The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.14 DUMBEST COP ALIVE Empties Gun On Handcuffed Man After Falling ACORN Scared Him & Today's News

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at https://PDSDebt.com/defranco Go to https://www.stamps.com/phil to get a 4 week trial plus free postage and a digital scale!  Buy The New https://BeautifulBastard.com Drop While You Can! –✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Cops Open Fire After Mistaking Fallen Acorn for Shots 04:36 - Country Station Reverses Course After Rejecting Beyonce Requests 07:23 - Polyamorous Relationships Grow in Popularity 09:57 - Sponsored by Stamps.com 10:44 - Families Use AI Recreations of Children Lost to Gun Violence to Call Lawmakers 14:42 - House Republicans Impeach Mayorkas 17:56 - Lyft Shares Surge Because of Typo on Earnings Report  20:21 - Sponsored by PDS Debt 21:28 - Leading News Outlets Are Being Paid to Promote Big Oil’s Greenwashing 29:52 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday’s Show Greenwashing Report: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/05/fossil-fuel-industry-media-company-advertising/  ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve  Associate Producer on Greenwashing: Lili Stenn ———————————— #DeFranco #Beyonce #KansasCity ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards! You're watching the Philip DeFranco Show, and wouldn't you know it, we got a lot of news to talk about today. We've got mind-melting body cam footage of the dumbest cop alive, there's Beyonce controversies got people outraged, there's ridiculous mistakes, polyamory's on the rise, and we have to dive into this ridiculous greenwashing situation. And then there's even more to talk about in today's jumbo-sized show, so buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know you like these daily dives into the news,

and let's just jump into it. Starting with, we need to talk about possibly the dumbest cop alive. Because at the center of this story, you have one acorn, two cops, several dozen bullets, and an undeniable miracle. And we're talking about this because we just got some of the most mind boggling body cam footage I've ever seen. And if you've hopped on social media, maybe you've even seen it, but I got to talk in detail about what went down and what's happened since. Because all of this actually started one morning back in November in Florida. What? Florida? Who could have guessed? We have this woman calling the cops and telling them that her boyfriend, 22-year-old Marquise Jackson, stole her car. And so the sheriff's deputies arrive and

she shows them texts that he allegedly sent her threatening to damage the car. With a photo including what appears to be, or at least what the cops believe to be, a firearm with a silencer poking into frame. And then Jackson himself actually shows up, and he claims that the car is at his girlfriend's mother's house. But a phone call to the mom quickly confirms that's a lie, and after a search around the area, police find the vehicle. So they end up arresting Jackson, but not before Deputy Jesse Hernandez pats him down, appearing to confirm he has no weapons. And with him clearly unarmed and handcuffed, the officers put him in the back of the patrol car. And that is where the normal part of this story ends, and the batshit crazy part begins. Because while the female cop is talking to Jackson's

girlfriend away from the patrol car, she hears her partner Hernandez yell, shots fired. Jesse! Jesse, are you okay? Get in the house! Get in the house! They absolutely lit up that patrol car, believing that somehow Jackson got a gun and he fired at Hernandez. The girlfriend heard screaming and emotional agony for minutes on end. But then, in like a scene straight out of Pulp Fiction, Jackson comes out of the vehicle completely unharmed. Not a single bullet graced his body. And not only that, he was still also

completely unarmed. So you might be asking, well, Phil, what the hell just happened? Because when we look at the footage from Hernandez's perspective, it doesn't clear anything up. If anything, you're just left even more confused. But now, all this time after, the sheriff's office has released a statement saying that as Hernandez was walking up to the car to search Jackson one more time, he heard a pop, which he believed to be a gunshot. But of course, it wasn't, with investigators noting that an acorn fell from a tree onto the roof of the car. Which means, yes, these cops almost turned this man into Swiss cheese because they got frightened by an acorn. This guy was going 1v1 against the invisible man.

He thought he got shot while playing cops and robbers by himself. Now, of course, Jackson, like we said, he made it out alive miraculously, but he also says he feels traumatized for life. With him writing in a Facebook post, all I could do was lean over and play dead to prevent getting shot in the head. Windows were shattering on me the whole time as bullets continued flying across me. I was scared to death and I knew all I could depend on was God. I ignored everything and prayed. I haven't been the same since, and I don't think this feeling I have will ever change. I truly believe I'm damaged for life. And as far as Hernandez, he was not charged with anything.

