"Candace Beats Ben" - Daily Wire Accused of Putting Gag Order On Candace Owens Due To Fear of Debate

Valuetainment
7 May 202426:50

Summary

TLDRThe transcript discusses a complex situation involving conservative media personality Candace Owens and the Daily Wire, a conservative news and commentary platform. It appears that the Daily Wire has obtained a gag order against Owens, preventing her from criticizing the company or its co-founder, Ben Shapiro. This move comes after Owens expressed a desire to debate Shapiro on the Israel-Palestine issue, a topic that has caused tension within the network. The conversation suggests that the Daily Wire may have believed they could lose the debate, leading to the legal action to silence Owens. The participants debate the strategic implications of this move for the Daily Wire's brand and the potential impact on public perception. They also touch upon the broader topic of media companies facing fatal moments and the importance of avoiding fatal mistakes in business and controversy management.

Takeaways

  • 📜 The Daily Wire reportedly obtained a gag order against Candace Owens, preventing her from criticizing the company or Ben Shapiro.
  • 🤝 Candace Owens had a contentious tenure at the Daily Wire, marked by disagreements with company co-founder Ben Shapiro, particularly over the Israel-Palestine issue.
  • 🚫 The arbitration proceeding and subsequent gag order were kept secret, leading to a public perception that the Daily Wire wanted to debate Owens, while they were actively seeking to silence her.
  • 💼 The decision to pursue the gag order is seen as a strategic move by the Daily Wire to protect the company's interests, suggesting they believed they would lose a public debate against Owens.
  • 👥 There is speculation about whether the decision to seek a gag order was made by Ben Shapiro himself or by other executives within the Daily Wire.
  • 🤔 The situation raises questions about the integrity of public debate and the use of legal mechanisms to avoid challenging discussions.
  • 📉 The gag order, while a legal victory for the Daily Wire, may have been a public relations setback, as it could be perceived as an attempt to stifle free speech and avoid accountability.
  • 👍 Some commentators argue that the move by the Daily Wire was smart and within their rights, given the contractual obligations and the potential risks of a public debate.
  • 🤷‍♀️ Candace Owens is left in a position where she must decide how to proceed, with the possibility of significant legal and financial repercussions if she violates the gag order.
  • 🤝 The debate over Israel's actions, particularly in Gaza, was a key point of contention between Owens and Shapiro, highlighting differing views within conservative circles.
  • 📈 The incident underscores the importance of controversy in driving engagement and revenue for media personalities and companies, but also the risks of alienating audiences.

Q & A

  • What is the controversy surrounding Candace Owens and the Daily Wire?

    -The Daily Wire reportedly obtained a gag order against Candace Owens, a former podcast host, during public debate negotiations. This followed a period of tension and Owens' criticism of the company's stance on the Israel-Palestine issue.

  • Why did the Daily Wire seek a gag order against Candace Owens?

    -The Daily Wire claimed that Candace Owens' criticism and requests for a debate violated her contract, specifically by disparaging the company and its co-founder, Ben Shapiro.

  • What was the public's reaction to the Daily Wire's actions?

    -The public perceived the Daily Wire's actions as an attempt to silence Owens rather than engage in a debate, which negatively impacted the company's brand and public image.

  • What does the discussion suggest about the Daily Wire's strategy?

    -The discussion suggests that the Daily Wire's strategy was to protect its brand and contractual interests, even if it meant avoiding a public debate and appearing to suppress free speech.

  • How did the participants in the discussion view the Daily Wire's decision?

    -The participants had mixed views; some saw it as a smart move to protect the company, while others felt it was a bad look for the brand and hypocritical given the company's public stance on free speech and debate.

  • What was the role of social media in this controversy?

    -Social media played a significant role as it was the platform where Candace Owens voiced her criticisms and requested a debate, which the Daily Wire claimed violated her contract.

  • What are the implications of this controversy for the Daily Wire's future?

    -The controversy could potentially harm the Daily Wire's reputation if it is perceived as avoiding debate or suppressing differing viewpoints, which might affect its long-term brand value and audience trust.

