeah, and you have to seem a little unhinged because you are, you know, you're the whole point is you're seeing things that are like coming just around the bend.

So you're you're sort of you're fighting something in anticipation of it materializing into being a real thing.

You know, that's usually where the real, like the real effective work in this space comes from is that you're sort of looking at how, where the field is and saying, hey, here's where it's going, Here's why you should care about it.

Here's something that can be done about it.

We need to stop this thing that's about to happen.

And but of course, you're just like you're parroting the most ridiculous things.

And so there's no way to, to not sound crazy.

Like at the time, Glenn Beck had all these caliphate clues is what I was calling them.

It was all these signs that like that there was this like secret conspiracy and that the caliphate was in the United States.

And they're all these very generic things that people saw in everyday lives that he was when I would talk about that to people, they thought I was a crazy person, you know, But there's, there's no way.

And that's you're right, you have to be a little a little off.

I don't know if you've seen Glenn recently, but he's he's been doing he's he had this long.

I'm Mike, by the way.

I don't think we've finished the introductions.

He did this thing where it was like an AI conversation with George Washington.

And I guess he had an actor play the part of what he got from the AI.

And the guy is just kind of like, you know, just T-shirt, like, still the George Washington hair.

And he's just like, what's going on?

Like, what's happening?

Yeah.

Parroting, parroting.

Like he sounded a lot like Glenn Beck too, which is also pretty funny.

It definitely was well trained.

Not that surprising.

Glenn Beck, you know, has this is like the conclusion of where he was going to end up.

I mean, there was a point in time when he had this, like, mobile museum, and he had been collecting artifacts of, like, all kinds of things throughout history, including like badges and pins that George Washington would wear.

The first time I ever saw Glenn Beck in person, he held up an early edition of Anne Frank's diary.

And then he was giving a speech.

And then the other artifact that he had collected was a napkin from the table when Hitler had an attempted assassination against him.

So it was, like, covered in Hitler's blood.

And for some reason, he had bought this artifact and was, like, obsessively carrying it around and showing what a weird world it was that the two, you know, the book and the blood were together.

And he had this whole thing about how, like, this is what history is.

It's like collecting all these things and then assembling essentially a story.

And yeah, the George Washington thing is his ideal.

Now, he doesn't have to spend all that time collecting.

He can just make it up.

I just find it funny, which is like, because because if you think of the more the people who are most threatening, most scary now and like Beck was that and now he's been reduced to doing like character AI hot chat with historical figures.

I'm just I'm ready for that with several other several other people that we cover on the show.

That's a that's a good point.

He's much more of like a traditional entertainment figure and less of whatever this current iteration of of creature is.

I never thought he was actually going to, you know, do anything meaningful.

It was, it was more of a, there's more entertainment, honestly.

And that's where I think, you know, we'll talk about it.

But that's where I think Candace Owens, some of these figures come in.

You know, most of these people we talk about that they're not actually really talented.

They just, they do destructive things and they're like, they have audiences, they're effective, but they're not like talented broadcasters.

Glenn Beck is a genuinely talented broadcaster.

He's an exceptional artist, you know, and he's so good at it.

Not just his work.

He does these, Oh yeah, he does these dramatic readings of Edgar Allan Poe's stories.

They're so good.

Like he's just genuinely talented as a storyteller.

And Candace Owens is genuinely talented too, as opposed to, say, some of these other right wing media figures.

And that's always the weird part when they could have had multiple versions of what they are because they have that raw talent, not just like a skill that they've honed for a sort of a grift.

And Becca is one of the few people that is that is genuinely talented in in the space.

Well, let's talk about Candace Owens on that note.

She did not she, you know, she is not reading great works of fiction in a traumatic fashion.

So on the premium episode we put out last week, we started to talk about this a bit.

But there's, you know, right wing media is once again engulfed in another round of infighting, this time centered on conspiracy theories about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which happened in September.

A lot of the pushback, especially coming from Turning Point USA at the moment, the organization that Charlie Kirk founded has been aimed at person you mentioned Angelo Candace Owens.

She used to work at Turning Point USA.

One of the first stops in her career after launching a YouTube channel was at Turning Point USA.

Charlie Kirk hired her after seeing her speak at a David Horowitz conference.

Is the lore she was there for a number of years went on to be a personality at the Daily Wire, which is, you know, the most visible person there has been Shapiro very big right wing media operation and in recent years she's gone independent.

She has a self branded show just called Candace and you know, broadcast her own website has these own videos.

We have a Who the Hell episode about Candace in our archives.

And she made a pit.

She really made a pivot from being like attempted to be a liberal star, right?

I think that's sort of the way she positioned herself at the beginning before beforehand.

I recall correctly, Jared.

Yeah, she's gotten obsessed with conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's death.

And she started this like a week or so after Kirk was killed.

She would imply that Israel was involved.

There was something off about this event that he was killed at.

The color of the shirts people were wearing was suspicious.

All the stuff about Egyptian planes.

But where she's really started to piss off Turning Point USA and other right wing media entities is that her conspiracy theories are now starting to take aim at people who work at Turning Point USA, including Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk.

Yeah.

Angelo, what?

What's your take on this?

Is this just, like, a natural conclusion?

It just seems like every time she puts together a show, she like, looks at the notes for the last one and it's like, all right, how can we take it up a notch?

More.

Yeah, it's always more, you know, one, this has been a model that she's done that served her really well, especially this year.

You know, she's had a lot of explosive growth beyond just traditional right wing audiences.

It's not like she's stealing audiences from like competitors talking to just conservatives.

You know, she had a really big cultural zeitgeist moment earlier when, you know, she was following like the Blake Lively trial and was like really conjuring up all these conspiracies around it and attacks.

And that penetrated an entirely different audience that were like, oh, I could, I'm interested in this.

I love to follow these things, you know, almost like a Nancy Grace type, you know, person who's sort of following a, a, you know, a legal event.

And she had a lot of growth, you know, so there's this model that got increasingly refined.

The same thing happening with with the, you know, with the Macrones, which we'll talk about the conspiracy that you just keep throwing out a new thread and pulling it.

What happened here, which I think gets a little bit lost in the over where we ended up because it's so intense and chaotic now is, you know, I, I think it also depends on like audience reaction.

