A "Quiet Shift Toward Doubters" the RNS & Tribune Reports

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/12/2025 at 2:50 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The most notable reason is the fact that Ellison (Skydance Media) bought CBS ...

By the way, this deserves one more comment. Larry Ellison is in the process right now of building a media behemoth - large enough to warrant monopoly scrutiny. Apart from any personal political views he may have, it is clear that with the current administration, getting mergers and acquisitions approved when they might be challenged over this issue of monopoly simply involves catering to the administration. In August, Ellison acquired Paramount. Ellison is currently expected to get approval to take over TikTok in the US. He is currently negotiating to purchase Warner Bros. Discovery (which would add CNN to his ownership of CBS). All of this adds a dimension to the reason why Bari Weiss became the editor at CBS. And it doesn't suggest any sort of journalistic integrity at its core ...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/9/2025 at 3:18 PM, Calm said:

It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills

Yes. Not outright saying it but using dog whistles instead. Kirk didn’t “advocate” for the stoning of gays. He merely pointed out “Gods perfect word” did. Such a huge difference 🙄

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

By the way, this deserves one more comment. Larry Ellison is in the process right now of building a media behemoth - large enough to warrant monopoly scrutiny. Apart from any personal political views he may have, it is clear that with the current administration, getting mergers and acquisitions approved when they might be challenged over this issue of monopoly simply involves catering to the administration. In August, Ellison acquired Paramount. Ellison is currently expected to get approval to take over TikTok in the US. He is currently negotiating to purchase Warner Bros. Discovery (which would add CNN to his ownership of CBS). All of this adds a dimension to the reason why Bari Weiss became the editor at CBS. And it doesn't suggest any sort of journalistic integrity at its core ...

How familiar are you with the framework, intent, and application of U.S. antitrust laws?  How do you think those laws would be applied to media companies?  Media companies can create content and/or manage distribution of content (programming).  Since the central themes of antitrust laws are price fixing and restraint of trade, you can see how there might have  been monopoly concerns around mergers involving companies holding FCC licenses when over the air broadcasting was the dominant distribution mechanism. But in today’s environment cable and the internet, especially the latter, make barrier to entry arguments for distribution seem far fetched.

The same can be said for price fixing in the distribution space.  In a world where there were only three television networks, a company wanting to run television ads to a national audience might have a credible antitrust concern if two of those three networks wanted to merge, but now digital national advertising can be done effectively which creates competition for traditional broadcasters and cable.  And for a consumer looking to acquire content YouTube TV, Hulu, Fubo, and Sling, are all competitors with traditional broadcasters and cable.  Courts seeing that many competitors would need to have clear evidence of collusion to find a restraint of trade or price fixing violation.

As for content, at this point it’s self evident that there isn’t much of a barrier to entry for content creators. Podcasts being a prime example.  Declining network and cable news ratings are evidence that consumers have, and are choosing, alternative sources for news.  That competition makes an argument that there would be a monopoly issue in the merger of two companies with news programming seem like a loser.

Your thoughts?
 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by let’s roll

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

How familiar are you with the framework, intent, and application of U.S. antitrust laws?  How do you think those laws would be applied to media companies?  Media companies can create content and/or manage distribution of content (programming).  Since the central themes of antitrust laws are price fixing and restraint of trade, you can see how there might have  been monopoly concerns around mergers involving companies holding FCC licenses when over the air broadcasting was the dominant distribution mechanism. But in today’s environment cable and the internet, especially the latter, make barrier to entry arguments for distribution seem far fetched.

Familiar enough to know that the FCC has to approve these kinds of acquisitions. But don't take my word for it:

Quote

The merger was approved only after some key concessions from both parties. Paramount agreed to pay President Trump $16 million—to be used for his future presidential library—in July to resolve a lawsuit over 60 Minutes’ edit of a 2024 interview of Kamala Harris. (A couple of weeks later, CBS said it would end Trump critic Stephen Colbert’s late night show next May, citing cost overruns.) Ellison’s Skydance, meanwhile, had to make written commitments promising that the company’s programming would embody “a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum” and that it would “adopt measures that can root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media,” per the FCC’s letter announcing the decision.