He also wasn't fired. He ended up resigning back in December. The county sheriff also telling reporters that he didn't believe the officer acted with any malice. I don't know how many people were saying that he acted with malice, just overwhelming stupidity. But the county sheriff also going on to say, though his actions were ultimately not warranted,

we do believe he felt his life was in immediate immediate peril and his response was based off the totality of circumstances Surrounding this fear and again, I am NOT accusing Hernandez of being evil just incredibly incredibly stupid Like unless he is an Oscar worthy actor He genuinely seems to believe that he was shot even though again, he was just having a 1v1 showdown with an acorn. And honestly, seeing this footage, it's genuinely scary that there is any sort of system in place that thinks that that guy should ever fucking ever be given a badge a gun and qualified immunity no one trusts this guy with a fork let alone a firearm but hey uh that story's some of my takeaway and of course i'll pass the question off to you what are your thoughts here and then in entertainment news and drama let's talk about

beyonce because there's this controversy playing out with beyonce and country music and it's kind of not a shocker that this is happening given how like the last time she had a big country song, there were other controversies about how places like the Grammys didn't accept it into the genre. And we're now seeing a similar situation play out with her new songs, Texas Hold'em and 16 Carriages. Both are country and they're the lead singles of what's believed to be a full Beyonce country album, with Texas Hold'em especially leaning into banjo and stomping. But then we got the news that a local country radio station in Oklahoma apparently rejected a request to play the track. With that one viral tweet saying, I requested Texas Hold'em at my local country radio station KYKC and after requesting, I received an email from the radio

station stating we do not play Beyonce on KYKC as we are a country music station and saying this station needs to be held accountable for their blatant racism and discrimination against Beyonce. Right and that prompted a lot of outrage, especially because there's a history of country music shutting out black artists. Like how in the past we've seen Billboard pulling Lil Nas X's Old Town Road from the country charts despite its crossover success, with people at that time saying, you know, it showed segregation with the genre. And now with what we're seeing with Beyonce getting denied country radio play, you have some saying, while the racism we're about to bear witness to because Beyonce is digging into her country

roots is going to be intergalactic. And as a black country singer, I'm so glad other people are now seeing what us smaller artists have to go through to break into this genre and industry. With this, people getting Beyonce's country trending to show support, others bringing up the genre's history. With outlets like the Washington Post saying that her new song salutes the genre's black cultural roots. And in fact, some argue that part of the reason

Beyonce's leaning into country is to reclaim the genre and fight back against racism within it. And so with all of this playing out in real time, it ended up prompting the radio station to respond. With Roger Harris, the general manager of Southern Central Oklahoma Radio Enterprises telling the Tennessean that they weren't playing it because of the market size, saying, quote,

"'We're not in a position to break an artist "'or help it that much, so it has to chart "'a little bit higher for us to add it.' "'But we love Beyonce here. "'We play her on our other top 40 and adult hit stations, "'but we're not playing her on our country station yet "'because it just came out. And going on to say, we sort of pattern ourselves after the bigger stations.

When they start playing it, that's a big factor, and the charts are the second biggest. And going on to defend the station's initial rejection by saying that they would have had the same response to a request for the Rolling Stones. But then also adding that the station will play Beyonce's new songs if they're country. And all that leading to the station posting on social media that it did have a lot of requests for the song and it had it queued up yesterday. And outlets like NPR saying the station said it took so long because it previously didn't even have the song. Though also with this, you have some people and outlets wondering, you know, is this a one-off thing or is this going to be part of something that's maybe a bigger trend? For example, Billboard saying that overall country radio has been slow to embrace

the song. But as of yesterday, Columbia did officially service Texas Hold'em to country stations. So saying that could also change soon. With all that said, I'd really love to know your thoughts here, especially if you're a Beyonce fan or a country music fan, maybe you're even both. What are your thoughts on the situation and controversy? Because I am like just very ill-equipped to have a meaningful opinion on this topic. I think I'm one of three people that hasn't heard either of the two songs yet. I'm just too busy imagining what I do in scenarios that will never happen. And then it's Valentine's Day today. And that means I got to tell you about two things. The first is just for me. I just want to say I'm sending my thoughts and prayers to all you fools out there celebrating Valentine's Day on Valentine's Day. This is corporate hallmarkified

holidays already bullshit. It's a sad time. If you find yourself out tonight at some restaurant that's jam packed in like a bunch of sardines that push the tables insanely close. You're shoulder to shoulder with strangers. You can't have an intimate conversation. All because you gave in to the manufactured pressure or you decide to date someone that cares about that manufactured pressure. I mean, if you're going to do something for Valentine's Day, do it around Valentine's Day. That's even if you partake at all. Though, you know, every person and every relationship, they're different. In fact, the second thing we're talking about on this day of love is that more and more relationships are looking different.