So in the very immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk's murder, there was some discussion that like, you know, Kirk was beginning to change his position on Israel and he was about to come out.

And then of course, Netanyahu did that sort of like really hard, like bear hug kind of thing and embraced Charlie Kirk.

There was this, you know, he referenced in his and Netanyahu and in his thing in his sort of like condolences, this letter that Kirk had sent him.

And that was a thick Candace sort of begin to elude that there was a lot of stuff missing from that letter and they were they were exploiting him.

And obviously, you know, you get audience reactions.

You see that, oh, the audience wants this, they're into this.

So let's talk about it more.

If the audience didn't care, you know, I don't know if she would have decided to dig in entirely and, like, weave all this, that it's just you plant a seed.

If it grows, you nurture it, right?

And so you get immediate reaction.

But I do think those early days were really significant because there was a very, you know, the appetite originally and where she was kind of going was like, this is some Israel stuff, you know?

And then, yeah, it shifted.

It shifted because the more she asked questions, there was.

So it was such fertile ground for like being able to weave together all of these different, all these different threads and pull them, you know, there, there were tunnels.

Wow.

That's like, you could do so much with tunnels on a campus, you know, and, and ask questions about what's going on with these tunnels and why can't you have access and.

People.

People love tunnels.

They love tunnels, like tunnels if you.

People, they can't get enough of the tunnels if you.

If you're working on something and you can find tunnels in the plot somehow, you got another like couple weeks of content right there and what?

Are they doing down there?

You know exactly and no one can tell you.

And why are you?

Why can't I go into these tunnels and you know, it's like, but that is people want to hear it and she understands how to like tease enough, but keep it going, you know, and and that, but that's and obviously the the reaction that she was getting by starting to insinuate and make these insinuations, then created a competitive environment, combative environment and that gets clashed.

So what do I think is going on?

I think that she is she needs an arc.

You know, one of the ways that she doesn't do news of the day, like traditionally she she is not like doing a lot of reactive stuff.

She's a vanguard.

She always is identifying a marker, a unique lane in a way, and then clearing a path in that lane that gives her a lot of like from a business perspective, that means that she will be driving audiences in conversation.

And this is a place where she can drive.

And obviously there's a lot of appetite for conspiracies around this and frustrations with how the administration's handled it and for one reason or another.

And so she gives air to those grievances.

And so she found a pivot away from what you have been working on that lets her continue to tell the story that she is this isolated, lone figure doing work that nobody else wants to do or is willing to do because they're in on it.

And the best part from her perspective is, and this is the the most succinctly about the the the tactic is that she gets to own the story essentially.

And anything that's done to push back on it or to respond or to react just validates the core argument that she's making, which is that there's something here that they don't want you to know about.

Yeah, and we've seen that you mentioned the Petite Mccrone thing.

So before Candace Owens got really into Charlie Kirk assassination conspiracy theories, one of the things that she was getting headlines for, you know, in addition to all the other things that she's been producing, is this I I hesitate to even call it a documentary series, but that's how she sold it.

A documentary series in which she claims to expose that the woman married to the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, is a transgender woman secretly.

Yeah.

There is not a First Amendment in the in France, and she is.

We we pointed out.

Before, but I think it it bears repeating that Macron's relationship to his wife has enough stuff to poke into if you just wanted to just kind of deal with.

That it's weird enough she used to be.

A young boy or whatever.

So it's like you couldn't just focus on what's real.

I mean, I feel like you don't have to make anything up but but she took it up another level and put a penis on her.

But but this has landed her in hot water.

I I mean, she's made all kinds of comments on her show that have landed her in hot water.

Her friendship with Yay, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, has gotten her into trouble, but her audience continues to explode despite all of this.

I, I mean, what's your theory?

Why, how, how is that working?

I mean, she's getting actively sued.

Also, she's a black woman in in this space, right?

Like, I mean, the unspoken thing is that there, you know, is in this field.

There is like, it's just sort of a quiet, sometimes loud white supremacist overtone over the whole thing.

I mean, look, I think she's continued to explode because the algorithms reward this sort of unique lane.

And you referenced it earlier, which is more, you know, she digs, she will continue to dig a hole deeper, which is really important when you're trying to think about engagement.

You know, it's not just about how you get new audiences, but also how you keep your audiences like coming back and and having sort of this, these long arcs, these cereals and makes it easier to connect with an audience.

They, they they feel like they're in on it.

And I I also think that there's a, there's a, a real like collaborative part of what she does as well.

You know, Q Anon was the the community was so engaged because it was a kind of gamified.

You're also doing a little bit of work helping sort of like be a part of it, you know, and if, if you're like a real die hard viewer or what you, what you're observing isn't just her, I would rather her and like the, you know, the your fellow die hard audiences, you know, the CIA, the Candace Intelligence Agency, as she describes it, who are like actively trying to help identify threads that need to be pulled and weave together parts of the story.

So you feel like you're part of something.

I don't want to call it gamification, but it's like it's participatory.

It's a little choose your own adventure, but that is really important for for some for it because it gives you purpose.

Not just being a passive consumer who is just listening, you feel like you're being informed, but you also feel like you're part of the story and that you're doing something unique.

And a lot of her audience is defined against the status quo where they just don't trust.

I mean, this is part of the problem with the right wing broadly, is that they've so created a a muscle memory of and a reflex of like distrust for any institution, including their own.

Yeah, we've seen this with the Trump administration.

Right.

You know, so it's it's just that becomes in a way that she's tapping into that that developed muscle memory too, and giving them some space to flex.

But I also think she's a really talented broadcaster.

And I don't think we should discount talent.

You know, I've watched all these figures.

You know, some of the stuff she says is a little bit nonsensical, but the way that she can articulate some of these things, you're you are left wondering like that is you're you're saying, of course that's wrong.

But that's a good question.

You know, that's an interesting framing and that is compelling in a way.

Even if you're totally opposed, I can see why people are still interested in the story.

I feel like she also capitalizes on pop culture better than almost anybody on the right.

Like she was really active on all the revelations about Sean Combs as they were coming out.

I know she's not.

She managed to get covered in Billboard and a bunch of which is like, part of me is like, how is she getting covered in Billboard as news?

That's like, you know, it's like, I feel like it's she's Candace Owens.

She's just like an Internet muppet in my mind.

