Perch "The Thoughtful Pause Podcast"
The concept of Perch is simple yet profound. It represents more than just a moment of stillness; it embodies a philosophy of life. Perch stands for Pause, Evaluate, Responses to Circumvent, Harm. It’s a call to rise above the noise and seek higher ground to gain a clearer view of the world around us. When we Perch, we create space to see the bigger picture, understand different perspectives, and make decisions that reflect our highest values.
Navigating complexities with empathy is one of the most significant challenges we face today, and it is the ability to understand and empathize with those who hold different views. Our experiences and backgrounds deeply influence our beliefs and the environments we are exposed to. Where you sit determines what you see, and what you see determines what you do. When we Perch, we acknowledge this truth and strive to see the world through the lens of others.
Perch "The Thoughtful Pause Podcast"
Half the Story: The Battle for Truth in an Age Where Facts are Fiction
This episode tackles "fake news" and media "echo chambers," advocating for "fact-checking" and "media literacy" to discern "truth" in our "post-truth" era. Join the call for "transparency" and "critical thinking" in safeguarding the "integrity of truth."
YOUTUBE LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtXVWWdpygo
Let's all keep searching to expand our view!
Well, good afternoon, good evening, good morning, fellow perchers. It is us again. I'm sure you missed us tremendously. Tree, how are you today?
Speaker 2:I am under the weather, but I'm here Playing hurt, ready to go Playing hurt.
Speaker 1:Ready to rumble? Okay, you know she's putting in the time.
Speaker 2:Just an FYI. Can I just give a? This is Toby's show, See that.
Speaker 1:She's already distancing herself from it. She's like if this turns out to be a bomb, she wants something.
Speaker 2:I have no idea what we're discussing.
Speaker 1:This is his show. I am just a passenger on this crazy train, and this is her bystander. She says, yes on this crazy train. That's right. Absolutely Not the conductor on this crazy train.
Speaker 2:Let us get it going. All right, let's get ready to rumble.
Speaker 1:We can let it roll. So an interesting topic today. It's one that we've talked about for quite some time, and some of it's heavy, some of it's light, but in either way, it's kind of a disturbing trend that we've seen, and hopefully this will resonate with many of you guys out there. So let's get started. Let's just kind of kick this off. So, you know, we by nature, are inquisitive creatures and we seek to understand, to know and to learn, and we ask a lot of questions and, as a result of that, we form a lot of conclusions that frame our view on the world, and it's working. So we decide whether we feel safe or happy with our surroundings, our politicians, the condition of our planet and all these things based on these conclusions. But are we really only getting half the story or, in some cases, are we hearing a complete work of fiction? We all say that we want to know the truth and that it is the truth that matters, but how often do we get enough of the information dare I say all of the information in order for us to come to this truth? And how can we base our opinions on fact when facts have become so difficult to come by? Let's face it opinions are not facts. You can have your own opinion, but somehow we've decided that these days that you can also have your own facts, and that's wrong and it can be very dangerous. We need to agree to facts, since they should be irrefutable. And well, if we have a different opinion as a result of those facts? Well, that's where debate and, hopefully, compromise, will take over. The informational manipulation that has grown and perfected over the last few decades would make you question whether there really is such a thing as truth or fact anymore, or whether we look for a narrative or morsel of fact that meets our eroding standards of what allows us to stand on our ground and call it good enough. You go out looking for tomatoes, you find tomatoes. You go out looking to rationalize your opinion on something and you find enough fact to satisfy what can often be your low bar for requirement.
Speaker 1:As a result of what is now commonly referred to as media manipulation, people are forced to do their own work, should they be so inclined, in order to get to the facts and the truth, the notion that a person can state something through social channels or even the formal media channels, and that that that information could be taken as anything other than opinion or, in many cases, pure fabrication, is now an epidemic of massive proportions, and we know that most of what we hear and see and read and talk on Facebook, x, instagram is often so outrageous in order to elicit our engagement. But what happened to a reputable source of truth that allows us to stay grounded? So today, on Perch, we discuss the erosion of fact-based opinion making, which is heavily influenced by the near death of objective fact reporting, leading to the rise and proliferation of highly polarized world that we live in. Whether it's around global warming, the war in Ukraine, blm immigration or even a picture of Princess Kate, what we see and hear is often, at best, only half the story.
Speaker 1:Wow, that's a lot. Huh, a lot. See that there was a lot there. A lot.
Speaker 1:So, as we would say, there's a lot to unpack. A lot to digest.
Speaker 2:A lot to click on.
Speaker 1:So let's get unpacking. Let's start with an easy one, okay? So obviously the last, something easy.
Speaker 2:And all that Absolutely, that's pretty heavy. And all that Absolutely, that's pretty heavy. Well, the easiest one, that's pretty heavy.
Speaker 1:Let's start with something that started kind of lighthearted and now may not be so lighthearted, and that's this whole Kate Princess of Wales thing, oh Lord. So let's start there. I mean, why do we have to fake pictures of people? Why has it gotten to the point? We'll talk about the different types of media manipulation. It's fascinating. If you haven't spent any time, go Google eyes media manipulation. It is unbelievable how we have been, dare I say, con for so long. It's a little scary. So let's talk about Kate.
Speaker 2:Okay, no, because when you say things you know me, my mind goes a thousand different directions.
Speaker 1:But if you want to talk about Kate, we'll talk about Kate, so why do we have to fake a picture of Kate?
Speaker 2:I don't know how to fake it, I think, because just like and let's be honest, you know I am not, we're here in America, we're not over there, but we know that that's a I shouldn't say that, yes, I should, sure you can. They fabricate, that's what they do.
Speaker 1:The whole monarchy.
