In this episode, Tudor Dixon, along with Kyle Olson and Sara Broadwater, discuss the attempted assassination of President Trump and the media's reaction. They critique the media's handling of the event, highlighting issues of bias and the impact of political rhetoric on public perception. The conversation delves into the role of news organizations and the importance of responsible journalism. They emphasize the need for balanced reporting and respectful dialogue to foster a more informed and less polarized public discourse. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We are actually going
to have the group on today. A lot has happened
in the past week. Obviously, we went through the attempted
assassination on President Trump. We've actually just attended the first
day of the RNC convention and it was different than
(00:23):
I think we've seen in the past, and a lot
of emotion and a lot of excitement, but also a
lot of emotion, even I think from Donald Trump himself.
And so I have Kyle Olsen here with me and
Sarah Broadwater, and we just kind of wanted to go
over that and the media's reaction to it, because I
find the media's reaction to what happened over the weekend
(00:45):
in Pennsylvania with this attempted assassination and losing the supporter
in the stands and two other supporters being hospitalized, which
we now find that they're in stable condition. But we
still had a shooting at an event where you would
imagine you couldn't possibly have a shooting like this. And
(01:06):
I think it was interesting because on Monday, MSNBC chose
to take Morning Joe off the air, so at the
time we were all kind of like, that's pretty weird
that they don't even trust their own hosts. They are
so concerned, and it was kind of leaked out that
the executives were like, Eh, we're not going to have
them on on the off chance someone says something totally
(01:26):
stupid and we can't come back from it. Today we
find out that the hosts of Morning Joe Art are
irate about this, which I think is interesting because to me,
this means that the executives at these news organizations expect
this from these people. They know the rhetoric has been dangerous,
(01:50):
and after a crisis, they don't even trust that they
can keep their mouths shut long enough for the crisis
to I guess not past, but in a sense pass
long enough for people to heal a little bit. They
can't even have them on the air the next day.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah, and there's well a show like Morning Joe. They
have politicos talking, professional talking heads, reporters, sort of professional
people on, and if they can't even trust those people
to not say something inappropriate or crazy, that's really saying
(02:30):
something about MSNBC. I understand. There's other networks and they
have sort of you know, kind of fringy people on
and they say, you know, crazy things, but for MSNBC
to do that was really unprecedented. But then also to
have Joe Scarborough come out and openly, i mean basically
criticize and sort of, you know, be very negative towards
(02:52):
the management of MSNBC was that was also very interesting.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I don't think MSBC can ever claim to be a
credible news organization after this. If they have talent that
they know it's going to go on and say something
crazy so much so that they have to keep them
off the air, how can you incredibly claim your news organization.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Well, and I would say that these are people who do,
like you said, Joe and Mika, I think they consider
themselves news anchors. They don't consider themselves commentators, they consider
themselves actual news anchors. So they're shocked by this and
they actually I think it was Joe who came out
and said, if they ever do this again, see what
they did is they said, we're going to be running
(03:31):
this newsfeed all day. All NBC stations are going to
be running this newsfeed. Well they didn't run it the
rest of the day. I'm not even one hundred percent
sure what happened during the the Joe Morning, Joe show.
But they are obviously aware now that they were told
something that wasn't the case for everybody because of specifically
(03:52):
because of them. And he essentially said, if we're ever
told this again, we're coming to the office. We will
sit in our chairs, and if they don't have us on,
we will leave us hosts. And I thought, well, that's
MSNBC's opportunity if they think they're such a threat. And
I say that word and I mean it, because they
obviously chose to take them off the air because they
(04:14):
thought that it was a threat to their network, not
a threat to the American people, a threat to their network.
And this is after we've listened to years of them
trashing Republicans, just trashing Republicans. You know, everybody has a
right to say whatever they want to say, and these
news networks can say whatever they want to say. But
(04:36):
the problem that we have is that a twenty year
old kid somehow got in his head that he had
to save the world from this threat. And obviously we
don't know the details of what happened in Pennsylvania, but
lives were ruined, lives were destroyed, a former president was
(04:57):
nearly killed. I mean the the fact that that shot
didn't hit him was a miracle, a miracle, and we
can only say that it was God's intervention because every
expert who has seen this has said there's no way
he could live through this, like this had to have
been God intervening that he lived through this. But their
(05:18):
rhetoric has gotten to a point where these people who
talk about the infotainment people that the people who talk
about news, they aren't the news. They aren't talking, they
aren't telling you the news, they're talking about news, is
what I would have to say about them. These people
interpret it in the way they choose, and they are
(05:39):
so offended by the other side. They're so determined that
they have to get the other side out of there
that they have decided that this type of commentary is
what is acceptable, and it has gotten into young people's
minds and look at what happened. Well, I think to
your point you said, Mika and Joe genuinely do think
they are the news. And I think it's because they're
(05:59):
true believers in what their principles and policies are that
they actually think, yeah, we are telling the truth, when
in reality, their sense of truth is very warped because
they don't actually follow the facts. But to your point,
I do think Joe and Mika actually think they are
news anchors. And that's the problem we're in. CNN thinks
they're unbiased, MSNBC thinks they're unbiased. I mean, CBS, all
(06:20):
of them think they're unbiased. I don't think they think
they're unbiased. I would argue that. I think what they
think is that they have to tell you where to land.
They have to bring you to their side because they're
so that you don't understand how dangerous the other side is.
I mean, listen to this. This is just yesterday. They
are literally CNN was literally covering the Republican National Convention
(06:43):
when Kate Benningfield says this on the air, and you see,
I'm gonna play it for you, but you see, I think,
what is our name, Holisafara. You see her face when
she says is it's like, I mean, she gets it
right off the bat, like this is not the kind
of conversation we're having, but this is what she says.
I want to play it for you.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
He has said many many times, after having been questioned
many times about this, that he's not stepping down and
he is going to be the nominee. So at some
point Democrats have to decide that they want to try
to win this election and turn their fire on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
I think there is I should have said, turned their fire.
