The Eric Metaxas Show - Sharyl Attkisson

Episode Date: February 12, 2022

Sharyl Attkisson, five-time Emmy Award winner, provides in-depth coverage of real news at "Full Measure," and gives us a genuine inside-baseball look into the fate of the profession formerly known as "Journalism."

Texas show with your host, Eric Mettaxas. Folks, welcome to the program. Today, I believe it's Friday. You know what that means? Because I certainly don't. But one thing I do know, Cheryl Atkinson is my guest. If you don't know who she is, it's one of the reasons I do the program is because I'm interested in introducing you to people whom you should know, although many of you already know,

Sherle Atkinson. She is a five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter. Remember when we had investigative reporting in America? Gosh, you've got to be pretty old to remember that. I joke bitterly. She has a book out called Slanted. It's my joy to have her as my guest. Cheryl, welcome the program. Thanks for having me. I guess I want people to know your story a little bit because this has happened over and over. It to Laura Logan. It happened to a number of people that I can think of who seemed to me to be in mainstream media as journalists. And then something happened. They seemed to wake up to the level of bias or whatever. Can you tell us your story of how that happened to you? Because you don't win five Emmy Awards for being a political hack or for just

spewing out what people tell you, you're an investigative journalist, and you were awarded for that from the industry. So what happened? Well, I think that's what put me on the outs. The industry changed, and I didn't change with it. So over the years after working in local news and CNN, back when it was a news organization, and then more than 20 years at CBS, I saw this transformation whereby special interests and political interests became very effective at, I would say, taking over a large segment of media and the news industry to control what we do and don't report. And as that trickled into CBS, I think I was maybe on the leading edge of seeing it as an investigative reporter because the beat reporters weren't really doing as much reporting every day that was someone wanted to

manipulate. That's changed a little bit now, but I'm talking about 15 years ago. But the story is that I did drew attention from very powerful interests who sought to use these new tactics at the time, social media, PR firms, bullying, Twitter, to try to stop the stories, controversialize them and the reporter, personally attacking the reporters and so on. And they were very effective in getting CBS certain managers to stop stories and to, in my view, it got to the point, put out dishonest and untrue information. If you didn't skew the stories or slant them the way they demanded on the front end, which I refused to do, then they either wouldn't air them. You know, they wanted them change or they just wouldn't air them at all. So I decided mid-contract

that there was really not a place for me anymore because I had really spent time after having this happened for a couple of years looking for other stories. There's an endless number of stories you can report. So when they would sort of censor one area, I would go into another. But it got to the point where virtually nothing original would be published. on CBS news that I did. And I was sitting around during the day with some of the best stories of my career that I couldn't get published. So I left mid-contract. This is astonishing stuff, but it's become increasingly less astonishing as everyone watches it happen. Was there an inciting incident? Was there a moment, a particular story

that they wanted you to change or that they decided to bury that upset you particularly? Or did it just pile up? Well, it happened early on with less frequency. So the frequency got to be remarkable and prompted me leaving. But one of the first areas I noticed it in was in the early 2000s after being assigned to cover vaccines and autism, as many people were at the time, because we have this explosion, unexplained explosion of autism, that the government had in private documents linked directly to, along with their medical experts, linked directly to vaccines in some cases, a very important topic is how many people take vaccines, even if a relatively small number of people or small proportion of people are impacted negatively. It's still an important story.