It's not like a but her following is big enough that she's able to parlay that into mainstream media attention.

And then here we have, of course, this Netflix documentary about Sean Combs.

And, you know, she's it wasn't difficult to be right about this, right?

You just put the things together.

But you know, she was able to sense that this had the potential for like some Epstein like intrigue.

And she was the only person I I saw on the right who was really working that.

So it's just an example I noticed of her sort of ability to seize on pop culture.

Yeah, and I, I think, you know, there's there, you know, she's in a position where there's no downside to her picking these fights because she she doesn't need them for anything.

There's no cross pollination.

They're not promoting her content.

She doesn't need them for.

She doesn't need them.

In fact, they're the clash is a part of the story arc.

And that is actually what helps keep it going.

Like if, if, if her peers ignored her completely, these stories would be less effective.

You know, they would be.

And yeah, there, there.

Would be 1 episode and she would move on.

Right.

She wouldn't be able to continue the thread or to make a threat and follow through on it or you know, and that is part of how she's helping to keep these things going isn't just the content itself, but who she chooses to pull into the to the story as characters that tend to change.

As you noted when we introduced the segment, you know, it has shifted now increasingly to to Erica Kirk and turning point more broadly, right.

Like she's kind of, it's, it's how she operates and it, it does make it, it makes it interesting at least for her audience.

And that's how she keeps it going.

Usually I'm opposed to the whole like, well, if you just ignore it, it'll go away.

Cuz often times that's wrong.

If the story is like self fulfilling, they'll just continue to find new people.

But in her case, a lot of times she doesn't have very much.

And so she relies on engaging other people and then using their behavior to help create additional fuel to enhance or expand on whatever little bit of nugget she's put out.

There, Yeah, yeah.

When people get defensive or angry with her, she's like, wow, I must have touched a nerve here That's right.

You know, maybe I I think it might be this.

I'm not sure.

But like, we're obviously heading in the right direction all of this stuff.

Candace Owens claiming this and that about Charlie Kirk's assassination now implicating Turning Point USA figures directly joining the chorus of people like Miley Gianopoulos saying Benny Johnson is a closeted gay man.

I will leave that there and keep going.

Say Erica Kirk is, you know, I think something she said is like, how do you go from being a widow to leading an organization or something?

And it's like, well, the board votes you in is how you do.

I.

Don't know what to tell you.

Correct.

Conservative personalities, I mean, have been pissed at Candace for this or that through the years, but this seemed to be a real breaking point for some of them.

Yeah.

And a lot of them have gone on the offensive.

We covered it in our premium episode.

I'm going to play some more clips here.

But you know, all kinds of Turning Point USA personalities, you know, Andrew Colvitt, their spokesperson went on Christian Broadcasting Network trying to hype up a from beyond the grave book about Christianity that Charlie Kirk, I guess wrote.

I'm going to put that in air quotes there about how good God was or something.

And even it like in the middle of that interview, he's just like, this is out of control.

I hate the people got to stop doing this.

I understand you have questions and you're skeptical and you don't trust anything but like, please stop harassing our staff.

It's really derailing them.

And even, you know, in a town hall with the new head of CVS, Barry Weiss, Erica Kirk is just, like, spitting venom towards Candace Owens.

Yeah, yeah.

And even people outside Turning Point USA are doing this.

Here's a clip from Tim Poole, who has been getting really pissed at Candace, saying that he would not even sit down for a discussion with her.

Are you are you trying to would you ever try to get together with her and talk it out or is that done?

Well, there's there's the question of she's crazy.

You know what I mean?

Like she she wants to do crazy things.

So I don't know that engaging with a lunatic when I'm trying to talk about serious issues and she's claiming the US military, the French Legion, Israel men in maroon shirts are are, you know, Erica's wife is involved.

Like when she's literally just vomiting all over the table, there's no discussion.

It's like someone asked me like, hey, that dog's taking a dump.

Do you want to debate him?

I'll be like, why?

He's just sitting.

We had Milo on the show last week.

And then on kind of another part of the spectrum, you have Nick Fuentes, who does not like Candace Owens because, well, a lot of it having to do with the fact she's a black woman, but also because I think he sees her as a threat, right?

Of like there's potential audience overlay there or like or the same kind of angle of attack of building.

Yeah, they're also, they're also both in the market for Yay's attention, right?

Like they're both right.

He he is threatened to expose Candace because he doesn't think Turning Point USA is doing a good enough job of taking her down.

I think they're going to do a good job, but if they don't, then I'll finish it for them.

Nobody else will do it.

Everybody else is afraid of Candace Owens.

I'm not afraid of some ignorant black bitch, OK?

Everybody's afraid of a black Karen.

I'm not.

I'm a grouper.

OK.

Black bitches are speciality.

OK, so turning.

But none of this has seemed to be that successful.

In fact, Candace Owens just seems to be taking it as a signal to double down even further.

Some of her latest conspiracy theories suggest that maybe the US military was involved in killing Charlie Kirk, which is pretty wild to think about considering how close Kirk and Donald Trump were.

But you did an interview with Forbes recently, Angelo, where you pointed out in light of the Brigitte Mccrone stuff that like as Candace Owens, you know, faces these questions around her credibility, these sort of threats to her media empire, whether it's a lawsuit or isolation and denouncement from other prominent conservative voices that you still think she'll probably come out on top.

And in light of all of this Charlie Kurt conspiracy stuff, do you still think that could be the case?

Do you think Candace gets out the other side of this?

Yeah, I do, I do.

Why?

Because the the device that she's built, the platform, the brand, the way that she's interacting with the for commercially, it is designed to have these clashes.

And even if some go bust, it only then will lead to the next boom time.

There's sort of a Phoenix cycle here with her that's like sort of in the in the waiting.

And you know, there's all these structural reasons like, you know, she's clearly acting in accordance with somebody that understands the way the liability would work and how you'd insulate assets and how you continue to go at worst case, right?

She was completely bankrupt.

And, you know, so is Alex Jones ostensibly, right?

But his days are still working just fine.

You know, she has all these other mechanisms for revenue.

Like, you know, I think when I say that she'll do better, you know, she'll always be able to commercialize.

She's demonstrated a real skill and a talent for how she's able to make money.

So there's that's a part of it.

But I, I don't only think about it in those terms because the thing I don't, I don't really care if these people make money.