Speaker 2:Oh, the monarchy it's always been smoke and mirrors. It's about prestige, it's about a look, it's about the look of royalty, the look of you know, we can't have any imperfections, because that's a mark against us and that's why the people have been at odds with them for the longest. Yes, money is an issue, but it's like, at the end of the day, just like here in America which we've gone off the rails that's a different story. But people say we pay you. You are in those positions because of our dollars and we need to see you humanize.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so then— but do things have to be perfect, wouldn't people kind of like, if they know—and I guess now it's come out that Kate may be quite poorly right, they think she may have cancer right, she has cancer, right, not quite.
Speaker 2:She put her own statement out.
Speaker 1:So why not just come clean on that? Is there some reason we've got to fake things?
Speaker 2:Because we just said that, because that's a.
Speaker 1:Does that show frailty? It does Okay.
Speaker 2:And we know, but that's.
Speaker 1:So the monarchy can't show frailty, you don't think?
Speaker 2:Of course, not. Okay, interesting, but that's been the image. That's why they spend so much money on PR and imagery, and because what they think the world needs to see is a picture of perfection. And so how dare we not be perfect? So, and then, as they acquiesce to what the people are calling for, they have started to, with this newest generation, with you know, kate and William, to say oh, look at us at this event and look at us being just like you.
Speaker 1:Okay, but I would think to be just like you would be to suffer from the same ills, absolutely.
Speaker 2:So it's interesting, they know it now, but now they know it by default. Yeah, so those of you who have been in a cave.
Speaker 1:I'll read this really quickly For those of you who don't know what we're talking about. We're sitting out there saying who's Kate Winslow all about? On March 11th, the family, the family, the royal family released a picture of Kate to show that everything was fine, that she was okay. And what was interesting was it made it into all the nudity, all the major media channels, and then, all of a sudden, a couple of them started to question it and it says at first it was just social media sleuths, pointing out apparent discrepancies with the pictures, but then four of the world's largest news agencies the Associated Press, reuters, getty Images and Agence France Press all issued what they call kill notices to the picture and took it down. You can find it out online.
Speaker 1:I'll show you a quick picture of it here, with a circle through it. They started to find discrepanciesrepancies, and I mean the first thing I think about is who goes looking for discrepancies to begin with, unless that's common practice, right? I mean, because some none of these were that obvious. I mean one of them was like a hand in the wrong place but can I, can, I, can I perch on this for a minute.
Speaker 1:America has done the same thing well, oh, we're gonna get to that, oh, trust me. Okay, I was gonna say we have all to be remember.
Speaker 2:We've had presidents that were in wheelchairs and we couldn't show the wheelchair. Oh yeah, we did so. How is that any different?
Speaker 1:none, none whatsoever. I just think it's all. It's interesting because in in this particular article they actually talk about, they say an nbc news analyst analysis of the photo suggests that these inconsistencies show manipulation of the image. And so a lot of what we're going to talk about today is either half the story or, in some cases, the fact that stories have been completely manipulated to make us act or feel or respond in certain ways. Now who's the puppet master here?
Speaker 2:and that's so. We'll be one and I just want to. I want to piggyback off them. Bring one more example of what we've done recently. I shouldn't say we, because he wants to spin it when reality is. People didn't question why they never showed the room. This is a man that has taken you, if you agree with him or disagree with him. He has taken great delight to show the crowds that he draws, because that's part of his stick. I draw a lot of people. People love me. People love me. No one took the time, except one journalist there, to take a beat and say well, why we didn't see these people's faces? Why are you making these statements that they adore you? Let's see their adoration. Besides Tim Scott, you know kissing down to his throne, but my point is it goes back to what you're saying wholeheartedly, so people had half the story.
Speaker 2:So, they took that and ran with it. Well, if you even showed the full picture, you would have saw that there really wasn't any black people in the room.
Speaker 1:There was also one. You know, to be fair to both sides, there was a rally that a Democratic nominee did during the last election where the picture showed them talking to a throng of people and then they pulled back and that was all there was was that front of people. So, again, it's this photo manipulation that we're supposed to look at. It go. Oh, wow, this candidate is very successful. Oh, this particular person is is, you know, is is popular with the black voter and all of that. It's made to manipulate us. It's made to make us think something that's very different. So we got got to photo manipulation quickly and I actually pulled a couple aside and for those of you who listen to us on YouTube, we'll actually superimpose some of these pictures as part of it. For those of you who are listening to us on Spotify or another audio channel, we'll put it on our Perch website so you can look at them. But some of them are just clearly obvious that they're trying to elicit some changes or emotion in us, that that that really shouldn't be there.
Speaker 2:So if I can just chime in on what. Toby just said I would. I would ask that let this be the time where those of you who appreciate the audio listeners we truly do don't want you to stop listening, but in this sense is I will love for you to go over. Go on YouTube subscribe, because some things you know, like I said like her face half the time.
Speaker 1:You got to see she got to fix her face on some of the things I say really my face is my face but you know my face is always truthful now take that for whatever crazy things her face. Just there's no words for it. It really isn't it's my face that's true okay so, anyway, so here's one.
Speaker 1:So this came out and this, for those of you who can see, was a Ralph Lauren commercial, and this is what the woman looked like when they actually took the picture, and this is what actually showed up on the cover. All right, now, that's a clear case of photo manipulation, and obviously the folks Well, it's some black and whites, I don't know how clear, well, but look, look, look, how her body shape here, and look at her body shape. Right, it's clearly been manipulated. Now, why? This is clearly an attractive woman. Why do we need to make her even thinner than she already is? Okay, there's clearly a story here that we've got to understand and it's like oh well, if you're not, if you're not super thin, you're not attractive. It's, it's body shaming. So why in the world does a magazine or a fashion designer like Ralph Lauren feel compelled to take somebody who looks perfectly natural in fact, more natural, quite honestly, here than she looks over here? She looks almost emaciated over here. So so why? Okay, you can ask yourself that.