  • How did the discussion participants view the role of contracts in such disputes?

    -The participants acknowledged the importance of contracts in protecting companies' interests but also questioned the strategic and ethical implications of enforcing them in this manner.

  • What was the stance of Candace Owens on American involvement in foreign wars?

    -Candace Owens had taken a firm stance against American involvement in foreign wars, including the conflict in Gaza, which was a divisive issue between her and the Daily Wire.

  • What is the significance of the Israel-Palestine issue in this context?

    -The Israel-Palestine issue was a particularly contentious topic that highlighted the ideological differences between Candace Owens and the Daily Wire, leading to the debate request and subsequent controversy.

  • How did the discussion participants view the potential outcome of a debate between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro?

    -There was speculation that the Daily Wire might have believed that Ben Shapiro would not win the debate against Candace Owens, which could have influenced their decision to seek a gag order.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Daily Wire's Gag Order on Candace Owens

The first paragraph discusses the Daily Wire's alleged gag order against Candace Owens, a former podcast host. It highlights the tension between Owens and the company, particularly with co-founder Ben Shapiro. The disagreement over the Israel-Palestine issue is mentioned, as well as Owens' criticism of American involvement in foreign wars. The paragraph also covers the arbitration proceeding that led to the gag order and the subsequent reaction on social media, including Glenn Greenwald's reporting on the issue.

05:00

🤔 Candace Owens' Legal and Public Position

The second paragraph delves into the potential advice Candace Owens might receive from her representative regarding the gag order. It explores the legal implications of the situation and the strategic move by the Daily Wire. The paragraph also discusses the public perception of the situation, contrasting the legal victory with the potential public relations defeat. It touches on the idea that the Daily Wire might not believe Shapiro could win a debate against Owens and the implications of this on their brand.

10:02

📉 The Impact on Daily Wire's Brand

The third paragraph focuses on the strategic implications for the Daily Wire and the potential public backlash. It discusses the company's legal victory and the subsequent public opinion, suggesting that the brand may have suffered. The paragraph also raises questions about the sustainability of media companies facing controversies and the potential for fatal blows to their reputation. It mentions other media personalities and their resilience in the face of scandal.

15:02

💭 Controversy and Media Brand Survival

The fourth paragraph continues the discussion on the value of controversy in media and the potential for brands to survive despite it. It talks about the importance of not making fatal mistakes and the ability of brands to recover from errors. The paragraph also explores the idea that every business owner makes mistakes, but the key is to avoid those that could be fatal to the brand. It ends with a discussion on the potential for the Daily Wire to continue growing despite the controversy.

20:04

📈 CNN's Decline and the Role of Controversy

The fifth paragraph shifts the focus to CNN's decline in ratings and the challenges it faces. It questions the possibility of saving CNN and what that would entail. The paragraph also discusses the importance of controversy in driving media attention and the potential benefits it can bring to a brand. It ends with a promotion for a networking app called Man, which is presented as a tool for getting prompt and valuable answers to questions.

25:06

📱 Networking and the Power of Man App

The sixth paragraph provides a detailed overview of the Man app, emphasizing its high response rate and the value it offers for networking and getting answers to important questions. It mentions specific statistics about response rates on different platforms and encourages the audience to use the app for connecting and getting answers. The paragraph concludes with an invitation to participate in a contest associated with the app.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Gag Order

A gag order is a legal restraint on speech or press that is imposed by a court or other authority. In the context of the video, it is mentioned that the Daily Wire has obtained a gag order against Candace Owens, preventing her from criticizing the company or its co-founder, Ben Shapiro. This is a key point in the discussion as it is seen as a strategic move by the Daily Wire to protect its interests.

💡Daily Wire

The Daily Wire is a conservative news and commentary website. In the video, it is central to the story as the organization that issued a gag order against Candace Owens and is involved in a potential debate over the Israel-Palestine issue. The discussion explores the company's actions and their implications for free speech and corporate strategy.

