The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.27 Bret Stephens (not a bedbug) Quit Social Media, A VMAs Story We Should Talk About, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're going to talk about today is, oddly enough, there were two national news stories today about bedbugs. The first that we're not going to really dive too deep into involved the president. Over the past day, President Trump has suggested that his Florida resort be the next location for the next G7 summit, which one, resulted in some conservatives like Rick Santorum saying things like this.

Starting point is 00:00:24 The fact is that the president should not be doing this. He shouldn't, it would be a violation of law as far as I understand it. I hope that this is the last time he mentions it. But it also led to reports that that resort actually had a bed bug problem. With some specifically pointing to a 2017 settlement where reportedly Eric Linder, an insurance executive,

Starting point is 00:00:43 charged he was bitten repeatedly by bed bugs while staying in the resort's posh Jack Nicholas Villa in 2016. And while reportedly the Trump organization denied Linder's claim that his room had a severe bedbug infestation, there were allegations made and then a settlement that followed, so you had people assuming that it must have been real. And that's also why this morning we saw President Trump

Starting point is 00:00:59 tweet, no bedbugs at Doral. The radical left Democrats upon hearing that the perfectly located for the next G7 Doral National Miami was under consideration for the next G7 spread that false and nasty rumor, not nice. So there was that. But the other bit I personally found more amusing. So if you didn't see, news broke on Monday

Starting point is 00:01:15 that there was a bedbug infestation at the New York Times newsroom. And following that, David Karpf, who's an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, posted a tweet saying, "'The bedbugs are a metaphor. "'The bedbugs are Bret Stephens.'"

Starting point is 00:01:27 Right, so making a joke about one of the paper's columnists. And Stephens, a Times conservative writer who was not tagged directly in this tweet, which initially only picked up nine likes and no retweets, he took notice. And a few hours after posting the tweet on Monday, Karp was surprised when he received an email from Stephens, an email that notably was also sent to Karp's provost

Starting point is 00:01:43 at the university, who's kind of a senior administration official. And in this email, Stevens wrote, I'm often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people, people they've never met on Twitter. I think you've set a new standard. I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a bedbug to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part. I promise to be courteous no matter what you have to say. Maybe it will make you feel better about yourself."

Starting point is 00:02:11 And that eventually led to Karpf tweeting out that email, which of course also led to waves of backlash against Stevens and of course more attention to the initial bedbug tweet. And after reading the email, you had a lot of people that were angry at Stevens for CCing Karpf's superior, saying that he was likely hoping to get the professor fired.

Starting point is 00:02:25 You also had others who were criticizing him for reacting so poorly to the comments and see someone who's been so vocal about protecting free speech. And of course, because the internet is the internet, it led to more jokes and more memes. You know, because when you let the internet know you're sensitive to something, they're like,

Starting point is 00:02:38 "'Yes, you will have a second helping, sir.'" And this was so big that not only was Bret Stevens' name trending, but also hashtag Brett bug was a trending topic on Twitter and ultimately in this situation We saw Stevens deactivate his entire Twitter account but before doing so tweeting Twitter is a sewer it brings out the worst in humanity I sincerely apologize for any part I played in making it worse and to anyone I've ever heard as far as reactions of the two men in this situation in an interview with The Washington Post carp complained about Stevens decision to email his Superior saying he not only thinks I should be ashamed of what I wrote the two men in this situation. In an interview with the Washington Post, Karp complained about Stevens' decision to email his superior, saying,

Starting point is 00:03:05 "'He not only thinks I should be ashamed of what I wrote, "'he thinks I should also get in trouble for it. "'That's an abuse of his power.'" And also telling the Post that he would have been willing to take Stevens up on his offer to chat in person had he not included his boss on the email. And also adding, "'You need to work very hard to find a tweet that obscure

Starting point is 00:03:19 "'and then work harder to find the writer's email "'and their provost's email to CC them too.'" And as far as why he is not a fan of Stephen's work, he said, Stephen tends to write pretty lightweight, poorly researched columns about things I know something about. So I've always seen him as this person that everyone complains about,

Starting point is 00:03:33 but we just can't get rid of. He's a bed bug. Meanwhile, you had Stephen's telling the Post that his email quote speaks for itself, but then he also later went on to speak for himself on MSNBC, saying that he had no intention to get the professor in professional trouble, but he said that institutions should be aware

Starting point is 00:03:45 of how their staff members interact with the rest of the world. And he also had this to say about the bed bug insult. Analogizing people to insects is always wrong. We can do better. We should be the people on social media that we are in real life. And something that also followed his appearance on MSNBC

Starting point is 00:04:00 were people kind of splicing those clips up with him speaking out against safe spaces back in 2017. And as far as my reaction to this story, I'm not gonna be out here calling Bret Stephens a bedbug, although he does appear to be a small-minded, thin-skinned individual. Instead, what I would say and focus on is look at this situation as the wrong way to handle a situation.