Speaker 1:Here's an interesting one. This apparently came out during the fires in the Aborigine in Australia, and this was the picture that came out. This was a woman, a young girl caught in the fires In Australia. For those of you who can see it Again, for those of you who look online, it'd be great. What is it really? It's actually made up of two completely separate photos, neither of which happened at that time. The picture of the girl was superimposed with a fire picture and then created this picture to create an image to have us what feel sorry for these people, donate money, somehow affect our senses Clearly bogus and photo manipulation. There was one that came up and I don't have a picture of this one where, during COVID, they claimed that they had pictures of dolphins swimming in the canals in Venice and what they said is, now that people are no longer out on the streets and doing all this stuff, nature is returning to its natural places of you know, harvesting or swimming, and all that Completely bogus, completely bogus.
Speaker 2:Well, wait one minute, so it goes. But maybe in that particular statement about the dolphins in Venice. But there was scientific evidence that nature was correcting itself with us driving less, putting less pollutants more fish.
Speaker 1:So we create a picture to push that narrative.
Speaker 2:But the problem is and I hate to bring this up who's the guy that sends you over to air Jesse Smollett? It's that same thing, so it's the Jesse that sent you over to air jesse smollett. It's that same thing, so it's. It's the jesse smollett syndrome like. So it is people at it was. You know, is and has been the lgbtq community under attack forever. So someone created or manipulated a story which took away from the real struggle. So those things really did happen. During covet a lot of self-correction was happening, but when you take things like that in a false narrative, it kind of rains on all of the positives.
Speaker 1:When you find out it's it's it's been manipulated, you feel duped right, just like you. You brought up the smollett case. I mean, are there cases where there's been hate crimes? Absolutely there's there. It's undeniable. But when you fabricate them to somehow either perpetuate your own story or do things like that, you take away from the story and that's that's what I think you know. Dolphins in venice are now, ironically enough, national. National smithsonian, several years later, actually did photograph dolphins in Venice, but to me I think all of your points have a higher theme or a higher calling.
Speaker 2:It was like why would we allow ourselves to have one incident totally change our belief system? Why would we have one and that's both ways right? It was like these are one incident to be like. See, I knew all of this was fabricated, as if the LGBTQ community plus haven't been, you know, going through all the things that happened, but we didn't know, didn't we?
Speaker 1:We didn't know they were fabricated.
Speaker 2:And when we found out, we felt duped.
Speaker 1:We felt like we'd been had.
Speaker 2:So what I'm saying is why do we not attach the blame to that one person and that one incident? And oftentimes people take that and be like like BLM. Blm was a great movement, Some positive things happened, and so when something negative happened, especially from people on the top. You know this whole thing is, this whole thing is so you tell me, the work of months and years, all of that gets thrown away because of the discovery of one or something comes out, but to me it says more about us than them that you dismiss everyone suffering or pain because one person did something.
Speaker 1:Well, you can't blame a class for anything. You can't say that white people are to blame for this or black people are to blame for this. You have to say, in this particular case, to your point, jesse Smollett did the wrong thing, or the person who created that photography created this narrative to try to perpetuate something that presumably was to help them. In this next case, time magazine created the cover of the OJ Simpson murder and overly blackened OJ Simpson because they wanted to demonize black people.
Speaker 2:There's really no other way to explain it Because they think the darker you are, the more menacing you are Correct. So they wanted him to.
Speaker 1:Correct. We wanted to scare people. Now there's no other way to describe this because, as you can see in the in the early pictures, he is not a dark black person or dark black man. And yet by the time the cover of time magazine came out, when it came clear that a heinous crime had been committed, they they clearly blackened the photo deeper than before so what's the narrative?
Speaker 2:what are they trying to do?
Speaker 1:they're trying to before. So what's the narrative? What are they trying to do? They're trying to sell magazines, but what is the story? What's the message that they're trying to manipulate here?
Speaker 2:And the reverse of that, and this has happened multiple times. It just happened two weeks ago again. Well, beyonce was lightened again. It was like why does she need to appear to be white? Why do you think her skin needs to be fairer?
Speaker 1:than what it is.
Speaker 2:So why is it? Because it's the reverse of that. So you needed him to appear to be menacing and scary. So you thought by darkening him you accomplished that. You thought by lightening a beautiful woman's skin would make her more appealing, which is absolutely bananas to me, because white people tan. And then that's when they say you know, I do it because I look beautiful. It's so confusing and I'm like so you want them to tan to be glamorous, but then, when they're black, you want them to be lighter, and it's not like.
Speaker 1:This is a racist publication. Presumably Time magazine did this, the one in Newsweek. As you can see here a much lighter picture. It is the same picture of OJ Simpson, so you can't say, well, maybe their picture was with different lighting, it is the same picture. This one has been manipulated.
Speaker 2:But what was the timing of that magazine? When did?
Speaker 1:that? Didn't it come out during the OJ Simpson trial? Yes, well, this is when he was accused of murder. When we say that.
Speaker 2:I think again when you talk about half the story. I think context matters. At the time the country was divided. And at the time OJ Simpson did become—.
Speaker 1:So do you think it's okay to manipulate a photo of somebody and make them— you know not to ask me that question.
Speaker 2:But I'm saying context matters. When you said that this is not a—historically they haven't been a racist magazine, and what I said, it's the light of the times and at the time the country was divided.
Speaker 1:But Newsweek didn't see it necessarily.
Speaker 2:But that's what I'm. I'm not supporting any of this. What I'm saying is it's not uncommon for businesses to cater to their customer. So, at the time when a country is divided, I'm not shocked that someone who typically doesn't you know play in a field of you know, identity politics did.
Speaker 1:But let's be honest. Do you think anybody reading Time or Newsweek at that time didn't know OJ Simpson was a black athlete?
