Barry Weiss quits The New York Times and sets fire to the building on her way out. Andrew Sullivan exits New York magazine and the editor sounds off and Andrew Cuomo slams AOC. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Ben Shapiro Show. Today's show is sponsored by Express VPN, Protect your data from Prying Eyes and Express VPN dot com slash Benwell. You may have noticed things are kind of uncertain, right? Looks like we're reopening the economy. And then out here in California, Governor Newsom was like, we're going to stop that right now.
No more of the reopening of the economy. Seems like there's covert optics here. But what exactly is going to happen next is a vaccine. Who the hell am I? Nobody knows anything. That is the theme of this year, 2020. Nobody knows bleep. Which is why you should probably buy diversified at least a little bit into precious metals. The market has come a long way since Cover 19 hit. It is still down over eight percent for the year.
Gold is up 18 percent this year. Why? Well, because people diversified and also because people recognize that uncertainty is not really great for your bank account. Bertsch Gold is the place to go if you are interested in diversifying into precious metals. Bertsch Gold has an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. Hundreds of five star reviews that the precious metal experts that will hold your hand walk you through the transitioning of one of your eligible IRAs or for one case into an IRA in gold or silver.
If that's something you are interested in, it's still an election year. We're seeing a massive resurgence in cover 19. Unemployment is still extremely high. Lots of uncertainty out there diversifying into precious metals. That the smart thing to do. Tech spend. Forty seven. Forty seven. Forty seven. When you open an IRA and precious metals before July 30, first you get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History for free. Again, text my name Ben to forty seven.
Forty seven forty seven and hook up with the precious metal experts I trust. Text Benan to forty seven forty seven forty seven. Then ask all your questions and then invest with Bertsch Gold. OK, so we'll give you the brief news update because there is a lot of news out there today before we even get to everything related to the complete meltdown over at The New York Times, the meltdown in mainstream media and the complete redefinition of the media itself, which is pretty damned big story.
We'll get to that in a second. But first, a couple of pieces of rather large scale news. First, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to CNBC, was hospitalized Tuesday for a possible infection. She'd been in and out of the hospital for at least two, three years at this point. She's now eighty seven years old. She received treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after experiencing fever and chills. Gender one to procedure to clean a bile duct.
Stenting will stay in the hospital for a few days. According to her spokesperson. The justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days, receive intravenous antibiotic treatment. In January, she was cancer free after undergoing treatment for what was likely pancreatic cancer last year, the year before she had treatment for cancer on her lungs. So it's been a health mess for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Obviously, everybody praying for her health, although some of us would like to see her step down voluntarily from the Supreme Court, because two things can be true at once.
I want her to be healthy. And also I think she's a terrible justice. But certainly the writers of 20/20 have a Trump Season five. They've really decided to pull out all the stops here. If you can just imagine a Supreme Court vacancy, which, you know, God forbid it should happen through something bad happening to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But if she were to step down for any reason, for any reason, if there is a Supreme Court vacancy in this election year, oh, my God.
The hellish riots that will occur as a result of replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy CONI Barrett, for example, would just be insane. Meanwhile, we've been watching this covered uptick in the re lockdown of California. So Los Angeles is completely lockdown. Again, virtually all businesses have been shuttered. You're still allowed to eat outdoors. That's pretty much it. All indoor businesses have been shut down, including hair salons, including restaurants, including pretty much everything, like all the things have been shut down across the state of California.
And L.A. announced that they would not be reopening the schools in August. So basically, you're going to be learning from home again, which is really a sop to the teachers union, because the data on students and how healthy they are and how much it affects them, it is it is pretty non conflicting when it comes to the health of the students. The real problem with opening schools is teachers and administrators, which is why the suggestion that I've made my friend John Podhoretz over the Commentary magazine podcast made it and I'm going to copy him I think is a good idea.
We bring the kids back. If you have older teachers who are incapable of being in the classroom for health reasons, then you have them zoomin. But the idea that all these kids are going to stay home and then they're going to be able to do Zoome classes is just completely insane. So L.A. has completely shut it down. San Diego apparently shut it down as well. Orange County, on the other hand, says that they are going to attempt to reopen what is the status of Corona virus today.
So I have good news and I have bad news. Which one you want first? Which one? You know. I'll give you the good news first, because I think that you're getting enough of the bad news from the media. And frankly, I think the media are overplaying some of the bad news. They're implying that we are in exactly the same place we were back in April or March, that we are about to see this New York type surge across the country that overwhelms the health care system.
The data on that is extremely limited. It does not look at this point is the Florida is gonna be overwhelmed. Doesn't look as though Texas is going to be overwhelmed. It doesn't look as though California is going to be overwhelmed. It looks instead as though there has been a surge in positive tests, although that may be plateauing. And it is also true that the the identification of the positives is a lot higher than it was back in March or April.
It is likely that we were actually wildly under identifying positive cases back in March or April. We are now running in like a six day period, seven day period, as many tests for Koven 19 as we ran in all of 2017, 2018 and 2019 combined for the flu like a seven day period. How many tests we running across the country now? That's good. I mean, it means that we're identifying the cases. It also means that we are getting a better picture of the actual infection fatality rate.
Now, how many people have it versus how many people are dying? And that's why even as you see the numbers rising from last week, as far as the number of people dying, and that is a trailing indicator, usually it's anywhere from two weeks to a month trailing indicator. Those numbers in proportion to the number of cases have actually been declining. So you've been seeing at the same time an absolute rise in deaths. So we saw about 1000 yesterday, according to Johns Hopkins, and the only a thousand reported.
