Steven Crowder: Social Media Is the Ultimate Echo Chamber

October 20, 2016

Writer

Think you're getting a fair and balanced perspective on your social media accounts? Think again. When you like or follow something, algorithms respond, pushing you more of the stuff you like, creating an echo chamber of singular perspectives. Steven Crowder with LouderWithCrowder.com released a video that addresses this phenomenon --- and it's impact.

"Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain. You know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it," Glenn said.

Crowder explained what's happening.

"Social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed," he said.

It's happening on both the right and the left, creating its own ecosystem where you may go six months without hearing a single dissenting viewpoint. How does that create an informed citizenry?

Watch the full video from LouderWithCrowder.com below:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder is with us. Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain -- you know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it. Will you explain?

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks. It's unfortunate. It's one of the ironies here, where I know we've talked about this, working for years. Going, all right, the mainstream is going away. There are no more gatekeepers. Now, you can have TheBlaze. I can have Louder With Crowder, the YouTube channel. Anyone can get a message out, and that's great.

What's changed -- and people don't realize it, in the age of social media, YouTube, Facebook, this sort of algorithm-based feed, they've just become the mainstream media gatekeepers.

Now, it's easy for people to say, "Well, it's really liberal because of Mark Zuckerberg." And it's true. He leans to the left. It's true, most people who run social media lean to the left. However, they are beholden to a profit motive. And in today's age with media, their profit -- they can only generate a profit if they tell you what you want to hear.

Think about this, whenever you like an article. Let's say you're pro-Trump. Let's say you're pro-Hillary. You like Hillary Clinton's Polls Are Doing Well, right? It will then say, "Hey, you may also like" and show you a pro-Hillary Clinton article. It doesn't say, "You may also really need to hear, or you may also really need to get your crap together on this issue." It's, "Oh, you like everything that's anti-Trump. We'll show you everything anti-Trump." And then the pro-Trump people only read everything that's anti-Hillary -- and so we get to a point, Glenn -- you've run into this, where if you merely cite a fact, even if you agree with the Republican Party, even if you agree with this person, for six months they have had a newsfeed where they have heard nothing but exactly what they want to hear. And I don't mean people lean this way. I mean, that social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed.

You go six months in, and people on both sides of the spectrum now have not heard a single dissenting viewpoint. And this happens on the right and the left, and it's really accelerated to a point where if you just say, "No, you know what, gosh, this new swing state poll from Pennsylvania doesn't look good for Donald Trump," you're working for Hillary! You're a shill!

No, no. This is the poll. You're rigging the polls. Because that's all they've been reading. It's a scary thought.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I will tell you this, I talked about this. Steven, it was so amazing that you posted this because this weekend, I was looking at my Facebook page, and it's remarkable. My Facebook page, if I post something at all, anti-Hillary, it's huge.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I put anything, even pro-Trump on my Facebook page, and it gets about 200 likes, which is abysmal for someone who has three and a half million followers. I post -- I post something very, very positive about nothing, and it will -- you know, it will pop up 14,000 likes. And it will happen quickly.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: What I was looking at was, "Wow, I can tell you exactly what my audience wants." And what they don't want from me is anything on Trump. So do I continue to give it?

Well, I happen to believe that we have to be curious. We have to be honest. And we have to know the other side of the argument. We cannot just be feeding the same things that we want to hear, or we disable ourselves.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: But most people in the media are not like that. They only care about the clicks. They only care about the money.

STEVEN: You're exactly right. You know, we've talked about this. I've never been on the #NeverTrump. Because I always think people can be redeemed. My producer is voting for Trump, albeit begrudgingly -- Jared is. I know plenty of people who are making the lesser of two evils argument. I entirely get that. I think that's a valid position, whether people agree with it or not.

GLENN: I agree with you.

STEVEN: However, people simply lying on either side of the spectrum -- good example, Glenn, I was talking with Stu about this. I saw this trend that Glenn Beck endorses Hillary Clinton.

I was going, oh, wow, that sounds weird. And I go, "Wait. Hold on a second. This hasn't been taken from the Vice interview, is it? Where Glenn personally said he's voting for the Constitutional Party representative. And he said he wasn't -- and, oh, that's the click. But someone runs it with the headline that says Glenn Beck Officially Endorses Hillary Clinton, guess what, the people who maybe don't like you, the people who think you're super anti-Trump, they like it, like it, like it, like it, share it without even reading it.

And all of a sudden, because people are consuming only exactly what they want to hear, people believe you're officially working for the DNC. I know we don't want to laugh on it because it's probably a sore spot. But it shows you absurd it's gotten. I watched the actual video. And in it, you were saying, "I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton." It's mind-boggling.

GLENN: So here's what -- here's where it goes further, Steven, I'd love to hear your comment on this. If you like that -- if you share that, it also pulls things like it -- and that particular story was made particularly famous on the right by being pushed by a guy named Hal Turner.

Hal Turner is a Holocaust denier. Neo-Nazi. Really bad guy. And I went to his website. Because I wanted to find out who this guy was. And I looked at his website. And I saw several stories that he had churned out that are in my Facebook wall, where people are -- well, this, Glenn Beck needs to know, this is going on. And I'm like, "Wow." Because they posted this, it may have sucked into their ecosystem other stories from him. And they have no idea what is now steering their -- their, quote, unquote, newsroom, if you will.

STEVEN: Right. And speaking on that, it's actually kind of funny. But just let me go with it because it's going to start off sounding not really funny. But people send me horrible anti-Semitic stuff. I mean, you know, just like Ben Shapiro. Right? People send me pictures of me in gas chambers or stuff like that.