💡Candace Owens

Candace Owens is a conservative commentator and former podcast host at the Daily Wire. She is a key figure in the video's narrative as she is the subject of the gag order and the person with whom the Daily Wire had tensions, particularly over her stance on foreign wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

💡Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator, and co-founder of the Daily Wire. He is a central figure in the discussion as he is mentioned as wanting to debate Candace Owens on the Israel-Palestine issue. The video explores the implications of his and the Daily Wire's actions regarding the gag order and the potential debate.

💡Israel-Palestine Issue

The Israel-Palestine issue refers to the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine. In the video, it is the topic that was supposed to be debated between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. The issue is significant as it represents a divisive subject that has led to tensions between the two commentators and is central to the story of the gag order.

💡Arbitration

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more persons trained in dispute resolution. In the context of the video, the Daily Wire went through an arbitration proceeding to obtain a gag order against Candace Owens, which is a key legal strategy discussed in the narrative.

💡Contract Breach

A contract breach occurs when one party fails to fulfill their obligations under a contract. The video discusses the Daily Wire's claim that Candace Owens breached her contract by disparaging the company and its co-founder, which led to the arbitration process and the subsequent gag order.

💡Corporate Strategy

Corporate strategy refers to the process by which companies decide on the firm's overall direction and the actions necessary for achieving that direction. The video examines the Daily Wire's actions as a form of corporate strategy to protect the company's interests and brand, even if it means resorting to legal measures like a gag order.

💡Free Speech

Free speech is the right to express one's opinions without censorship or restraint. The gag order against Candace Owens is a central point of contention in the video, as it raises questions about the limits of free speech, especially when it conflicts with contractual obligations or corporate interests.

💡Public Debate

A public debate is a formal discussion typically aimed at exploring different perspectives on a specific topic. The video highlights the proposed public debate between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens on the Israel-Palestine issue, which never materialized due to the tensions and subsequent legal actions.

💡Conservative Commentary

Conservative commentary refers to the analysis and interpretation of political and social issues from a conservative or right-wing perspective. The video features discussions and opinions rooted in conservative commentary, particularly focusing on the actions of the Daily Wire and its personalities.

Highlights

Daily Wire reportedly obtained a gag order against Candace Owens during public debate negotiations.

Candace Owens' three-year stint at the Daily Wire ended following tensions over her stance on foreign wars and criticism of Israel.

Ben Shapiro criticized other Republicans for declining support for Israel and Ukraine, highlighting U.S. national security interests.

The Daily Wire sought arbitration to prevent Candace Owens from criticizing the company or Ben Shapiro.

Glenn Greenwald reported on the situation, discussing the implications of the gag order and the arbitration process.

There is speculation that the Daily Wire may believe they would lose a debate with Candace Owens, leading to the gag order.

Commentators suggest the move by the Daily Wire was strategic but may have negatively impacted their public image.

The gag order has led to a debate about the role of contracts and arbitration in managing public discourse and controversy.

Candace Owens is portrayed as a talented provocateur who may have been restricted by the actions of the Daily Wire.

The situation has raised questions about the integrity of public debate and the use of legal mechanisms to silence critics.

There is a discussion about whether media companies can recover from significant public relations missteps.

Comparisons are made to CNN's decline in ratings and the potential for a media outlet to become irrelevant.

The conversation touches on the importance of consistency in message and the risks of alienating an audience base.

Commentators express differing views on whether the Daily Wire's actions will ultimately benefit or harm their brand in the long term.

The potential for internal strife within media organizations when faced with controversial decisions is explored.

The role of personality and policy in public debate is discussed, with a focus on the differing approaches of Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens.