Again, the reporting procedures here are a little bit confused because sometimes there are people who are backdating. They're taking a death from two weeks ago they realized it was Cauvin and now they're reporting it that way. There's a bit of a lag time. In other words, but whatever you say, there has been a surge in deaths over the past week or so. But as a percentage of total infections, the rate of actually gone down. And you've seen a decreasing positivity rate in places like Florida and Texas over the last few days as well.
So the notion that we are about to be just overwhelmed with death in the system and the data on that is pretty scanty. In fact, what we might be looking at here. Here's the optimist in me. Well, you might be looking at is, I would hope, a plateau. What I'd hope is a plateau. And this brings us to peace of possible good news. Number one, that is that there is a theory that is out there and it is now being increasingly backed by data from, of all places, Sweden and Sweden, the worst country on earth, because Sweden didn't really shut down.
They sort of allowed people to go out. They basically allowed young people to go out. They told older people, stay home. And their big mistake was they did protect nursing homes very early, but they basically follow the same protocols that Florida did without protecting the nursing homes. They said that if you want to go out, wear a mask, socially distance, but life has to go on. And Sweden was heavily criticized for this. There are deaths per million or compared unfavourably with places like Norway, with places like Denmark that were next door.
But Sweden is now seeing an increased number of cases and almost no death. So this has led people to suggest what exactly is going on here. I mean, normally you would see increased number of cases, an increased number of deaths. So what exactly is going on in Sweden? Well, the data sort of suggests that maybe the herd immunity rate is not 60 percent. Maybe the herd immunity rate isn't even 40 percent. Maybe, in fact, the herd immunity rate is like 10 to 20 percent.
Right. Which would explain, by the way, why New York state is not seeing a vast uptick in number of deaths even as they reopen is why New Jersey isn't seeing vast upticks in death. Once they reopen, in other words, once this thing runs through, your population is pretty much done. I mean, that'll be the great hope here. And that's sort of what you're seeing in Sweden. Now, how could that be? Because normally herd immunity is 60, 70, 80 percent.
How could it be that herd immunity would be like 10 or 20 percent or something called t cell immunity? Jim Garrity over at National Review wrote about this yesterday. He says The Guardian over in the U.K. has reported on a study by King's College London suggesting that after infection, coronavirus patients could lose their built in immunity to reinfection fairly quickly. And then in Vox, there's a guy named Clay, actually an internal medicine and primary care physician practicing in Washington, D.C., who described a 50 year old patient who tested positive, suffered effects of corona virus, tested negative twice, then tested positive again with more severe symptoms a second time, about six weeks later.
And there were these worries earlier in the year. But those those worries were about South Korea. The South Korean CDC reported that you might be able to be reinfected with all of this, but there is some data that came out from this and the data came out from this is that maybe it turns out that this person's immune system, these these muite, these secondary sort of infections, that that was actually just a reflection of the first infection, that actually what is happening here is that some people have a pre-existing resistance to corona virus.
So as Jim Garrity writes, the body's response to a viral infection utilizes both antibodies and t cells, which you may have heard of in the context of cancer treatments. T cells are produced in bone marrow, but get their name because they develop in the thymus wind. T cells are basically the special forces of your immune system split into two groups. The first seeds, eight axes, Navy SEALs of your immune system. They take on infections, virus, bacteria, tumors and God willing, take them all down.
The second category of T cells, c.D four are the support staff performing a variety of duties, including the protection of cytokines. Remember, it's cytokine storms. This was the idea that the body was reacting too fast to cope. At 19, it was actually shutting down systems in the body. Our bodies production of T cells slows after puberty and is basically gone by age 65, which is one reason why elderly people are more vulnerable to infection. There's some new research suggests that bodies with not so great antibody levels can still have effective t cell responses against the virus.
In other words, you haven't had a before and you don't actually have to have immunity to the virus. Your T cells already are able to fight this thing off. The study found that Saras covered 19 specific CDH t cells were found in about 70 percent of recovering patients and 100 percent of patients had covered two specific ICD 40 cells. Importantly, they detected Saras covered to reactive C.D four plus T cells in 40 to 60 percent of unexposed individuals suggesting cross reactive T cell recognition between circulating common cold coronaviruses and Saras covered do so.
In other words, if you if you had a cold in the last couple of years, your T cells may be prepped for this thing because. Your cold is a corona virus. This is also a corona virus, so it is possible that there is a heavy percentage of the population that already has sort of pre-existing immunity. Think of all the zombie movies that you've seen where there's a small percentage of the population that was resistant to the zombie plague and they're the big survivors.
Well, what if it turns out that half the population already has a pre-existing resistance to cover 19? So it's possible that herd immunity is actually a lot closer than a lot of people think. And as Jim Garrity suggests, it is reasonable to believe that certain neighborhoods and communities that were particularly hard hit in the early stages of this pandemic may have reached herd immunity or something close to it. We already know that New York, there is a good amount of data to suggest that herd immunity may have already been reached in particular areas.
But it's possible, and this would be the great hope that you actually don't have to infect 60 to 70 percent of the population with cover 19 to achieve something kind of approximating herd immunity. And so you could see here is that as the infections rise, the death rates continue to fall, but they sort of plateau and then they fall because it turns out the number one, the people who are now being infected are the people who are more healthy. And number two, it may turn out that the infections rise and then they sort of tail off because they're a bunch people who just maybe they're asymptomatic because their T cells are actually strong enough to fight off the infection.
So that is the good news. The bad news, of course, is that we are seeing new hospitalizations across the country. These are good news in that kind of secondary. Good news is that the hospitalizations are not lasting as long or having as they are in effect. We have learned how to treat this thing a lot better at hospitals. With that said, the day after California Governor Gavin Newsom shut down a number of business sectors in the state.