With reports coming out noting that it is increasingly popular for people to consider polyamory and ethical non-monogamy, as opposed to unethical non-monogamy, which is just extra words for cheating. Because while there's limited data quantifying the actual increase in these kinds of relationships, we have seen some online dating services reporting spikes in the number of people seeking them out. But also, I mean, it's undeniable that non-monogamy has kind of crept into the mainstream in recent years. Whether it be articles, books, shows like Couple to Thruple, as well as sex-positive dating apps like Feel. And actually there, the app's CEO telling Axios, an already increased interest in non-monogamy grew during lockdown when people had more time to consider

their sexual identities and what they wanted out of relationships. And in fact, a YouGov poll last year revealed that a third of Americans described their ideal relationship as something other than complete monogamy. And then when you narrow it down to just people under 45, the percentage share jumps to 41% for women and 55% for men. And last month, we saw that Match's annual survey found that about a third of American singles say they've had a consensually non-monogamous relationship, with 16% saying they'd do it again in the future.

Also, notably, when you dig into those numbers, the types of relationships vary wildly. Right at one end, you have a full-blown polycule, where you have multiple romantic partners who often know and hang out with one another. And at the other end, there's swinging, threesomes, and other group sex that includes your partner. And then all this other shit in the middle, like throuples or an open relationship where you have one romantic partner, but you can have casual sex with other people. Now, with all that said, if you are hearing all this and you're like, all of this is insane, or you're thinking, I could never do that, you're not alone.

Because also typically, people who practice these lifestyles acknowledge that it's not for everyone. But they also argue that neither is monogamy. And they are pointing to data showing that half of all first marriages end in divorce with infidelity being a leading reason. So they argue that if monogamy is not working so well

for a lot of people, maybe they should consider trying something more flexible. Though notably, still more people disapprove than approve of non-monogamy when surveyed. But hey, what are your thoughts on this? And also, I guess if you want to overshare with the class, if your opinions are based off of personal experience, feel free to share. Maybe make an alt account. And then, you know, I think most of us have felt the pressure at some point of trying to get ahead, but instead falling further into debt with credit cards, personal loans, medical bills. If you're at the point where you're making payments every month on your debt

and your balances aren't going down, today's sponsor, PDS Debt, has a program that rolls all of your payments into one low monthly payment. Just one low monthly payment based on what you can afford. And everyone with over $10,000 or more in debt qualifies. And get this, there is no minimum credit score required. PDS Debt offers options that allow you to pay off your debt in a fraction of the time, saving you thousands in interest and fees. And PDS Debt is giving you beautiful bastards a free debt analysis just for completing the quick and easy debt assessment at pdsdebt.com slash defranco. You'll receive a full breakdown on how to save on interest each month and the quickest way to take care of your debt. Just go to pdsdebt.com slash defranco and get your quick

and easy debt assessment today because it's time to take back control of your life and live for you, not your debt. And then lawmakers right now are getting calls from dead people. People like Joaquin Oliver, who was one of the 17 people that died in the Parkland Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting. And today on the six year anniversary of that tragedy, lawmakers are getting calls and they're hearing Joaquin and others demanding gun reform. Hello. Hit pause on whatever you're listening to and hit play on your next adventure. Stay three nights this summer at Best Western and get $50 off a future stay.

Life's a trip. Make the most of it at Best Western. Visit BestWestern.com for complete terms and conditions. You've got unlimited access to music, but time? Now that's limited. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard gets you unlimited PC Optima points, free grocery delivery, and time back for what matters. Save time and earn $1,100 in average value

each year. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard. The card for living unlimited. Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit PCFinancial.ca for details. Value is for illustrative purposes only. I'm Joaquin Oliver. Six years ago, I was a senior at Parkland. Many students and teachers were murdered on Valentine's Day that year by a person using an AR-15, but you don't care. You never did. It's been six years and you've done nothing. Not a thing to stop all the shootings that have

continued to happen since. The thing is, I died that day in Parkland. My body was destroyed by a weapon of war. Other victims like me will be calling too, again and again, to demand action. How many calls will it take for you to care? How many dead voices will you hear before you finally listen? And as far as how this is happening, it's AI. With the voices being recreated using AI by their families for a new campaign for gun reform called The Shotline.