My perspective isn't particularly controversial - it's a widely recognized reality. The fact remains that Ellison is making a big push to acquire as much media as he can while the FCC can be relied on to approve it for political reasons. The two parties mentioned in the quote are Paramount and Skydance Media, and the concessions have nothing to do with anything that the FCC has regulatory jurisdiction over. This was a merger that only happened after the political skids were greased ... 

Edited October 14, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[let’s roll]

59 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Familiar enough to know that the FCC has to approve these kinds of acquisitions. But don't take my word for it:

My perspective isn't particularly controversial - it's a widely recognized reality. The fact remains that Ellison is making a big push to acquire as much media as he can while the FCC can be relied on to approve it for political reasons. The two parties mentioned in the quote are Paramount and Skydance Media, and the concessions have nothing to do with anything that the FCC has regulatory jurisdiction over. This was a merger that only happened after the political skids were greased ... 

I was trying to gently point out that you had conflated monopoly concerns with FCC review and approval.  FCC approval was required because broadcast licenses changed hands. CBS News could have been spun out and sold to Skydance Media without FCC approval.  Similarly, since CNN holds no FCC licenses it could be spun out and sold without FCC approval.

Monopoly/antitrust issues in corporate mergers are reviewed by the DOJ and the FTC under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.  The HSR review of the Paramount-Skydance deal was completed more than a year before FCC approval.

[longview]

On 10/13/2025 at 1:28 PM, The Nehor said:

What Charlie Kirk wanted (whether consciously or not) was a world where a white male pilot is assumed to be competent. They are the default. Anyone else must prove themselves and is assumed to have achieved their position due to some unfair advantage that makes their competence inherently suspect.

You are WAY off base. There are NO assumptions to be made. Only unfettered competition. Then there would be less fear of incompetent air traffic controllers and pilots. Airlines naturally would want to have the greatest number of high quality personnel. If there is doubt of fairness in hiring practices, then records should be opened all through the elementary school grades and colleges and training facilities. Those records might be subject to independent auditing and testing organizations.

Affirmative action is self-defeating when it rigs entrance standards such as SAT, unfair grades given to minorities, or threatening businesses with sanctions if certain QUOTAS are not maintained. Many minorities HATE the taint of affirmative action, especially when they are TRULY hard workers and talented and capable.

Edited October 14, 2025 by longview

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I was trying to gently point out that you had conflated monopoly concerns with FCC review and approval.  FCC approval was required because broadcast licenses changed hands. CBS News could have been spun out and sold to Skydance Media without FCC approval.  Similarly, since CNN holds no FCC licenses it could be spun out and sold without FCC approval.

Monopoly/antitrust issues in corporate mergers are reviewed by the DOJ and the FTC under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.  The HSR review of the Paramount-Skydance deal was completed more than a year before FCC approval.

Perhaps your distinction has merit. In any case, the FCC has a history of trying to keep broadcast media markets separate. The FCC held up the Paramount-Skydance deal because of news distortion (a complaint that had been dismissed by the FCC under Biden). But this isn't really the basis of what I am saying. The reality is that Ellison isn't stopping with with the Paramount buyout. He is currently working to purchase Warner Bros Discovery - and with this move, Ellison's properties would become a media behemoth. And now that they have the blessing of the administration (who controls the DOJ, the FTC, and the FCC), and the expectation is that by taking steps like this one (making Weiss the editor at CBS), they are working to get the administrations blessing on any purchases they make. If it had been a liberal leaning media corporation that had attempted to purchase Paramount, the expectation is that the FCC would have blocked it. And this is all a tangent to what I was really saying, which is that giving Weiss that role was done at least in part (if not in its entirety) to placate the current administration. Weiss's views on DEI had everything to do with her promotion - but not because DEI is actually bad - rather, it was to appease the White House.