The L.A. County Department of Public Health confirmed that there were two four thousand two hundred forty four new cases and twenty one hundred people currently hospitalized in L.A. County. That compared with only about twenty six hundred new covert 19 cases on Monday. Of the twenty one hundred people currently hospitalized in L.A. County. Twenty seven percent of those are confirmed cases in the ICU, 19 are confirmed cases on ventilators, according to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti. There are only seven hundred sixty six hospital beds left for the region's 10 million residents.
But again, that is that is really sort of an exaggeration of the case because, again, it's not like there's millions of hospital beds available in there all fall. That's that's to say there are only seven hundred sixty six hospital beds. There is flex capacity. There's ability to send people home. Whoo hoo! You just don't perform elective surgery on them. But none of that is great news. Over in Florida, the the virus deaths have surged as well to about one hundred thirty two deaths.
The number one state, by the way, in terms of death yesterday was actually not Florida was California. California had something like one hundred and thirty nine. Florida had one hundred and thirty two. The question is whether this is still rising or whether this is plateauing. But another piece of good news writes a piece of good news. No one is. Look at Sweden, have bodies ripping on Sweden. Maybe Sweden is actually showing that we are closer to her immunity than than we think.
These are good news. Number two is that there is some very good news on the vaccine front. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, who you could say is very hawkish on on 19, he says that no matter how you slice it, this is good news. There's an experimental vaccine developed by the NIH and Maduna and key testing of the vaccine is going to start around July 27, tracking thirty thousand people to prove if the shots really work in preventing infections.
Tuesday, they announced that they had took it and they in forty five volunteers. They give them all the vaccine, all forty five developed antibodies. So this would be obviously very good news. That does not mean that we are like a month away from the vaccine. Probably means beginning of next year. But that is good news as well. So what does this mean on on a practical level? Well, what it means on a practical level is a couple of things.
One, it means that we should be optimistic about the next few months. Right. It means that we're learning to treat this thing better. It means that there are a couple of things coming down the pike that may change things fairly radically. It means that a vaccine could be coming in the near future, which would obviously be very good. And number two, it means that some of the sort of outsized panic that we are seeing over opening schools, for example, seems a bit exaggerated, shall we say.
It seems like some of this is narrative driven. L.A. is not in immediate danger of being completely overwhelmed the way the New York was. It just the data don't support that. The general support, the idea that Houston is going to be overwhelmed by icy use right now or the Florida is going to be overwhelmed. So should we be cautious? Should we continue to be careful? Of course we should. And by the way, we should all get the flu shot when it comes to when it comes to this winter, because with hospitals already dealing with it, having a secondary strain of flu, that really harms a lot of people and fills up hospital beds would be a bad thing as well.
But. Is the is the sort of wild pessimism of the media completely justified, given the numbers right now? I don't think so. Again, I'm gonna say wait a couple weeks member. Everybody's saying wait a couple weeks before you start celebrating. And it's like, OK, I'm kind of cautiously optimistic, but OK, wait a couple weeks before you start going into doom and gloom mode. Wait a couple weeks before you go into everyone's going to die mode because the stats don't actually demonstrate that.
That is that. That is the case right now. What's going to confound the data. By the way, is that you do have renewed lockdowns in certain places in the country and people are going to attribute any downtick that happens to the renewed lockdown. It's gonna be very hard to make that fit if if there's a plateau over the next week or so, like it'll take at least two to three weeks for us to see the end result of a lockdown.
Right. Everything is sort of delayed by two to three weeks because there's a seven day infection period, and then it takes two to three weeks for somebody to die, God forbid, once they get covered, 19. So if we lockdown now and then there's a decline next week. Don't attribute it to the lockdown. If there's if there is a lockdown right now and then there's a decline three weeks from now, then you could fairly think that maybe the lockdown has something to do with it.
So, bottom line, as I've been saying all along, I wish I had better news for you here. Wait for more data. Wait for more data. OK. In just a second, we're going to get to the politics of the day. First, let us talk about the fact that now that we're spending lots more time at home, you've got to have the most comfortable underwear on the market. The secret to staying sweat free this summer.
Tommy John's ultra breathable underwear. And also, they have great bras for the ladies. They've a range of some already breathable options, but they're cool cotton underwear for men and women. It's like having your own on body AC. My wife can testify as to the quality of Tommy John. So can I ask races this magnificent took us right now. Tommy John School cotton is made from premium natural Pima Cotton for enhanced airflow and evaporates sweat super fast, keeping a drier, cooler and more comfortable than regular cotton.
If you want to add some chill to your butt when summer heats up, choose Tommy John cool cotton underwear. All of their layers are built for next level comfort. Whether you're on the hunt for lounge pants or lazy day joggers or the softest Zoome ready tees and pulleys you've ever worn. Tommy John has you covered. Go check him out. Right now they also have their best pair ever wear. Or it's free guarantee. So you really have nothing to lose here except your discomfort.
Tommy John. No adjustment needed. Once you go, Tommy, John, you will never want to try other underwear ever again for a limited time. Go to Tommy John dot com slash man. Get 20 percent off your first order. That is Tommy John dot com slash band for 20 percent off Tommy John dot com slash Ben. All righty. So in other media news and this is, I think the the broader political narrative that is of import.
Today we can put aside the cover 19 stuff for just a second because time will tell who is right and who's wrong on that. One of the nice things about time is that it does reveal truths when it comes to when it comes to the science and when people in the media constantly say, follow the science, follow the science, the science is leading in several different directions here. A thought over all that clear cut. I have a feeling we'd all be on the same page.