Speaker 2:What I truly believe in that time, that a lot of people did not see it the way we're looking at it, because, you know, revision is history right. So at that time when it made, I don't remember, I remember it coming up a little, but it wasn't like the jesse small, like the way scandals, the kate middleton picture, it wasn't like that because we were so divided. So it's not a big deal. You know what's the big deal? He's a black man and people saw him as this horrible, mean person. So why do I care what light you show a man?
Speaker 1:I guess. I guess to me that that's part of it is that they created a more sinister. I get it. I'm not saying I agree with them at all.
Speaker 2:I'm just saying, I think context matters is what I'm saying. I think it'll just be like Jeffrey Dahmer. When Jeffrey Dahmer at the time, when here's a man that were like literally cannibalizing people, do you think people care about the imagery they put out?
Speaker 1:with Jeffrey Dahmer, I'm just saying but my point is that's why they call it news and not opinion, or that's why they call it news and not satire, or it's supposed to be fact.
Speaker 2:But what wasn't fact about that? Meaning, it's always been sensationalized, though, too, so you can have fact and sensationalize the fact, if this was the Inquirer or the Star, I get it.
Speaker 1:Time was supposed to be Newsweek, for that matter. Matter the pillar of fact and information, and the first thing they do is doctor, uh, a, a, uh, a convicted or a uh. You know what am I saying?
Speaker 2:um, he was never convicted.
Speaker 1:He was never convicted an indicted murderer and they have to somehow falsify he wasn't indicted he was indicted, but no, no no. No, you're right, he was later on.
Speaker 2:Remember I was later on, so that's what I'm saying At the time.
Speaker 1:Right, but you know they wanted him because he wasn't he got.
Speaker 2:Remember, at the time, the words we were saying to describe OJ is he got off? That's to say he got off, he got off.
Speaker 1:Anybody who was around at that time could tell you exactly where they were when the verdict was announced.
Speaker 2:I can tell you, like it was yesterday, I was sitting in a conference room with Martin Brower. So, with that being said, they won it because he got off, which made him exonerated, which made him a free man, not exonerated, which made him a free man. They wanted him to be criminalized, but this was during the trial, so the next one I'm going to show, and this one's pretty obvious. Right, that's my point.
Speaker 1:Martin Luther King. So Martin Luther King originally had this picture taken by a photographer. If you can see it again, please look at our website or as part of the YouTube podcast. Okay, so he's given everybody the peace sign. Well, by the time he made the publication, he's doing something completely different.
Speaker 2:King gave the middle finger.
Speaker 1:King gave the middle finger and all of a sudden, it's King. Refuses to give interview to reporter, flips him the bird, and so it paints this picture of this indignant, militant, angry black man which is again, creates his persona. Now, there were times when King was an angry black man for a lot of good reason, but why would we perpetuate this? Why would we allow this photograph to exist when it clearly is false?
Speaker 2:And I honestly can't even think of a time he was an angry black man. He wasn't. That was part of the thing, like how can you be so peaceful? So even though his stance later in life about nonviolence he was opening his ways up to looking at it differently, but he always. You know he was not retaliatory at all, but yet we allow that to occur.
Speaker 1:And this was back in the well, what year was King active? Oh, you told me the 50s.
Speaker 2:You know me in years, yeah, what year was King active? Oh, you told me the 50s, you know me. In years yeah, I know I'm not good either 60s, 50s 60s.
Speaker 1:So I mean photo manipulation goes back a long way. And now, unfortunately, the bigger problem is we're getting really damn good at it and it's getting harder and harder to identify this, as people in the computer world will tell you.
Speaker 2:I wish they manipulate these thighs and they don't come back. Can we get that good?
Speaker 1:Trust me it doesn't work. Living in the south of sweet tea you got what you got.
Speaker 1:So very interesting article If you look on Wikipedia on the topic of media manipulation. And again, I guess my eyes opened when I started to say to Tria, we need to talk about the fact that so often we will get into arguments or conversations with our friends and they'll say well, how can you believe that when you know that you know 50% of people do this? You know what are you talking about and then we'll go fact check it and find out that that's not true. I'll give you one that just happened today, which is unbelievable. I was traveling back from Chicago. My Uber driver, who's by all intents a knowledgeable gentleman, said to me you know we're tired of these illegals here in Chicago. And I said well, I can understand how. You know there's other issues that we have here in the United States and Chicago, whether it's homeless or whether it's, you know, mental health. And he goes do you know that they get $9,200 a month?
Speaker 1:$9,200 a month and I said you've got to be kidding me. He goes no, I read it the other day. It said they get $9,200 a month and I'm sitting there going. There's no way that that could be true. There's no way, because I mean, let's face it, $9,200 a month is what? Over $9,200 a month is what? Over $100,000 a year Do you really believe?
Speaker 1:Now here's a gentleman and he's knowledgeable, he's versed, he reads the news and he believes that. So I said, as soon as I got home, I said I'm going to look this one up, I'm going to look this one up. So where did this one come from? Well, there was a viral post done about a month ago by a Republican congresswoman out of Colorado, where she claimed that the federal government was giving undocumented immigrant families $2,200 a month. Now, that's certainly not $9,200 a month, but $2,200 a month. So already we've got somebody going from $2,200 to $9,200. So then I went to a fact-based website. You know what? It ain't true. So here's an Uber driver who is angry and bitter at the fact that he's working so hard, making $300 or $400 a day clearly not making $9,200 a year and angry at the fact that he believes his government is paying out $9,200 a month.
Speaker 2:Factually untrue. You know how I feel about this subject. I just I can't. I can't, I really can't. I say this to anybody and this could be. Take it, apply it to whatever you want. If you allow yourself to hold on to truths and then go around and proselytize, preach them and take such hard stance, don't be ignorant. You owe it to yourself to be educated and find out, and educated means not go to whatever source. Every state, every state has different what we consider welfare policies. It's state-driven. It's not the government, it's the state. So when you get your pennies all in a ruffle, is that an expression?
