reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and advertisers leaving. They mention speaking to Bob Iger and express their disinterest in having advertisers if they are being blackmailed with money.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1 expresses their refusal to advertise and their disdain for being blackmailed with money. Speaker 0 asks about the economic impact and Speaker 1 dismisses it, stating that the advertising boycott will kill the company and they will document it. Speaker 0 mentions that advertisers may argue that Speaker 1's inappropriate comments led to the company's demise, but Speaker 1 challenges them to see how the world responds.

Speaker 0 argues that the BBC should not offer more than the apology already indicated by Samir Shah, who apologized for the error of joining two separate parts of an interview to look like one. He notes Donald Trump called the BBC corrupt and dishonest, which he finds outrageous. He believes Trump has a weak case and that the BBC’s error was editorial, similar to how written journalism uses ellipses; the program balance was not complained about at the time. He says the BBC should have corrected and apologized earlier, and that the BBC’s thoroughness can slow public relations. Speaker 1 asks whether Trump has a strong case. Speaker 0 responds that Trump does not; it was an editorial error, and the BBC should have used a visual cue to indicate the quote’s continuation. He suggests the error was serious and should have been corrected earlier, though he acknowledges the BBC makes errors as do all broadcasters. Speaker 1 asks if the two high-profile resignations were due to pressure from the American administration. Speaker 0 says no, expressing shock at Tim Davie’s resignation, praising Davie as the best person to navigate the BBC through charter renewal and public broadcasting challenges, and emphasizing the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. He contrasts this with populist right voices that interpret impartiality as broadcasting their views, noting the BBC makes errors but remains committed to impartiality. He maintains that the BBC is not institutionally biased and disputes the idea that the BBC is metropolitan, citing its Salford base and national reach. Speaker 1 asks if there is a BBC board coup or significant political interference. Speaker 0 is cautious about calling it a coup, citing examples of powerful figures like Robbie Gibb but avoiding naming individuals. He notes that non-executive directors were appointed under previous administrations and mentions involvement by a former Conservative Party leader who denounced the BBC and supported Robbie Gibb. He doubts that the intent is to destroy the BBC, but suspects some people want the BBC weakened and may hold strong views on license fees and the charter. He does not label it a coup. Speaker 1 asks how the BBC should move on, aside from Trump’s potential lawsuit. Speaker 0 says the BBC must apologize more promptly and publicly when wrong, especially in a fractured society where impartiality is crucial. He suggests the BBC should be on the front foot with apologies and even-handed treatment when treated unfairly. He questions who could lead the BBC in the coming months and stresses the need for balance and restored impartiality in judgment about the BBC’s performance and future.

The speaker had a close but politically opposed relationship with the founder of Fox News, stemming from a shared experience in Africa. Despite their differences, the founder, whom the speaker describes as witty, engaging, paranoid, and brilliant, would have Fox News hosts put the speaker on air to discuss environmental issues. In 2014, the speaker presented the founder with a documentary about mercury in vaccines, which the founder was convinced by, especially because he believed a family member had been affected. However, he couldn't allow the speaker to discuss it on air because pharmaceutical companies provided 75% of the evening news division's advertising revenue. The founder stated that 17 out of 22 ads on a typical evening news show were pharmaceutical ads, which was the principal source of revenue for many television networks.

A man states he was fired because he supports President Trump. He says his boss, Bob, terminated him due to his political beliefs. He believes it is disgraceful and violates his freedom of speech to be fired for his personal political views, as long as he doesn't express them at work or endanger anyone. He asks for help and expresses frustration that his support for Trump led to his job loss. He warns other Trump supporters that they could face similar consequences if their employers disagree with their political views. He maintains that his beliefs shouldn't affect his job and declares he will find another job, saying "Fuck these people."

Television networks are very dependent on pharmaceutical advertising. The speaker knew Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News, who told him he couldn't allow him on the network to discuss his film about mercury in medical products and neurological injuries. Ailes said 70% of the evening news division's revenues came from pharmaceutical companies, with an average of 17 out of 23 ads being pharmaceutical ads. Ailes said any host who allowed the speaker on TV would be fired, and Rupert Murdoch would know within 10 minutes. The speaker claims networks are sensitive to advertisers, who dictate content and ensure compliance from those on news shows.