[let’s roll]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps your distinction has merit. In any case, the FCC has a history of trying to keep broadcast media markets separate. The FCC held up the Paramount-Skydance deal because of news distortion (a complaint that had been dismissed by the FCC under Biden). But this isn't really the basis of what I am saying. The reality is that Ellison isn't stopping with with the Paramount buyout. He is currently working to purchase Warner Bros Discovery - and with this move, Ellison's properties would become a media behemoth. And now that they have the blessing of the administration (who controls the DOJ, the FTC, and the FCC), and the expectation is that by taking steps like this one (making Weiss the editor at CBS), they are working to get the administrations blessing on any purchases they make. If it had been a liberal leaning media corporation that had attempted to purchase Paramount, the expectation is that the FCC would have blocked it. And this is all a tangent to what I was really saying, which is that giving Weiss that role was done at least in part (if not in its entirety) to placate the current administration. Weiss's views on DEI had everything to do with her promotion - but not because DEI is actually bad - rather, it was to appease the White House.

As one who practiced FCC law in D.C., I’m flattered that you believe my explanation may have merit.  And who am I to question your narrative about FCC history, your explanation of the FCC’s motivations, or expectations about what the FCC would have done in a hypothetical situation?

And if, as you seem to fear, Larry Ellison, or anyone else for that matter, builds a “media behemoth”, what of it?  We are all free to watch or ignore.  Advertisers are free to utilize it or choose countless other means to reach potential customers.   Such are the benefits of the modern boundless media environment.

That same boundless media environment seems to render inconsequential the head of any one particular news outlet.  With countless choices, savvy news consumers are free to find media outlets that provide needed context, report facts without varnish, and flesh out important information that wasn’t shared, for whatever reason, by the source of any particular story.  And having to piece together such elements independently is often worth the effort necessary to do so.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

savvy news consumers are free to find media outlets that provide needed context, report facts without varnish, and flesh out important information that wasn’t shared, for whatever reason, by the source of any particular story.

Savvy being the key word here.  How many have been educated in doing so, including how to be self aware of one’s own biases to avoid going for the echo chambers and then thinking one is informed?

There are also those who can’t afford the time to search the freebie stuff and can’t afford quality services that compile news for them.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Calm

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Savvy being the key word here.  How many have been educated in doing so, including how to be self aware of one’s own biases to avoid going for the echo chambers and then thinking one is informed.

Agreed.  My wife shared a YouTube video the other day that began with a teacher telling a student to leave the class and making clear the student was never to return.  The teacher then told the students what they had just witnessed was an instance of injustice and asked the students why none of them had stood up for the expelled student and then proceeded to answer his own question by saying no one had done so because the expulsion had not impacted them so they said and did nothing.  The takeaway the teacher provided the students was that they should take action against injustice even if it didn’t impact them directly.

My reaction to the video was that it was fundamentally flawed as a vehicle to promoting activism but it could be used to help teach skills in processing information and recognizing what additional information might be needed before forming, and acting upon, opinions/beliefs.

My question to students after watching the video would be what did you think of the teacher’s advice.  Reasonable minds could agree it’s sound advice, as long as the injustice is real.  Follow up questions would revolve around what facts the students had when the student was expelled that would support a conclusion that they were witnessing an injustice.  Might there be valid, justifiable reasons for a teacher to expel a student from a classroom.  One doesn’t have to think too long or hard to come up with circumstances that would justify expulsion.  That said, would other students always be aware of those circumstances?  Of course not.  

Using the video as a tool demonstrate how to process information, a student responding to the question of why they did not object to the “injustice” they had witnesses could say: 1) what I witnessed was insufficient to conclude that an injustice had taken place since there are any number or reasons for a teacher to justifiably expel a student from class, and 2) it’s reasonable for me to believe my teacher is in a better position than I am to know whether there are circumstances which justify the expulsion.

I don’t know how the video is actually used in classrooms, if it is used at all, but on its face it can certainly be interpreted as advocating resistance any time we perceive injustice.  In my view, its best use could be in teaching how we best confirm injustice has taken place before we advocate or act to try to resolve it.  All too often today outrage, protest and professed certainty precede investigation and thoughtful evaluation of the fruits of that investigation.

It helps to remember that studies using reputable methodology that produce results that can justifiably be relied on as the current best thinking on a given topic almost always include the caveat that further research is needed.  That’s a wise mantra for us all.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

reaction to the video was that it was fundamentally flawed as a vehicle to promoting activism but it could be used to help teach skills in processing information and recognizing what additional information might be needed before forming, and acting upon, opinions/beliefs.