I apologize that was not the phrase that I meant.
They need to turn their focus on Donald Trump. The
thing that bothers me about that is the person laughing
in the background. She says, Oh, I shouldn't have said that.
Someone immediately starts laughing in the background. This isn't funny
and not fit is enough. But I understand what she's
(07:35):
saying is to focus on him, and I think what
she was saying was key there. Joe Biden's not stepping down.
They have a real problem now because now they're in
this situation where Donald Trump has been hailed a hero.
He stood up. I mean, nobody's ever done that after
an assassination attempt, stands up, lifts up his fist. There
(07:56):
are people I see on social media that say, I've
never been interest in politics before, or I was on
the other side, or I was on the fence and
I saw that and I just had so much pride
for America. Democrats are freaking out right now. But this
is the kind of thing. They're so used to it,
they're so used to saying, go after him, put him
in a bullseye, eliminate him. I mean, you can go
(08:17):
back and you can replay all of the Democrats that
have said this over the years, and let me tell you,
if it were the other way around, it's all you'd see.
They wouldn't be talking about any news, they wouldn't be
talking about the DNC convention, they wouldn't be talking about
Joe Biden. They would be if there was an attempt
on Joe Biden's life. They would be going back and
(08:38):
they would say everything, and it would be extremists, this,
extremist that. But what is that solve?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Within hours, you would have had a supercut of every
single Republican out there that had said something like that before.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
And they're just so with the way she said that.
They're just so casual with the rhetoric and with the analogies,
and just I think it was that same day there
was an New York Times headline that was sort of
using the same sort of rhetoric about what Biden was
doing to Trump, and so it's it's this sort of
just very casual use of this kind of thing, and
(09:14):
I think what people need to realize is that there
is a lot of it's high stakes, but it's also
highly emotional, and I think the Democrats in particular have
made this very emotional. And just think about the rhetoric
that they use about you know, he is a threat
to democracy, and he's an existential threat, and people are
(09:37):
comparing him to Hitler and all of that. But then
those very same people are then rushing to Twitter to say,
you know, political violence has no place in American society,
which I agree. But when your mindset is that this
person is a threat, and what do you do, you
have you eliminate threats.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Even Alissa Slotkin in our State
has an ad which I think all of these ads
have been pulled now, and all of Biden's ads were
pulled because they were so that the rhetoric was so high,
that the emotion was so high, and it was you know,
(10:20):
I've been attacked by Donald Trump once again. He's coming
after me and he's coming after you, And that kind
of message was constant, and people really feared, like, what
is this about? And so what I think we found
in the campaign that was so frustrating was that the
news was no longer about reporting on either side. They
never reported on what we wanted to do policy wise.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Never.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
They only reported on or they only defined me. They
reported on her stuff all day long. I mean, remember
how what a hero she was when Goshen was coming
because it was jobs. Never reported on what Goshen was on. Oh,
she's bringing all these jobs, which was not even true.
They never ever talk about the Republican policies, They never
talk about the Republican platforms. They twist it, they say
(11:07):
this is what they're going to do. I mean, gosh,
I've heard so many things about Oh, he's gonna have
detention camps, and he's gonna go and round people up
at their homes and they're gonna all be sent on
these planes and it's pea. Families will be ripped apart,
and then we'll never have the framework of the United
States again. They know it's all untrue.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, but look and look at there was a there's
you know, a bunch of Michigan reporters in Milwaukee right
now covering the convention, and look at what some of
these reporters are putting out. One story was the uh,
the Hailey delegates can't bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.
(11:46):
And then there was another story that while some of
the Michigan Republicans don't like JD. Vance, I mean it's
they have an objective. They want to undermine what's going on.
They want to undermine Donald Trump. And so instead of
just reporting the support reporting what's actually going on, they
have a narrative that they like to push and maintain.
(12:08):
And so that's why you see stories like that.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
They will pull Democrat press releases and write the story
exactly how the press this is all we saw that.
But for Republicans, they don't take the press release. And
you know, you talk about policy, okay, well, for Democrats
they would write straight up, here's what they say the
policy is going to do. Here's ohow will impact people.
For Republicans they change it and say, well, this is
this is what they say, but this is what it
actually means. But you actually had people's plan.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
You actually had reporters call you and say, the Democrats
sent us this, and we're supposed to write on it.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Yes, I mean it was very clear, Hey, we got
this appo packet from somebody. We're going to write this
story because they asked us to what's your comment. Well,
even if it's not true, they still say it's a story.
We still have to write even if it's not true,
and we'll put your comments in there. We still have
to write, which is such blogony.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
So what you Sarah, So what you're saying, take it
take one step back. So what you're saying is that
the reporters are not actually doing their own research. There's
some group that has an objective or agenda. They're doing
the quote unquote research and then they're handing it to
the reporter, and then the reporter is acting like they
did all of this research and are doing this hit
(13:19):
piece and they're calling you for your reaction. Is that
what's happening.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Oh, it's one hundred percent what's happening. And I don't
want to paint all reporters in the same way, but
for the most part, reporters are fundamentally lazy. If you
hand them a story that is baked with citation, if
you're a demotor act, if you're a Democrat especially, but
if you hand them a story that they think is catnip,
it helps them hit their quota because they have to
have a certain number of stories they write every day
(13:44):
or every week. But it also helps them get some
sort of salacious tidbit that drives clicks to their website,
which ultimately makes them look good, whether it's the website,
Twitter feeds, whatever it is. They're going to write that
all day, and you've just made it so easy for
them to do it, and it doesn't really matter if
it's true or not to them. I've complained about I
mean at both sides have complained about dark money groups
for a long time. It's really frustrating because they bring
(14:07):
in all of these stories, and they bring in all
this money, and they do all these ads and you
have no idea who's given to them and how much
money is coming in and how many attacks there will
be against you, and so we you know, when you
look back at our election, you don't even know how
much money came into it because it goes into these groups.