There is a public perception that the apology tour was a response to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1 expresses their hope that advertisers who try to blackmail with money should go away. Speaker 0 asks about the economics of the situation and whether the business model needs to shift away from pleasing everyone. Speaker 1 acknowledges the need to sell advertising but believes the boycott will kill the company. Speaker 0 suggests that advertisers may argue that Speaker 1's inappropriate comments caused their discomfort. Speaker 1 wants to see how the world responds.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

I had a disagreement with a colleague in front of others, and the next day he refused to resign, so I fired him. On February 2nd, after a video I made went viral, another person from Project Veritas told me they would have an emergency vote to restructure the company. I received an email with the agenda while I was on a plane, and realized I would be removed from my position by the time I landed.

Speaker 1 explains that they were not fired by Mark Zuckerberg, but faced continuous attacks from the media and tech industry. They were put on leave for six months after making a $9,000 political donation supporting Trump. The speaker believes that if Trump had lost, the attacks would have been dismissed, but his victory made it unbearable. They acknowledge a direct connection between the donation and being pushed out of the company. Other Facebook employees fear speaking out or supporting any politician due to what happened to the speaker. The speaker advises right-leaning founders to keep their political leanings private to avoid being terminated by the mob, focusing instead on building and creating value.

The speaker always wanted to broadcast in their hometown. However, they became bothered by the media's direction, even before George Floyd, due to moral and ethical concerns. After George Floyd's death, mandates required that half of interviewees had to be non-white or from a protected class. CBS News allegedly prohibited using the term "riots" in reporting. The speaker feels blessed to be on the other side now. The other speaker believes the net effect was the death of many people and the destruction of an American city. They are bothered that it's been memory-holed and no one has been held accountable.

A man states he was fired for being a Trump supporter. He says his boss, Bob, terminated him because of his political beliefs. He believes it is disgraceful and violates his freedom of speech to be fired for his personal political views, as long as he doesn't express them at work or endanger anyone. He asks for help and says this should not affect his job. He says he'll find another job and says, "Fuck these people."

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

After over a dozen years at Fox News, I've decided to pursue a new challenge, which was a tough decision because I value this show, our staff, and our audience. I'll be leaving Fox News at the end of the week. In a discussion about Donald Trump, the conversation turned heated. One person labeled Trump a sexual predator, while another defended him, criticizing the inflammatory language used. Disrespect towards a journalist was expressed, with claims that her questions were ridiculous and off-base. The dialogue highlighted a divide in perspectives, with accusations of focusing more on sensationalism than on public policy.

The speaker reflects on being fired from their show and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention having unpopular opinions and speculate that this may have influenced the decision. They also discuss how being a top-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. The speaker admits to not being shocked by the firing and expresses no hard feelings. They mention the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. The speaker states that they were never explicitly told what to say, but they were always clear that they would speak their mind. They believe their willingness to express unpopular views may have contributed to their dismissal. The speaker also comments on the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. They conclude by acknowledging the harsh realities of the industry and accepting the consequences.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and clarifies their stance. They express their disapproval of advertisers trying to blackmail them with money and emphasize that they don't want them to advertise. The speaker discusses the potential need to shift away from advertising in their business model. They mention Linda Yaccarino's role in selling advertising and argue that the advertising boycott will harm the company. The speaker predicts that advertisers will blame them for the company's demise due to their inappropriate statements on the platform. They challenge Earth's response to this accusation.

The speaker addresses the public perception of an apology tour and clarifies their stance. They express their disapproval of advertisers trying to blackmail them with money. The speaker suggests that the business model may need to shift away from advertising if it means being beholden to those with opposing views. They mention Linda Yaccarino's role in selling advertising. The speaker believes that the advertising boycott will ultimately kill the company, and they plan to document it. They anticipate that advertisers will blame them for the company's demise due to their inappropriate statements. The speaker challenges Earth's response to this accusation.