Transcripts

00:00

I want to show you the story that comes

00:01

out uh from uh if you can pull up the

00:05

clip yes so reports daily wire issued

00:07

gag order against Candace ens during

00:10

public uh debate negotiations right okay

00:13

so let me read this story because you

00:15

know I'm sure you have great feedback to

00:17

give to both sides on this so

00:19

conservative news and commentary out

00:20

that the daily wire has reportedly

00:21

obtained gag order against former

00:23

podcast host Candace owns a news

00:25

reported allegations alleges despite

00:27

company co-founder Ben Shapiro claiming

00:29

that he wanted to debate her on the

00:31

Israel Palestine issue Owen's three-year

00:32

stint at the daily wire ended in March

00:35

following months of tensions between the

00:37

professional Pro provocator and her

00:40

fellow Network personalities the subject

00:42

of the Israel Hamas Hamas was proved to

00:44

be particularly divisive issue for Owens

00:46

and Shapiro Owens has taken a Firm

00:49

Stance against the American involvement

00:50

in Foreign Wars including the one in

00:52

Gaza Shapiro and Orthodox je has

00:54

criticized other Republicans for their

00:56

declining support for both Israel and

00:58

Ukraine stressing America's national

00:59

security interest in both conflicts

01:01

after multiple social media do you have

01:03

a video of that as well Rob on what he

01:04

says or no I do I have Glenn Greenwald

01:06

reporting okay go and have that video if

01:08

you if you can play Glenn's go for it

01:10

immediately after Candace Owens went to

01:13

Twitter and said I'd like to have a

01:15

debate with Ben here about Israel the

01:18

Del wire ran into an arbitration

01:23

proceeding and requested that an

01:25

arbitrator put a gag order on Candace

01:28

Owens and Order her blocked banned from

01:32

criticizing the deli wire or bench Piro

01:34

in any

01:36

way and none of this was disclosed by

01:38

the deli wire they had led Their

01:39

audience to believe that they actually

01:41

wanted a debate with Candace Owens and

01:44

yet at the same time in secret they were

01:46

arguing to the

01:47

arbitrator that the way in which Candace

01:50

Owens asked for this debate the

01:52

expressions of criticism she had voiced

01:54

about Ben Shapiro the fact that she had

01:58

liked multiple tweets that were

02:00

criticizing V and the deli wire meant

02:02

that Candace Owens by negotiating and

02:04

asking for this debate had in fact

02:07

engaged in disparagement of the DA wire

02:10

in a way that violated her contract and

02:12

they therefore convinced an arbitrator

02:14

in

02:15

secret that they were likely to win if

02:18

they sued Candace Owens for breach of

02:19

contract and the only remedy possible

02:22

would be to gag Candace Owens talking

02:24

about the Del wire per anyway critically

02:27

I mean it's a chicken ship so so what do

02:28

you what do what do you think about

02:31

okay I like it I I'll tell you what I

02:34

like the move this is a very smart move

02:38

by the daily wire you got to remember

02:40

it's not Ben Shapiro anymore he made his

02:43

decision organizations protect

02:46

themselves and when they have a contract

02:47

with you they will immediately do this

02:50

now Glenn the truth is enough Glenn

02:52

doesn't have to say they went in secret

02:55

arbitration is what it is you know what

02:57

I mean it's in your contract so it's not

02:58

like they're sneaking around but so you

03:01

know he doesn't need that drama to it

03:03

but the reality is you're saying one

03:05

thing to me but now you got your boys

03:09

exercising a right on my contract and

03:12

you have to look at the reason why okay

03:15

the daily wire doesn't believe that

03:17

Shapiro wins the debate with Candace

03:20

Owens you you think they believe that

03:22

100 otherwise there's no reason to do it

03:24

wow if this is working for you you let

03:27

it go right because the theory is Vinnie

03:30

and Patrick get sideways and you believe

03:32

that you got sideways with him for good

03:34

reason you want people to know yeah good

03:36

let Vinnie talk about why we got

03:37

sideways good he's there everyone's

03:39

going to understand why we did what we

03:40

did that's what Ben Shapiro has been

03:42

saying everybody's going to understand

03:44

that Candace Owens has positions that

03:46

are not just incorrect but morally wrong

03:50

in a way that Ben Shapiro says matters