We were all covering it, and that story was successfully, I'll just cut to the chase on that, was successfully changed by the pharmaceutical industry and partnership with political interests and corporate interests. You can't report that now. It's been so successfully controversialized, and the problem's only gotten worse. But there were people having secret meetings with producers at CBS, people from the pharmaceutical industry, PR firms, law firms, and so on, who successfully skewed the stories and then got them entirely halted so that they really have no place on the news today. I always want to give the other side the benefit of the doubt, if only to understand how people could behave the way they do. In other words, what case would they make?

you know, if you're in the news business and somebody from Big Pharma comes to you and says, don't run this story. What are the kinds of things that they say or that they could say to make people with their finger in the wind, so to speak, move in a certain direction? Well, it was pretty unusual back then. It's not now. That's what drew my attention for someone to say, don't air a story. You might have them say, put this side of the story on or represent my view this way, but I had not been frequently approached by anybody saying, don't let the public know the information. And as that happened with greater frequency,

I knew something was going on. But the things they would say, including government officials who are trying to stop the stories, would say, if you report these stories about vaccines and autism, even if they're completely factual, they said it will scare the public and they'll turn away from vaccines

and public diseases that we've eradicated will be rampant and you'll kill people or people will die. And I would say, when someone first says that to you, you get this sort of like, wow, but if you start thinking it out rationally as a journalist, it's not my job to decide how people use factual information that I give them and therefore to try to make them behave a certain way. It's up to the government. If facts come out that worry the public, the government needs to come up with a plan to reinstitute confidence in the program.

That's not up to the journalist to hide facts so that the government doesn't have the problem of lack of confidence. But I also came to understand that the excuses they gave about this were really just a cover for the pharmaceutical industry interest that didn't want this out because they would lose a lot of business. Because if the crack of the door opens a little bit on some safety issues, there's just so many more to look at. And again, not saying vaccines are bad and not giving any particular advice. Obviously, some have done great good. But I'm just saying if this story were covered like any other rational story, then we wouldn't be censoring the facts because someone's, someone told us people might behave a certain way if they knew the truth.

Obviously, there's a continuum, right? I mean, you know, publishing the Pentagon papers or whatever. It's ironic, of course, that the voices that a few decades ago were free speech, all about free speech, all about sharing information. Usually those same people, typically on the political left, have shifted dramatically. It's exactly the opposite. Now it's people more on the political right who seem to be talking about free speech. Did you observe that change or do you even agree with that observation?

I do. I mean, how odd is that? And how odd is it, I'll tell you, for me, to see journalists cheering on censorship. I thought, if anything, as these trends expanded, there would be good journalists who say, regardless of what's going on around us, we need to keep our nose to the grindstone. and do the job the way we always have and not be influenced by this. And instead, in many cases, they've been convinced to cheer on, yes, please don't let us share a certain information. Please controversialize studies so that the people can't see what we've already read because

they might make the wrong decision about them. I mean, it's shocking to me that journalists and media organizations feel this way. But that's part of, as I described, I think more in my second book, The Smear, this industry that has successfully infiltrated the media. so that there aren't just traditional journalists, at least the ones that I think of when I was trained in journalism. That's not who's calling the shots anymore. These are propagandists in many cases that are looking to push narratives. So, of course, they're happy to have some stories censored in facts and studies and people. I mean, obviously, in some ways, there's nothing new.

Human nature is what it is. We've always had powerful people trying to squelch the truth, if it would harm their interest, that's normal. What's not normal is the failure of pushback on the side of people who think of themselves as journalists. We'll be right back talking to a real journalist. Yes, they exist. Cheryl Atkinson is my guest. Don't go away. Hey, folks, I've got to tell you a secret about relief factor that the father, son, owners, Pete and Seth Talbot, have never made a big deal about, but I think it is a big deal. I really do. They sell the three-week quick start pack for just 1995 to anyone struggling from pain like neck,

shoulder, back, hip, or knee pain, 1995, about a dollar a day. But what they haven't broadcasted much is that every time they sell a three-week quick start, they lose money. In fact, they don't even break even until about four to five months after if you keep ordering it. Friends, that's huge. People don't keep ordering relief factor month after month if it doesn't work. So, yes, Pete and Seth are literally on a mission to help as many people as possible deal with their pain. They really do put their money where their mouths are.