Starting point is 00:04:19 If someone says what you take to be mean stuff about you, just mute them and go about your day. Are you trying to get someone in trouble for saying something you did not like that was seen by almost nobody? You made sure that everybody would see it. It's just another version of the Streisand effect. But hey, with all that said, of course with this story,

Starting point is 00:04:35 I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? Then, as you may or may not have known, MTV's Video Music Awards happened last night. And while you've likely seen headlines around stories like certain red carpet arrivals, including YouTube's own Tana Mongeau showing up with a snake, can you believe?

Starting point is 00:04:49 And or Nikita Dragun showing up with collared and leashed men, with some loving it and others saying that it's tacky, tasteless, and offensive. Personally, I'm just happy that we get to use these ladies for a thumbnail so we can get to the really important issues as well as other headlines about winners and performances around Lil Nas X, Missy Elliott, Taylor Swift, who actually in her acceptance speech

Starting point is 00:05:08 called out the White House regarding the Equality Act. But the headline that I wanna talk to you about today actually involves the place that the VMAs took place, which if you didn't know is in Newark, New Jersey, and it's actually in the midst of a water crisis. And for some background, starting around three years ago, tests showed that the water in Newark schools contained high levels of lead.

Starting point is 00:05:25 And then later, homes and residences throughout the city also tested positive for lead, which prompted the city to distribute filters to around 38,000 at-risk homes a little under a year ago. But then, a report from earlier this month showed that those filters may not have been properly working. And so we saw the EPA write a letter to Newark's mayor,

Starting point is 00:05:40 advising him to make sure that bottled water was handed out to the affected communities. And now, after all of this time, in the past couple of days, strides have been made to further fix the problem. Just yesterday, a plan to replace contaminated pipes was announced. That plan allowing the city to receive

Starting point is 00:05:52 a $120 million loan from the Essex County Improvement Authority to replace and repair 18,000 lead service lines causing the problem. And with this loan, it's believed that that work should take just between two to three years. And while two to three years to fix a water problem, which people use every day, may sound like a long time, there had been a previous plan

Starting point is 00:06:08 that would have cost the city $75 million and taken close to a decade. But the big thing to note here is that while the plan has been announced, several votes still need to happen for it to be approved. And so in the meantime, I believe understandably, Newark residents have been frustrated both by the water crisis

Starting point is 00:06:21 as well as the way officials have handled it, which, it wraps all around, is why they staged a protest just across the street from the Prudential Center where the VMAs were being held. The protest was organized by the Newark Water Coalition, who tweeted during the event, water is a human right, we need clean water, our children need clean water now. And while reports on the numbers vary somewhere between 100 to 200 people turned out, also according to the Newark Department of Public Safety, five arrests were made because people tried to cross over police barricades.

Starting point is 00:06:45 But other than that, the protests were peaceful and without incident. Reportedly, the crowd shanted things like, "'We don't want no MTV, we want our water clean.'" And during the process, it appeared that some of the protesters were angry that this event was being held while there was also this crisis. People are dying out here!

Starting point is 00:06:59 And you've got the nerve! You've got the nerve to have the VMAs ignored! You've got the nerve! You've got the nerve to have the VMAs in Newark! You got the nerve! You got the nerve to have these celebrities come here and not give a damn about the citizens of Newark! Also on the note of celebrities, the Newark Water Coalition did try to get celebrities involved,

Starting point is 00:07:17 tweeting the likes of Cardi B, Lil Nas X, Taylor Swift, and Lizzo to use their voices. But we really didn't see this story get that attention, which I found, one, to be disappointing, but also two, is part of the reason why I'm using the odd spectacle that is the VMAs in 2019 as a way to shine a light on the very real, long-standing problem this area has faced.

Starting point is 00:07:36 And Newark residents have gotten to a point where they're having a harder time trusting city officials, especially when it comes to this crisis, because they've been promised fixes in the past and they've been let down. But hopefully today's votes will actually kickstart a real solution. And also as a showcasing that in future situations,

Starting point is 00:07:50 if people are vocal enough, they show up, they speak out, that it is not guaranteed to fall on deaf ears and that the word can get out for change. But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see. And then let's talk about the huge news of Johnson & Johnson losing a massive legal battle over the opioid crisis. This is part of a lawsuit in Oklahoma that began back in May. It was actually filed against Johnson & Johnson losing a massive legal battle over the opioid crisis. This is part of a lawsuit in Oklahoma

Starting point is 00:08:05 that began back in May. It was actually filed against Johnson & Johnson and two others by the state. But we're focusing on Johnson & Johnson today because those other two reached settlement agreements before the trial began. As far as with this trial, you had the state's Attorney General, Mike Hunter,

Starting point is 00:08:17 claiming that Johnson & Johnson fueled the opioid crisis. With the state saying more than 6,000 people in Oklahoma have died since 2000 because of opioid-related illnesses. The state also claiming that by 2017, pharmacies were filling an average of 479 opioid prescriptions an hour. What was really interesting here is that the trial was actually argued on the basis of public nuisance law,

Starting point is 00:08:34 which is something that's never been done against a pharmaceutical company. Right, to get a sense of how odd this is, public nuisance laws are usually over property disputes, but it is a broad law and can be applied to health issues, with the argument essentially being that Johnson & Johnson created a public nuisance by spreading false information to everyone from the public to doctors prescribing medicine.