With each voice coming from a victim of gun violence. Like 10-year-old Uzi Garcia, a victim of the Uvalde school shooting two years ago. I'm a fourth grader at Rob Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Or at least I was when a man with an AR-15 came into my school and killed 18 of my classmates, two teachers and me. That was almost two years ago.

Nothing has changed. Even more shootings have happened. That's why my family recreated my voice using AI to call you today and demand change. Right, in order to make this happen, families took audio clips of their children speaking and sent them to Edison, a global film production company. The company then working on recreating the voices and the families would offer notes on cadence, tone, and inflection to most accurately replicate their children's voices. And from there, the families helped create the scripts that were read by the AI. Notably, this initiative is backed by two organizations, March for Our Lives, the activist group formed

by students of Stoneman Douglas following the Parkland shooting, and the other being Change the Ref, which was actually founded by Joaquin's parents, Manuel and Patricia Oliver, who have been relentless in their pursuit for gun reform since their son's death. In fact, Manuel was reportedly arrested back in 2022 for climbing on a construction crane

near the White House with a banner demanding that Joe Biden enact stricter gun laws. And actually, months later, he was booted from the White House for yelling at Biden. And this also isn't the Oliver's first adoption of AI for their cause. In fact, back in 2020, they used AI to create a video of Joaquin urging voters to choose candidates who support stricter gun laws. And that notably was met with some criticism.

With ABC reporting a comment on the video reading, They put words in a dead kid's mouth. If my father did this to me, I would haunt him for the rest of his life. And while using AI to recreate the voices of dead children may be shocking and unsettling, you have the families involved saying that's the entire point. With the father of another teen, Ethan Song, saying, This was a heartbreaking thing for us to do, but I think this is the kind of thing that wakes people up. This is the process was incredibly painful for these families.

With Patricia Oliver, for example, saying that she and her husband combed through their phones and computers for clips of Joaquin speaking in order to make this happen and asked other family and even Joaquin's girlfriend to do the same. And Ethan's mother, Kristen Song, saying, it brings you back to that day, the last words your child had with you before walking out of your life, basically. I just sat and sobbed, honestly, just because you know he's never going to come back. Now, with all this, whether or not this is an ethical use of AI, of course, that's up for debate. But you do have people like a communication studies professor at American University saying, I'll say it's one of the least nefarious uses of voice cloning technology I've heard of yet. There is a forest of ethical concerns to navigate here. Is this just a new way to use people's likeness for persuasive and informative speech? Or is it a kind of soul-snatching abomination? I suspect it's the first, but we're

going to have to decide collectively whether it's the first or the second. And this also, as some AI experts have said, this type of project seems to be above board, under the caveat that the messages aren't trying to deceive or mislead anyone. Ultimately, though, with the situation that I imagine is going to be very polarizing and when you hear it, it's so jarring. I just absolutely have to pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? And also with all this, I do want to say it is not lost on me while I'm reporting this. And as I'm finishing up today's show, we're seeing this news break that several people were just shot near the Kansas City victory parade with two armed people detained as of filming right now, and obviously we're going to be talking about this more tomorrow as more

details come in. And then, House Republicans actually did it this time. They didn't slip on a banana peel at the last second like last time, and they impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and accomplishing this absolutely historic move with the smallest majority possible. It came down to a single vote, with all Democrats and even three Republicans voting against the two articles of impeachment, those being willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust for his handling of the southern border. And leading up to this, like, we knew this was coming. No one changed their opinion from that last vote to this vote. You just had one Republican who was absent last week coming back and breaking the tie. So,

you know, with this, like, before, we saw Democrats responding with the same arguments they've been making the whole time against this, saying that there's zero evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional basis of the impeachment process, and saying that Republicans are abusing a very serious tool meant to address corruption for the sole purpose of punishing someone whose policies they don't agree with, and all for political gain during an election year where Trump has called for his minions in the House to get political retribution for his two impeachments. This isn't a thing that casually happens. There's literally one other cabinet secretary in all of fucking American history that's been impeached before.