03:54

he's not just another corporate guy it's

03:55

not just another company now but in fact

03:58

it is just another company and the

04:00

company decided we lose if he goes

04:03

toe-to-toe with Candace Owens so shut

04:06

her up and they have the right to do it

04:08

because of the contract you you you

04:10

think there was a meeting where they sat

04:12

down and are you saying like a Ben promp

04:15

thing saying I don't want to do this

04:16

debate do you think it's a Jeremy thing

04:18

saying we we shouldn't do this debate is

04:19

it what that type of a conversation or

04:21

is it like something everybody's

04:23

thinking nobody wants to say to hurt

04:24

someone's ego so they're like look we

04:25

got to do this and we got to do protect

04:27

the company you think it's second second

04:28

I think it's this guy I think it's the

04:30

super smart guy who's sitting on the

04:33

outside is who you're talking about he's

04:35

he's the face and the scent I mean he's

04:38

he's distractingly good smelling like I

04:40

can't make a point talk about Tom

04:42

technical not Vinnie is not but he's

04:44

technically Tom is sitting in listening

04:46

be like oh yeah this is this is this is

04:47

great drama uh I represent the

04:50

organization which is now a huge

04:52

organization with a lot of investors

04:54

putting money on us we lose on this shut

04:58

her down and that's what they're doing

05:00

and now Candace has to make a decision

05:02

she has to now listen to her

05:04

representative saying well what's my

05:06

exposure because in terms of the

05:09

argument I feel like well no let's go

05:11

let's take the gloves off let's let's

05:12

see who's who and she's going to have

05:15

someone like me you know a lawyer say to

05:17

her no we lose we we have in our

05:20

contract an arbitration Clause uh

05:22

they've gone in there we lost the

05:24

argument on whether or not we can talk

05:26

about the proceedings so they're going

05:28

to sanction you and it's going to hurt

05:29

you

05:31

lose on substance or on policy meaning

05:35

I've never seen Ben Shapiro lose a

05:37

debate this guy knows what he's talking

05:39

about oh I've seen him L

05:40

especially really oh yeah he says a lot

05:43

of things that are just overstating

05:46

propositions especially you don't think

05:47

Candace does that oh 100% look that's

05:50

the job if you want to be a provocator

05:53

if you want to be an outrage machine

05:55

you're going to stretch no question

05:57

about she's amazing by the way I think

05:59

that she is a very talented she's going

06:01

to whoop you next time get your ass

06:03

homie she can bring it I have no problem

06:06

with her bringing it especially when

06:07

it's in good faith look the problem for

06:09

Ben Shapiro is this MH he's been very

06:11

quiet okay that's the first tell this is

06:14

not a quiet Guy this is very personal to

06:18

him uh his faith is the center of uh his

06:21

person and that's fine uh he is

06:25

defending controversial propositions

06:28

okay they are not controversal to him I

06:30

get it but what he has done is allowed

06:33

something that's supposed to be personal

06:35

to become about business and I think

06:37

that that's going to be a bad look for

06:38

him so so you know what this you know

06:39

what this analogy but I do like the move

06:42

I like the move this is kind of like I

06:44

understand it's a power move but you

06:46

threw it out there boom boom boom we got

06:49

her perfect hey lawyers look what she

06:51

just said boom go through you know it's

06:53

kind of like hey gag another ,000 look

06:56

what he just said on that interview same

06:58

exact thing Trump is going through is

06:59

kind of they're doing but here's the

07:00

part in school there's a fight okay and

07:05

one guy says after school yeah I'll see

07:07

after school 3:00 at 3:00 after school

07:10

that's right behind the football stadium

07:11

right okay great so you go 3:00 after

07:14

school you meet the one shows up okay

07:19

and the other one shows up with the

07:20

principal that's exactly what that is

07:22

one gets

07:23

suspended okay for a week from school

07:26

but the one that got suspended got

07:27

Street Credit yeah that's how it works

07:29

that's EXA I'm just telling you and

07:31

that's exactly it but I mean if this is

07:33

true if it's true allegedly allegedly

07:36

but if you think about it look at what

07:37