And I was saying on the podcast over the weekend
that there was this and I didn't know this, and
Sarah's like, well, I probably hid that from you. There
(14:28):
was this group called Defend Democracy Project and they listed
me on a list. I mean like a terrorist list.
I was on a list of what was I called
a gosh, what were you all? Threat to demother?
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, throat to democracy? That was I was on a
list as as with Matt DePerno and Christina Caromo, we
were threats to democracy and it said because I had
taken unprecedented steps. I researched this over the weekend. I
found myself on this list. I had taken unprecedented steps
to over turn an election.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Like when That's interesting because and this was not scripted,
but I was just looking at Twitter, and I think
it was yesterday and some random person quote tweeted a
Gretchen Whitmer tweet from twenty twenty two where she was saying,
you were a threat to democracy because and you wouldn't
(15:23):
you would not commit to supporting the results of the
twenty twenty two election. According to her, I'm not saying,
which is such?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I mean, that is another a question that makes me
mad because you know, everybody asks you, are you going
to immediately accept the results? Well, let me see what
they are, let me see how close they are, let
me see what actually happened in the election. But we
did and at the end of the day. I mean,
I conceded the election the next morning. It was obviously
a blowout. There was not that opportunity to go back
(15:50):
and fight on any angle. And yet they still call
me that.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
But that's but sorry, but that's to me, that wasn't
my point. My point was what the group said, is
what Whitmer also said exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
They use an entire ecosystem to their benefit, right, and
they have them all, they all it's like an echo chamber,
one says one. They pass information off to each other.
But to your point on they want to so desperately
call you this election denier. And nowhere in those stories
does it ever talk about the fact that, yes, the
next morning you called to concedet and I.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And I've had a lot of people that are mad
at me about that. And and to those folks out there,
there are rules to looking at when when you look
at an election and you look at the results, and
at what threshold do you fight? How do you legally
go about it? And this was there was no fighting
on And that's why you can't allow people like Jocelyn
(16:41):
Benson to refuse to have a signature match on ABS
ANDEE ballots because if you don't have the signature match,
there's no legal recourse. You can't go back. There's nobody saying, Okay,
well these don't count because they're illegal. They're illegal ballots.
And I think, and I'm not saying that that happened
in our election, but I'm saying that the availability was
(17:02):
there for that to happen. And that was what I
kept saying. Look, if we're going to change the rules
at the end, like right before an election, if you're
going to change the rules, I mean, it's suspect, it's bizarre.
Speaker 6 (17:11):
Why would you do that? And why wouldn't you have
a signature match? Well, and I guess maybe i'm multipool too,
but there's something that I like about there's a decorum
to this all. I mean, you call your opponent, you
can see, you can have those conversations and realize that
you guys have difference on opinion, but you're not a threat.
And I was never a respect there.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Whether or not you agree with them. And we've gotten
so far past that well, and we never used that
kind of language. I mean, there were plenty of Do
I think that the things that she did to businesses
were hurting the state of Michigan. Absolutely, Was it a
threat to our economy? Yes, absolutely, Like I don't think
that you can say somebody is when you say somebody
(17:55):
is a threat, and you don't define that in any way.
There's no fight against that right because them on defense.
But her policies were very threatening to the state. They're
very threatening to our hunters, they're very threatening to our manufacturers,
and they're very threatening to many of the people, like
the people who live in the up with these energy policies.
Those were very threatening policies. I don't think that, you know,
(18:17):
I don't look at her as and I don't think
I can paint her as like, oh my gosh, you know,
the whole world is going to end if you let
her anywhere near anything.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's that's where people start to go, Man, we've got
to do so, we've got to eliminate the threat. That's
how you end up with what we had over the weekend.
That is not the kind of rhetoric that we have.
But look at her. I mean, as we pick up
part these people, and we talked about this over the
weeknd two, as we pick apart these people and the
threats that they have made. When she was on TV,
and I think you were one of the ones to
(18:47):
break this. Kyle. When she was on TV during the pandemic,
she put this little sticker behind her in her screen
so that it would be a national TV. And this
was not hidden, it was right there right out front,
so it would be a national TV saying eighty six
forty five. People are like, whoa, whoa, whoa. You were
literally calling to eliminate the president of the United States,
(19:08):
And there is no question that's what that meant. And
yet I've heard nothing about that from the mainstream media.
And I also think what a liability that is for
the networks too. I mean, most times when you go
on a show, there are some standers as to what
way your bound drop. And I know different shows have
different standards than others, but I do think, and maybe
this is something we go back and look at, but
(19:29):
what a liability for those networks that allowed that to
be aired.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
She was on Meet the Press, that's the show.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Which I mean usually on Meet the Press, not all
the time, but you usually have a specific background. I mean,
there are standards to these things, or at least a
respectable level that you have a home studio set up
that it's going to be so So that's why.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
I'm saying they're just so very casual that she thinks
that putting something like that in the background and then
sort of pleading ignorance when you know she's caught it
just it. I think it creates this environment where everyone
is on edge that if you know, this particular person
wins or whatever, it's it's the end of the world.
(20:12):
Because there's a difference. You were sort of getting at it.
I think there's a difference between saying she's a threat
to businesses, she's a threat to the economy, versus saying
she's a threat to a democracy because democracy, quote unquote,
we're not a democracy. I know, I understand that, but
that underpins everything. And if you're going to get rid of,
(20:37):
you know, being a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic,
a constitutional republic where we have representatives that we are
voting for who we expect to be our voice. What
she's saying is that's what you want to get rid of,
the very essence of what you know makes up America.