Unfortunately, it is not all that clear cut and everybody's having to act in the absence of hard information. But when it comes to the media, we now have hard data on exactly who the media are and what exactly the media do. So full disclosure upfront, I consider Barry Weiss a personal friend. I think that she's a very nice lady. I think that she is a really interesting thinker and I disagree on a great deal. But I also know that Barry has basically been savaged from inside The New York Times.
For years, she's been persona non grata inside the halls in which she works for literally years at this point. I think it's fair to say that Barry knew that she was living on borrowed time there for at least the last couple of years, ever since she wrote a piece, frankly, on the intellectual dark web of which I'm a part. I don't believe I was even mentioned in the piece that a lot of other people were Joe Rogan was mentioned, Jordan Peterson and others.
Barry got a lot of blowback from that, from her from her fellow, from her fellow staffers at The New York Times. And it never really let up. Okay, so yesterday Barry quit and she issued a letter that really does speak to it. It's a brilliant letter. Barry is a very good writer. It's a letter that speaks to our media moments and it speaks to our our political age. And there's some really deep truths here that I think have been completely forgotten by our mainstream media who've decided to basically become Teen Vogue.
And I said yesterday, The New York Times, you just rename itself Teen Vogue. I really fail to see the difference. They got Tayloe Rends reporting how everything is cake. I'm not getting those national report from The New York Times. And you take a picture of a cucumber. And so we cut it inside. It's a cake. It that's over at The New York Times or at Teen Vogue. You literally cannot tell the difference between the editorials at Teen Vogue or at The New York Times.
Teen Vogue now just prints like straight Marxist claptrap. And so does The New York Times. If you remove the the masks, then you'd have no idea which is which, particularly on the op ed page. So Barry, who writes the op ed page, but actually was doing fairly good reporting on the op ed page because The New York Times simply won't report narratives that it doesn't like. So Berry ends up doing a lot of that reporting over on the op ed pages.
Meanwhile, The New York Times pushes on their non op ed pages, actual op Ed's right. Half of their mainstream news is actually just op ed stuff. This is why the 60 19 project, which is just a piece of historical propaganda and rewriting and pseudo history that's treated as news. But Barry Weiss was on the op ed page in any case. Here's what Barry writes. You wrote a letter to pinch Sulzberger, who's the head of The New York Times, and she said, this is with sadness that I write.
I'm resigning from The New York Times. I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages. First time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who had not naturally think of the times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear. The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers.
Dean Paquette and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming. I was honored to be part of that effort led by James Bennett. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped to bring to our pages the Venezuelan dissident Wheely Artiaga, the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Duroc Sharni and the Hong Kong Christian Democrats are glam also. And Hirsi Ali Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Ella Baker, Rachel Den Hollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Lusby, Heather Hying, Randall Kennedy.
And the list goes on and on and on. The lessons that ought to have followed the election. Lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper, that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known when enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
And this is such a key point in very hits. This right on the head. Over at The New York Times, over in the halls of media, over at CNN and MSNBC, the idea is, and this is all part of the conversation we've been having about cancel culture and the Overton Window, that the Overton Window is designed to allow a robust debate over what is true and what is not, of what is correct and what isn't to happen.
That's what the that's why the Overson window exists in a tyranny of ideology suggests. I own the truth. I am the only expositor of the truth. And therefore, there is no reason to have debate. There is no reason to get on a stage with two people who have conflicting ideas because we know who is right and we know who's wrong. And providing that person a platform is simply providing a platform to run. You've seen this from many so-called journalists at The New York Times.
They say, well, why are we providing a false balance between truth and falsehood? Right balance isn't. We provide a balance between truth and falsehood. Balance is just when we don't know the answer, we provide a balance. Look at the New York Times. Editors now suggest that they know the answers to everything. There's a moral certitude that has taken place that has taken the place of the general commitment to ideological diversity. That originally was allowed because a marketplace of ideas allows the best products to rise forth.
But The New York Times is, as Barry points out, has decided that that idea no longer holds true, that they know the absolute truth. It turns out, in retrospect, making Nicole Hannah Jones, the effective editor of The New York Times, a terrible idea. And you just boil it all down to that, that taking Wolke Progressive's, who are essentially activists and saying to them, you are going to dictate the truth from on high and we are all going to sit down here.
And if we disagree with you, then get to stomp on us. Hey, that is not the way to run any sort of open journalistic enterprise. Berry was a dissenting voice of The New York Times. All dissent had to go away because dissent is not the highest form of patriotism, nor is dissent even allowed in an area where you know the absolute truth. Right. This is a there's a religious aspect to this.
Over at The New York Times and in the mainstream media, where they know the gospel truth and the gospel truth means that everybody else is down for health. So Berry continues along these lines, she says Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times, but Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.
I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing, ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. That would be a slap at the 16 19 project, obviously, which has decided that history is now malleable and that history can be made to and twisted to fit a narrative that is absolutely untrue. Again, ever every word of this. It's a brilliant letter by Barry.
And you can see what New York Times lost in basically alienating her, because what happened here is that the editors at The New York Times basically allowed a malice shaming to occur inside their op ed pages and inside their newsrooms. And then Barry quit. It's exactly the same thing they did to their executive editor of the op ed page, James Bennett, and they basically allowed the Wolke staffers to make life so miserable that James Bennett handed in his resignation. That's exactly what happened.
Barry, we'll get to more of various quite brilliant letter in just once. I can first tell you right now your home a lot with your kids. And that means you need great children's literature about having a tough time picking which kids books are good and which kids books are bad. Let me tell you about a fantastic, fantastic service. It's called Literati. Literati is a subscription book club that makes it easy to find unique, thought provoking books for your kids by delivering great stories directly to your doorstep.