this situation to me exposed the hell

07:40

out of not only Ben but daily wire as

07:42

well because think think about the

07:44

hypocrisy too all this stuff like hey

07:46

you want to debate debate get the

07:47

lawyers involved then a couple days I

07:49

think it was yesterday uh Shapiro makes

07:51

a video supporting elon's reinstatement

07:54

of Nick Fuentes on X if you want to talk

07:57

about anti-semitic and anti-

08:00

how are you going to flip-flop and I'll

08:01

say you know what I'm happy that elon's

08:03

letting him get on there of all really

08:05

who said that Ben Shapiro made a video

08:08

going hey I to be fair he to be fair he

08:10

also said the following which you have

08:12

to understand what he said he said in an

08:15

interview with Dave Rubin he says we're

08:17

not a platform we're a publisher yeah

08:20

okay so Nick Fuentes being reinstated on

08:24

Twitter that's a platform he can say

08:26

that and he's kind of dancing I

08:28

understand what you're saying but is

08:29

also saying we're a publisher we we

08:31

don't you know we don't want Candace to

08:32

say what she's saying here we can fire

08:34

him regardless of that position you lose

08:37

both ways 100% regardless what you say

08:40

you're losing with both arguments the

08:42

thing with Ben and Candace I would argue

08:45

there's there's policy and there's

08:46

personality I would say that Ben is a

08:49

technical policy guy Candace amazing

08:51

marketer amazing personality but the

08:54

biggest question is the following what

08:56

is the hill you're willing to die on

08:58

we've seen since Co people take stances

09:00

on what they're willing to die in the

09:03

single Focus that has a primary

09:05

importance to them Ben has been exposed

09:09

and I'm not saying this is a good or bad

09:10

thing the hill he's willing to die on is

09:12

Israel is Israel 1,00% so with

09:15

Candice what is her Hill my question is

09:18

she has a bunch of Hill is it is it

09:20

anti- BLM true is it America First True

09:24

at one point the literal Hill she was

09:26

going to die on was exposing Emanuel

09:28

macron's

09:29

wife as a man she said the following

09:32

that she'd willing to bet her entire

09:34

career on it so I'm just wondering if

09:37

this debate happens how that would all

09:39

here's my but see I I I think bed was

09:41

exposed because the Israel thing that

09:43

was his head exploding no for for months

09:46

we had to hear this freaking guy and his

09:47

voice got more annoying Candice is

09:49

Michael Jackson Bad she she has she has

09:52

she focuses here bro hanging out with

09:54

her she this girl is a freaking a sponge

09:58

she wants to like like a little kid she

09:59

wants a no no no and then by the way one

10:01

week she's doing this one week it's this

10:03

one day she doesn't have a hill Adam she

10:06

has multiple Hills she can attack all of

10:08

them together it's like they're siblings

10:11

they're twins I love her she's hilarious

10:13

what are your thoughts on because I I

10:14

have one question I want to ask and I

10:16

specifically want to get your thoughts

10:17

and your thoughts Tom on it go for well

10:19

strategically I agree with Chris this is

10:21

good for daily wire strategically

10:23

however what happens in the Public

10:26

Square daily wire there's two fights

10:29

here daily wire in the legal ring just

10:32

won a 15 round decision where the entire

10:35

crowd looks at it and said man that

10:37

sucks that's not right and the brand and

10:41

the pr daily wire suffered a second

10:44

round knockout Big W that's what

10:47

happened because everybody's looking at

10:49

Daily wire looking at going man you guys

10:51

just look bad you were trying people

10:54

that don't understand the chessboard of

10:56

legal and contracts and everything are

10:58

looking at this saying oh you didn't

10:59

want to debate and you did that man you

11:01

went to some judge to do that that is

11:04

what a lot of people see that's a

11:06

knockout for the brand that's not where

11:08

I want to be Ben looks bad Jeremy looks

11:11

bad Dy wire looks bad I got a question

11:13

and all she has to do is stand there and

11:14

say I can't talk about it and she looks

11:17

she looks fine and but legally it's a 15

11:20

round decision we all just look at it

11:22

and say yeah question for you question

11:24

for you so H can a media company

11:28

historically you guys has lived in

11:29

America longer than I have I've only