I don't like them making money for bad things.

But that's not the thing that I respond to.

The thing I respond to is what are they doing that affects all of us or affects the ecosystem?

That's the stuff that I care about and that.

Brings up a good question, like in my head for you, which is, I mean, at any point when they when you see infighting like this, because infighting is the dominant thing right now, it seems like that's the only thing that MAGA can really produce is infighting, other than the horrors that the administration is rolling out.

But like, do you know, in a long term sense, do we root for this?

I mean, do we, do we root for Candace Owens as a chaos actor to like just destroy harmony And this I mean, does it does it eventually empower liberals on the left?

Does it like, you know, does it, does it make a difference at the voting booth?

Like ultimately, if they seem like, you know, like a complete horrific mess, they can't get their messaging straight and stuff like that.

Do we root for that or, or is it, is it dangerous to root for people like Candace Owens, who, you know, have a long history of bigotry?

And also, I think bigger than bigotry is just just unhinged conspiracy theories, right?

Because that's what she's those are the bombs she's really lobbying that are creating the infighting.

Yeah, I wouldn't root for it.

You know, it is.

You know, there are the the infighting is a byproduct of the fact that there is really no chorus for this conductor.

I mean, there's no conductor for this chorus right now.

There isn't anybody that gatekeeps traditionally in the way that the right wing media would work.

It used to be Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

You know, if you, you know, if you were Candace Owens six years ago, seven years ago, your goal would be to get on Fox.

That's how you would grow in influence and power and prestige and even a little bit of audience.

You want to be on Fox, and that meant that there was a particular lane that you would choose to make sure that you could still get on the channel.

And if and there was always a ceiling, you were never going to be bigger than Rush Limbaugh, ever.

It didn't matter what you did, didn't matter how many fights you picked.

You could never be bigger than him.

And his audience was the ceiling.

And obviously, him dying, changes in consumption habits, Fox being disruptive.

Trump, you know, really leapfrogged everybody.

It just it crews like this sort of this pinata burst for audience and audiences then begin to shift and shuffle according to all of these different algorithms and different new mediums that came up.

Candace was mostly contained right until when she was at Daily Wire and then her first when she launched, she picked a fight with Jeremy Boring, who was the CEO at the time.

And it worked out really well for her.

It helped her get a her footprint for her new program that only gave her more power, you know, and influence.

And so I don't think these in fights are actually the reason I ultimately don't think they're good is 'cause I think all the bad, the worst people are going to win because I think most of the incentive structures are for them.

And it also gets back.

To the movement itself will get worse, right, because those people right what whatever is coalesced, whenever the infighting stops, it'll be just a darker.

That's right, they're building power on the fringes increasingly and there's 'cause there's an endless supply of potential audience there.

And what the out why?

You know, it's like, I know the algorithms are so boring.

I get all that stuff.

But like, what's so different?

We always have this in our country.

That's not unique.

What's so different now is that algorithms connect otherwise disconnected audiences.

They help you find look alikes.

They hope you find people that are not currently engaged but are really far out there then.

So that's the difference.

You know, 50-60 years ago, Candace Owens would have been a person in the John Birch Society and her influence would have been really limited because there's only so many John Birchers you could find through like underground connective tissue.

You know, that's just not the case now.

You can find all kinds of wild stuff.

You know, if you spend enough time in the wrong stuff on YouTube, you could be in Hollow Earth theory in like 2 days, you know, two days.

You could be a hollow Earther.

Like it happened so fast.

And so I think that's why so I and I, I just, I think the the worst people will win.

And by when I don't just mean that they will capture the existing audience.

I mean that they will pull in new people.

To your point, that will change the contours of conversation of what's acceptable politically and what they want politically in order to get power right, because so much of where Republicans get power from is to their media apparatus.

So they respond to what's percolating there.

And I think that there's a real appeal to these figures that's beyond the traditional ideological partisan lens where they will be able to pull in people that are just that don't trust institutions.

Yeah.

Do you, do you think on that note?

No Jared, I'll hand it back to you to get back to our structure.

But like do you think that that's true of the whole debate on the right about Jews and anti-Semitism?

Like do you, do you think that right now they're successfully carving out a space that could be more openly anti-Semitic than anything?

I mean, I certainly they have ready right.

To some degree.

It feels like that.

I mean, I, I remember things like the daily Stormer less than a decade ago being like so scary for people on the right to confront deal with, even though there were some Trump supporters who were into it, it really freaked them out.

And now I see a lot of daily Stormer like rhetoric that is being bandied about by people who are fairly mainstream or at least have a big reach on X and I don't.

Do you think that that that that is happening now just around that issue of anti-Semitism and Jews?

Yeah, because I because I mean the whole like Tucker Carlson interviewing Nick Fuentes thing.

I mean that was the latest round or I guess the last round of like big in the spotlight high profile in fighting we saw this year, right?

That's right.

Yeah, I do.

I mean, I think ultimately a lot of this does go back to anti-Semitism because right, regardless of where they are, whether you're in the Tucker camp, which is that it's just some Jews or you're in the Nick Fuentes camp, which is that it's all Jews, right.

Like that's really the distinction there.

It's not a difference in kind, it's really indifference.

It's just a difference of degree and but they still validate the core thing here, which is that there's something off about these people, right?

They have too much power.

And you know, that's I mean, that's the argument that they're fundamentally making and and they that's that's already out.

So when we think about anti-Semitism in these audiences, percolating right underneath the surface is almost a full scale acknowledgement of it.

It's just a question of how many Jewish people do you blame or attribute?

How much venom and animosity do you have toward them?

And look, that's, that's a tale of all this time, right?

I mean, when we think about conspiracy theories, a lot of them always end up getting back to Jews, even if that's not the first or second act, it's the third act or the 4th, right?

And they eventually you have to then say, here's the thing that is pulling the strings behind it all.

And you know, they, they dabble, you know, demons are an increasing character, which I think eventually will become a proxy for.

Wait wait wait, run that back.

What do you mean demons are an increasing character?

There's a lot, a lot more discussion or blaming things on demons.

We spoke about that during our premium episode because Benny Johnson, when people started to listen to Mila Yiannopoulos about his accusations that he was gay, etcetera, he said a bunch of stuff about how demons were real.