Literati knows home deliveries are critical for meeting your needs for uplifting educational tools during the coming weeks, particularly if you're in L.A. and they just shut down the school district. Reading books together will help create a time of adventure and bonding for family and has real educational benefits. So let me just say they personalized me, thinks your kids. So I have three children, two only two are old enough to actually read at this point, but they have very different interests, literati customized.
Exactly what would arrive for my daughter and what would arrive for my son. And it's not just books. They have all sorts of kind of fun gadgets and gizmos and stuff that your kids can play. My kids are super into it. All the books they sent are brilliantly packed, all of the all of the objects that they sense. My kids are still playing with them literally months later. It's just fantastic. You'll only keep your favorites and then you send the rest back for free.
Literati beats the Amazon list price on these books. That means you're only paying for the books your kids love and you're getting a lower price. With schools and libraries closed, literati is working to get books in the hands of families who don't have access to educational materials of their own for a limited time. Go to literati dot com slash apparel for twenty five percent off your first two orders. This is their best offer available anywhere to get it. You have to go to literati l e r hci literati dot com slash opera for twenty five percent off your first two orders.
That's literati dot com slash zero. I can't speak of them highly enough. It really is a fantastic service. My kids have been getting a huge kick out of it. Go check them out right now. Literati dot com slash Shapiro. OK, so back to Barry Weiss's letter over at The New York Times. So Barry quit yesterday and she has this entire letter and she says, My own forays into wrong thing have made me subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views.
They've called me a Nazi and a racist. I've learned to brush off comments about how I'm, quote, writing about the Jews again. Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by co-workers. My work and my character are openly demeaned and company wide slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in there. Some co-workers insist, I need to I need to be rooted out. If this company is to be truly inclusive while others post X emojis next to my name, presumably because they want her axed.
Still, other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. There are terms for all of this unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. I'm no legal expert, but I know this is wrong. I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company. In full view of the paper's entire staff and the public.
And I certainly can't square how you and other times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist and at an American newspaper should not require bravery. Is Barry Weiss writing to the publisher of The New York Times? Part of me wishes I could say my experience was unique, but the truth is that intellectual curiosity, let alone risk taking, is now a liability at the Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher when we can assure ourselves of job security and clicks by publishing our four thousandth op ed arguing that Donald Trump is unique danger to the country and the world.
And so self-censorship has become the norm. What rules that remain at the Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person's ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital Thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. This, of course, is 100 percent right up, as it would have easily been published just two years ago, would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble if not fired.
If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire a backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer of what's pitching it and she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she's quickly steered to safer ground. And if every now and then she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes. It happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated. It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op ed fell short of our standards.
We attached an editor's note and a travel story about Jaffa, the Israeli city of Yaffa, shortly after it was published, because it, quote, failed to touch on important aspects of Java's makeup and its history. But there is still none of pendent. Cheryl Strayed, fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in Lizzard Illuminati. The paper of record is more and more, says Mary Weiss, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people.
This is a galaxy in which to choose just a few recent examples. The Soviet space program is lauded for its diversity. The doxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned, and the worst case systems in human history include the United States alongside Nazi Germany. Even now, I'm confident most people at the Times don't hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous, perhaps because they believe they will be granted protection if they not.
Along is the coin of our realm. Language is degraded in service to an ever shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. Or perhaps it is because they know that nowadays standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits, puts a target on your back too wise to post on slack. They write to me privately about the new McCarthyism that has taken root in the paper of record.
All of this bodes ill, says Barry Weiss, especially for independent minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they'll have to do to risk advancing their careers. Rule one. Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule to never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule three never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob. The editor will get fired or reassigned and you'll be hung out to dry for these young writers.
There is one constellation as places like the Times and other once great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles. Americans still hunger for news that is accurate. Opinions that are vital. Debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It's an American ideal. You said a few years ago I couldn't agree more. America is a great country.
Deserves a great newspaper. Is very wise writing against the publisher of The New York Times on her way out, just setting fire to the place. None of this means that some of the most talented journalist in the world donates to labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work, but I can no longer do the work. You brought me here to do the work that tough.
Oakes described in that famous 1896 statement to make up the columns of the New York Times, a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end, to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion. Oak's idea is one of the best I've encountered. I've always comforted myself with the notion the best ideas went out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
Sincerely, Barry. Okay, so, Barry. Look, Barry has been I know very Barry has been essentially verbally threatened on on the slack channels of The New York Times for years at this point. People who work at The New York Times have attacked her publicly. Again, I run in publication. If my writers were attacking each other on openly, like in the media or even backchannel, if there were a slack board where somebody was just getting routinely beaten up, those people would be fired.
That's the way that normally these companies work. But that's not the way these companies work anymore. They're run by the Wolk's staffers and by the editors who are too cowardly to stand up to the Wolke staffers. They've decided to shut the Overton Window in moral certitude that they are right and everybody who disagrees is absolutely wrong. Hey, so Barry is not wrong about her characterization here. And frankly, I don't blame her for leaving. She was under, again, this sort of pressure every single day, like all the time over at The New York Times, because The New York Times has basically just become a college paper.
It's just a college paper at this point. That doesn't mean there aren't great reporters over there. There are some great reporters over there. It does mean The New York Times is now a shadow of what it once was, although you do have to ask at a certain point whether The New York Times learned any of its lessons. Over the weekend, I watched a movie called Mr. Jones. Excellent movie, by the way. I should make it a thing I like.