(20:57):
That's very different.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Well, and she said that in Jocelyn Benz and has
said that, and Joe Biden has said that and they
were saying that right up until the moment. And I'm
not saying that the Republican side never says things like this,
because they certainly do. And I've certainly seen some wild
things going around in the last couple of days that
make me upset. And I do think that this world
of influencers has created a situation where people want the
(21:19):
hot take. And I mentioned this over the weekend. The
hot take is got to be the first one out
there to say something outlandish so that you get all
of the clicks and views, and people make money off
of that, right and so, and that is hard because
we live in a society where you make money off
of lies, essentially, and I don't like that. But I
also think that at this point in time, it's time
(21:40):
to take a step back as a society and say, okay,
let us have politicians talk. And I'll just I just
want to wrap this up on saying, if we actually
do Joe Biden was the one who said watch me,
watch me, watch what I have to say. So if
we actually do watch these folks, if we are watching
(22:03):
Republicans and Democrats and candidates and we're listening to them,
then we would actually know what they stand for. But
if the media is allowed to continue to define people
and refuse to actually let them speak, where are we
with democracy? Because it will be one party that wins
it all.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Yeah, I totally agree. I mean the thing Greg Duttfeld
often makes the point, which I agree with, when you
paint someone like Trump as Hitler over and over again constantly,
and he I mean, I think we can all agree
Hitler is probably one of the most horrendous figures in history.
People will stop at nothing if they think they're trying
to defend themselves from Hitler, and so you end up
(22:43):
with things like last weekend that happened. I mean, it's
just if you paint people in that light, what do
you expect to happen.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It's I've been thinking about this and I may not
say it exactly appropriately or correctly, so deleses if you want.
But at that time Hitler was so horrible. Nobody in
the Western world cried when Hitler was killed. And yet
(23:12):
you've got these people saying Donald Trump is Hitler. But
then when someone actually attempts to take him out, they're
all running to Twitter saying political violence is not acceptable
in America. So if he is Hitler, then why are
you not happy that someone tried to kill him?
Speaker 3 (23:33):
They constantly conflict themselves. I mean, when he walked onto
that convention floor the other night, it was not a
I think the energy in the room was one of
thankfulness and love that he was there and people that
were proud of him. It wasn't this like vengeful, spiteful,
he's here and we're going to come back and get
you all. It was genuinely thank goodness, by the grace
(23:54):
of God that this man survived.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
So I think it's interesting that on the one and
they'll say he's Hitler, and he you know, he's an
existential threat to the very you know, fabric of America
and democracy and all of that, But then in the
next breath they'll say that what happened to him should
never happen ever in America. Okay, So then if that's true,
(24:19):
then is what you're saying just hollow and phony, which
obviously the answer is yes. But but then how do
you why is the media not holding those people accountable.
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
If you look at the Democrat Party, they rally around causes,
and they look at people. They go to people who
are in a place where they don't have a higher
sense of you know, God, They don't they don't believe
in something bigger than themselves, but that desire is there,
and that's what we've heard from so many experts. Well,
a lot of people get pulled into these activism groups
(24:58):
that are for a cause that they don't care about
because they just want to be a part of something
bigger than themselves. Whereas if you look at the Republican Party,
we get criticized because it's like, oh, they rally around
one man, but we lift up our people. We believe
in the person who is representing us, not as a God,
as someone here on earth who has been well. We
do believe that our leaders have been anointed by God
(25:19):
and that they are going to do the right thing.
And that's not to say that they always do do
the right thing, but those are the people that we
are choosing to stand behind, and as a party, we
stand behind them. And I think most of the people
on our party would say that they have a faith
of some sort. And I do believe that there was
a well, we know that there was a group that
(25:39):
prayed over Donald Trump before he went there to Pennsylvania
on Saturday, and I know there are people who are
praying over him regularly, and so many people went, Okay,
he is the person we chose as our nominee, we
chose to lead our party, and look at how God
protected him in this moment, and we are rallying around
him because we believe in people. I think believing in
(26:01):
people is a good thing. I think believing in the
human nature of people to be able to come together
as a team and lead is a good thing. That's
something that's totally missing on the Democrats side because they
don't even show you who the person is. You don't
even know who Joe Biden is. And so instead of
having them believe in Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who
they hide you don't have any idea who they are.
(26:23):
They have you believe in a cause, or they have
you believe in a threat, and so they either scare
you or they force you into activism and that and
eventually that has to break down. And so I think
that's why we see this great divide. And you know,
for me, right now, I'm just hoping that the country
starts to come back together and heal. Is a hard
time to heal when you're in the midst of an
(26:44):
election like this. And as I said earlier today, I
believe that they don't have a choice to. Kamala Harris
and jd Vance have already spoken, They've already set dates
for their debates, and I think that pretty much sets
that their nominees are in place. And I don't think
is gonna say Okay, I'll let someone else step in
for Joe and I'll continue as the VP. That's just
(27:04):
not going to happen. We have to start to look
at this as Okay, we're gonna come together. There's gonna
be an election, one side's gonna win, one side's gonna lose,
and then we've got to work together. And I think that, sadly,
sometimes something like this, when it happens, it has to
bring people together. And I'm hoping that that's where we
are today. But I guess we will be seeing over
(27:25):
the next couple weeks and we'll continue to talk about
this and continue to review what's happening, and you will
see how the rest of the convention goes. This week tomorrow,
he will be nominated and it'll be I think it'll
be very exciting. I think a lot of people are
jazzed up to go out and see this new team
together and see Jade Vance as this younger version of
the Republican Party coming out and bringing people to the team.
(27:49):
So we see that Donald Trump is suddenly getting a
lot more support from young people, which I also think
is because of that desire to have something bigger than yourself,
be a part of something bigger than yourself. And I
think if we can bring young people to the Republican Party,
then ultimately those people who are saying, well, we need
to bring them to faith, I think there's a bigger
chance of bringing them to faith once they see that
(28:09):
this is about togetherness and love and about the right
things for the country. But we will see. We'll keep
you posting right now. We're just thankful that you're still
listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and if you want
to listen to this episode or others, make sure you
go to Tutor Dixon podcast dot com or iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, and you
can join us next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
(28:31):
I just want to say thank you to Kyle and
Sarah for sticking with me today and we'll be back tomorrow.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We are actually going
to have the group on today. A lot has happened
in the past week. Obviously, we went through the attempted
assassination on President Trump. We've actually just attended the first
day of the RNC convention and it was different than
(00:23):
I think we've seen in the past, and a lot
of emotion and a lot of excitement, but also a
lot of emotion, even I think from Donald Trump himself.