So I'm I'm you're telling me now for the first time, which is.

Oh, big time.

It's a big thing.

It's a real thing.

Demons are like and that is it has been an introduction, you know, slowly starting it's picking up more steam.

Do I think eventually those demons will start to sound a lot like Jewish people in these audience for this?

And yes, I do.

I think that they will merge them.

But other than that, they have to blame Jews now at the the proxy at this point has been Israel.

So they say a lot.

A lot of it they will blame on Israel, but not always.

A lot of it then comes back around to to do more broadly.

So yeah, the anti-Semitism piece of it is is increasing.

It has been increasing and I don't think that stops.

In fact, I think that it's so tied in with their argument about power and this idea that there is this like very small secretive cabal of elites.

They don't know how they disentangle that from it.

It is it is real fuel and a a very sustainable fuel for them to consistently blame Jewish people.

And that because like, you know, we think about these things.

I always think about them from the perspective of a story.

You know, you can only have so many characters and you can only have so many like plot lines.

And, you know, you're very hesitant to build new characters and new plot lines.

Like there's a reason why they always blame George Soros.

You know, it's like big liberal donor then vilify them.

Like it's just, it's not worth it.

You can just keep using Soros as an explainer.

It's the same thing here.

It's like his longevity has been a blessing for.

Them it has truly been, I mean.

In the decade I've been doing this work, I've seen them try and fail like over and over again, over with with the Tides Foundation.

And every time they try it, the audience is like, huh, what?

Yeah, totally.

And.

They're like, it's George Soros.

Never mind is.

That real?

Forget it, it's 100.

Percent like that's you know that is and that's kind of so that's how I think about these things and anti-Semitism is a real deep undercurrent like the more plot, the more you you threads you pull, you know, you go deeper and deeper.

Eventually you will find that behind the curtain is you you know you they're basically ready to blame Jewish people.

I have a couple other things I want to get your.

Thoughts on but I want to rewind a little bit.

What you said is like, what makes you care about stuff like this is the effect it has on the rest of us.

Media Matters has put out a bunch of studies that are really interesting, all linked to one in the description, just about how right wing media, in terms of political media online is the dominant media.

Think of like the most popular left wing Twitter account, you know, or like the most popular left wing podcast you can think of.

It's not as popular as like AB level right wing media equivalent, right.

So I I'm, you know, winding back a little bit, I want to get your thoughts on like what this kind of infighting, how that can affect people beyond like the MAGA bubble, because it's certainly going to shake up that movement.

Yeah, you might think it destabilizes it, maybe it upsets the power or whatever.

But do you have any thoughts on like what that kind of turmoil and churn can have on the broader Internet or and I guess in turn broader society?

It cuts a couple ways.

So like when?

They are, you know, what's important to consider about the media now is that, you know, these figures, many of them are not they're, they can be dynamic.

They can be part of the MAGA ecosystem now, and in three or four years from now, they could be totally disconnected from it or even antagonistic toward MAGA.

And, you know, in another space, they're they're not like the traditional, say, Rush Limbaugh's or Glenn Beck's or Fox News.

Those guys could never change even if they wanted to.

Even if Rush Limbaugh wanted to become Rachel Maddow, he could have never switched his.

It's too late.

You know, it's baked in.

There's no dynamic ability in an analog media environment.

You have to know I listened to so much.

Rush Limbaugh, when I was working at Media Matters and every single fucking day it was the same show.

I swear to.

God, it was the same show, but it.

Did it?

Did.

Make it did develop a very good sense that I I still have with me of like what's new or what's different where it's, you know, people will be like, look, Nick Fuentes is on Piers Morgan saying he thinks Hitler's cool.

And I'm like, he says that shit all the time.

OK.

What's actually interesting in this interview, you know, so I'm, I'm thankful.

For it in a sense in that.

Way but yeah, you're totally right.

I mean those those guys, Sean Hannity's like this too, just completely baked into a mold they can't change.

But like Theo Von can.

Change, you know, the flagrant guys can change like these guys that are in this sort of like dynamic, the system, they are going to respond to their audiences, right?

And as the audiences shift, they, if they want to keep them and grow, they're going to have to also shift their tone and tenor and what they talk about because their assignment editors are really the algorithm and their audience.

There's a combination of the two.

So what is the net effect then when there's this infighting?

Well, when there's narrative dominance and they're all talking about the same thing or have a, a similar horizon point that they're looking at, they kind of all bring their audiences with them.

And there's very little space for people to grow and change when there are these disruptions.

You're forcing people to pick a side on all.

Every time there's a fight, you're forcing a, a side picking, say, OK, are you with Candace?

You're against Candace, right?

Do you care about this or?

Well, that means that you're not a centrist.

I, I I.

See it on both sides, right?

Totally and like.

And that's that is an opportunity because it means that the audiences then start to become open to different, different things.

And you can move some figures away, especially ones that are growing.

You know, there's a pipeline.

There are people that are not Candace Owens yet, but very well could be at that level in five years that are right now doing a show, probably a live stream.

And so it's not even the static program.

And they are sounding a lot like Candace.

And because that's what the audience is.

So when there are these in fights, it not only weakens their ability to project a story outward, right?

They're less likely to paint a picture of the world for their audiences, which means some truth can get in, but it also means that there's a chance to actually get some of those audiences.

And the last thing is, you know, politics and everything is downstream from culture.

And when they are all in lockstep, they are a cultural force.

They're they're driving in shaping culture in every way.

People are thinking about how is this thing going to react?

How is this BLOB going to respond to whatever thing I'm doing?

You know?

Yeah, We saw this at the beginning of the year.

I mean.

How many companies and corporations just like, shot out their own?

Kneecaps to be.

Like they're going to get mad at us for this, so let's just go ahead and do it right, Right.

And like and that.

And now, you know, when you're, when they're not, when it's not as clear, you have a lot, in a weird way, more freedom to shape culture.

And because it's not coming from the dominant force.

And that that I do think makes a difference, you know?

So, yeah, I, I think that the, that effect of all of this is that there'll be a lot of infighting.

They'll be a lot of shadow for it from like the typical, like, you know, media observers and people think it's funny and it is kind of amusing, but it's not necessarily a good thing because people like Nick Fuentes will continue to grow and he will be picking up not just a new audit, he'll be picking up new people into his audience.