So if you're in pain from exercise or even just getting older, or to the three-week quick start for 1995, let's see if we can get you at a pain too. Go to relieffactor.com. Relieffactor.com or call 800-500-384-800-584-500-583-834. Relieffactor.com. I use it. It works. Hey, folks, if you could make money off of abortion or pornography,

would you do it? I hope the answer is no. But I want to tell you Robert Netsley, the founder of Inspire Insight.com, he was the president of his local pro-life pregnancy center when he discovered that he owned investments in three companies manufacturing abortion drugs. Well, God helped him to see that he was making money from abortion, pornography, LGBT activism, and the list goes on. And that's why he created InspireInsight.com. InspireInsight.com gives you instant access to biblical values data on over 23,000,

stocks, mutual funds, and ETFs, so you can invest to the glory of God. You need to go to InspireInsight.com today and screen your 401k's IRAs and other investment accounts. I did and I was shocked. Now I'm able to clean out the junk and invest in companies actually doing good things. Go to inspireinsight.com today and register for free. That's inspireinsight.com. Go there.

Folks, I'm talking to Cheryl Atkinson, who has written many books. She's a five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist. Imagine, remember, investigative journalism existed in America. I think it still exists to some extent, but not, it seems, at places like CBS or CNN. We don't know what happened. Well, we sort of know what happened. Cheryl Atkinson is here to help us understand. Cheryl, we just have to try to figure out what it is that happened.

I mean, I have a lot of ideas about how things can. verge. But let me just throw this at you and you can react. I feel it was a time in America, maybe in the world, when people took pride in the roles that they played, a nurse dressed like a nurse, and when she was off the job, she was a nurse, a teacher, a policeman, a doctor. Something happened. It has to do with the egalitarianism in America since the 60s. But the roles that people played and the pride that they took in these identities, in somehow performing their duties as citizens in these roles, that seems to have gone away somehow.

And it strikes me that that's part of how we explain the erosion of values in journalism, at least. Well, I think that's an interesting point that you make. But I would also argue there is a very well-organized effort to, as I use the word, infiltrate journalism, to make it be something that could be used as tools of propagandists more so than it had been in the past. They figured out the formula and there are foundations that put a great deal of money into this, that have non-profits, some of which I've traced in my books, that have different names, but they're really all run by the same small group of multi-billionaire advocates and activists for certain outcomes and things. And so in a hidden way,

they're always pulling the strings, but they figured out how to get their nose under the tent of news organizations in a way I think the news organizations turned a blind eye to when it was happening. And I remember pretty early in the 2000s when I discussed what was happening with pharmaceutical industry interference. I had discussions with CBS's lawyers who approved my scripts. And I raised this and said, you know, there are well-funded multi-billion dollar PR firms and crisis management firms and global law firms interfering on behalf of these companies who then go brag that they got a story killed on CBS so that they can do it for other clients. And I said, all we are doing is playing defense because all we're doing is trying to cover the news. But all of their efforts and all of their money

are focused into preventing stories and controversializing stories. And I said, we really need to do something so we're not just playing defense on this. And we didn't pay attention to it. I raised the same concerns at investigative reporting conferences. We have conferences on every topic under the sun, except that one, which I raised many times and no one was interested in making that, you know, be a topic of a seminar. And I think it's so underneath our own noses, our industry got kind of taken from us and co-opted. And now we are one in the same of these interests. They don't just influence us by sending us press releases or figuring out how to manipulate us. We've hired them to work in our newsrooms, not even just as analysts and consultants, but in the editorial process in many cases.

Now, are you able or willing to share some of the names of the folks behind this kind of thing? I would guess George Soros. Everybody seems to know that he's behind this. It's grotesque. But I don't know. Are you able to name some of the foundations or some of the people involved? You know, I had not looked into the George Soros stuff because so many people had. And I started to do that recently because I keep stumbling across it.