Starting point is 00:08:51 Part of that misinformation included deceptive advertising and downplaying the addictive qualities of opioids. The state also pointing out that Johnson & Johnson refined a highly addictive opioid poppy and then sold the raw products to other opioid manufacturers. And actually because of that, the state said that Johnson & Johnson actually ended up supplying most of the country's opioid ingredients. And actually because of that, the state said that Johnson & Johnson

Starting point is 00:09:05 actually ended up supplying most of the country's opioid ingredients. But on the other side, you also had the lawyers for Johnson & Johnson denying any misleading advertising, also testifying that the company shouldn't be held liable, arguing that the opioids were supplied legally and were tightly regulated by the FDA. Those lawyers also argued that the company

Starting point is 00:09:19 only directly sold a relatively small amount of opioids, saying that it amounted to about 1% of all opioids sold in the country. However, the judge here ultimately ended up siding with the state, saying that the company engaged in deceptive marketing and promotion of opioids, and also saying that those practices lead to higher rates of addiction and overdoses.

Starting point is 00:09:35 Those actions compromise the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans. Specifically, defendants cause an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma. And then ordering Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million, which yes, is a lot of money,

Starting point is 00:09:58 but also the state had been asking for $17.5 billion, with the state saying that they plan to use that money to cover a wide range of services over the next 30 years This including treatment for victims emergency care law enforcement social services and other addiction related needs But regarding that much larger figure the judge said that the state hadn't provided sufficient evidence of cost past the first year and immediately after the decision We had lawyers from both sides talking at a press conference With AG Hunter calling the decision a great triumph for the state and then adding, What we showed during our seven week trial and what Judge Bachman confirmed today is what we know now for certain.

Starting point is 00:10:33 Johnson & Johnson was the kingpin behind the nation's ongoing opioid crisis. And as far as Johnson & Johnson goes, this will not surprise you. It is already being reported that they are going to appeal this decision. After Hunter spoke, you have the company's lawyer, Sabrina Strong, blasting the ruling. No Oklahoma court has ever done what this court has done today in applying public nuisance law to any commercial activity, let alone the highly regulated area of prescription medicines. The decision violates well-established constitutional principles, including due process of law. One of the things to note here is if this case is appealed,

Starting point is 00:11:13 which likely it will, it will end up at the doors of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. But of course that escalation is usually part of the plan. And one of the reasons this was and continues to be so incredibly important is because this is the first major legal loss by a pharmaceutical company where a judge has held them accountable for contributing to the opioid crisis.

Starting point is 00:11:29 Right, and so that is why this case is being hailed as a landmark decision. And as mentioned before, part of that is because they successfully argued this under public nuisance laws. Additionally, this could prove to set a precedent in the coming months. For example, in October, you have a federal judge in Ohio set to oversee another major lawsuit,

Starting point is 00:11:42 which involves nearly 2,000 individual cases rolled into one. So we might see this change a lot. And as far as my personal reaction to this, I am happy about the decision in general. But I also believe when you're talking about Johnson and Johnson, when you're talking about the opioid crisis, $572 million, it should be much higher.

Starting point is 00:11:58 And I'm not gonna go full bleeding hard on you. I'm not gonna talk about like, what is the true value of a life? And if we just talk about actual dollars, I mean, we could look really quick to 2015, where reportedly the White House Council of Economic Advisors published a report in 2017, pegging the cost of the crisis

Starting point is 00:12:12 at just over $500 billion in 2015. That report adding that it includes lost productivity as well as cost borne by taxpayers, such as ambulance runs, jail treatment costs, and the cost of caring for children whose parents have died from opioid overdoses. And if it's been established that this company is liable because they misled, they lied,

Starting point is 00:12:29 then you have to take into account the true cost of their actions and hopefully fund the things meant to thwart the situation that they helped create. Otherwise, $572 million, which yes, is a large number, can just be the cost of doing business for a massive, massive company like Johnson and Johnson I mean their annual revenue last year was reportedly 81 plus billion dollars. Hey, that's where this story ends today

Starting point is 00:12:51 It obviously continues and we're gonna keep our eyes on it That's what we're going to end today's show Hey, if you like this video, be sure to hit us with a like also If you're new here definitely hit that subscribe button click that Bell to turn on notifications That way you don't miss these shows Which actually if you're not 100% filled in, you want more viewing. If you wanna also watch today's brand new deep dive

Starting point is 00:13:08 and or maybe you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, you can click or tap right there to watch those right now. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.27 Bret Stephens (not a bedbug) Quit Social Media, A VMAs Story We Should Talk About, & More

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.