That was 150 years ago. And that Ulysses S. Grant ass secretary resigned before the House impeached him on corruption charges after finding evidence of widespread wrongdoing, including accepting kickbacks. Which also means that Mayorkas is the first ever sitting cabinet member to be impeached in US history. And this is Democrats have condemned

House Republicans as hypocrites. Because they've impeached Mayorkas for allegedly failing to secure the southern border. At the same time, they literally killed a bipartisan bill to do exactly that. But he helped move along with Democrats and Republicans. And actually, very notably here, just this morning, we saw The Washington Post reporting that because of the failure to pass that bill, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has drafted plans to release thousands of immigrants and scale back its capacity to hold detainees. This, according to four officials at ICE and DHS. And I mean that bipartisan bill

that was killed at Trump's direction, it would have closed a $700 million budget shortfall by allocating $6 billion in additional funding for ICE operations. Which I mean, it's actually insane to be like, well, Democrats were gonna vote for this? That was a huge concession to the Republicans. Dems don't usually support bolstering ICE enforcement,

even though Republicans claim that they want increased enforcement. Because they refuse to pass this bill, ICE officials were posing cutting detention beds from 38,000 to 22,000. And the lack of beds, that's not going to stop the influx of migrants at the border. That just means there's fewer places to put them. As well, some of these people will be deported. Officials say that much of the offsets will have to happen by just mass releasing detainees. Which I mean, just so we're on the same page, it's not uncommon for this to happen. The US lacks adequate detention capacity and even the Trump administration

had to release some migrants because of this. But it is wild when you think that one of the Republicans' main arguments for impeaching Mayorkas was that his agency had released too many detainees. While they are now essentially forcing ICE to mass release even more. Now, as far as Mayorkas' future,

he's probably gonna be fine. His impeachment's gonna be heading to the Senate for a trial, and it is widely, widely expected that he's not going to be convicted because you need two-thirds of the Senate for that. And there, I mean, even Republicans have expressed doubt about the whole ordeal. So in general, it's kind of just a lot of political theater. While all of this is obviously a waste of taxpayer dollars and congressional time when maybe they could actually be pushing through important legislation,

it remains to be seen if this theater will be beneficial for Republicans. Because while talking heads and propaganda arms are going to try and make this seem as crazy as possible, you kind of have to jump through some hoops to push that argument without acknowledging the fact that Republicans killed something that was supposed to help the border. They're actively kneecapping Mayorkas' ability to do the job and then trying to prosecute him for not standing tall enough. And then, an absolutely wild business news. We gotta talk about Lyft, right? The rideshare service. Because they took the market on a ride yesterday.

Straight on the tracks of a roller coaster. Because yesterday, Lyft put out its quarterly earnings release. And it turns out there was an itty-bitty typo. With them reporting, and I'm not joking, that their earnings outlook was 10 times higher than it was supposed to be. That's because in the release, they reported that they would improve their adjusted earnings margin by 500 basis points, or 5%, when in reality, the actual number was only 50 basis points, or 0.5%. And because of that typo, because of that

extra zero, their stock surged. I mean, it hit the highest that it's been since August of 2022. And oh baby, those poor souls that got on that rocket ship and then did anything else. Because the stock then very quickly fell again after the C and then did anything else. Because the stock then very quickly fell again after the CFO clarified the actual numbers, with the stock dropping from over $20 to $14 a share. Though notably, it still ended up being a 50% gain for the company. And in a move you rarely actually see these days, the CEO, David Risher, took all the blame. And ultimately, I don't know if there is a lesson here. Because while I'm inclined to say, don't be stupid, stupid, double check your work before you present it to the world and you're the head of a billion dollar

company the stock still went up and we'll never truly know how many people bought into this and have held because of the error and they don't want to take a loss already though this is you add richer saying while that was a mistake it shouldn't eclipse the otherwise excellent financial performance but while lyft obviously got a lot of attention because of this, not the only big news in the rideshare space. With Uber just announcing their first ever buyback plan, saying the company is gonna repurchase as much as $7 billion in shares to return capital to shareholders.

And this all notably coming after Uber's reported their first full year of operating profit and positive free cashflow. Though a big thing is while the higher ups there, you know, they feel pleased that the company's financial outlook is looking great, their employees seem to be telling a different story. With drivers for both Uber and Lyft, along with DoorDash across the US and the UK, striking today for better pay and working

conditions. Drivers saying that the platforms are taking massive chunks of their fares and fees, and it's hurting their earnings. With, for example, one driver in Dallas saying, these platforms continuously decrease driver earnings year after year as means to show they are profitable to investors to get them to buy into their stock. One group, Justice for App Workers, reportedly representing 130,000 delivery workers and drivers, has asked their membership to refuse rides to and from airports in 10 different cities. And in the UK, more than 3,000 delivery workers are also expected to strike for several hours. Now with this, the companies have all offered responses to the strike, with Uber and DoorDash just simply saying that it's unlikely that there will be an impact on their services. Meanwhile, you had Lyft