So I'll be doing some reporting on that in the near future on my TV show full measure. But in the smear, I drew out the chart because people had done it for the conservative side. There are conservative groups that try to do this. But every smear artist I talked to for the book, and a lot of them spoke to me on both sides of political spectrum and those in the middle, they all pointed to the one they think is most successful, which is David Brock of Media Matters. And nobody had sketched out that organization the way I did. It took a lot of work, you know, looking at tax records and nonprofits and political action committees and all kinds of things. And that one name is affiliated with probably, I think I found over 20 organizations, including at the time the citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington and Blue Nation and Media Matters for America and groups that sound like they're fact-checking groups. But all they are are the same tools of the same propagandists that are trying to put across certain narratives in ways.

I think when people see that chart, which I diagramed out in the smear, I think some people are stunned. So what they do is they used to do, those different groups would all put out the same press release about some outrage or story or today would be Joe Rogan and send it to news organizations. And news organizations who aren't savvy enough or who are sympathetic to the cause say, look at all the different chatter that's going on about this topic. It must be a big news story. Really, it's all come from the same small handful of people. fanning out on different names and spreading the word and before you know it, they've manipulated the news cycle. I mean, in a nutshell, you'd have to describe these folks as anti-American because there's something in the ethos of America that we believe in truth, we believe in liberty.

We've always believed that you have to fight for those things. But enough people believed in those things and were willing to fight for those things that the boat didn't get swamped, so to speak. But you're basically saying that in the last couple of decades, the boat has been swamped and that they have the upper hand effectively speaking. And I would say the anti-American part of it, I wouldn't even call the groups that are doing the propaganda, the anti-American propagandists. They're doing what America allows them to do. They actually have a right in this country to say to journalists, this story should be on,

this story shouldn't be on. I think it's what we as journalists do when we are given a special place in society to present information, when we're the ones since, information or telling the public there's things they shouldn't see or hear because they might draw the wrong conclusion. That comes a lot closer to the definition of anti-American to me than what these groups are doing. I may not like what the groups are doing, but they're allowed to do. It's perfectly legal and not unconstitutional, I don't think, under our system. Yeah, no, and I wouldn't say it's unconstitutional, certainly not. But when I say an American or anti-American, it's against the ethos in America. In other words, in our movies,

it's the bad guys who do that, whether they do it legally technically or don't. I guess the question is, again, always how this happened, when it happened. But it does strike me as a failure of nerve or courage. In other words, I think that the ruling classes, the folks in the newsrooms and editorial boards, they do seem to want to go along with certain narratives and against others. It's not just that David Brock and others are bringing pressure to bear. In other words, I think that they're easier marks for that pressure than they would for pressure coming from the other side or maybe not.

Absolutely. And that's all part of the idea that the media has been infiltrated in many respects with people who don't think like I consider a journalist should think. In other words, they're no longer saying, is this fair, is this representative? Is this an alternative voice that I can show? Is this another side? they're saying this is what people must know, this is what people must think, here's what they must not know. So I think that's a big difference that I've seen during my career.

I think of, again, it's a convergence of forces. There was, I think there are certain things that we take for granted. They were just traditional. They were just the way, they weren't legal or illegal. It was just traditionally speaking. I mean, I remember, you know, the New Yorker magazine many decades ago talking about the firewall between editorial and, the money side, that they had this inner sense of dignity, that we must keep these things separate. I know that the big three networks, they weren't making big money from Walter Conquite or Eric Severide, whatever, but in a sense, it gave them value as a network to have this independent news organization that was essentially separate from the profits.

side, that began to shift and shift and shift. And of course, now we're in a completely different world. Well, two points on that. I was just stunned a few years ago to see on the web a video with an executive, the New York Times, talking about how wonderful it is that they do this native advertising, which is blending in ads for products and services in with what looks like a news story in a way that's designed so that the public doesn't recognize it's an ad. And they're getting paid to the news organizations are getting paid to do it. And they have the New York Times saying, this is a wonderful thing. And that people, they even said people aren't objecting to it. And I'm thinking, because they don't know it. It's invisible. You know, this, this subterfuge that you're doing

