Music Good afternoon, Michael Malice here. Let that be your welcome for the next hour. You guys are in for a treat. My next guest, Ashley Rinsberg, has been recommended to me repeatedly over the last year because his most recent book, I want to get the title and subtitle exactly right. The Grey Lady Winked, How the New York Times, Misreporting, Distortions, and, oops, it went away. And Fabrications Radically Altered History. Ashley, you, and I covered a lot of similar ground as I did in the White Pill, and that's how you came on my radar screen. One of the things that drives me crazy on the online right is this idea that no one reads in your times anymore. It doesn't matter. Joe Rogan, you know, all this other stuff, and it is completely delusional, in my opinion, that no Kings March was entirely synthetic, and The New York Times played into that. I would love to hear your thoughts on where you see the role of The New York Times in American culture in 2025. Yeah, that's a really good point. And it's really debated. But The New York Times is still the 800 pound gorilla in the the information room. I mean I At some point I think it was even about a year ago. I looked up their monthly unique visitors I thought it would be like a hundred two hundred million. It was six hundred million at that time that's Wild and And that's not taking into account the effect it has in setting the news agenda and driving coverage and shaping the narrative around us. So yeah, we've got Rogan, but this isn't zero. So it's just it's adding on and it's often case it's not overlapping. So he still has so much of the country tuned into this stuff and would we sort of turn our attention away from the media and pretend that like it doesn't exist anymore. What we're not understanding is the extent to which the majority of the country is still dependent on the media for news, for information and for the overriding political and social narratives that we're seeing arise. Yeah, I was talking to a guest recently from Wikipedia and you know, this idea, there's no right of center equivalent to the New York Times because Joe Rogan might be the equivalent maybe of a call bear in terms of who he is and what he represents, not in terms of audience share. But Fox or Newsmax or anything else, there's nothing that has the reach, the status, the gravity task of the times at all. The Wall Street Journal might have somewhat of a conservative editorial board and editorial page, but it's hardly, you know,

a go-to for people who are right of center. There's nothing like it. And, you know, I had Curtis Jarvan on the show and me and him are buddies. And he has this metaphor that if I were this kind of conquering alien race, who would I want to conquer the Supreme Court, the Senator of the New York Times? He's like, of course, New York Times, because everything else is kind of downstream from that. Do you think they've lost or gained or kind of stayed the same in terms of their influence over the last decade? That's a great question. I think it's more or less stayed the same. I think they have done this really amazing shift to digital that they pulled off largely an account of the current publisher in the chairman of the New York Times company, A.G. Salzburger. They are still just enormous. And in a way, they have gained market share because I think their strategy, their business strategy is to be not just number one, but the only one. When they start to understand that like we are now in just a single massive national news market, like you don't really have segmented regional local news markets the way you once did, they understood that very early at the New York Times. And they came to the determination as they always do that they need to be, again, not just number one, but in this case the only one. I think they're well on their way to achieving that. Washington Post is sort of the closest next competitor. It's just kind of like stumbling around, fumbling around, like they've got all these internal wars. Not to say the New York Times is all rosy, it's not. But they are marching towards this huge digital strategy. And at the end of the day, people who are going to start subscribing to a news outlet today meeting their younger and they're going to start subscribing for the next 10, 20 years plus, they're going to have to make one choice. They're not going to go on and subscribe to five newspapers. They're going to subscribe to one newspaper, just like we used to do back in the day when we had physical newspaper. And I think for most people, it's going to be the New York Times. I mean,

the data is bearing that out. There are numbers of bearing that out.