talking about their recent guarantees for driver pay and saying they're, quote, constantly working to improve the driver experience. And then, have you experienced, like, after the hype of the new year that we all kind of settle into our routines? But, you know, for businesses that do lots of mailing and shipping, you got to keep moving. So thank you to stamps.com slash phil for not only sponsoring today's show, but also for streamlining mailing and shipping needs to help expedite operational efficiencies. You know, are you selling products online? They seamlessly connect with major marketplaces and shopping carts. You can also print official U.S. postage from your computer 24-7. They even send you a free scale so you have what you need. And Stamps.com has been so convenient and cost

effective for me. I can get all the mailing and shipping done without even leaving my house. And taking care of orders on the go is even easier with their mobile app. You need a package pickup? Easily schedule it through your Stamps.com dashboard. And they've been indispensable for over a million businesses for 25 years. Whether it's mailing out checks, invoices, legal documents, books, or anything else, stamps.com saves me time and money, freeing me up to do the things that I actually want to do, making it so I can spend more time producing the show, working on the next beautiful bastard drop, or, and the big thing, actually being able to spend more time with my family. So keep your mailing and shipping at the speed of your business and go to stamps.com slash phil for a

special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage, a free digital scale, no long-term commitments or contracts. You just got to go to stamps.com slash phil. And then we got to talk about how seven of the most prominent news outlets in the world are being paid massive dollars to promote big oil's misleading climate claims to their trusting readers. Because what got revealed in this devastating report from the intercept in collaboration with the nation, drilled in De Smog, is wild. Right, so the report looked at Bloomberg, The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, Politico, Reuters, and The Washington Post, with those being selected because they're consistently at the top of the list for the

most trusted news outlets in the U.S. and Europe. And the authors of this report reviewed promotional materials called advertorials, or native advertising, between October 2020 and October of 2023. And so-called native advertising is when a company pays to have certain sponsored content created to look like a news outlet's real editorial work. And in fact, it's published alongside that legitimate journalism, something that you personally might describe as sketchy, or you might find yourself agreeing with The Intercept, who called it a tactic that was lending a veneer of journalistic credibility to the fossil fuel industry's key climate talking points. Though those ads aren't just limited to the fossil fuel industry. You know, many other industries enjoy using this tactic as well. You see a lot from big pharma. But that said,

this practice does have very deep roots in big oil. In fact, just the idea of the advertorial was first created in the 1970s by Mobile Oil's vice president of public affairs with help from the New York Times. With that VP encouraging public relations executives to be brave about, quote, getting around the press, right? To push their ideas and aversion of events to the public. And obviously that quickly spread to other outlets and industries, completely revolutionizing advertising as we know it. Because not only did it change where these companies were advertising, it changed the what they were advertising. With these, you're not selling a product, you're selling an idea of the world. And maybe that idea benefits me, who sells a product.

And that promotional content has just been getting cranked out faster and faster. And over the last decade or so, we've seen major news outlets starting their own internal brand studios with creative teams whose job it is to produce those materials. And today, almost all big outlets have these creative teams, including the seven companies reviewed in this report. And they've been evolving, right? They don't just produce content in the style of articles. So arguably, those are the most obvious. They've also expanded to videos, podcasts, newsletters, and sometimes even sponsored events. Now, a key thing that I do want to mention is that most outlets keep their advertorial teams separate from their journalists. But as The Intercept explains, the independence of

these outlets' journalists is not in question. What's important is whether readers understand the difference between reporting and advertising. And according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research, they do not. In fact, according to a Georgetown University study from 2016, two out of every three people confused advertorials as real journalistic content. But also remember, everything is evolving. And in a more recent study by Boston University researchers in 2018, they found that just one in 10 people recognized native advertising as what it was and not reporting. And that's concerning in general, but it's especially concerning because that ad content is pushing big oil climate narratives that have been widely condemned for greenwashing and being misleading or even outright false. With, for example,

a climate disinformation expert and professor at Harvard University explaining, they're manufacturing content that at best is completely one-sided and at worst is disinformation and pushing that to their readers. I mean, let's take a look at content produced by the New York Times and Mobile, right? The two organizations that pioneered this whole thing. 2017, peer-reviewed study of the Times advertorials with Mobile and then also ExxonMobil after the merger, found that 81% of content that mentioned climate change highlighted doubt in the science. And so where this becomes especially dangerous is when these ads are then sandwiched alongside real, actual reporting on climate change. And as The Intercept explains, climate reporters at every single outlet they reviewed have diligently covered the challenges