by putting special interests in a news story and pretending it was a news story. But I'll tell you back to the pharmaceutical industry example, what really changed and gave them sway over the news division, in my view is, when it became legal, and if people aren't old enough, they don't know, it used to not be legal to advertise prescription drugs on TV and in the media. When that became legal, I later found out the news organizations, including my own at CBS, they had lobbied side by side with the pharmaceutical industry to get that legalized. At the same time, we in the news division were reporting on stories about pharmaceutical safety. And once that conflict was made. There was just never going to be any way we could fairly report, it seemed to me,

on pharmaceutical issues again. It's astonishing. Folks, I'm talking to Cheryl Atkinson. I forgot to mention she has a show, full measure. We'll talk about that when we come back. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Biden administration has caused a financial crisis, and they have no clue how to fix it. Oil prices have skyrocketed, and when oil prices go up, the cost of transportation and shipping spikes, leading the prices of goods to rise. And when we're we're already seeing record inflation, that's the last thing we need. Our economy is in trouble, and you need to take steps to protect yourself. If all your money is tied up in stocks, bonds, and traditional markets, you are vulnerable. Gold is one of the best ways to protect your

retirement. No matter what happens, you own your gold. It is real, it is physical, it's always been valuable since the dawn of time. Legacy precious metals is the company I trust for investing in gold. They can help you roll your retirement account into a gold-backed IRA where you still own the physical gold. They can also ship gold and precious metals safely and securely to your house. Call Legacy at 866-528-1903 or visit them online at LegacyPMinvestments.com. Folks, I'm talking to Cheryl Atkinson. Cheryl, before we get too far on all these important topics, where can people find you today? Tell us about your show, full measure and where that errors. Full measure, the website's full measure. News. So after it's on TV, the segments are posted

at full measure. News, you can see anything there anytime. Great old fashioned reporting. See what you've missed the past seven years that the media's not been talking about around the world. Just fascinating regular news stories that aren't telling you what to think. But I think the easiest way to find if people are interested, if you go to Cheryl Ackison.com, I try to cross-post my podcast and most of what I do there, my writing. And there is a full measure tab. there that has all the ways you can watch, all the TV stations we air, 43 million households we feed to every Sunday around the country. It's all under the full measure tab.

Part of my various theses on this larger subject is that there are these brands that are dying. The New York Times is effectively dead. It became a brand. They began to understand that. They could sell that. CNN and other institutions, they're kind of operating on fumes. It's my, at least this is my observation, that they built up over decades brand trust so that people like you and me still say, oh, New York Times bestselling author, you know,

that there's a, there's a good housekeeping seal of approval. But it has eroded so dramatically over time that I feel that essentially they are only operating on fumes. I don't know what they're going to do going forward. I don't know whether CNN is just going to fall apart completely or if they're going to be able to hang on. What do you have to say about that idea that these brands, and I could go way beyond journalism. I mean, Yale and Harvard, many of these things that we have a consciousness of them as brands in American culture, but they are themselves nothing like what they were in their heyday.

You're right. I think they're dead as news brands, but what they become is sort of, and let me just say, there are great reporters still working at these organizations, and I know some of them. They're just having a harder time getting great reporting out there. But in general, these organizations are, I look at them as sort of entertainment organizations. They're not news by any definition we had of news 10 or 15 years ago, the way they report and the standards they have. They're more about sort of getting attention. and saying and reporting certain things that draw a certain audience that may have no basis, in fact, or journalism standards.

I think CNN what they could do at my old alma mater, what I would do with it, because I think people are thirsty for this. I would dial it back and tell everybody, we're just going to go straight back to what we used to be, which is pretty much just the facts. And if they want to do a political show at night or a crossfire type show where they kind of debate both sides of something, fine. but people, even those who listen to, I think, left or right during the day, still would like to have a news organization and there really aren't many I can think of that they can go to on any topic and just get something fair that's kind of not telling you what to think, but just reflecting facts and different views.