It's it's terrific. It's a movie about the revelation of the Ukrainian Holodomor Russia, which was Stalin basically starving millions of people in Ukraine in order to usurp all of the produce from Ukraine and use it to build whatever he wanted to build. And the mainstream Pulitzer Prize winning reporter from New York Times was getting Walter Durante, who was just a shill for the Soviet regime. The movie really takes this on. And there's a fantastic scene where there is a sort of acolyte of Walter Durante, who's talking to the journalist who breaks the story about the Ukrainian famine.
That guy's name is Gareth Jones, and she is telling him that basically you've got to crack a few eggs in order to make an omelet. And he says, well, hold up a second. What if you're wrong? Why should we need a better world? But what if you're wrong and it finally occurs that maybe she could be wrong, that any system that requires the breaking of the eggs in this way? Maybe she's wrong about the system. Well, over at The New York Times, they have never let go of the certainty that they are right about the system.
It's just a new brand of right about the system. Walter Durante was sure that the communists were right. And so he was willing to overlook the Ukrainian famine. And now you have a group of people over at The New York Times, the staffers who hate America so much. They hate the American system so much. They wish to tear it down. They believe that it is rooted in racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia needs to be torn down.
And that is a moral certainty. And that means that if you have to abuse people who disagree with you, you do. It means you have to basically passively, aggressively threaten people at your own publication. You go ahead and you do it because you have the moral high ground. It doesn't matter who has to suffer in order to make that happen. It doesn't matter if the Overton Window has to shut. The Overton Window shouldn't even exist. It shouldn't exist.
There is one approved opinion and it is the only approved opinion. Now, it's not just buried over at The New York Times. This is happening to Andrew Sullivan, a man with whom I have had significant disagreements. Remember Andrew Sullivan, who has been interesting on many issues, but also is the same guy who once suggested that Sarah Palin's daughter was not actually her own daughter. And also write like Andrew Sullivan has kind of a quirky history. But a lot of his writing is really interesting.
He writes over at New York magazine, he's been speaking out about council culture. And now he has quit New York magazine. He announced he's leaving at the end of the week. He said, this will be my last week in New York magazine. I'm sad because the editors I worked with there are among the finest in the country. I'm immensely grateful to them for vastly improving my work. I'm also proud of the essays and columns I wrote at New York magazine, some of which will be published in a collection of my writing scheduled for next year.
The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self evident. Again and again, it's pretty obvious exactly what happened here. He felt the same way in New York magazine that the that Barry Weiss felt at The New York Times. He wrote about Barry Weiss actually in mid-June and about the general perspective of The New York Times said that they have a view of the world with moral clarity, but no moral complexity, saying that the 16 19 project in the view of people like Nicole Hannah Jones.
So the New York magazine editor in chief, Ghanim David Haskell, responded to Sullivan leaving and his response is everything. His response is just as important as Barry's letter because it really does demonstrate the thought processes that go on inside the editorial halls of power or cowards. Surrender to the WOAK staff who are intent on creating a new hierarchical orthodoxy in thought. We'll get to that in just one second. First. Reminder, my new book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
It goes on sale Tuesday to say less than a week away. July 21st, 6:00 p.m. Eastern, 3:00 p.m. Pacific. We'll be doing a virtual life signing event on the day of release with your purchase of a signed copy. You can write in a question which may be read and answered as I sign your book Live on the Air. Magical. You can preorder your signed copy and write in your question a daily Wired.com slash. Ben, the book covers two fundamentally different visions of America.
So we're talking about right now, one vision is the unifying traditional vision of America, where we say that we have a shared philosophy based on the Declaration of Independence, a shared culture where we respect each other's rights. We have a shared history. We're all part of the same stream of history. None of us ignores the problems with America, but recognize America is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. And then there is a second narrative and a second vision.
And that narrative is that America's history is evil. Its philosophy is corrupt. And its culture of rights is merely a cover for power. This would be The New York Times 60 19 project in your 10th editorial board, Robbins' Angeles White Fragility. These are classic examples of the of the vision I called this integrationist disintegration is that people who want the country to fall apart this integrationists use weapons like cancel culture, the leading or silencing anyone or anything that disagrees with them to build their whole new world order.
How to destroy America in three easy steps. Details how the disintegration, his vision has gained the ascendancy. It offers a penetrating view, I think, of our country at this time, and also it offers the antidote. Simply reading the book is the antidote. Again, that is daily, where dot com slash bend to order your signed copy today and join my live signing on Tuesday, July 21st. Now, if you're not already a daily wear, remember, you should also consider getting a readers pass to daily wear dot com fantastic value.
Three bucks a month. When you sign up, you get that first month for only ninety nine cents. You also get access to our mobile app. Articles had free and access to exclusive editorials like the satire from our friend Andrew Clavon. Medical experts now believe Joe Biden's election will completely cure the virus that make it the second thing to cure coronavirus kneeling for work purposes also cares coronavirus. If you haven't already checked out the readers past head on over to daily where Ikoma incentive for just a dollar.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Already, so the letter in response to Andrew Sullivan leaving from David Haskell, who's the editor over at New York magazine, is everything right? Is everything because it's an admission that everything that Barry White says and an Andrew Sullivan says that our media have basically become just loudspeakers for one point of view. Will you shut out anybody else at the behest of the loudest voices who claim that if you refuse to acquiesce to their requests, then they will destroy you as insufficiently WOLKE that they are absolutely accurate, that assessment.
So here's what David Haskell just wrote. He said, hey, everybody, as you may have seen, Andrew Sullivan's last week will be this one as he finishes the feature we've published in the print magazine and writes a final column. The decision to part ways was mutual. Andrew and I agreed that his editorial project and the magazines, the overlapping in many ways were no longer the right match for each other. With the news of Andrew's departure, I'd like to share some thoughts about my approach to politics coverage more generally.