Yeah, there's the New York Times bestseller list, which I feel they need to point out to people is not at all, does not pretend to be objective. It's not literally the 10 most popular books in terms of sales for a category. They wade it heavily in terms of independent bookstores,

which I think might be that might you can make the argument for that being a good thing, support them, sure. But they don't explain to anyone, even New York Times employees what the sauce is to create these rankings. And yet there's nothing, there's Amazon sale, saying sales ranking, sure, which are more objective. But there's nothing at all that's like second tier in terms of New York Times best sell list in terms of status within the publishing industry. And in fact, this is a big issue for Regnery. Regnery is an old school independent conservative publisher. They publish a lot of great people, great books. And because of this unfairness, they felt the New York Times was there correctly, stacking a deck against them. They no longer submitted their books to the New York Times bestseller list, which for a lot of their authors, you screwed me out of having that credential. So it's kind of damned if you do damned if you don't. Yeah. The Times has argued in court, no less, that the bestseller list is what they consider to be an editorial property, meaning there are editors who make the decisions. It's not a number of driven things, it's not a data thing, it's not like you said. It's not the most popular book of the week or the month. It's just whatever the time decides, because they got sued over this issue. So they said, we have the right to make whatever decision we want, which is now true. And in the case of conservative publishers and conservative books, we know for a fact that books that have done extremely well are excluded from the list, because they don't match whatever prerogative the New York Times has for putting books onto the list. As you're kind of all, like by far, the most powerful marketing tool in all of book publishing is The New York Times best selling list. Like just saying those words has a magic to it, has a charm to it, to The New York Times credit, because they built this thing over the course of decades. They again, with every, the thing people miss about The New York Times, it's like, you can like zoom out like I did with my book and look at the cases where they just royally messed up history a lot of the times it was deliberate. But what sort of gets missed in this conversation is just how savvy and how canny and how expert they are at building this institution over the course of, over a century by now when we're talking about the Sillsberger dynasty. Yeah, it's really funny because when I see people look at Jasmine Crockett and think, everyone on the left is like that. And it's like, well, that actually is a better example than you think because she's quite educated and she's putting on a show. And people aren't able to distinguish between what they see in front of them and what's really going on, because they don't know their screen and their computer and the window.

And there's lots of footage people... And people aren't able to distinguish between what they see in front of them and what's really going on because they don't know they're doing a screen on their computer and the window.

And there's lots of footage people don't believe me of Jasmine Crocket dropping that, you know, get an accent.

So I think she went to some fancy private school of so and so forth.