Speaker 1:I think you can say that. You can say that.
Speaker 2:If you get your pennies all in a ruffle about something, first of all, look at your state, because now you're talking about your tax dollars, because that's what we say. It's my tax dollars that are going to these poor people. My tax dollars are going to all this. So it's incumbent on you to find out the facts. And the facts are in most states across America, welfare is minuscule. No one can survive on welfare and a lot of times and I can speak for the state of Illinois and I have someone close to me that's over the department A lot of it is you have to work to get anything.
Speaker 2:They have companies that they subsidize and say, hey, you go over there, and a lot of times it's less than minimum wage. So you do the math, let it make sense to you. So, before you take a stance, be educated on what you are passionate about. Preach it to your heart's content. I don't care. We don't have to agree, but you should, before you tell people what to think or how to think or what to believe, you should know the facts, and you know.
Speaker 1:I don't agree. I don't disagree with anything you just said there, but I just believe that, as a function of what's going on right now, it's getting harder and harder to find facts. As I talked about in my opening comment is that facts are getting harder and harder to come by because there are very few sources, and I'm going to call out two right now.
Speaker 2:But can I just say one thing Sure, come by because there are very few sources and I'm going to call out two right now. But can I just say one thing? So not when it comes down to this, not every state. It's public. If you want to find out right now, we're in the state of Alabama. If you want to know what you get paid on Alabama unemployment, it's right there. What you get paid on welfare, what is it? It's right there. That is not anything to debate. That is a state criteria. Now I will tell you the max. So it could be lower than that. When you read these max, they'd be like how can people survive on it?
Speaker 1:Exactly so it's right there and you can't manipulate that, but you're talking about one type of information Right.
Speaker 2:I understand that.
Speaker 1:I understand what you're saying, if it's a government-funded program, you should be able to go to that. I want to call out two websites that I believe would be helpful for people, because people listening to this can say well, you know, how do I really know if something's true or not, and even true or fact has some gray to it, and we'll talk about that in a second here. But there are two sites I do want to call out. One of them is Snopes, which is S-N-O-P-E-S. Snopes is a good sign and that's what I did when I got back. It's $9,200 for Uber, what's?
Speaker 2:Snopes.
Speaker 1:Snopes is a website which is a fact-checking website. Another one is called PolitiFact.
Speaker 2:Now, you know, and the reason I'm saying it because I can hear somebody watching this is it because that's where we are right now? Is it left-leaning or?
Speaker 1:right-leaning. No, it claims to be objective and I tried to do kind of a sniff test and I can tell you PolitiFact, which is the other one I'm going to talk about here in a minute, is pretty centrist, from what I can tell. Now I'm sure if you're very far-leaning left you may believe it's too conservative, it's too far right, but at some point again we have to agree that fact is fact. Your opinion can be whatever you like, but if we can't agree on fact we've got big problems going on here. So I want to fall on my own sword here and we have conversations all the time about various things that go on in the world and how we believe and how we feel about things. So I'm going to take as I consider myself to be relatively educated, I'm going to fall on my sword on two current events that I came down on the wrong side of that, I came down on the wrong side of.
Speaker 1:So the first one is I have been relatively vocal about the fact that I didn't believe that we belonged in Ukraine and for a number of reasons I still don't. But the major reason I hung on it was I had read and heard and listened to people talk about the fact that we, as the United States and NATO, had agreed not to ever recruit any other states or any other countries east of Germany after the unification of Germany. And I spouted it and I talked about it and I said look, we're at fault here. Some of you know Candace Owen. Candace Owen went to Congress and talked about it. There have been a number of people that have come out and said we agreed not to do it, we broke our rules. Well, guess what?
Speaker 2:Sorry, nobody can see that if they audio my hard eye roll Exactly.
Speaker 1:Fact speaking, it never happened that way. There have been nuances, there have been innuendos, there have been inferences to it, but we never factually agreed to that. So guess what? Okay, bullshit, all right.
Speaker 2:So that's number one, Bill tell them to stop littering in your studio.
Speaker 1:Fell on my sword on that one. Okay, number two my partner in crime here, or what I call my pill, my partner in life, knows full well how I feel about tiktok. Right, how do I feel about tiktok?
Speaker 2:you almost shit, almost. I send you a video. Don't ever send me anything like from tiktok right and why did I say that?
Speaker 1:why did I say I didn't want anything from tiktok?
Speaker 2:I'm not going to even say why you originally told me you said it Because it's owned by China.
Speaker 1:I said it's a Chinese agent. It's actually designed by the Chinese government. It's owned by the Chinese government now. And there are people out there, brian Kilmeade being one of them Fox News who is convincing people that it's owned by the Chinese government. Well, the truth is it is not Factually speaking. It is not Factually speaking. It is not Now doesn't mean China doesn't have an ownership in it, but PolitiFact will tell you that 60% of the parent company, which is called ByteDance, is owned by global investors, 20% by its co-founders, 20% by its employees and including thousands of Americans actually own it. The Chinese government took a 1% ownership stake in this company. So again, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and that's why I kind of challenged you and said it's easy to say with some things, sure, you should know the facts, but sometimes it's hard to find the facts it is, and I said that, and you've got people literally on reputable news agencies talking about these things.
Speaker 2:Okay, I'll put that one next. What?
Speaker 1:we've said is sometimes these are opinion-based articles and not really fact-based articles. So I was wrong on that one too.
Speaker 2:Just make sure you give them a broom and a dustpan.