And so I have Kyle Olsen here with me and
Sarah Broadwater, and we just kind of wanted to go
over that and the media's reaction to it, because I
find the media's reaction to what happened over the weekend
(00:45):
in Pennsylvania with this attempted assassination and losing the supporter
in the stands and two other supporters being hospitalized, which
we now find that they're in stable condition. But we
still had a shooting at an event where you would
imagine you couldn't possibly have a shooting like this. And
(01:06):
I think it was interesting because on Monday, MSNBC chose
to take Morning Joe off the air, so at the
time we were all kind of like, that's pretty weird
that they don't even trust their own hosts. They are
so concerned, and it was kind of leaked out that
the executives were like, Eh, we're not going to have
them on on the off chance someone says something totally
(01:26):
stupid and we can't come back from it. Today we
find out that the hosts of Morning Joe Art are
irate about this, which I think is interesting because to me,
this means that the executives at these news organizations expect
this from these people. They know the rhetoric has been dangerous,
(01:50):
and after a crisis, they don't even trust that they
can keep their mouths shut long enough for the crisis
to I guess not past, but in a sense pass
long enough for people to heal a little bit. They
can't even have them on the air the next day.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah, and there's well a show like Morning Joe. They
have politicos talking, professional talking heads, reporters, sort of professional
people on, and if they can't even trust those people
to not say something inappropriate or crazy, that's really saying
(02:30):
something about MSNBC. I understand. There's other networks and they
have sort of you know, kind of fringy people on
and they say, you know, crazy things, but for MSNBC
to do that was really unprecedented. But then also to
have Joe Scarborough come out and openly, i mean basically
criticize and sort of, you know, be very negative towards
(02:52):
the management of MSNBC was that was also very interesting.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
I don't think MSBC can ever claim to be a
credible news organization after this. If they have talent that
they know it's going to go on and say something
crazy so much so that they have to keep them
off the air, how can you incredibly claim your news organization.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Well, and I would say that these are people who do,
like you said, Joe and Mika, I think they consider
themselves news anchors. They don't consider themselves commentators, they consider
themselves actual news anchors. So they're shocked by this and
they actually I think it was Joe who came out
and said, if they ever do this again, see what
they did is they said, we're going to be running
(03:31):
this newsfeed all day. All NBC stations are going to
be running this newsfeed. Well they didn't run it the
rest of the day. I'm not even one hundred percent
sure what happened during the the Joe Morning, Joe show.
But they are obviously aware now that they were told
something that wasn't the case for everybody because of specifically
(03:52):
because of them. And he essentially said, if we're ever
told this again, we're coming to the office. We will
sit in our chairs, and if they don't have us on,
we will leave us hosts. And I thought, well, that's
MSNBC's opportunity if they think they're such a threat. And
I say that word and I mean it, because they
obviously chose to take them off the air because they
(04:14):
thought that it was a threat to their network, not
a threat to the American people, a threat to their network.
And this is after we've listened to years of them
trashing Republicans, just trashing Republicans. You know, everybody has a
right to say whatever they want to say, and these
news networks can say whatever they want to say. But
(04:36):
the problem that we have is that a twenty year
old kid somehow got in his head that he had
to save the world from this threat. And obviously we
don't know the details of what happened in Pennsylvania, but
lives were ruined, lives were destroyed, a former president was
(04:57):
nearly killed. I mean the the fact that that shot
didn't hit him was a miracle, a miracle, and we
can only say that it was God's intervention because every
expert who has seen this has said there's no way
he could live through this, like this had to have
been God intervening that he lived through this. But their
(05:18):
rhetoric has gotten to a point where these people who
talk about the infotainment people that the people who talk
about news, they aren't the news. They aren't talking, they
aren't telling you the news, they're talking about news, is
what I would have to say about them. These people
interpret it in the way they choose, and they are
(05:39):
so offended by the other side. They're so determined that
they have to get the other side out of there
that they have decided that this type of commentary is
what is acceptable, and it has gotten into young people's
minds and look at what happened. Well, I think to
your point you said, Mika and Joe genuinely do think
they are the news. And I think it's because they're
(05:59):
true believers in what their principles and policies are that
they actually think, yeah, we are telling the truth, when
in reality, their sense of truth is very warped because
they don't actually follow the facts. But to your point,
I do think Joe and Mika actually think they are
news anchors. And that's the problem we're in. CNN thinks
they're unbiased, MSNBC thinks they're unbiased. I mean, CBS, all
(06:20):
of them think they're unbiased. I don't think they think
they're unbiased. I would argue that. I think what they
think is that they have to tell you where to land.
They have to bring you to their side because they're
so that you don't understand how dangerous the other side is.
I mean, listen to this. This is just yesterday. They
are literally CNN was literally covering the Republican National Convention
(06:43):
when Kate Benningfield says this on the air, and you see,
I'm gonna play it for you, but you see, I think,
what is our name, Holisafara. You see her face when
she says is it's like, I mean, she gets it
right off the bat, like this is not the kind
of conversation we're having, but this is what she says.
I want to play it for you.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
He has said many many times, after having been questioned
many times about this, that he's not stepping down and
he is going to be the nominee. So at some
point Democrats have to decide that they want to try
to win this election and turn their fire on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
I think there is I should have said, turned their fire.
I apologize that was not the phrase that I meant.
They need to turn their focus on Donald Trump. The
thing that bothers me about that is the person laughing
in the background. She says, Oh, I shouldn't have said that.