And it's the same thing I think with, you know, let the left in general, people might see that idiot on Twitter from whatever you are politically you're going to find plenty of idiots but they don't realize you know what the people running the New York Times are not dumb and they've been at this for a long time and they could also out out last any single administration quite easily. Yeah they are entrenched I mean that's the word yeah. When you look at the sales burgers whichers, which still controls the newspaper, we're at, like, I guess, five generations by now. This is a literal dynasty. So it's, they hand power down, it's, it's primogeniture. They hand power down from male air to male air to male air. They all have the same names. They're all called Arthur Solzberger for at least the last four generations of Solzberger's. And that kind of power, that kind of dynastic power, has an amazing ability to perpetuate and replicate itself over time. And the thing that people often ask me about the times when I say, okay, they cover up the Ukraine famine and they had a Nazi running their Berlin bureau during World War II and all this other stuff. People say to me, how could they stay number one if they're doing all this crazy stuff and they're making all these errors? And my answer to them is that they do these things in order to stay number one. So when you look at the through line, they fascism and Nazism in the late 1930s and mid 1930s and immediately proceeding that there's seemingly supporting Stalinism. They don't care, that's not. But for the most part, we're getting dynasty. They don't actually care. They care about power, they care about the prestige, they maybe care about the money, but the money is just kind of baked in. So you will make any sacrifice necessary to stay in that number one position, and that obviously includes the truth, which is often a huge obstacle to winning. Yeah, it's, I think people need to, because there's these two kind of in reconciled views people have Which is one is that these outlets are run by you know ideologs Who only want to spread their ideas and the second is these outlets are run by people who are all ancient power And we'll throw anyone on the bus north to season maintain it you can't have both It's the other. And for me, especially with these like long term institutions like the Times or Harvard, it's very clearly the second and not the first. And often these groups will be of use to further their, you know, furthering their power for the second. It goes bad. If we sat down right now and said, went back in time a year ago, one year, and said in a year from now, Penn State will not only strike Leotamas from all the sporting, but will apologize for having had a transgender swimmer competing against biological females, everybody like, okay, put down, take off your MAGA hat, your delusional, that's never gonna happen. Maybe they'll pull back, but apologize, come on, it happened. And yet people still can't kind of grok to use that awful term. This is how these people operate. This is an organization that depends on being able to not just determine public opinion and shape it, which they do, but also flow with it. They cannot sail into the wind, like any sailing vessel like this. They have to sail to an extent with it, and they're really good at taking the temperature and they're really good at being able to do that. I don't think in this environment today, the New Times would dare to come out with something like the 1619 project which they marched out in 2019, like right at the right moment. Right at the moment where BLM's just kind of breaking into the culture and the 1619 project being this editorial initiative as marketing initiative actually, to reframe American history from one that's rooted in liberty, to one that's rooted in slavery. So those slaves first slaves came to the colonies in 1619. Therefore America's true birth was not 1776. It's this other date. They timed that perfectly. They timed it perfectly to just catch that enormous wave that they could ride for the next four to five years until it kind of like exhausted itself, and it's no longer fashionable, it's no longer like the right thing for them to do economically or for the brand, and they stop, and they do something different. Now it's kind of leaning into like this new online fringe thing where they have like Nick Fuentes looking good in photos, and Hassan P looking good in photos it's all about the youth and and again this is it's part of their business strategy and they need to attract subscribers. They shifted their model away from advertising because advertising online and news just doesn't work and they've shifted towards subscription and for subscription you want to be able to acquire Subscribers which is a costly process That will pay you for years if not decades and that means going younger They know they have to do that and putting out these characters like Piker and Fuentes even though they're on other ideological ends of the spectrum and Yes, they're critical of Fuentes. They're not so critical of Piker, but they still made him look good. They're still elevating his profile in a way that actually glazes him with a bit of credibility even as they quote unquote attack him. Both of them are treated better by the times by far than Trump was at any point in the last decade. Yeah, definitely. I mean, Trump is just this like this boogie man for the New York Times, for the media. He still is to this day. There's still just pounding away at that narrative. It's not just them, of course, it's a whole institutional thing in media, online, on Wikipedia, which is something I cover extensively. We see the same thing, but it is a very strange thing when you see Nick Pointes in this photo of him taken by a photographer. I pointed this out in a tweet. The photographer usually photographs political figures and makes them look really bad, really dodgy, sketchy, the lighting's awful. He does this reverb effect visually that makes it just look like disorienting. And then we get this photo by the New York Times of Nick Fuentes. They're like, oh my god, this is like James Dean, Teen Idol. And Nick Fuentes is not that good looking guy at all the booking. So what is going on here? Why are they doing that? There's a decision being made there. There's an editorial process that leads to them choosing that photo, whereas if you take a photo of RFK Jr. from the New York Times, it looks terrible. So why? And again, a lot of this tracks back to where they want to take the business, not just the newspaper. So, why do you think they're having this kind of binary approach? Like I said, I think it's really about building this next generation of subscribers, building a generation of subscribers who relate to what they see on the New York Times visually visually, as well as what they see in the content of articles, just that the same way that people who are younger people, and they go on acts or they go on, wherever they go on, blue sky or TikTok or whatever, and they're seeing this type of imagery in the New York Times wants to participate in that visual conversation. So that's what they do. do. Hasan Pekers is everything is sort of whitewashed and what we get is this like image of like a guy who's really fashionally dressed or trend looking very trendy and he is like part of the New York Times universe and that's what they want. Folks, as some of you know, I worked on the Paleo Manifesto with John Durant and one of the things that the Paleo people are really into is organic and on the stupid way. Organic supplements that will help your body achieve optimum health and I want to talk to you a bit about cowboy colostrum. So if you don't know what colostrum is, it's the first milk mammals produce after giving birth. It's not like regular milk. It's thicker,