Well, I think part of the problem really has to do with the divide in this country and with the idea that if you want to prosper in the world of CNN or the New York Times, that is simply not done. In other words, I think it would take far more courage, far more wisdom, far more attention to the actual bottom line than anyone has anymore. In other words, I think that, you know, if you want to be popular with your colleagues, you can't do that because if you do that, you're going to do some kinds of reporting. They're going to go against the narrative that you're supposed to be for. And what happens today, as I've learned, I was called liberal for most of my reporting, career, but as soon as I started

staying down the middle or listening to different viewpoints in this managed environment, I began getting called conservative. And nothing about me changed other than my desire to listen to different sides and expose underreported facts and views. But this is what's happened as the landscape around

has changed. You're right. News reporters who don't go with the far left narrative or with a certain narrative on topics, risk, even if they're in the middle of being labeled right. And in this industry, you can be labeled left and nobody cares. But as soon as somebody says, you're a little right of center, that seems like a death sentence for some people, particularly at some news organizations. That's like calling them

something worse than anything else. So they're very cognizant of that when they do their reporting. Well, I know that it was Trump, whether wittingly or unwittingly, who was kind of the bomb that exploded everything and helped us to see, oh my goodness, there's termites everywhere. Before him, you were able to watch CNN, at least I was, and realized that while they slant left, but generally speaking, they're trying, they're trying to be moderate, they're trying to do journalism. Then when Trump was elected, I saw a sea change. I think Don Lemon was the most obvious. I mean, he went from being reasonably able to handle the facts to constantly bitter, sour. I'd never seen anything like it. He seemed to be aggrieved in every syllable and every

breath. And I thought, what has happened? And that really, it had to come from the top. In other words, people at the top had to say, air your emotions. It's doing well. But his change was the most dramatic that I've ever seen. Well, I think you're right about that, that it did come from the top. and it was actually argued in public by journalism organizations and by journalism professors, to my shock, that because Trump was a uniquely dangerous political figure, they said, we needed to suspend our normal ethics standards and practices for journalism. This was said at organizations like the New York Times, CBS, and the Washington Post.

And I'm thinking there's never a more important time to maintain your standards than if you don't like somebody. That's the time you have to stick by what you've established. and we did quite the opposite. We're going to be right back, folks. I'm talking to Cheryl Atkinson. This is the Eric Metaxus show. Don't forget to go to our website,

ericmetaxis.com. We'll be right back. Hey, folks, if you listen to this program, of course, you've heard me talk at infinitum about my pillow and my friend Mike Lindell. Well, Mike has just announced that you will receive one of his books and the book is Next Level insane.

It is called What Are the Odds from Crack Addict? to CEO. It's his story. You will receive it absolutely free with any purchase using the promo code Eric. Did you hear that? It would be a great time, by the way, to buy his warm and wonderful My Slippers. For a limited time, he's offering 50% off my slippers. We all wear them in my extended family. MySlippers. Check it out. 50% off. Go to MyPillow.com. Click on the radio listeners square and use promo code Eric. You'll also get deep discounts on all My Pillar products, including some overstock products, such as individual towels, blankets, comforters, and much more. Or call 800-9778, 3057.

That's 800, 978-3057. To use the promo code, Eric. Hey, the folks. I'm talking to Cheryl Atkinson investigative journalist. She hosts a show Full Measure. You can find her at Cheryl Atkinson.com. Cheryl, when you mentioned the standards that existed in the world of journalism and how some people said, Trump is uniquely evil.

There's something here we need to, you know, suspend habeas corpus. We're in a civil war. Whatever it is. There's a time, of course, when things like that have to happen. But what I find interesting is that we really cease to understand what those standards are. If you don't really understand why we have these standards, then when you decide to throw them away, it's different when Picasso draws something that looks hideous because we don't. we know he can actually do representational art.