 

Even as a kid I knew confronting someone publicly was more likely to get them to dig in their heels, so I can see kids thinking they wouldn’t confront the teacher, but go talk to someone who could find out what the heck was going on and then produce an actual change.  No teacher I ever had would have backed down in front of kids in terms of discipline.  That would be shooting themselves in the foot, for one thing.  The amount of effort they would then have to put into convincing kids to obey them wouldn’t be worth it.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

As one who practiced FCC law in D.C., I’m flattered that you believe my explanation may have merit.

I have no idea who you are. You are hiding behind an anonymous name here. It doesn't impress.

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

That same boundless media environment seems to render inconsequential the head of any one particular news outlet.  With countless choices, savvy news consumers are free to find media outlets that provide needed context, report facts without varnish, and flesh out important information that wasn’t shared, for whatever reason, by the source of any particular story.  And having to piece together such elements independently is often worth the effort necessary to do so.

I am curious though why you are jumping in on this thread. Is it that you don't like the idea that the administration is moved by money and the promise of alignment with its ideology?

I would also say this. The fact that there is always choice doesn't make even partial monopolization of that choice a good thing. If anything, modern technology (and I am a technologist by profession) has taught us that lies become more believable when they come from many different sources. You may think that you are one of the savvy news consumers. That you are capable of differentiating between the truth and the lies - but what does that mean. There is a complete hypocrisy on the part of the administration that was willing to hold up a merger on the basis that one of the companies involved had too much of liberal slant - that it wasn't being fair to conservatives. And yet, at the same time, to not ask that same question in the other direction - that becoming too conservative should also make the merger untenable. None of these political issues are ones that are typically addressed by these government regulatory agencies until the present. And as someone who practiced FCC law in D.C. (whatever you mean by that), you should recognize that. Instead, you keep going off on these tangents that really seem immaterial to the discussion.

Do you agree that the promotion of Weiss was primarily made for political reasons to placate the administration and help encourage the FCC to approve the merger? Or do you disagree? Do you agree that the settlement of the lawsuit with the administration (which likely would not have been won by the administration on merits) was done to placate the administration and to help encourage the FCC to approve the merger? Perhaps you could answer these questions.

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I have no idea who you are. You are hiding behind an anonymous name here. It doesn't impress.

I am curious though why you are jumping in on this thread. Is it that you don't like the idea that the administration is moved by money and the promise of alignment with its ideology?

I would also say this. The fact that there is always choice doesn't make even partial monopolization of that choice a good thing. If anything, modern technology (and I am a technologist by profession) has taught us that lies become more believable when they come from many different sources. You may think that you are one of the savvy news consumers. That you are capable of differentiating between the truth and the lies - but what does that mean. There is a complete hypocrisy on the part of the administration that was willing to hold up a merger on the basis that one of the companies involved had too much of liberal slant - that it wasn't being fair to conservatives. And yet, at the same time, to not ask that same question in the other direction - that becoming too conservative should also make the merger untenable. None of these political issues are ones that are typically addressed by these government regulatory agencies until the present. And as someone who practiced FCC law in D.C. (whatever you mean by that), you should recognize that. Instead, you keep going off on these tangents that really seem immaterial to the discussion.

Do you agree that the promotion of Weiss was primarily made for political reasons to placate the administration and help encourage the FCC to approve the merger? Or do you disagree? Do you agree that the settlement of the lawsuit with the administration (which likely would not have been won by the administration on merits) was done to placate the administration and to help encourage the FCC to approve the merger? Perhaps you could answer these questions.

I joined the thread because I thought you might appreciate some insight from a subject matter expert.  You don’t, so I will move on.

[Stargazer]

Just to allude to Falung Gong-connected news sources (that some people like to discount because of a "uniquely-biased" point of view </sarcasm>, here's China Uncensored reporting on the "disappearing" of the native Chinese pastors of the Zion Church of Beijing.