richer, packed with hundreds of bioactive ingredients that help support

immunity, gut health, hair, skin, nails, athletic performance, which makes it

especially helpful during seasonal transitions because that's when our immune

systems tend to be put to the test. Think of it as nature's original

multivitamin, but designed by biology, not in a lab. People have reported better digestion, thicker hair, glowing skin in a good way, not literally, and feeling healthier as the season changes. Here's what you do. You mix one scoop of the powder into coffee, milk, smoothies, whatever, and it comes with different flavors, vanilla, chocolate strawberry, made with real freeze dried berries. Unlike other colostrum brands, cowboy colostrum is never diluted, never sprayed dried and always sourced from grass fed cows. I'm regenerative US farms. No fillers, no junk, just the good stuff and it is hormone free, allergen free, grass feed and third party tested. Athletes love it for performance and recovery and everyone else loves it just for general wellness. For a limited time, our listeners get 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboycallostrum.com that's C-O-L-O-S-T-R-U-M and use code mallas at checkout. As a Texan, I will endorse the cowboy colostrum over the non-callboy brands. It's definitely better. 25% off when use code code malice at cowboycolostrum.com. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them, support us and tell them Michael Malice sent you. And then you would tell me, you're welcome. And I'll be saying, I told you so. I spent way too much time watching police body camp videos on YouTube. And some of them are but some of them are absolutely terrifying and that's why I got another unit of home protection I don't know if I can mention on YouTube for my house in case someone breaks in but that's not where security stops because that's where simply safe comes in. Simply safe is an AI powered camera system they detect threats while they're still outside your house and the alert real security agents. This is the game changer. The agents take action while the intruder is still outside. They confront the intruder, letting them know they're being watched on camera, that police are on their way, and they even sound allowed siren and trigger a spotlight if needed. It's like in a cartoon. This is great. This is how you stop a crime before it starts.

That's real security. Other systems of cameras that you talked to intruders, but they require you to see the alert yourself. Simply safe has monitoring agents that have your back and they talked to intruders even if they aren't there. There are no long-term contracts or hidden fees. You can cancel anytime. and they've been named by US News and World Report as the best home security system for five

years in a row. Not only that, there's a 60-day money back guarantee so you can try it and see the difference for yourself. Folks, this is Simply Safes biggest sale of the year. You get exclusive early access to their Black Friday sale. You can save 60% on any new system. There will never be a better time to get real security for your home. So just go to simplysafe.com slash mallas. That's s-i-m-p-l-i-s-a-f-e.com slash mallas. Simplysafe.com slash mallas to start getting security that you can trust. Let's get back to the show. Let's talk a bit about your book and some of these historical just atrocities that you uncovered. I think it's very hard to get people to understand that a lot of times there's this narrative in normally world where look everyone makes mistakes in their jobs. True. Reporters are working in tough conditions with limited information. People are going to lie to them to further their own agenda inevitably. Sometimes they're going to get the story wrong. When they get it wrong, they try to fix it. But if someone was systemically incorrect, that person wouldn't have a job look at What's the million little pieces? What was his name James fry? Yeah, James fry as soon as he was uncovered You know they gave him the boot so this claim that you know this is being done intentionally is really this right-wing conspiracy theory fever dream like what is your answer to that? It's really weird that you mentioned James Frank, because I was just thinking about him this morning and one of the things that sticks out, he talks about this when he went on Oprah and she like castigated him for not telling fully truthful story about his memoir. He said his book sales went through the roof. And when she had him back on to apologize, they went even further through the roof. So like, it's just this weird attention economy thing in that case. But in the case of the New York Times and the journalistic transgressions that we see with them, it's never the thing that you just described, the phenomenon of someone just making a mistake, even a really bad mistake.