It's different than if a gorilla does something that looks like Picasso. And when you have people that really don't have a sense of these journalistic standards or we're already drifting away from them, it's a different story. So I'm really not sure which it is, you know, so when you make that case. I mean, I remember when we were arguing whether torture or enhanced interrogation should be allowed. You know, these are conversations that we need to have about who are we as a nation, who are we as a people, how low will we stoop? I mean, ultimately, they've given away the game. And I see zero pushback on the other side.

I think that's right. I mean, I'll give you one specific example. Most news organizations had their own standards under which they would use an anonymous source. And at CBS News, it's not like you could ever, never deviate from it, but the news. these were always discussions that I had with the lawyers at CBS as I progressed with any stories that were controversial. But the general standards for us were, you don't use anonymous sources if, you know, in most cases. And then secondly, if you have to use an anonymous source in a story, you only do that if you failed to get any on the record comment that you

could get and this is the only way to get it. And then you characterize for the viewers or listeners or readers as much as possible who that person is without giving away their identity so that they can understand, pardon me, any potential conflicts of interest or where that person's coming from. Then we see what the New York Times did and others, you know, once they opened the door, everybody copied them with Donald Trump. It was one anonymously reported story after another that proved to be false over and over and over again with no hint of who the people were who were supposedly giving the information with no idea what their conflicts of interest could be. And this was just one of the biggest, most egregious journalism breaches I'd ever seen.

And it became very routine. I guess, you know, one question is, where's the shame? You would think that people who got things dramatically wrong would feel some need to repent publicly, to apologize, at least to set the record straight. But that doesn't seem to be happening. In other words, just as, you know, we know that when there's a new tax, it's never temporary, it will never go away. I feel like we're in a new age where we're in this perpetual war. You know, no, no, it's not the war on terror.

It's the war on Trump and his minions. Whatever comes out that can do damage to him, even if we find out that it was untrue, let it ride. It doesn't matter. I mean, the idea that we spent years talking about Russia. it's hard for me to believe that that's not a fairy tale, that we didn't all live, that we actually lived through this and that these major news organizations that pushed assiduously, that narrative, did not deal with it. How do you suppose they, they reckon that in their heads? Do they still maybe think there's something to it?

Well, no, I'll explain that. But first I'll say, to my knowledge, Carter Page, who never met Donald Trump or spoke. to him but was spied on illegally by the government with falsified documents from an FBI lawyer who's been convicted for that with a slap on the wrist. He's never received an apology from anybody. No one's even said in the government or media, to my knowledge, we're really sorry we said you are a Russian spy based on nothing. And now we know that you are targeted improperly by the highest, most important people in this country. And no one's even said boo to him, you know, apologized or anything. But this can be fairly easily explained by something we touched upon earlier.

The news industry has been infiltrated. And if you no longer see news organizations as having the purpose of bringing facts to light, but you understand they're often little more than tools of propagandists, then it's mission accomplished if they've reported something false that got people talking about it and thinking about it. That's why those reporters, instead of getting punished for the worst kinds of mistakes that wouldn't be allowed in journalism school or wouldn't used to be allowed in journalism school. They're promoted. They're reporters that had horrible records at Politico

that got brought into the New York Times to report on Donald Trump. So the worst kind of reporting is rewarded because it's not really the reporting they're looking for. They're looking for narratives and propaganda and the reporters who are willing to do that. So if there's a mistake, it's really not a problem for them as long as the bad information circulated and did its job.

When I see people like Joe Rogan and many, many others who would never be characterized as particularly conservative or overtly Christian, nonetheless, being outraged at the things that we're talking about. I feel hope. I see a Russell Brand has a podcast where he has, I think, five million people listening to him. And he is no doctrinaire conservative. On the contrary, precisely the opposite. But it seems to me that people with eyes to see are seeing and talking and saying things.

And in a way, that does give me hope that there are lots of voices out there, years among them who are speaking up. Well, I think those who are controlling the information landscape did themselves a disservice. And I'm glad they did in a way. By overplaying their hand, they leapt ahead during the Donald Trump era in ways we've talked about by making their biases so obvious that what used to be sort of suspected and talked about by members of the public was no longer any question that this was happening. And same with the censorship. Instead of sort of, there's always been attempts to keep us from seeing certain information.