Someone immediately starts laughing in the background. This isn't funny
and not fit is enough. But I understand what she's
(07:35):
saying is to focus on him, and I think what
she was saying was key there. Joe Biden's not stepping down.
They have a real problem now because now they're in
this situation where Donald Trump has been hailed a hero.
He stood up. I mean, nobody's ever done that after
an assassination attempt, stands up, lifts up his fist. There
(07:56):
are people I see on social media that say, I've
never been interest in politics before, or I was on
the other side, or I was on the fence and
I saw that and I just had so much pride
for America. Democrats are freaking out right now. But this
is the kind of thing. They're so used to it,
they're so used to saying, go after him, put him
in a bullseye, eliminate him. I mean, you can go
(08:17):
back and you can replay all of the Democrats that
have said this over the years, and let me tell you,
if it were the other way around, it's all you'd see.
They wouldn't be talking about any news, they wouldn't be
talking about the DNC convention, they wouldn't be talking about
Joe Biden. They would be if there was an attempt
on Joe Biden's life. They would be going back and
(08:38):
they would say everything, and it would be extremists, this,
extremist that. But what is that solve?
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Within hours, you would have had a supercut of every
single Republican out there that had said something like that before.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
And they're just so with the way she said that.
They're just so casual with the rhetoric and with the analogies,
and just I think it was that same day there
was an New York Times headline that was sort of
using the same sort of rhetoric about what Biden was
doing to Trump, and so it's it's this sort of
just very casual use of this kind of thing, and
(09:14):
I think what people need to realize is that there
is a lot of it's high stakes, but it's also
highly emotional, and I think the Democrats in particular have
made this very emotional. And just think about the rhetoric
that they use about you know, he is a threat
to democracy, and he's an existential threat, and people are
(09:37):
comparing him to Hitler and all of that. But then
those very same people are then rushing to Twitter to say,
you know, political violence has no place in American society,
which I agree. But when your mindset is that this
person is a threat, and what do you do, you
have you eliminate threats.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Even Alissa Slotkin in our State
has an ad which I think all of these ads
have been pulled now, and all of Biden's ads were
pulled because they were so that the rhetoric was so high,
that the emotion was so high, and it was you know,
(10:20):
I've been attacked by Donald Trump once again. He's coming
after me and he's coming after you, And that kind
of message was constant, and people really feared, like, what
is this about? And so what I think we found
in the campaign that was so frustrating was that the
news was no longer about reporting on either side. They
never reported on what we wanted to do policy wise.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Never.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
They only reported on or they only defined me. They
reported on her stuff all day long. I mean, remember
how what a hero she was when Goshen was coming
because it was jobs. Never reported on what Goshen was on. Oh,
she's bringing all these jobs, which was not even true.
They never ever talk about the Republican policies, They never
talk about the Republican platforms. They twist it, they say
(11:07):
this is what they're going to do. I mean, gosh,
I've heard so many things about Oh, he's gonna have
detention camps, and he's gonna go and round people up
at their homes and they're gonna all be sent on
these planes and it's pea. Families will be ripped apart,
and then we'll never have the framework of the United
States again. They know it's all untrue.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, but look and look at there was a there's
you know, a bunch of Michigan reporters in Milwaukee right
now covering the convention, and look at what some of
these reporters are putting out. One story was the uh,
the Hailey delegates can't bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump.
(11:46):
And then there was another story that while some of
the Michigan Republicans don't like JD. Vance, I mean it's
they have an objective. They want to undermine what's going on.
They want to undermine Donald Trump. And so instead of
just reporting the support reporting what's actually going on, they
have a narrative that they like to push and maintain.
(12:08):
And so that's why you see stories like that.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
They will pull Democrat press releases and write the story
exactly how the press this is all we saw that.
But for Republicans, they don't take the press release. And
you know, you talk about policy, okay, well, for Democrats
they would write straight up, here's what they say the
policy is going to do. Here's ohow will impact people.
For Republicans they change it and say, well, this is
this is what they say, but this is what it
actually means. But you actually had people's plan.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
You actually had reporters call you and say, the Democrats
sent us this, and we're supposed to write on it.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Yes, I mean it was very clear, Hey, we got
this appo packet from somebody. We're going to write this
story because they asked us to what's your comment. Well,
even if it's not true, they still say it's a story.
We still have to write even if it's not true,
and we'll put your comments in there. We still have
to write, which is such blogony.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
So what you Sarah, So what you're saying, take it
take one step back. So what you're saying is that
the reporters are not actually doing their own research. There's
some group that has an objective or agenda. They're doing
the quote unquote research and then they're handing it to
the reporter, and then the reporter is acting like they
did all of this research and are doing this hit
(13:19):
piece and they're calling you for your reaction. Is that
what's happening.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Oh, it's one hundred percent what's happening. And I don't
want to paint all reporters in the same way, but
for the most part, reporters are fundamentally lazy. If you
hand them a story that is baked with citation, if
you're a demotor act, if you're a Democrat especially, but
if you hand them a story that they think is catnip,
it helps them hit their quota because they have to
have a certain number of stories they write every day
(13:44):
or every week. But it also helps them get some
sort of salacious tidbit that drives clicks to their website,
which ultimately makes them look good, whether it's the website,
Twitter feeds, whatever it is. They're going to write that
all day, and you've just made it so easy for
them to do it, and it doesn't really matter if
it's true or not to them. I've complained about I
mean at both sides have complained about dark money groups
for a long time. It's really frustrating because they bring
(14:07):
in all of these stories, and they bring in all
this money, and they do all these ads and you
have no idea who's given to them and how much
money is coming in and how many attacks there will
be against you, and so we you know, when you
look back at our election, you don't even know how
much money came into it because it goes into these groups.