that the industry's so-called solutions face. But when the reporting is placed alongside corporate sponsored content touting the technology's benefits, it leaves readers confused. Or the other side, or a connecting piece of the company that you're working for, is actively trying to undercut you in your own house. They're getting paid to do it. I mean, for example, Bloomberg Media Studios created a video for ExxonMobil promoting hydrogen power and carbon capture and storage, where you have the company's CEO saying it's ready to deploy CCS to reduce the world's emissions. But it failed to mention, this is so crazy,

I don't know how this happened, that Exxon also plans to ramp up annual carbon emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, which notably is the news that Bloomberg's own climate reporters literally broke. We've also seen the Washington Post advertorials kind of remaining relatively under the radar compared to its biggest competitor, the New York Times,

which of course has gotten more scrutiny because again, they started all of this. But I don't want them to miss out on this party. So from 2020 to 2023, the report found that the Post actually worked with more fossil fuel advertisers than the New York Times did, sending out more than 100 newsletters sponsored by ExxonMobil in 2022 alone and creating native ads for the American Petroleum Institute and BP. Post also ran a series of online editorials in 2020 and 2021 for the American Petroleum Institute, which notably is the single most powerful big oil lobby, with this including a piece that claimed renewable energy is unreliable and fossil gases needed to go alongside it,

which infuriatingly are misleading fossil fuel industry talking points that literally the Post's own reporters often debunk. And amazingly, all of this went down during the same time period that the Post was expanding its climate reporting, which by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize. Keep in mind, I'm going to be linking to the full report in the description because I can't touch on every single example in here. I'm trying to make it consumable. I want you to take the deep dive. But I do need to add, it's a very significant thing. The authors of this report explicitly say that out of all the outlets they analyzed, Reuters was offering the most options to fossil fuel advertisers and working with more fossil fuel majors than any other outlet. And another key

thing, adding that Reuters is also blurring the line the most between advertorial and editorial. With The Intercept explaining here, not only does Reuters deliver in-house print, digital, video, and audio content for fossil fuel giants, they also literally create custom events for the industry, including summits that are explicitly designed to remove the, quote, pain points holding back faster production of oil and gas. And those events go beyond just their in-house brand team, where you have Reuters journalists regularly moderating panels at these events. And Reuters event staff literally try to entice oil industry players to buy their event packages by promising exclusive interviews with those journalists. And that's in addition to offering to produce webinars and even compose in-depth scientific papers for oil

companies that are written by Reuters event staffers, but include Reuters editorial content. Like for example, in December of 2022, Reuters hosted an event that was sponsored by the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. Sounds maybe sanitary. It is a lobby that contains many of the biggest oil companies in the world. And the whole point of that was to basically greenwash by discussing the so-called major part oil companies play in ensuring a sustainable energy transition. And during that, the official Reuters event Twitter page was literally tweeting out industry talking points. And while I'm focusing for this moment on Reuters, they are not alone in their expansion into events. With other outlets like the Financial Times, The Economist, and Politico all hosting climate events sponsored by big oil. And one media analyst even saying that these events now represent 20 to 30% of revenue for some of these outlets.

Which then brings us back around to the whole reason that these news outlets are doing this in the first place. Money, money, more money. The report noting, these offerings come at a higher cost than traditional ad buys, making them increasingly important to for-profit newsrooms facing a structural crisis in traditional revenue models driven by the rise of social media. Though here, I do want to note that it is difficult to know exactly how much money that we're talking about. Because in a shocking turn of events, there's not a ton of transparency here, which is why the people behind this report can only estimate total revenue. And even they acknowledge that their estimates here are very conservative. And that because they say they only include figures verifiable with ad data service media radar, which represents only some of the fossil fuel ad revenue

these publishers are bringing in. But even those conservative estimates are very significant. Like for instance, they show that the New York Times has by far received the most money in the period from 2020 to 2023, which again, very conservatively, they're saying is more than $20 million from major fossil fuel companies. And that is actually more than twice as much as any of the other six outlets. But that in large part fueled, hey, we do puns here sometimes, by Saudi Aramco. And they were the biggest spender by a mile. They spent $13 million just with the times alone. You know, even as these companies are seemingly okay with selling their souls, right? The ends justify the means in their eyes. Many of their own reporters are unsurprisingly not okay with this. With climate reporters at these

outlets who requested anonymity telling The Intercept that these partnerships with big oil companies are gross, undermining, and dangerous. With one also adding, not only does it undermine the climate journalism these outlets are producing, but it actually signals to readers that climate change is not a serious issue. And that's a point that's been echoed by many experts. You can say, hey, we still have the reporting, but you're confusing people. And that's part of the goal. All of a sudden, I don't know, I'm hearing different things. I guess it's up for debate. Who really knows, I guess? Why should I focus on this?