Speaker 1:Hey, that's okay, that's okay. So, with that being said, I do want to talk about a couple of different things. Again. This is from politifact, and I want to be fair to both sides of the aisle. So the state of the union was about what two weeks ago? Three weeks ago, and while biden got some good press from it, who got really bad press from it? That's right, katie britt. Well done. The way you nailed that one was impressive.
Speaker 2:So and I look. I didn't know where you were going you remember katie britt? How could I? Speaking from her kitchen american people, you are in trouble.
Speaker 1:I am telling you now lock up your children spend, send your money, but I'm just saying that, then it may have been.
Speaker 2:I'm just saying, yeah, I think I was spot on.
Speaker 1:That was a. I was spot on. That was a little thick. Spot on, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:I didn't even rehearse it either, it just came natural.
Speaker 1:The ambulance is here to pick her up. Yeah, so anyway, politifact did a piece on fact checking for Katie Britt's presentation, and this is again a case where words matter, where words matter, and I don't want to get too hung up on it.
Speaker 2:Oh, I don't know where you're going, but tread lightly Because I okay, I'm going to let you finish, so let's talk about this, okay.
Speaker 1:So here are just a couple of the things said during and don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I'm going to bring up Biden here in a minute.
Speaker 2:No, no, no.
Speaker 1:So the first thing is that during her presentation Should be driven by fact.
Speaker 2:Okay, yeah, we should.
Speaker 1:She said that Biden suspended all deportations. Okay, as soon as he became first day of office, he suspended all deportations. Okay, now the operative word here is all deportations. Now, on the first day of office, biden did indeed publish a memo pausing the removal of certain people who are illegal in the United States. Okay, and the court quickly stopped that pause, but he did stop the removal of certain people. So who's right? Well, technically she is wrong because she said all deportation stopped. Now you could argue well, he stopped some, but she didn't say some. This is, this is the erosion of fact. Okay, so if she had said Biden came in and stopped a lot of deportations, would she have lost a lot of mileage with that? No, would she have told the truth? Yes, but instead we lied. We lied.
Speaker 2:And not only did we lie, it's, it's and and and part of that same math. Has he not deported? How many people has he deported on his watch? So I think that's important to state, though, toby, because when the message is that he stopped all, and your response back is like, well, there was a pause, but you know the number of people he has deported since he's been there. So when you say it's-.
Speaker 1:But why did he deport so many? Because there have been so many more.
Speaker 2:Right, but that's not the point. But my point being-.
Speaker 1:As one goes up, the other goes up.
Speaker 2:You are bringing up the fact that he stopped all. No, not you love. Oh my God. You said you. You are the messenger, so you just said she said he stopped all. And not only did he stop all, we've had the highest deportation rates, and yes, according to the number that comes in, but tell all the facts.
Speaker 1:Correct. That's the facts. So the next one is Biden halted the construction of the border wall. Do you believe that's true? No, it's not only not true, not true.
Speaker 2:They didn't even have. Do you believe that's true?
Speaker 1:No, it's not only not true they resumed barrier construction using the money Congress had previously appropriated. The administration has also spent millions on barrier repairs. Now you can argue whether the barrier is good or bad, or whether it's effective or not, but the fact is they used money that was already appropriated for and kept building it. So in many ways this might be considered negative to some of Biden's proponents who said thank God he's here. He stopped building the barrier wall. He did not. He continued to build the border wall.
Speaker 2:And what were you missing? Another large fact in there. The fact was, when we, as the American public, saw this border wall conversation, the exact words well, I'm not going to quote him verbatim, because even he can't keep up with his own words.
Speaker 1:But what he?
Speaker 2:said was American people weren't going to pay for it, that he was going to get the money from Mexico. He said that so not only did we start building, but it was our dollars because our funding. So those are the facts and state that.
Speaker 1:The third one I wanted to bring up from this, and there were a couple of others.
Speaker 2:I pray if you miss the big one we're going to run.
Speaker 1:I may leave out the big one because, you know, for purposes of time, Okay, wrap it up. This is my monkey, this is my circus, and I've been good Biden chose to release to the US the man accused of killing Lakin Riley.
Speaker 1:And this is a very emotional one, because many of you know that Lincoln Riley was a 22-year-old University of Georgia nursing student who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been caught before and had been released and, after his release, actually did this heinous crime. So this is one of those cases where, again, we prey on emotion because it says that Biden chose to release this person. Now, obviously it's a tragedy. Everybody, from either anybody who's ever had children or anything, knows that a murder is a horrible thing. But to call out Biden for releasing it so Biden doesn't choose who gets released and who doesn't, it's the justice system.
Speaker 1:Ok, so you can turn on all that semantic, it's not, it's erosion of fact again. So if they'd said under Biden's government this happened, that would have been factually true. But that's not what she said. What she said was Biden chose to release to the United States the man of accusing. So obviously this is a case where words matter and facts matter, and we need to get ourselves in a position where we stop creating opinion and creating this fact. So which is the one that you think I missed, that I should?
Speaker 2:have the biggest one, the one that got everyone heartstrings, when she told the story of the, the immigrant that was raped, and it wasn't even like it happened when we let immigrants come into this country and it didn't even happen in america and it wasn't on biden's watch, it wasn't even his in America and it wasn't on Biden's watch, it wasn't even his administration.
Speaker 1:But I just I don't understand why we had to lie about these things, Because again.
Speaker 2:you could, toby, come on For real. You don't understand why we had to lie.
Speaker 1:I could have rewritten this speech with four different words and made it factually accurate, and it wouldn't have impacted. It wouldn't have made as big an impact If you said look that he stopped some deportations. Do you think that would have had a major? Anyway? So to be fair, let's talk about Joe Biden's latest speech during the State of the Union and again, let's fact check it. And again, politifact is a great place to go if you want to get an idea of this.
Speaker 2:How much time do we have? So the first one are you getting bored? I just want to make sure we get past politics, because it's, is it all politics? No, I'm not.