I'm trying hard to create in this magazine a civil, respectful, intellectually honest face for political debate. I believe there's a way to write from a conservative perspective about some of the most politically charged subjects of American life while still upholding our values. I also think our magazine in particular has an opportunity to be a place where the liberal project is hashed out, which is to say not only champion, but also interrogated. Our readers regularly encounter some of the best writing coming from the left, from our Politics Writers on Intelligencer and the Cut, as well as many of our culture writers on Vulture, that we also have some writers who share our values, but not always.
The politics of most of our staff is, to my mind, a credit to the organization and a benefit to the reader. I will continue to push us to publish work that challenges the liberal assumptions of much of our readership. But bot's right and here comes the role right. As soon as you make a statement, then you have but but generally oblivious and just destroys the role. But publishing conservative commentary or critiques of liberalism on the left in 2020 is difficult to get right.
And thoughtful, well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about it. How to weigh the value of plurality of political opinion against other journalistic and community values. So question, what is the what is the other competing journalistic and community value? We're not talking about printing neo-Nazi stuff. We're talking about printing. I mean, Andrew Sullivan is at best, mildly right of center at best. OK, then the notion that he's a wild eyed Reagan conservative is just crazy.
It's not true. But Andrew Sullivan is like out of bounds for New York magazine. Again, that that sentence is incredible. How to weigh the value of plurality of political opinion against other journalistic and community values. Whether our current publication does, in fact create the environment, I'm trying to foster. Right. That that vague, mealy mouth language is safety ism. Right. That if you print something, it's damaging to others. It's so just to be straight.
There are a group of people on the left who believe that Barry Weiss writing about the writing about the idee w or me on a college campus talking about abortion. This is threatening the safety of others. Whereas if you go to one of my lectures and you burn crap outside, not threatening to others, or if you go on a slack channel at The New York Times and you tweet Barry Weiss, his name next to axe emojis, that's not threatening my safety ism is the idea that anything somebody says you disagree with makes you unsafe.
But the same people who are claiming that Bury's is whining too much in and Andrew Sullivan is complaining too much about the hostile work environment. These are the same idiots who are suggesting we need to rename master bedrooms because master bedrooms are reminiscent of slavery, even though they have nothing to do with anything. And so this New York magazine editor says, what's to think of certain writers in particular? I understand some of the staff comes down differently than I do on these subjects.
I'm grateful for their private and direct feedback feedback as opposed to on Twitter, which is a terrible place to litigate anything. So that is his acknowledgement that people on the inside over New York magazine were yelling at him and now he's going to cave to them. So that that is that is the nature of our media at this point. And it's been heard far and wide. And we're now living in a culture in which people are being forced to lose their jobs for like the most ridiculous reasons.
Now, let me make clear, there are reasons why in the media you should lose your job. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as the Overton Window or that there is no opinion that is outside the Overton Window. I'm not saying that there aren't opinions for which the blowback is absolutely merited. I mean, I absolutely think that there there is such a thing as an opinion that is so clearly horrible and wrong that even granting it a even granting it a platform, you doing it?
I'm not saying you should be the platform from a general public kind of forum like a Facebook or Twitter or something. But like, listen, there's an Overton Window daily where I don't print everything at the daily wire because we have a set of values. And if you don't abide by our values, I'm not printing it. But we are openly partisan. We are openly conservative. And I'm not saying that if you're the Atlantic that there aren't things that the Atlantic doesn't have a right to basically reject.
Right. Or that The New York Times does have a right to reject it. Richard Spencer writes a piece about how white supremacy ought to rule the day. I don't think The New York Times has an obligation to print that. I don't think, for example, that that Viacom CBS has an obligation to continue to continue to employ Nick Cannon after Nick Cannon, Cannon went on a podcast and talked about the Jews.
Cannon had worked as executive producer and chairman of Teen Nick, a spin off of the network Nickelodeon geared toward teenagers. He'd also been a host and executive producer of the MTV comedy Wild Night Out, a Viacom CBS spokesperson said in a statement. The company categorically denounced all forms of anti-Semitism because basically Nick Cannon went on Twitter and suggested that the true Hebrews were black people and that he's essentially parroting the nonsense from black Hebrew Israelites. And he also suggested that Jews control business, is my understanding, he said in an interview at the Washington.
He said apparently it so. CNN was interviewing a rapper named Richard Griffin, known as Professor Grift Griff. Griffin left the Hip-Hop group Public Enemy in 1989 after he said in an interview that Jews are wicked and we can prove this and that the Jews were responsible for the majority of wickedness that goes on. Across the globe, speaking to CNN, Griffin doubled down on his past remarks about Jewish people on the music and media industries. And Griffin said, I'm hated now because I told the truth.
And Cannon said, you're speaking facts. There's no reason to be scared of anything when you're speaking the truth. He also said it was a shame that Louis Farrakhan had been silenced on Facebook, despite the fact that Louis Farrakhan is, of course, a brutal, vicious anti-Semite who has compared Jews to cockroaches. Can said in the podcast, I find myself wanting to debate the idea of banking conspiracies about Jews. He says he gets real wishing and Washington clear to me when we get so much power to the days and the days, then turn into Illuminati, the Zionists, the Rothschilds.
And then he said, you can't be anti-Semitic when we are this Medek people. That's our birthright. If that's truly our birthright, there's no hate involved now. Can Viacom CBS fire Nick Cannon over that? Sure. I mean, by the way, I defended the right of very controversial design. I defended the right of CBS to let go Roseanne Barr after Roseanne Barr tweeted out racist stuff about Valerie Jarrett. Right. Because the bottom line is that when new information is added to the stew of a person's public profile, it has to do with the actual ability to perform his job.