Candace will grow and they will be the, you know, they, they will be like the Theo Von level influencers of, you know, the Joe Rogan's, which is like how I think a lot of people think about the metric of like what influences, even though I don't think he's as influential as he, he was, but in the next cycle and whether directly or indirectly.

And that that's the net effect.

And there's a, a small chance right now to change that.

And it's not by arguing with them.

It's rather by thinking about what is the story that they're that they're selling to their audience and how do we connect with that audience in a similar way, but without all the nonsense and the destructiveness.

And there's something there.

OK, MM, we have to scrap.

Our our idea of making posting through it the official bro podcast at the left.

Oh, we're doing our best.

So you.

Mentioned Rush Limbaugh.

Like you couldn't.

Get higher than a certain point.

And it was Rush Limbaugh for a while.

I feel like that also means that that's sort of where the center of the conservative movement was.

That's like the sun that every being is kind of spinning around to whatever it feels to me.

Like.

That became, and I didn't even realize it as it was happening part partly because I was I was focused on, you know, things that were probably more superficially extreme, but that didn't get a lot of bleed over.

Is is the TPUSTPUSA sort of became that right as an institution sort of became the center of whatever the right you.

They if when Kirk was pushed by Nick Fuentes, he got a harder edge.

He brought in Jack Pozobic that sort of brought like the sort of united the fringe in the in the mainstream in a way.

Yeah.

And then?

We have this.

Shooting in Utah, Kirk is dead.

Do you think now, and particularly with the infighting that's going on that we've covered already on this podcast, do you think the TPUSA is going to be able to survive?

As is Madeline Peltz, who, you know, she is adamant that it's unlikely.

She doesn't.

She doesn't think it's possible with like the likes of Andrew Colvett and Erica Kirk, who is kind of shallow and not particularly deep.

She points out that that Charlie Kirk was a workaholic who did almost every aspect of what TPSA did.

That doesn't mean you can't hire a bunch of people to do it and spread it out.

But really they are.

You see Andrew Colvitt and Erica Kirk competing for that replacement spot, and they both seem to be inadequate when I look at them.

Do you think that TPSA can survive?

And if it doesn't survive or if it's severely diminished in some capacity, does that really open the door for for much more threatening things?

You mentioned Nick Fuentes, but there's all kinds of other things like that that are out there lurking on X as a, as a, as a Center for the movement.

Turning Point's going to be around for a while.

And the freedom.

Works thing was sort of a tongue there because I think 15 years ago freedom works like was this right wing organization that kind of did a lot of stuff that like TP USA does now and I remember them vaguely.

They were huge.

I mean, they were massive.

The if you would go back and I used to get, I used to get Facebook.

Ads for them when I was in college, yeah, they were enormous, like.

They were so big and they had plenty of money and no shortage of money.

And if you were to go back 15 years ago and say freedom works won't be around in a decade and doing or even influential people would be like, that's the crazy standard I've heard.

Like they're super important.

And I think that's kind of how a lot of people feel about TPUSA.

Now.

Do I think they'll survive?

They'll exist for a plenty of time.

There's plenty of money.

So like that, whether or not now the real, to me, the real metric is not what they exist in in as a shell, but are they, Are they driving and doing what they did?

And here's where I think it matters.

You know, when Trump was active on Twitter, he really functioned as sort of like he was connected to the zeitgeist.

He consumed a lot more media both from Fox and elsewhere.

But he also like read the replies.

He was, he had his hand on the pulse.

He doesn't listen to podcasts.

He doesn't really like, he gets up maybe indirectly from Baron, but he doesn't listen to him.

He's not on Twitter anymore.

And Truth Social is just like a weird bot.

Like it's a small sub sample of the zeitgeist.

It doesn't actually connect you to the audience.

So that means that Trump doesn't know when to engage.

And to your point about Charlie Kirk and TPSA in particular is like he was very connected to the zeitgeist.

He was able to inoculate himself against attacks from the fringes, but he knew when there needed to be interventions and when there needed to be something that was managed by, I'd say, Trump.

And that is a really important thing, working the phones and being and sort of thinking about the early warning, early detection and driving.

And hey, you got to do something about this.

Like, I think if Charlie Kirk was still alive, how that whole dust up with Heritage Foundation and Tucker, I don't think that would have played out the way that it did.

That was really, really bad for them, that infighting.

He would have been more engaged on it.

And because that was a big part of his job, he was sort of filling that gap that didn't exist without having a center of gravity.

He was sort of becoming a pull, pull the MAGA movement together.

And they get a coherent Yeah, he provided some connections.

Which because that's all it is, These are all, they're all these little factions, small, small, independent, overlapping things that all care about.

You know, they don't have abortion anymore to, to unite them.

You know, it was really easy when they all agreed on one big or two big things that they could all say, look, we hate, we don't want to agree on, but we're always going to make this our number one or #2 issue, you know, without that, without a person helping provide that connective tissue with Fox News losing its influence with Tucker not being on Fox anymore, do you need it?

Somebody like him?

So I don't think that Turning point USA will be super relevant long term.

I think there's going to be a very, it's very obvious that that they are building a lot around Erica Kirk, not just Turning Point USA, but sort of the the 2028 Vance related faction and loyalists and all the tech people.

Like there is a real effort to give her a lot of influence and power so that then she can take that potential power and then use it for presidential politics.

And I think that's where the mistake is.

It's that it's going to end up being a lot less ground game and a lot less anticipated these little micro fights and focusing too much on the big fight.

In a way.

They're going to end up acting like, like Democratic partisans.

You know, it's like we're only going to care about the next presidential, you know, and that's not right.

And like that's going to be.

And they're going to ignore a lot of these fights.

You know, she she could she could do a lot to shut down Candace Owens right now.

And she's not.

And that itself is revealing.

Yeah.

And for one reason or another, she's not.

And that that is very revealing, but it's also an indicator of where they're going to choose to spend their energies.

And it's not going to be on providing that connective tissue.

And they should because that's where in the 2028 election, millennials and Gen.

Z will be the majority of voters.

And TPUSA, in theory, should have the large amount of influence over that part of the Mogga base.

And they're they're not going to play that role.

So I agree with Madeline that they will effectively not be around.

I think it's very optimistic to say they're not going to be a player.