11:30

been here since 1990 so I don't have a

11:32

lot of history prior to that of what

11:34

happened here except from the books I've

11:35

read can a has a media company ever had

11:38

a fatal moment a fatal a career-ending

11:44

moment I would argue that CNN has which

11:48

has dropped below MSNBC in the ratings

11:51

has lost their identity we saw the the

11:54

documentary of the book call me Ted I

11:57

would argue that where is CNN now I just

12:00

quite frankly we all know where I stand

12:02

moderate middle unifier type of guy I I

12:05

have a mixed media diet I watch CNN for

12:08

two people Cuomo and who I think is the

12:10

most brilliant guy in TV fared Zakaria I

12:13

literally don't watch CNN after Cuomo

12:16

left and I'm freed only is on on Sundays

12:18

where the hell is CNN these days so you

12:20

think I don't think I don't think CNN is

12:22

fatal though because I think I think you

12:25

know if we had the kind of resources and

12:28

we were able to make an off offer to buy

12:29

a CNN and bring it in and I know

12:32

somebody else is running it from the top

12:34

I think there's something that cuz I I

12:35

think if you can go back to what tet

12:36

turn wanted to build I think there's a

12:38

chance and then it's no longer CNN it's

12:40

a rebranding I'm asking fatal I'm asking

12:44

fatal like Vice fatal I I don't remember

12:46

saying now Vice went out of business for

12:48

a lot of reasons but I mean if you're

12:49

talking about like fatal on a

12:50

controversy no personalities and

12:53

producers have endured fatal moments Dan

12:56

freaking rather got absolutely

12:59

kicked to the curb over the the George W

13:03

bush story and it was him his researcher

13:05

and producer who all got together and

13:07

decided to stretch the facts and spin

13:09

them to make W look bad and the fires of

13:12

Hell came back at them and then the

13:14

network talk about Dan Rather he he was

13:17

the successor he was the the next big

13:20

anchor that came after the years of

13:22

kronite well I mean Dan was a big deal

13:25

is a big deal history uh thus far has

13:27

been kind to him he's taking a comeback

13:30

oh yeah I mean he's huge he's huge on I

13:34

know but I'm saying that as to to he's a

13:37

legend in game to Pat's point of course

13:38

he's a legend but to to Pat's point

13:40

about the brand uh his brand is strong

13:44

um why well the the test of time and

13:47

perspective uh CBS threw him under the

13:49

bus that happens when it's about you or

13:53

me in a corporate setting that's what's

13:55

happening at the daily wire also is that

13:57

the corporation has to win

13:59

and the way that they win is by shutting

14:01

Candace down and they have the right to

14:03

make that happen whether or not you

14:04

think it's right so he goes down now in

14:07

terms of whether or not you've ever seen

14:09

a kill shot to an entire brand uh

14:12

probably not because they get rid of

14:15

somebody they blame somebody Brian

14:18

Williams was that NBC NBC he gets busted

14:22

right for what I wasn't that impressed

14:24

with by the way he just forgot that he

14:26

was telling a story that wasn't really

14:28

true and he had told it so many times

14:30

that like he forgot that he was telling

14:32

a story that he had kind of made up um

14:34

in the helicopter and life fire and and

14:37

they up I saw bodies floating by yeah

14:39

and they wind up bringing him back onto

14:42

MSNBC rehabilitate him because his buddy

14:44

wound up being in control so what's the

14:46

point that individuals get taken down

14:50

Brands usually exist to Pat's Point CNN

14:53

is a huge and valuable brand uh are they

14:56

internationally well more than

14:58

domestically domestically because let

15:00

tell right owner needs to own it cuz let

15:01

me tell you I'm saying currently they're

15:03

a mess well you Adam I asked fatal okay

15:07

right fatal and as long as people look

15:09

even me I don't think it's warranted

15:11

that people have as many strong opinions

15:13

about me as they do but as long as they

15:15

do MH there is value to that if people

15:19

watch you every week and every time your

15:21

show is on because they love you great

15:24

if they watch you because they can't

15:26

wait to see what things are going to

15:28

make you make them crazy good there's no

15:32

difference to the value of the brand uh

15:35

CNN just like

15:36

MSNBC uh just like Fox people are</