And I was saying on the podcast over the weekend
that there was this and I didn't know this, and
Sarah's like, well, I probably hid that from you. There
(14:28):
was this group called Defend Democracy Project and they listed
me on a list. I mean like a terrorist list.
I was on a list of what was I called
a gosh, what were you all? Threat to demother?
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, throat to democracy? That was I was on a
list as as with Matt DePerno and Christina Caromo, we
were threats to democracy and it said because I had
taken unprecedented steps. I researched this over the weekend. I
found myself on this list. I had taken unprecedented steps
to over turn an election.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Like when That's interesting because and this was not scripted,
but I was just looking at Twitter, and I think
it was yesterday and some random person quote tweeted a
Gretchen Whitmer tweet from twenty twenty two where she was saying,
you were a threat to democracy because and you wouldn't
(15:23):
you would not commit to supporting the results of the
twenty twenty two election. According to her, I'm not saying,
which is such?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I mean, that is another a question that makes me
mad because you know, everybody asks you, are you going
to immediately accept the results? Well, let me see what
they are, let me see how close they are, let
me see what actually happened in the election. But we
did and at the end of the day. I mean,
I conceded the election the next morning. It was obviously
a blowout. There was not that opportunity to go back
(15:50):
and fight on any angle. And yet they still call
me that.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
But that's but sorry, but that's to me, that wasn't
my point. My point was what the group said, is
what Whitmer also said exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
They use an entire ecosystem to their benefit, right, and
they have them all, they all it's like an echo chamber,
one says one. They pass information off to each other.
But to your point on they want to so desperately
call you this election denier. And nowhere in those stories
does it ever talk about the fact that, yes, the
next morning you called to concedet and I.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
And I've had a lot of people that are mad
at me about that. And and to those folks out there,
there are rules to looking at when when you look
at an election and you look at the results, and
at what threshold do you fight? How do you legally
go about it? And this was there was no fighting
on And that's why you can't allow people like Jocelyn
(16:41):
Benson to refuse to have a signature match on ABS
ANDEE ballots because if you don't have the signature match,
there's no legal recourse. You can't go back. There's nobody saying, Okay,
well these don't count because they're illegal. They're illegal ballots.
And I think, and I'm not saying that that happened
in our election, but I'm saying that the availability was
(17:02):
there for that to happen. And that was what I
kept saying. Look, if we're going to change the rules
at the end, like right before an election, if you're
going to change the rules, I mean, it's suspect, it's bizarre.
Speaker 6 (17:11):
Why would you do that? And why wouldn't you have
a signature match? Well, and I guess maybe i'm multipool too,
but there's something that I like about there's a decorum
to this all. I mean, you call your opponent, you
can see, you can have those conversations and realize that
you guys have difference on opinion, but you're not a threat.
And I was never a respect there.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Whether or not you agree with them. And we've gotten
so far past that well, and we never used that
kind of language. I mean, there were plenty of Do
I think that the things that she did to businesses
were hurting the state of Michigan. Absolutely, Was it a
threat to our economy? Yes, absolutely, Like I don't think
that you can say somebody is when you say somebody
(17:55):
is a threat, and you don't define that in any way.
There's no fight against that right because them on defense.
But her policies were very threatening to the state. They're
very threatening to our hunters, they're very threatening to our manufacturers,
and they're very threatening to many of the people, like
the people who live in the up with these energy policies.
Those were very threatening policies. I don't think that, you know,
(18:17):
I don't look at her as and I don't think
I can paint her as like, oh my gosh, you know,
the whole world is going to end if you let
her anywhere near anything.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's that's where people start to go, Man, we've got
to do so, we've got to eliminate the threat. That's
how you end up with what we had over the weekend.
That is not the kind of rhetoric that we have.
But look at her. I mean, as we pick up
part these people, and we talked about this over the
weeknd two, as we pick apart these people and the
threats that they have made. When she was on TV,
and I think you were one of the ones to
(18:47):
break this. Kyle. When she was on TV during the pandemic,
she put this little sticker behind her in her screen
so that it would be a national TV. And this
was not hidden, it was right there right out front,
so it would be a national TV saying eighty six
forty five. People are like, whoa, whoa, whoa. You were
literally calling to eliminate the president of the United States,
(19:08):
And there is no question that's what that meant. And
yet I've heard nothing about that from the mainstream media.
And I also think what a liability that is for
the networks too. I mean, most times when you go
on a show, there are some standers as to what
way your bound drop. And I know different shows have
different standards than others, but I do think, and maybe
this is something we go back and look at, but
(19:29):
what a liability for those networks that allowed that to
be aired.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
She was on Meet the Press, that's the show.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Which I mean usually on Meet the Press, not all
the time, but you usually have a specific background. I mean,
there are standards to these things, or at least a
respectable level that you have a home studio set up
that it's going to be so So that's why.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
I'm saying they're just so very casual that she thinks
that putting something like that in the background and then
sort of pleading ignorance when you know she's caught it
just it. I think it creates this environment where everyone
is on edge that if you know, this particular person
wins or whatever, it's it's the end of the world.
(20:12):
Because there's a difference. You were sort of getting at it.
I think there's a difference between saying she's a threat
to businesses, she's a threat to the economy, versus saying
she's a threat to a democracy because democracy, quote unquote,
we're not a democracy. I know, I understand that, but
that underpins everything. And if you're going to get rid of,
(20:37):
you know, being a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic,
a constitutional republic where we have representatives that we are
voting for who we expect to be our voice. What
she's saying is that's what you want to get rid of,
the very essence of what you know makes up America.