And ever since the Internet was invented, people trying to figure out how to keep us, make us see certain things and not see others. But by overtly censoring and cheering on, you know, obviously true information in some instances and then pushing false information. you know, the government and media and others, I think they've overplayed their hand in a way that's made a lot of people recognize exactly what's going on. Well, Cheryl, I'm sorry we're out of time. Just a joy to have you on the program. Thrilled you're doing what you're doing.

I hope people who don't know you will look you up, check out full measure. But thank you for being my guest. God bless you. Thank you so much for having me. Hey, you crazy kids. Before we go to John Smirak, oh my goodness, I want to tell you that my book, Fish Out of Water, is 60% off, the hardcover, the publisher is making it available if you go to the website,

to that website. So I've posted it on social media. If you get my newsletter, which obviously I hope you do, Ericmetaxis.com, sign up for the newsletter. But when a book is 60% off, I think I need to tell you about. that everywhere I go, it happened again last night at this Ken Fish event. Somebody comes up to me and says, thank you for your book, Fish Out of Water. And then they start telling me what they liked. And it just, it thrills me.

Obviously, there's a lot of funny stories in it. But you have to go to my social media. And if you get the newsletter, tons of information, we will send out. But sign up for the newsletter, Eric Mataxis.com. We should mention Ken Fish, both hours on Monday. Yeah. He has some really interesting stuff to share. We recorded it yesterday.

He's in the city this weekend. Really, really extraordinary. If you don't know who Ken Fish is, oh, my goodness, you can look him up. We also have Brandon Strach, who has been treated so despicably by the people behind this January 6th hoax. It is so evil and so wrong. And we're going to have him on the program on Tuesday. to give us the whole story of what he has been through. It's unbelievable, really.

We just the other day we had on Mike Lindell, actually we should remind you, please go to mypillar.com and my store.com and use the code Eric. Actually, I should mention that the Bonhofer film is happening. I think I've mentioned it, but I'm going to be giving you details as we go along. It's very exciting. The posters are available at my store.

They are gorgeously printed. They are the most beautiful posters. I tell you, it's art. Mystore.com. Obviously, most of my books are available at my store.com as well. And we have a new sponsor. How do you explain this, Albin? M-O-I-N-K-M-K-M-O-N-K-M-E-L-E-L-E-C.

This is a family farm in Missouri. and the woman behind it, Lucinda, will be my guest next week to talk about it. Yeah, she was on Shark Tank, so she's a big deal. Yes, I was going to say, if you look up Moink, M-O-I-N-K, moink on Shark Tank, you'll see her whole spiel. But we're going to have her on the program next week, kind of explaining what it is they do,

even if they weren't sponsors of the program, which they only are now for this one month. I don't know. but I thought when you hear what is going on in the farming industry, I mean, one of the things that she shared was that 60% of all pork in the United States is Smithfield, right? You've all heard of Smithfield, hams, right? 100% owned by China.

I mean, on and on and on, the facts are staggering. So when you can find an alternative, I say grab it. So I guess the website is moinkbox.com slash Eric. But Moinkbox, they send you a box of meat. But it really is amazing. We'll tell the story next week. But I just want to say we need hope. And spending money in places like that, that's why we always talk about nutrometics.com.

If you're buying these things anyway, you might as well buy them from people who share your values, who care about America. who care about freedom. So we just want to encourage you along those lines. Albin, I do not want to forget, ladies and gentlemen, our social media is being shadow banned, Twitter, Facebook. That's why I'm asking you, you know we've been banned from YouTube utterly. We must be doing something right. So please go to Eric Mataxis.com.

Please sign up for our newsletter. Do yourself a favor. There's a lot of information. We'd love to put in your hands. We'll leave it at that when we come back. The amazing boy genius, the world's oldest boy genius. John Samirik is my guest. Thank you.