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/9/2025 at 10:18 PM, Calm said:

The one debate I watched, I couldn’t tell much because he refused to engage with his own stats, but he tossed out “that’s incorrect” against stats I believe are correct because I looked at both the original research, which seemed to follow decent methodology, and the rebuttal and found the rebuttal highly problematic (using a category as something it was not, for example, to raise numbers).

So I don’t know if Kirk made a habit of this, but it definitely sent up a red flag to me that I needed to be careful with his claims.

Also his comments about black pilots…that was an outright lie to me to suggest they hadn’t met the same standards as every white pilot who flew, that they weren’t really qualified when they had passed all the same tests and had to fly extensively for just as many hours before getting their pilot license, so they had the experience as well.

Edited:  I am wrong he was claiming black pilots weren’t qualified.  He was only saying he gut thought that way….and it was someone else’s fault, not his responsibility apparently.

This was part of one factcheck I checked on this.  The problem is I think Kirk is an experienced commentator and he should have anticipated that most people would have missed the point given how he presented it.  It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills, which I see as quite advanced, he is very articulate and can be very insightful from what I have seen.  So a misstep like this leading to a massive misunderstanding as he recognizes….hard not to see it as intentional for me.

He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here.  Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true?  It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”.  They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us.

There were comments I watched of Kirk’s that I thought were excellent.  Some of the questions and experiences couples should explore before getting married were very intelligent, imo.

I'm certain Charlie Kirk was not unbiased, and sometimes he said things that were incorrect, and/or poorly expressed.  But the overwhelming message he had was something I could appreciate. I don't demand perfection. 

The thing that has dismayed me was that so many people (including LDS) whom I know in real life could say things like how they felt the man was actually evil; that his message was abhorrent; that his assassination, though sad, had the good effect of silencing his hateful rhetoric. When the song asks "Who's on the Lord's side? Who?" I have to wonder about those folks.

Anyway, I'm going to stay away from this topic from this point (I may have said this already, so how good is my promise?). This is the first time I've signed into MDDB in two weeks or so. Sometimes the place makes me depressed, especially when it digs into politics -- because I am very political and opinionated, and find it hard to resist chiming in. I have become a British citizen, and of course the first thing I did was join a political party. Not going to say which one, except it definitely wasn't Labour. I've thought about standing for public office (that's British lingo for "running for office") in the upcoming local elections (village council), and my wife says it's up to me, but it would traumatize her! So I will forbear. Besides, I don't think they would like a Yank helping to run the place. Well, maybe they would, but I'm not going to find out.

On a completely different topic, I've recently updated my list of pro-LDS YouTube channels. Check it out on my personal wiki: https://www.mikeclark.co/index.php?title=Pro-LDS_YouTube_channels

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The thing that has dismayed me was that so many people (including LDS) whom I know in real life could say things like how they felt the man was actually evil; that his message was abhorrent; that his assassination, though sad, had the good effect of silencing his hateful rhetoric. When the song asks "Who's on the Lord's side? Who?" I have to wonder about those folks.

 

I find this position very troubling as well. And quite wrong. His assassination created a much greater platform and grew his audience tremendously. 

But all the people I know who saw Kirk as more extreme also condemned his murder, so hopefully the numbers of those who actually saw his killing as a good thing are small in proportion and their numbers seem greater simply because they are quite vocal. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 10/8/2025 at 11:52 AM, JVW said:

To save from a separate post I'll add this bit here at the end. Both you @Benjamin McGuire and @The Nehor

Not directed at me but I prefer fair.org and Ground News.

[Damien the Leper]

On 10/21/2025 at 11:11 AM, Calm said:

I find this position very troubling as well. And quite wrong. His assassination created a much greater platform and grew his audience tremendously. 

But all the people I know who saw Kirk as more extreme also condemned his murder, so hopefully the numbers of those who actually saw his killing as a good thing are small in proportion and their numbers seem greater simply because they are quite vocal. 

Kirk may have seen a gay man like me as less or ignorantly abnormal but I find his death reprehensible. 

Emphasis on may.

[The Nehor]

On 10/21/2025 at 10:32 AM, Stargazer said:

I'm certain Charlie Kirk was not unbiased, and sometimes he said things that were incorrect, and/or poorly expressed.  But the overwhelming message he had was something I could appreciate. I don't demand perfection. 