(20:57):
That's very different.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Well, and she said that in Jocelyn Benz and has
said that, and Joe Biden has said that and they
were saying that right up until the moment. And I'm
not saying that the Republican side never says things like this,
because they certainly do. And I've certainly seen some wild
things going around in the last couple of days that
make me upset. And I do think that this world
of influencers has created a situation where people want the
(21:19):
hot take. And I mentioned this over the weekend. The
hot take is got to be the first one out
there to say something outlandish so that you get all
of the clicks and views, and people make money off
of that, right and so, and that is hard because
we live in a society where you make money off
of lies, essentially, and I don't like that. But I
also think that at this point in time, it's time
(21:40):
to take a step back as a society and say, okay,
let us have politicians talk. And I'll just I just
want to wrap this up on saying, if we actually
do Joe Biden was the one who said watch me,
watch me, watch what I have to say. So if
we actually do watch these folks, if we are watching
(22:03):
Republicans and Democrats and candidates and we're listening to them,
then we would actually know what they stand for. But
if the media is allowed to continue to define people
and refuse to actually let them speak, where are we
with democracy? Because it will be one party that wins
it all.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Yeah, I totally agree. I mean the thing Greg Duttfeld
often makes the point, which I agree with, when you
paint someone like Trump as Hitler over and over again constantly,
and he I mean, I think we can all agree
Hitler is probably one of the most horrendous figures in history.
People will stop at nothing if they think they're trying
to defend themselves from Hitler, and so you end up
(22:43):
with things like last weekend that happened. I mean, it's
just if you paint people in that light, what do
you expect to happen.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It's I've been thinking about this and I may not
say it exactly appropriately or correctly, so deleses if you want.
But at that time Hitler was so horrible. Nobody in
the Western world cried when Hitler was killed. And yet
(23:12):
you've got these people saying Donald Trump is Hitler. But
then when someone actually attempts to take him out, they're
all running to Twitter saying political violence is not acceptable
in America. So if he is Hitler, then why are
you not happy that someone tried to kill him?
Speaker 3 (23:33):
They constantly conflict themselves. I mean, when he walked onto
that convention floor the other night, it was not a
I think the energy in the room was one of
thankfulness and love that he was there and people that
were proud of him. It wasn't this like vengeful, spiteful,
he's here and we're going to come back and get
you all. It was genuinely thank goodness, by the grace
(23:54):
of God that this man survived.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
So I think it's interesting that on the one and
they'll say he's Hitler, and he you know, he's an
existential threat to the very you know, fabric of America
and democracy and all of that, But then in the
next breath they'll say that what happened to him should
never happen ever in America. Okay, So then if that's true,
(24:19):
then is what you're saying just hollow and phony, which
obviously the answer is yes. But but then how do
you why is the media not holding those people accountable.
Speaker 5 (24:29):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
If you look at the Democrat Party, they rally around causes,
and they look at people. They go to people who
are in a place where they don't have a higher
sense of you know, God, They don't they don't believe
in something bigger than themselves, but that desire is there,
and that's what we've heard from so many experts. Well,
a lot of people get pulled into these activism groups
(24:58):
that are for a cause that they don't care about
because they just want to be a part of something
bigger than themselves. Whereas if you look at the Republican Party,
we get criticized because it's like, oh, they rally around
one man, but we lift up our people. We believe
in the person who is representing us, not as a God,
as someone here on earth who has been well. We
do believe that our leaders have been anointed by God
(25:19):
and that they are going to do the right thing.
And that's not to say that they always do do
the right thing, but those are the people that we
are choosing to stand behind, and as a party, we
stand behind them. And I think most of the people
on our party would say that they have a faith
of some sort. And I do believe that there was
a well, we know that there was a group that
(25:39):
prayed over Donald Trump before he went there to Pennsylvania
on Saturday, and I know there are people who are
praying over him regularly, and so many people went, Okay,
he is the person we chose as our nominee, we
chose to lead our party, and look at how God
protected him in this moment, and we are rallying around
him because we believe in people. I think believing in
(26:01):
people is a good thing. I think believing in the
human nature of people to be able to come together
as a team and lead is a good thing. That's
something that's totally missing on the Democrats side because they
don't even show you who the person is. You don't
even know who Joe Biden is. And so instead of
having them believe in Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who
they hide you don't have any idea who they are.
(26:23):
They have you believe in a cause, or they have
you believe in a threat, and so they either scare
you or they force you into activism and that and
eventually that has to break down. And so I think
that's why we see this great divide. And you know,
for me, right now, I'm just hoping that the country
starts to come back together and heal. Is a hard
time to heal when you're in the midst of an
(26:44):
election like this. And as I said earlier today, I
believe that they don't have a choice to. Kamala Harris
and jd Vance have already spoken, They've already set dates
for their debates, and I think that pretty much sets
that their nominees are in place. And I don't think
is gonna say Okay, I'll let someone else step in
for Joe and I'll continue as the VP. That's just
(27:04):
not going to happen. We have to start to look
at this as Okay, we're gonna come together. There's gonna
be an election, one side's gonna win, one side's gonna lose,
and then we've got to work together. And I think that, sadly,
sometimes something like this, when it happens, it has to
bring people together. And I'm hoping that that's where we
are today. But I guess we will be seeing over
(27:25):
the next couple weeks and we'll continue to talk about
this and continue to review what's happening, and you will
see how the rest of the convention goes. This week tomorrow,
he will be nominated and it'll be I think it'll
be very exciting. I think a lot of people are
jazzed up to go out and see this new team
together and see Jade Vance as this younger version of
the Republican Party coming out and bringing people to the team.
(27:49):
So we see that Donald Trump is suddenly getting a
lot more support from young people, which I also think
is because of that desire to have something bigger than yourself,
be a part of something bigger than yourself. And I
think if we can bring young people to the Republican Party,
then ultimately those people who are saying, well, we need
to bring them to faith, I think there's a bigger
chance of bringing them to faith once they see that
(28:09):
this is about togetherness and love and about the right
things for the country. But we will see. We'll keep
you posting right now. We're just thankful that you're still
listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and if you want
to listen to this episode or others, make sure you
go to Tutor Dixon podcast dot com or iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, and you
can join us next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
(28:31):
I just want to say thank you to Kyle and
Sarah for sticking with me today and we'll be back tomorrow.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.