I mean, this was a big mistake when all the big journalists got on Twitter and they, you know, because we got to see who they are.

Yeah.

You know, if Walter Cronkite had a Twitter account, all the mystique of it would go away because you know what he thinks about when he's going to the bat.

You know, he'd be too tempted to be bat you know his opinion on you know things he's he'd be too tempted

to be way out of his depth on everything but it's like we these are the most trollish people

of all and i had to bring you in specifically um for this interesting i i wouldn't have seen

it unless you put it on my timeline uh Axios, where they're saying it's

the terminally online news junkies who are detached from the actual reality. This is the weirdest

retconning, I think I've seen in a long time coming from Axios of all people. You said,

you're a news agency posting this online telling us we're detached from reality for reading you.

So I had to bring you in to talk about this specifically and this, I guess,

ethos that these journals have these days, that, you know, it's the right-wing chuds

that are really the ones stirring the pot and everything.

I was wondering what your thoughts were on all of this.

This really started in the 2016 era when Trump won initially on the back of social media.

And it was really kind of the first election in which social media was dispositive over legacy media in terms of influence.

And that caused, I think, not just financial shocks in the news industry, but also psychological ones.

And there has been this kind of idea that social media is not as,

it's still not as important,

still not where reality is really made.

I happen to think frankly it's kind of the opposite.

I think actually social media is even more real

...