She's going to be an important.

She's a new character and she's not getting written off for a while.

They in fact, she will only grow and and and rise.

The real tell will be the relationship between TPUSA and Marjorie Taylor Green.

And you know, that I think will will determine how quickly they decline, frankly.

On our premium episode, we played a clip.

From Andy No on Glenn Beck show, Andy has decided that he's a big boy serious journalist again.

I mean, I guess he's always thought that but but has really been focusing his efforts on trying to encourage like media literacy and media integrity so that people stop tuning into these podcasts about just the guy, just the guy to do it you.

Know stop.

Listening to these podcasters who are telling you that Egyptians killed Charlie Kirk or something.

But he said something that I thought was interesting and actually kind of insightful.

And I hadn't really thought about it until I heard him say it in this clip, which is that after Charlie Kirk was killed, there was this moment of unity with the political right and especially of right wing media and a whole host of other audiences that wouldn't normally consider themselves political were horrified by what happened.

Yeah, rightfully so, even though I'm no fan of Charlie Kirk.

And think what he he did with all of his talents and Dr.

was so destructive.

He died in a gruesome, disgusting way.

And that gave so much.

You know, it's unified a segment of the political right and people in the center, even some people on the left that also, you know, would condemn and sympathize with it now that they're at war with Candace Owens and all these people who are making conspiracy theories about turning USA, attacking Erica Kirk, that sort of thing.

That unity's gone.

I mean, the MACA movement at this moment feels so divided.

And I'll, I'll say it, there's been moments in the past where it has felt so divided.

And then an election comes along or some big issue comes along, something a, a major event like a, like an assassination or something like that comes along that reunifies them.

Yep, that moment has completely.

Fallen.

Apart by now, what's your theory on what happened?

I mean, it, it was kind of like if you are turning Point USA and you have to be in a position to figure out a way to maneuver without your star and your founder and your boss.

Like I'm worried this is going to come off as insensitive.

But like, from a strategic perspective, that's about as good of a situation as you can have, all minus the fact that your leader was gruesomely killed in public, right?

Like as an organization, they should have been able to do something with that.

Do you have any theories on like what?

How did it all go wrong?

How did we get here Now where there's this fight over the future of Turning Point USA, They.

It can't be the initial period of time after Charlie Ferk's murder for me.

And through all this is certainly one of the scariest moments, especially as like an American citizen, because the the unification and not just unification, but the intensification of the right wing media and then all the the corresponding political movement, the alignment and intensification.

That was the close like that was a that was a real Black Swan moment for us.

It could have been a a thing that really put us on an escalated timeline toward like an even more intense form of authoritarianism and a place where we can never even imagine coming back from.

But they turned up the gas so high and the bloodlust was already there amongst the right.

There's so many promises and they couldn't deliver on some of them, you know, on basic things on the story, you know, and that's where the the tie, the tie in becomes because even things like those initial days like Cash Patel's at an Italian restaurant in New York, not, you know, is it not there doing press conferences, reinforcing the story when everything is paying attention.

Like they messed they they didn't have the ability to follow through on the ratcheting up.

And what Turning Point did was use a playbook that was very Turning Point and didn't think about the fact that they actually had a spot like a spectator and a spotlight from an entirely new audience of people that were sympathetic.

They probably should have killed the fireworks.

Yeah, they probably should have not had pyrotechnics.

At a memorial service, of course, because and I.

Understand for them, it's like this is what we do.

No, I get that.

Like I, I am very familiar with that and so is all their people.

But everybody else that was not paying attention that and that didn't know them, but was now being exposed to them for the first time where they was giving them all this goodwill and charity, you know, they that didn't work and it, it played very weird and uncomfortable.

And when you tie that in with the other things people were hearing and feeling, they're like, this is kind of scary.

It was objectively weird, though.

I mean it was objectively.

It felt super weird and uncomfortable and it was like.

See all these people paying attention?

Like, wait a minute, something feels weird.

And then at the same time, you know, there are people like turning Point is like very quickly.

They're like, you know, these like Charlie Kirk like figures popping up all over the place pretending to basically be the next Charlie Kirk that are tied into turning Point.

So it feels very artificial and manufactured.

And it what they did was run a playbook that was very standard.

And I understand why.

Obviously this is the fear and the standard.

It was a tragedy, but the effect of that meant that the organization became a vehicle for, for, for collecting as many signatures and emails as they could and not about executing on Turning Point's mission at the time.

And that's, that did have real consequences because you, then you, you bring people to an absolute high and there's an absolute high that they were feeling after that moment.

Anger.

There's a lot of anger, a lot of resentment, a lot of frustration at the Trump people for not being able.

Their people were mad at them for botching what they felt was basic stuff.

Like there was so many individual things that made people mad.

We shouldn't.

It's easy to say that none of this stuff is authentic, but that's not true.

Like, you know, a lot.

There are real feelings here too.

People were mad, but they wanted something better.

And So what do I think happened?

I think that they ran a very standard playbook, as evidenced by the pyrotechnics.

They let the right wing media run wild.

They weren't thinking about, OK, what is the primary function that Kirk fulfilled?

It wasn't his radio show.

His radio show, you could take it off the table and it wouldn't have had any effect.

It was the other piece.

It was taking all the inputs that turning Point provided and then making sure that those were executed on by the movement and navigating all the different cracks to the best extent possible behind the scenes.

That's boring, thankless work and somebody has to do it and nobody, nobody is.

So what ends up happening?

You rely on people like Tucker Carlson to sort of be this peacemaker, Ted Cruz, like they all have their own self-interest and their self-interest don't align with anything bigger than themselves.

Kind of makes sense that it all went went to hell before we get out of here.

We want to get your lightning takes as we approach 2026.

What you expect for some various figures in in right wing media, Mike, you want to start?

Yeah, you mentioned her and I think.

It's the biggest one that people would want to know about right now, which which is Marjorie Taylor Green.

What's happening there?

Where is she going?

What's the future hold?

She's got a rough president.

And she's going to run exact same playbook that Trump did in 2014.

She's going to seem like a goofball.

And but she she did the work before her fallout with Trump, she was popping around all these different parts of the right wing media.

And I think she understands the the different pockets and parts of the zeitgeist.

And the last thing I'll just say is as evidence is think about how fast the rest of the public is willing to accept her heel turn.