I demand a lack of racist dogwhistles, stupid ‘gotcha’ debate tactics against college kids, and outright deliberatefalsehoods.

If that is perfection then I demand it.

It is still hilarious to me that this guy is somehow being venerated. I first encountered him as “the diaper protest guy”. People treating him as serious is just whiplash.

On 10/21/2025 at 10:32 AM, Stargazer said:

The thing that has dismayed me was that so many people (including LDS) whom I know in real life could say things like how they felt the man was actually evil; that his message was abhorrent; that his assassination, though sad, had the good effect of silencing his hateful rhetoric. When the song asks "Who's on the Lord's side? Who?" I have to wonder about those folks.

He didn’t deserve to die. He also wasn’t a martyr or some kind of quasi-saint. His message was hateful. There is a reason no one is throwing up inspiring quotes from him. Instead they talk about how he fought for free speech or something. He didn’t. He just used free speech….to say garbage and stir up anger and hatred.

 

 

Wait, you support a British group? Not Labour? OHHHHHH, a Lord BucketHead supporter? I love that guy!

 

Edited October 25, 2025 by The Nehor

[Calm]

On 10/25/2025 at 5:31 AM, The Nehor said:

demand a lack of racist dogwhistles

When it comes to phrases and words that are seen as racist dog whistles, I give a lot of leeway to people who get into politics in casual discussions who might pick up language with baggage they don’t understand or care about because they don’t grok the consequences of using them.

When it comes to professionals for whom communication is their life’s work, including attempting to know how the ‘other side’ thinks if only to challenge them better, but hopefully also to communicate understanding with each other, ideas they shared as well as disagree on and who have extensive access to materials critiquing their own words so they can easily find out how others are reacting….well, those people I hold to a much higher standard of word choice.  Even if for their in-group the problematic words and phrases don’t hold the same meaning as they do in a group they are challenging, if someone truly cares about communication in between the groups, cares about increasing understanding, cares about others’ feelings, then I expect them to take care in choosing words and to avoid at least those that are significant problems and if truly intent on establishing understanding even if not agreement between the groups, even avoid the less baggaged ones.

This discussion reminds me of when Richard Abanes, a journalist who wrote on controversial topics for Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists like Harry Potter, was writing his epic on the LDS faith.  He acted as if he was very committed to getting it right, facts as well as avoiding offensiveness, even to the point of privately asking me to help edit his book (I had taken one chapter of his first edition and gone through it point by point on where he got things wrong, he wanted me to do that for the whole book, though of course it would just be taken as suggestions).  When he asked that, he also asked I keep it private (a little too late as I had mentioned it to others for their opinion), but the next time he got called on inappropriate word choice, he threw out asking me as evidence he was serious about getting it right, so I don’t feel restricted in sharing this.  

He had chosen to use the phrase “celestial sex” to cover the idea of having spirit children when exalted and refused to change it when we told him that it conveyed the wrong idea as it focused on the wrong thing plus had inappropriate connotations (it seems like there were at least a half a dozen challenging him on this besides me, including some LDS scholars he claimed to really respect, but ZLMB is gone and I don’t know how to find a particular conversation on Wayback to doublecheck my memory).  We went to great lengths to persuade him the tone and implications of that phrase conveyed something quite different than how LDS typically viewed the topic, but he refused to change it because he said that it was his audience’s perception…which made it clear he wasn’t interested in improving understanding as much as he was interested in reinforcing the stereotypes his audience was fond of, going for the sordid description more often than accurate.

Charlie Kirk reminded me of Abanes, using words he didn’t have to because it was expected of him by his primary audience as they enjoyed getting their perceptions reinforced…and unfortunately quite a few phrases/ideas were racist imo.  So I saw him as having great potential as a communicator who could have built bridges, but who chose entertaining his chosen market instead.  Doesn’t mean there wasn’t stuff of his I liked a lot and wish was spread more, but I am like Nehor when it comes to professional communicators…avoid the racist hints (I also dislike when those on the left use language that implies or directly calls out conservatives in general as racist, uneducated, self centered, etc.; the dog whistles aren’t solely used by one group).

Edited October 26, 2025 by Calm