Speaker 1:No, okay, is there other things you want to talk about? You told me I had free reign.
Speaker 2:I'm only on hour one of seven. Here I'm a passenger you're right, there you go. But you know, sometimes passengers become backseat drivers. You're a backseat driver.
Speaker 1:Okay, I'm going to shut up. So do you believe that inflation has dropped from 9% to 3% and is the lowest in the world? Because that's what Biden said. It's not. Inflation has fallen, but we're not the lowest in the world. So, again, words matter. Consumer studies show that consumer confidence is soaring. Do you believe it's soaring? We know it's not. It's not.
Speaker 2:So facts matter, but did he say consumer?
Speaker 1:He said consumer studies show consumer confidence is soaring, oh he said consumer.
Speaker 2:Again, context matter.
Speaker 1:So he didn't say consumer, he said consumer studies show consumer confidence is soaring, which is not true.
Speaker 2:But that's different than saying. He said the consumer sources, but the facts don't speak to that. I hear you.
Speaker 1:The survey's consumer sentiment score was lower than it was in April 2020, a startling finding, given that in April 2020, the unemployment rate was 13.2% and Americans were facing the uncertainty of a once-a-century pandemic.
Speaker 2:Can I ask a question? Yes, yes I wanted you to say no, because I'm like where would I have gone with that If you said no, I would have been like you think I was going to be quiet.
Speaker 1:No, never.
Speaker 2:What I don't understand about American politics and maybe like the lender's bagel man, like he always says, bagel I understand people I never understand. I don't understand how can we continue to want it both ways, meaning when you hear American consensus I've heard time and time again since I was a child and I haven't been a child in a long time.
Speaker 1:Oh, but you act childish. Does that count?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I do have a childlike spirit. Thank you, Toby, for sharing Caring and sharing. Not always. But what they say is we want our American president, when he speaks to the people, to bring up hope and positivity, and lie, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry, Now I shut up all of this, and so this is what I've been told that we want a strong leader. That's positive, and let us know, even when it's a shit storm outside, that the sun is going to come out tomorrow.
Speaker 1:We want fucking Annie, excuse me this one's going to be R-rated. Sorry.
Speaker 2:We want freaking, annie. We want to know that the sun is going to freaking, come out tomorrow and all of the pain is going to go away, and we don't want doom and gloom. That's what I was told.
Speaker 1:She's on cold medication today.
Speaker 2:In case someone am facts, facts, the part is true.
Speaker 2:Thank you for exposing my business again, no problem I always count on you, um, but then I'm confused because if we get up there and we have a president that truly reads the facts as we know it, you've never paid this much for toilet paper and you probably never will. You can't afford that state. Put it back. Those are the facts. You guess what? It is shitty. The climate is screwed up. You know your children don't know crap. That's because they sit in the house. And if we came up and told the truth, we would be like what the hell Get rid of him. So you're okay with. And if we came up and told the truth, we were like what the hell Get rid of him.
Speaker 1:Where do we go? So you're okay with lying? You're okay with the president lying to you?
Speaker 2:No, I am okay with looking in the mirror and having some honesty, but I understand that I'm cut from a different cloth number one. Number two people need to like. Literally after Biden gave that speech, I've even heard Republicans say you know what he did, well, or he? I'm not a fan. I wouldn't vote for him. Just hear me out for a second.
Speaker 1:Like.
Speaker 2:I'm not a fan, I wouldn't vote for him, but that's what we need. We need someone to come out and take charge and be authoritative. Yet, factually, we had, you know, the orange oompa loompa. He gets up there and he goes on his tirade and you know who he is and if I have to say his name, whatever you know, his name is trump. You know he gets up there and, like I'm gonna recap it, I'm going to, and he swears and he does all these things that are not presidential whatsoever, and he has a mass of people that's following him too. So where do we stand?
Speaker 1:Why, if he's such a horrible guy?
Speaker 2:I didn't say that.
Speaker 1:I said that for them. Why do so?
Speaker 2:many people follow him.
Speaker 1:Because they believe that there's so much deceit and lack of truth. You can call it lies, you can call it whatever you want.
Speaker 2:And I don't agree with you. I don't think it's okay for.
Speaker 1:Katie Britt to lie, any more than it's right for President Biden to lie. Anytime we get into that, then all of a sudden it just becomes this race to the bottom, whether that's propaganda or political speeches or advertising. If we get lied to, you cannot create.
Speaker 2:But can I step in there for one second? Isn't it a difference? And I can't stand. I can't stand white lies. That's just a little white lie. A lie is a lie is a lie.
Speaker 1:But you just let Biden go. I'm going to say what you just said, that it was okay to lie because you didn't want to hear how lousy the world was.
Speaker 2:I said that's what the world says. Oh okay, I literally said the opposite. Anybody I know Phil's listening. I saw your head go up and down.
Speaker 1:Okay, all right, I said the world.
Speaker 2:I said he cannot tell the truth, he cannot come out and say you know, you come home, do you? That's all I'm asking I live in a truth.
Speaker 1:I live in a truth if the fact is, you probably won't buy a house for the next two or three years.
Speaker 2:Those are the facts and it's not going to change for me how I live, but I understand how people need to hear it's going to get better and it is people need sunshine and cupcakes Unicorns and cupcakes Okay. But anyway, you made me lose my train of thought. Okay, Carry on, go back to me. So you know what.
Speaker 1:I'm actually and I don't know if you wanted to talk about anything other because I was going to finish with a quiz here. I was going to quiz you and it's a game that everybody plays.
Speaker 2:Oh boy, Now you got me all riled up in my cold medicine war off. There you go, oh no.
Speaker 1:So I was going to finish with four facts and a lie.
Speaker 2:I heard of this. Okay, I played this one before. All right, everybody plays it, and I've done it in corporate America, which is interesting. Everybody plays it at work, you know, give bit wider. And this is courtesy of Snopes, which is again one of those sites so wait, are you just?