And America loves a heel turn.

And you know, she's on the view.

She's ever like, oh, Marjorie, Oh, you do the people, people love.

They love the comeback story.

She's going to run for president and she's going to do it in a similar way that Trump did in 2014.

She's going to try to hijack the right wing audience from the host that they're currently following.

Yeah, I, I remember, I was shocked.

At the reception she got on the view just all of all of that.

People are just just seem so ready to go along with it.

My question or or or my it's not a specific figure, but rather like a category of figure.

The sort of post 2020 like 20/20/2022 ecosystem of anti woke bloggers, podcasters, whatever.

We've talked about them a bit on this show.

They seem to kind of been left in the dust.

What happens to them ironically?

They're now going to sound a lot like the anti will people they used to fight against.

You know, I, I, I think about Chris Ruffo, for instance, you know, these days what he's basically calling for is a media matters.

He's like, somebody needs to stop these people.

They're they're doing so much damage to us.

It's like and they're you're just, you're just sitting there reading it.

On your phone and you're like, I'm trying to and I'm trying, you know?

But like, you know, these these figures now want to do policing and I think that this they will complete the circle and become what they have hated.

Now they'll they'll pretend that they're not.

But that is that is the direction that many of these anti woke people are going is now policing the very people that they've given the the keys to the car to.

I'm going to ask Tim.

Poole, what do you think of?

Where do you see Tim Poole going Nowhere.

Yeah, he's gonna.

He's gonna.

He's certainly.

Not leaving his house in West, Yeah.

He's not, he's not, he's not going.

Anywhere do you see really any?

Here's I guess the question, do you see him as a?

As a as a person whose stature is declining, 'cause that is that that is somewhat in, in, in on the right and 'cause that is a question for me.

Yeah.

And then it is he.

You know, he still has some decent convening power and that is not something that should be discounted, but he is increasing.

Yes, his stature and influence is declining.

It has been declining.

He's not really a massive vanguard.

His real influence rests in the fact that he has convening power and that will that will continue to wane, but he will be able to rest off of his convening power for for a while, but he is going to he's going to win similar to the way Steven Crowder did.

Like he still exists, he still has a show, but his influence is effectively gone.

Whereas for a while he wasn't, he would had a lot more like juice.

That's where I that's where Temple is going.

And we can.

End it on this one just because Mike and I were talking about it the other day and how amazed we have been to see him come back.

Milo Yiannopoulos.

Whoever would have thought that guy would have been able to resurrect some semblance of a right wing media career after getting tossed out like stale bread?

Is it a career though?

That's.

A that is a question like I I know he seems to be making money with something, but he's only getting engagement.

That's a fair question.

I think a career involves.

Like making something of value to somebody, right?

Yeah.

No, he's done.

He's a he's he's, he's a flash in the pan here.

He doesn't have he doesn't he doesn't have, he doesn't have any sustainable role.

He's playing a he's playing a small part because Tucker Carl, I mean, effectively it's Tucker Carlson pivot too, I feel.

Yeah, Tucker.

Carlson wants to start, you know.

Look, they took back the they they, they, they, they took back the R word.

Now they want to be able to start, they want to start using like gay slurs and, and, and then that's, I mean, this is a big piece of it and they want to be line some of their their opponents.

And he has a little bit that he can do out there.

That's right.

I forgot that, Tucker Carlson said.

You know, homophobic slur.

Yeah.

I mean, that's it.

This is.

But he's not, he's not going to have any real sustainable influence.

His previous influence came from the unique role that like he played at Breitbart at the time and connecting these sort of young audiences.

This guy is not going to be, you know, influential in that way.

And the groupers, which is really where that part of the zeitgeist is, is certainly not going to welcome him.

But, you know, he'll be a sideshow.

He he's a he's a he in occasion.

He's a partner on sideshow then.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, he's in.

And we, Jared said.

We're.

Done.

But like the the, the Benny Johnson attacks, where do you see that go in 2026?

Do you think he's able to, like, keep going?

I mean, it seems like his followers seem to be like, oh, yes, you have a lovely family and just seem to just, like, keep.

Yeah.

And then ignoring everything.

Ben Johnson is the new Sean Hannity in the sense that he is a full partisan chill.

I mean a full.

And he's, he's gotten a lot of growth from it, a lot of benefits.

Yeah, that's his main thing, actually.

That's a very good.

Point we should have mentioned that on Bredium, that's right, he is a part, he's a full.

Partisan chill he is.

I mean, he's broadcasting from the speaker's office like he is, you know, occasionally in he is a full partisan shill.

You know, I think, yeah, he's a full partisan shill and that's it.

He's the new Sean Hannity.

He is.

It's weird these days, especially in this space.

Like many of them don't wear their like partisan affiliation on their sleeve, their ideological and everything, but they're not excited to be like a Republican, you know, But like he is, he's a Republican, you know, and he's like really happy to be 1 and will increasingly align toward toward Vance.

I don't think any of these attacks eventually will have any real juice.

I'm I'd be shocked if his audience even gets it.

Not unlike Lindsey Graham, who?

Has been very successful at just adapting to whatever the Republican person is in power, Trump or neoconservative or anything.

And look, I think ultimately many of the.

People, even if they do believe the things about him, what they'll rationalize it as saying, great, he's doing what we would want.

He's living this life and that's all we care about, right?

And so the, that's why I don't think these attacks actually have any real effect on his, his growth or trajectory.

And it'll, it'll be what it is.

That's a really useful perspective.

He already plays to like.

The lowest common denominator, right?

You don't have to be creative or talented or smart to just look at whatever the people in power want you to do and do it correct.

Like somebody like, like, what does Benny Johnson talk about?

It's whatever the leaders in the Republican Party would like him to talk about that day.

And he will talk about it the way they hope that he talks about it.

That's it anyway.

That's a good place to.

Wrap it up.

Angelo Carosone, president of Media Matters, will put a link to Media Matters Angelo's social media, in the description of this episode.

But Angelo, thanks for spending some time to talk to us about all this stuff and thanks so much for having me.

It's very rare to talk to people that are in the same that like really see it and it's like you just want to just go deep on it.

So I appreciate it and you're so good at it.

We appreciate.

It Yeah, thanks.

Thank you guys.

I'd love to vaporize.