It's never that. Like, at least not in the stories that I covered in the book. So in the first case, we have the first chapter, it's chronologically not first, but in the first chapter in the book, we have a story of this Berlin bureau chief, for the New York Times,ido and Derriss, who just put out such sympathetic stories and erred toward the Nazis, that the Nazis, which is read the New York Times, reporting on German broadcasts, uncensored. And when the Germans finally rounded up all the American reporters after War broke out, they left one in his Berlin, his fancy Berlin hotel, Hotel Avalon, and that was Guido and Deris. And it was explicitly stated by a German officer that they did this because of his quote proven friendliness to Germany. Okay, fine, maybe you have a bad apple. The problem with that is that the New York Times knew about it because a Jewish editor in New York, a sort of junior editor, went to the publisher. This was one of the sales burgers I was talking about and told him, you cannot have a Nazi sympathizer running the Berlin Bureau of the New York Times. And the response by the publisher in the top

brass of Times was to say, if you talk about this publicly, we will sue you for libel. Is that right? Does 100 percent correct? How do we know this? It's been reported in books about the Times and it's sort of on the record. I, it's cited in my book, I can go and look at the exact citation, but that happened and the reason, again, going back to what it said earlier, the reason that happened, the reason they pushed back on him in such a crazy way. Again, we're talking about Jewish people at the time, not Jewish anymore, but at the time they were running this newspaper, owning the newspaper. The reason they pushed back on him is because if they were to replace Enderas at that moment, they would have no one that could run the bureau the way that Enderas did. And the reason he was so good at it is because he got access to the best Nazi brass and the sources. Because they loved him. He printed stuff that they loved. They said, yes, sure. Interview. Come. We'll give you the information, whatever you want. And this was all in service of staying number one. If we look at the case with Walter Duranty, who you read about in the White Pell, the Duranty thing is really well reported. There's a lot of information about Duranty. Duranty we know covered up the Ukraine famine. That is bad and it could be chopped up to a guy who was sloppy and just didn't really get the story, right? Which is what happens. But that's not what happened here. And Duranty himself is on record saying, he knew that there was a famine. He knew that this was going on. He denied it publicly. He not only denied it that there was a famine. He denied the reporting of other reporters who said that there was a problem. Well, he also denied that reporter should be reporting. He said up to the effect of you guys looking into this more is a waste of breath and you shouldn't do it, which to see any reporter in writing says other reporters stop investigating, I couldn't believe it was that explicit. I've never heard that before since. I'm sure you haven't your research, but to me just blew my mind. Yes, and the question that I asked myself with regard to Duranty is why would he say that? If he knew that there was a family, why would he say that there wasn't? That's not a good story. There's no journalist wants to tell you to tell the readers a story that, oh, wait, sorry, this massive thing just didn't happen. No line would ever, there's no incentive. If you know that the thing is happening, you're, you're overriding incentive as a journalist, just to tell people, not just because it's the right ethical thing to do in your job, but because you want to make yourself more better known as a journalist. And Duranty of all people was that guy. He was the travel around the world, doing book tours, the New York Times, who would report about Duranty,y not the report on him because he was an international figure at that time Later on Duranty actually revealed he would he had to go to the US Embassy to Reno's passport Somewhere in Europe I'm afraid if I forget exactly where the location was But he's in the embassy and he tells the officer, American Embassy officer, that his reporting, the New York Times reporting was always in line with the Soviet prerogative, the Soviet talking points on a given topic. And I think there's two things to understand here. One is the access to sources that seem in, in, in, in Derrace effect. Duranty was gifted and interviewed with Stalin after he denied the Ukraine family. That was a major get, as you say, in media. Mass, like you, you talk about one or two in your book. You talk about one or two people who had that opportunity. I forget who it was. I think it was one of Stalin's like Western

sort of journalistic henchmen. H.G. Wells. Okay. H.G. Wells, which is sad for me. I think it was H.G. Wells, yeah. It's sad. It's sad. It's sad. I'm not sad to hear. But there's another piece to the story about Duranty, which is that at the time the United States, yeah. Yeah, 1934. Okay, that's that's that's the shame great record

But he also At the time, the United States. Yeah, it's you else. Yeah.

1934.

Okay.

...