GLENN: Are you Jewish?

STEVEN: And it was being shared a lot, until these people found out I wasn't Jewish.

GLENN: Okay.

STEVEN: This anti-Semitic stuff I was getting for weeks. And people just shared it because nobody thought like, "Hey, maybe Crowder is not -- maybe he's not Jewish."

But, again, they're in their own ecosystem. So no one even thinks that, "Hey, you know what, I know we're all Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic jackasses, but I don't even think Crowder is Jewish." So this went on for months. And no one actually -- this is what happened with Hollywood, right?

We've always complained about this. And now it's happening to everybody in the age of social media. Again, the parallel there is narcissism. Tom Hanks once came out and said, "World War II was spurred on by fear and racism and xenophobia." And I remember he said it on MSNBC. And the reason he said it is because he's been saying this behind closed door for so long. And nobody, because he's Tom Hanks, is going to say, "What? I beg your pardon." Well, that's what's happening now. Only it's a media feed.

Let me give you a really kind of short example. A mom logs on to Facebook. Signs up for the first time. Okay? She's pro-Trump. A daughter logs on to Facebook, signs up for the first time during this election season. She's pro-Hillary. One likes Trump, one likes Hillary.

Comes up, polls are rigged, the mom likes this. Comes up, the election is rigged. Mom likes this. The daughter sees Hillary Clinton is winning in the polls. She likes it. The daughter sees Trump Foundation. She likes it. The mom sees WikiLeaks. She likes it.

Now, here's the deal: They don't like anything from the other side of the social media spectrum. Six months in -- and I don't misuse the term "literally," it makes me insane when people misuse it -- six months in, you could have two people, mother and daughter, who have literally never seen one post -- never seen one news story that would even expose them to a different opinion. And that's by design because these social media quagmires need to make money. And they only make money by telling you what you want to hear.

That's the concern here: Whether right or left, people are beholden to telling a lie if it encourages more clicks. And everyone wants to do well. Everyone wants ratings to do well. That's fine. I understand it. Making a good title. That's been called a lead for decades. We understand that. But lying about something, that's crossing over into new territory, and you are seeing that across the political spectrum right now because of the upheaval. People don't know how to handle this media. And this is how they've figured out how to do it. It's awful.

STU: It's amazing. Because the perfect example I would give -- and I've given many very good ones is the online polls. Now, look, I obviously don't like Donald Trump, and, you know, people know that. So they're looking at me skeptically, if they're Trump fans. And I get that. But it's like, this is not a questionable thing. An online poll means nothing. Zero. And when you're talking about, "Oh, well, he won the Drudge Report poll, how can you deny that one?" These people make that argument with no check on that. This is not a controversial point. It's not a point where I'm like adding in my opinion. "Oh, well, I don't really believe those polls." It literally means nothing.

And so many people, particularly when media personalities come out and tout those types of things, send their own listeners into this abyss, where they -- the listeners look like morons for parroting what the personalities say. And I don't know how you do this. Because in a way -- and I'm sure liberals would point this out, it's essentially the free market run amuck. Like, yes, there's a profit motive here, but it does create a problem. And I wouldn't advocate as a conservative, for everyone to step in and them start controlling the information that you feed. How do you solve this, Steven?

STEVEN: Right. Well, it's kind of like, remember when we would be at CPAC, and all of a sudden, somebody busts in a few college pot party members, and Ron Paul won every single straw poll?

STU: Right.

STEVEN: And we just kind of said, ah, I guess a few people showed up with weed belt buckles and T-shirts. Yeah, that makes sense.

And we moved on down the trail. Only now that's happening on -- and, by the way, I know not all Ron Paul supporters are potheads. I like Ron Paul. I like his son Rand. Just hold your hate tweets before you go off --

GLENN: Just like a Jew to say that.

STEVEN: Yeah. I know. I know. But, I mean, now it's on a national level, like you're talking -- and, again, same thing. You know, we're talking about that. You could host a poll on one of these sites: What do you do with the evil Jew Steven? And you could probably get 20,000 people to vote without even realizing that I'm not Jewish. So this is the nature of online polls: They're not scientific.

I think as it relates to Trump, I tweeted this out this morning, I said, "I think Trump has a far greater chance of winning than the media gives him credit for. And I think he has a far less chance of winning than his hard-core supporters are guaranteeing." I got tweets coming back saying, "You're going to be wrong when he wins in a landslide." And I said, "Well, hold on a second. How does it make my statement wrong? It doesn't make it wrong at all. I'm saying that both sides have completely shut it off, and they're completely glib to the realities of an opposing viewpoint." And it really is a bizarre time because the right didn't use to be this way. And I don't think it's a concerted effort. I think we've all just been tossed into this tumbler of social media, and it's been shaken up. And people are trying to figure out how media works nowadays.

So if people out there want to avoid it, what I do recommend -- and I always say this on my show. I know you, Glenn, you've done this too. I never encourage people to eliminate information. I say, "Listen, set Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Cut -- all the liberal sites, set them to your Favorites and check them every morning and set some conservative sites, check them every morning, in addition to social media, that way you're guaranteed to know what the other side is saying. You have to be proactive, otherwise, it will get the best of you before you even realize.

GLENN: Steven, as always, great talking to you, brother. LouderWithCrowder.com. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder. He does an amazing job, and he did this video this weekend on this, and it spelled it out perfectly. I don't know why he was wearing a skin wig and looked like a 50-year-old pot-bellied man while he did it, but he's very, very funny and very, very smart.

Featured Image: Screenshot from LouderWithCrowder.com

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Steven Crowder: Social Media Is the Ultimate Echo Chamber

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?