What's deeply alarming isn't just that, like, news media is being used for this. It's that they're incentivized to. Your everyday person's not fucking diving into peer-reviewed reports and studies. News media, whether largely established or independent, you help craft people's understanding of the world. And when we talk about longstanding,

established news media, like, it's not just for the public, but for policymakers as well. But again, I want to close this by saying this is not the fault of 99% of the journalists. This whole shit show, like you can't use this against them. Being a journalist is an often thankless job, depending on where you are. It's a dangerous job. Most any that I've come across, even when I do not agree with them or I feel like they said something about me that I do not think is accurate, I think many are going out there with the best of intentions. While I think that all of us should not like the situation that we see here, this is probably the most infuriating for them. But hey, that is where I'm going to leave this one. I'd love to know any

and all thoughts you have on this. I know it was kind of a deeper dive. Yeah, thanks for listening. And then finally, let's talk about yesterday today. The Pure Community part of the show where we dive into the comments on yesterday's show and see what y'all had to say. And understand finally, let's talk about yesterday today. The Pure Community, part of the show where we dive into the comments on yesterday's show and see what y'all had to say. And understandably, a lot of the conversation was around the Lakewood shooting, with folks like Rembreaker saying, It's crazy enough to attempt mass murder. It's another thing entirely to drag your child into it.

I hope that kid gets the physical and mental healing they need. And while there was obviously a lot of people that agreed with that statement, you also had others like the Double Helix saying she was definitely not well and shouldn't have been allowed to purchase those weapons. Right in there, you know, yeah, a big section of yesterday's story was focused on all the stuff that led to the events that happened. Severe mental health issues, all the red flags where the authorities didn't do enough, or at times anything at all. Though then there were also comments from some that seemingly just didn't watch our coverage. Since part of it was also clearing up misinformation that was being

spread by right-wing sources. With some iron side saying, It was a man who had a mental illness, isn't that crazy? But luckily, there were plenty of people who actually used their listening ears who responded. Saying, you know the trans thing was debunked, right? She was a biological mother and cis woman. I mean, even fucking Fox News had to correct their reporting. And then in addition to that, there was a lot of conversation, understandably, around Jon Stewart, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and AgeGate.

Some beautiful bastards like Mr. Brickaloo saying, debating whether they're too old instead of debating how to not be stuck choosing between two old people. Yeah, and I think that's, you know, what we touched on yesterday is the fact that there shouldn't be a debate of if they are too old. They are. It's about the conversations and the hypocrisy and all the mess that's happening with that, as well as going, you know, in this situation that we shouldn't be in. How do we move forward?

And, you know, I saw a lot of people agreed with me that there do need to be age limits when we're talking about congressmen and the fucking president of the United States. And also, like we've talked about on the show, actually having term limits. Like there are people in Congress who have been there for over 40 years.

Also, I might as well touch on it more here. You know, yesterday I was really focused on the Jon Stewart coverage and then expanding based off of that. But I will say that the backlash against Jon Stewart was very interesting. And specifically, I mean, from a few Democrats that I saw. Because I saw some people reacting like, wow, Jon Stewart's gone for nine years and he comes back with Biden old. He's giving air to the Biden gaffe stuff.

And while I understand that, you know, people are fucking on edge going into this election. I also feel like that's an inaccurate and oversimplified way of viewing that coverage. If you actually watched his full segment on it. Because if anything, while Stewart seemingly does have a gripe that we're electing a 77-year-old or an 81-year-old, the piece that he did heavily focused on the hypocrisy and blindness to everything that's fucked up with Trump's brain. Also how it's not a one-to-one comparison because of all the other horrible shit associated with Donald Trump and the horrible shit that he's done. But that doesn't make it so you just turn a blind eye to the faults of the candidate that you might want to elect. And all of this, again, as I think many Democrats would vote

for a comatose Joe Biden over an anything Donald Trump. But that is where today's Daily Dive into the news is going to end. But don't worry about missing my lovable dumb face because my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.