Speaker 1:are you? Is this personal? Are you just trying to? Oh, it's personal, it's game on. Okay, let's see how you know I have no secrets.
Speaker 2:I may tell something about you. These are things that happen in the world. I'm ready to tell it all.
Speaker 1:I would never tell anybody any more about you thank you, they already know, trust me. So these are. These are all come out of Snopes Five things that have been questioned and challenged.
Speaker 2:So we're saying that Snopes is the authority and everything you got down there. They are Okay, whatever.
Speaker 1:God, please help us. Some place has to be fact checking. Five of them, all right. Four of them are true and one of them is a lie. Okay, and we're going to go real slow here. The first one is a lie. Okay, and we're going to go real slow here.
Speaker 2:The first one is Washington State. I thought this was going to be rapid fire. Why are we going slow?
Speaker 1:Because if I go fast, you'll tell me to slow down, or you'll say you didn't hear it, or I'll repeat the question.
Speaker 2:Or you'll want to recount, or you'll say that Chad was hanging or something.
Speaker 1:It'll be something.
Speaker 2:You liberals are always the same.
Speaker 1:All right anyway.
Speaker 2:Washington state in 2027 will no longer require you to pass the bar exam for a law degree. I heard about this. I heard about this because I thought about remember the movie um idiocracy, idiocracy or idiot, yeah, when they got their degree. So that's the first one.
Speaker 1:You got to think about that, whether that's true or false? Okay, next one is Bill Gates owns a farm that produces a lot of potatoes for McDonald's French fries.
Speaker 2:Stop it.
Speaker 1:I know where McDonald's potatoes come from, that's number two Bill Gates owns a farm that produces a lot of the potatoes for McDonald's French fries Okay. The third one is Biden is the first US president to skip a cognitive test. Okay, you know what I mean. Okay, all right, so that's number three. Number four is Putin took his dog in 2007 to a meeting with then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was deathly afraid of dogs.
Speaker 2:So no, no quick question. So that's four, right?
Speaker 1:That's the fourth one.
Speaker 2:So it's three lies and one truth.
Speaker 1:No, no four lies and one truth.
Speaker 2:We haven't got the last one yet, you see, because you jumped the gun.
Speaker 1:Okay, and the last one is the kingdom of Bhutan. Have giant penises painted on their buildings to ward off evil spirits.
Speaker 2:I like that Penises go away so four of these are true. One of them is a lie if I could imagine people with penises around their neck. Nothing says safety like giant penises, if I could, keep certain people away, I'll walk around with a hanger from my chin. I would do it in a heartbeat if they would stay. The hell away from me. No-transcript.
Speaker 1:That would be a hell of a fashion statement.
Speaker 2:I promise you I would do it. I'm promising you that I'll have it swinging back and forth too. Just stay away from me.
Speaker 1:That gives a new expression to swing. Never mind, we're not going to talk about that. One Okay, farm was Was. Washington State will no longer require passage of the bar. False Number two you don't think that's true, that's a lie. So you believe that's the lie.
Speaker 2:You said they.
Speaker 1:I said Washington State will no longer require you to pass the bar exam for your law license by 2027. Is that true or false?
Speaker 2:I heard this. I've heard it. I did hear that this is going to happen. I just didn't believe it. So you think it's false. Can we go back to the rest? Just pass that one, okay.
Speaker 1:Bill Gates' farm produces. You think that's false, false? Okay, so the rest of them are true. Wait, so it's only one, only one falsehood here.
Speaker 2:You're lying.
Speaker 1:I lie you not. Stop it.
Speaker 2:I stop you not I thought it was all lies and one truth. These are all true, except for one. Okay, go back.
Speaker 1:Rewind Washington. Phil, we're going to need another four hours for this podcast.
Speaker 2:Just make it quick, just go back.
Speaker 1:Washington State doesn't.
Speaker 2:The answer has to be true. That's true, it is true.
Speaker 1:Okay Okay. Bill Gates Farm produces potatoes for McDonald's French fries. I'll say true, true, a large portion biden is the first us president to skip a cognitive test.
Speaker 2:That is false. That is indeed false. I know that one. So the last two are also true, which is putin took his dog to a meeting. Once I do the rules, I can answer next.
Speaker 1:You're amazing, I am and and the biggest one well, I shouldn't say biggest and penis in the same sentence, but the biggest one here at the bottom is that giant penises apparently do ward off evil spirits.
Speaker 2:Because the kingdom of Bhutan have not seen any evil spirits in thousands of years. Satan has been busy, and I'm going to get me a giant penis.
Speaker 1:I think you can order one from kingdom of Bhutancom and we'll put that too long.
Speaker 2:You know the shipping. We just had the cargo ship run into something. You won't get anything for a while, until bridge.
Speaker 1:On that note, we tried to add some levity to obviously a very challenging.
Speaker 2:I like this format. How about I just not do?
Speaker 1:any work from now on? How about you do nothing Exactly?
Speaker 2:You just sit there, I just let you do everything and I just comment I like this, we'll call it the Uber driver podcast, and I'll remember to take cold medicine. You, we'll call it the Uber Driver Podcast, and.
Speaker 1:I'll remember to take cold medicine. You just sit in the back and be critical. Yes, that's great. Absolutely. I like that. We'll call it the Uber Podcast. You just sit in the back and be critical.
Speaker 2:Why you got to change from Perch.
Speaker 1:That's right, I don't know. Anyway, I hope we added some levity and brought some thought process to the idea. At the end of the day, your opinions, opinions based on fact. Let's stop acting like idiots and taking the dog food that they feed us. So, on that note, fellow perchlings, we wish you good tidings. Good day and we'll see you again soon, take care, thank you.