When that new information is so vastly outside the window of normal discourse, then there can be blowback. So I'm not arguing there can't be blowback. I'm just arguing that what the left has done is they've expanded the definition of outside the Overton Window such that the Overton Window is is a pinpoint. Its pinpoint. Right. If you don't agree with the writings of Tallahassee Koch, you're outside the Overton Window. And it really is that simple. There's like a few key litmus tests.
And if you don't fulfill those litmus tests, then you are cast out. Okay. Any system that lumps together in the we should be able to cast them out category. Andrew Sullivan, Barry Weiss and Nick Cannon is a bad system of thought. It's a bad system of thought. And that is the system that we are creating right now. I'm not saying you can't draw lines. I'm saying that where the left is seeking to draw lines is basically around that pinprick of thought that they agree with.
How do you know this? OK. That the worst case of council culture that I've seen in recent memory. This is amazing. So this one is from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. According to Reason magazine, until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster. Gary's removal from S.F. MoMA is non-negotiable.
Read the petition. Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the contents of the museum? This accusation is a pretty serious one. So what exactly did he do? Their sole complaint is that he allegedly concluded a presentation on how to diversify the museum's holdings by saying, quote, Don't worry, we'll definitely still continue to collect white artists. That's the whole thing.
He said we're gonna try and purchase art from people who are not white to diversify our holdings. Also, we'll still buy some art from white people because white people still make some good art. He was forced to resign his job. He was forced to resign his job over this. That's utterly insane. He actually said this, he said, I do not believe I've ever said it is important to collect the art of Weitman. I've said it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of women.
That, in and of itself was considered so far outside the Overton Window. This guy lost his job at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Look, this is utterly crazy. It's just crazy. This is the world that we are building right now. Another case over over the weekend, Hank Baron reporting for Daily Wire. On Monday, a Seattle business owner issued a public apology for her dreadlocks after she was vilified on social media. Rachel Marshall, founder of Rachel's Ginger Beer in Seattle, responded on Instagram to critics who viewed her dreadlocks as cultural appropriation.
One critic wrote Seattle. We got to talk. This person owns a particular business here in Seattle with multiple locations. She's a white woman with dreadlocks and allegedly gives her product to cops for free and is always confused me. We have seen this woman speak and cozy up regularly with other people in the community, and no one has confronted her about her choice to willfully appropriate black hairstyling. We aren't in a post-racial utopia. There is no federal law to protect black people from being penalized for their natural or protective hairstyling.
Hell, we're still trying to convince everyone Black Lives Matter. And these kind of posts forced her to then. Right? Hello, everyone, it's Rachel. I've come to understand far too belatedly, my hairstyle is harmful. No, it isn't. No, it's not. It's a hairstyle gang. It wasn't that she made her hair into a swastika or something. She was wearing dreads. This is insane. It's it's completely crazy. She says it's clear.
I've been stubbornly resistant. I sincerely apologize to those I hurt. I'm deeply sorry for the pain I caused. Members of the African-American community who have been and still are discriminated against and is treated for having dreadlocks. And I'm so sorry it took so long to admit and address my mistake. I have an appointment to remove my dreadlocks more broadly. I'm committed to earnestly listening to and from the voices and lived experiences different from my own. I never want to cause any harm by the argument about harm has now expanded dramatically, obviously.
Right. Harm is anything I don't like and not harm is anything that I want to cancel. That is how the definitions have shifted incredibly, incredibly wildly. This is really, really dangerous stuff for the country. There is a priesthood here that gets to determine what is acceptable and what is not. And those standards don't have to even be connected remotely with anything realistic. It's just whatever the Wolke bosses say today and everybody attempts to avoid their scorn. They tend to avoid the eye of RA.
In the end, there's only two ways this goes. One, you surrender and you surrender because you don't want to be eating. Or two. There is indeed a mass cultural uprising and exactly the sort of nonsense and that mass cultural uprising has to happen right the hell now. It has to happen right now. Has it happened yesterday too? Good for very wise, but for Andrew Sullivan and for those hundred and fifty three Central Left people who wrote for Harper's and welcome to the club guys.
And you got to recognize something. Hey, in solidarity lies power. So you may not like me and I may not like your viewpoints. The difference is I've been fighting for your right to speak, what you've had to say for years. So it's about damn time that we all get together and recognize that while we may disagree on a wide variety of issues on this, we agree the Overton Window has been close too far by people who are ideological fascists.
They wish to shut down debate. That is their goal. The liberals and the classical liberals are on the same side of this particular debate. Otherwise, there will be no debate. And the people who end up winning are the people who are just willing to utilize power in whatever in whatever convenient fashion they can. OK, we'll be back later today with two additional hours of content. Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the venture Pirro Show.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe to. We're available on Apple podcast Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other daily Wired podcasts, including the Andrew Clavon show and Michael Moore's show and The Matt Walsh Show. Thanks for listening. Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton, has executive producer Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Matthew Glover and Robert Sterling, assistant director Pavel White House ski technical producer Austin Stevens, playback and Media operated by Nick Shihan.
Associate producer Katie Swinton, edited by Adam of its audio is mixed by Mike Comina Hair and Makeup is by Nico Geneva. The Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production copyright. Daily Wire 20.
Matt Walsh Show. It's not just another show about about politics. I think there are enough of those already out there. We talk about culture because culture drives politics and it drives everything else. So my main focus is our life. Family, faith. Those are fundamental. And that's what this show is about. Hope you'll give it a listen.