Here’s How PragerU Found out YouTube Was Censoring Its Conservative Videos

October 26, 2017

WRITER

PragerU is an educational site that sums up conservative ideas in concise, shareable videos. The problem? YouTube has been arbitrarily marking PragerU videos as inappropriate content and blocking them from generating ad money.

“What they have done is truly remarkable, and they make these 5-minute educational videos,” Glenn said. “You can’t tell me that they are inaccurate; they are done by some of the greatest minds alive today, and they are now being censored on YouTube.”

Dennis Prager Talks Google, YouTube Lawsuits Over ‘Ideologically Driven Censorship’

PragerU CEO Marissa Streit spoke out about the dangers of online censorship on today’s show. At first, PragerU thought there was simply a mistake since the videos don’t contain pornographic or inflammatory content that would be flagged in YouTube’s guidelines.

She said PragerU first noticed the problem when college students who enjoy their educational videos reached out to say that their school’s internet had blocked the clips.

“The students were the ones who told us, ‘We can’t reach the videos,’” she said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, I would -- I would like to -- I'd love to have -- boy, I've never used this word before in a positive. I'd really like to have a symposium sometime next year with some of the best minds in the country. Not only the conservative minds, but also the futurist minds, on how does -- how do you -- how do you get a message out?

I think the days of people like me are numbered. I -- I worry. And it has changed in the last six months. And -- and things are becoming more and more clear on the railroad lines that have been laid by companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and even Apple is poised to get into it.

How do we -- how do we pay for news? How do we do news? How do we deliver news, when these companies can just wash you out? People are not talking about the fact that Google has hired its -- this is a quote, its first 1,000 journalists, end quote.

They are going to provide news. And it's going to come all through them. And if they don't like you, you're not going to see it. It won't be -- I mean, it will be on some dot-com. But how do you find it?

It's already beginning. You know, we are going to be doing a special next -- probably after the first of the year, about Media Matters. And I want to show you how Media Matters is operating, and how they are already at places like Google and YouTube. This is -- in their own words, they're already there, telling them who should be dropped and who is -- who has an opinion that is important. And who has an opinion that isn't important. Which is offensive? What isn't?

You want Media Matters deciding that? Because that's who Google and YouTube are now listening to. Which brings me to a story yesterday that we talked about.

And if you have any money, and you are looking to help somebody learn and gain some knowledge in a -- in a very effective way, I want you to make a donation to Prager University. Prager University is -- Dennis Prager, what he has done -- and his team is unbelievable.

And what they have done is truly remarkable. And they make these five-minute educational videos, that, look, if you have a different opinion, you may not like it because they're very effective.

But you can't tell me they're inaccurate. They're done by some of the greatest minds alive today. And they are now being censored on YouTube and being demonetized, which means you can't -- they can't make money on them.

Now, here's the thing, they operate on donations because I don't know how many thousands of dollars each of these videos cost. But they're not cheap to make. And so they have been making them on donations, because they -- they can't rack up the views like the Young Turks did, who are complete conspiracy theorist guys. Completely discredited. And yet, they'll sell for a billion dollars.

Prager U is never going to be able to cash out at a billion dollars. No company is ever going to buy Prager U. We can't eat our own. And we must support our own. And Prager University, I can't recommend highly enough that you support them in every way possible, even if it is just spreading their video.

So they have now -- they have now filed a lawsuit on Monday against YouTube. And who do we have on, Stu?

Marissa Street? She's the CEO. I love this woman. So smart. From Prager U. Hi, Marissa, how are you?

MARISSA: Hi, Glenn. Thank you for this. An amazing introduction. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to have good people like you on our side. Well, thank you.

GLENN: Well, I have been watching you and cheering you from the sidelines for a long time. And I want to do everything I can. And I've already pledged to you that Mercury One is going to give you a percentage of everything that we raise for education. Because I think you guys do unbelievable work.

So, Marissa, tell me what is happening at YouTube.

MARISSA: So I'll tell you something really interesting, how we heard about this, to begin with. About a year and a half ago, we got some emails from students. You know, we have this student group called Prager Force, they're essentially our ambassadors on campuses across the United States. And they started emailing in, hey, what's going on? We've been watching your videos. We use them on campus. But for some reason, we can't watch them. When we get to the library, we've been wanting to share them with some other students. And we couldn't figure out, what was the issue? Why aren't they able to reach -- see these videos? So as we looked into it, we figured out that our videos are being restricted. And they're being restricted from the exact audience that needs these videos more than ever. So the students were the ones who told us, you know, we can't reach the video.

So we started looking into it. And we sent a few emails to Google and say this must -- we said, this must be a mistake. Why would our videos be -- be censored?

We read through the guidelines. The guideline that said that videos that are censored are usually pornographic and graphic, and hate speech, and -- and violent. Obviously, anybody in their right mind would watch our videos and agree with us, that these videos are none of the above.

So we started looking into it further. We heard crickets from YouTube for almost a year, until we launched a petition this past summer and got close to 300,000 signatures. At that point, YouTube finally responded to us and said that they're reviewing our videos. And we have this in writing, by the way. They review our videos, and they deemed them inappropriate and only appropriate for mature audience. So the very audience that we're trying to reach is essentially blocked from reaching our videos.

GLENN: Okay. So the audience can get a handle on this. These are the same kind of people that say that we have to teach about transgenderism to our kindergarten classes. Yet, students in college cannot handle -- why isn't communism as hated as Naziism? Or the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill.

You can't handle that. But a kindergartener can handle transgenderism. I don't understand it.

MARISSA: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, that is -- that is our exact point. And that's the point that our students and our viewership was making.

So, you know, we can't allow the left to take over the university -- to take over the internet as they have done with the university. If we lose the internet, which is obviously the -- the way people get information these days, then -- then what's left?

GLENN: Yeah. This is -- this is the new Hollywood. I mean, I think -- for instance, Facebook, I think is replacing -- is a replacement for the telephone, the television, the newsroom, talk radio. It's -- it's all forms of communication that we have had. And if you lose in Facebook and you lose with YouTube and Google, you're never going to be found. You're never going to be found.

Do you know, Marissa, we have an internal -- bunch of internal documents from Media Matters, where they say they are already in-house at YouTube and Google, advising them on what should be cut and what should remain. Were you aware of that?

MARISSA: I'm certainly not surprised. I mean, from the way that he's been dealing with us, it's -- it's not a surprise to me, that they have -- and, by the way, it's complete hubris as well. They believe that they can get away with it. They believe that people on our side won't fight.

GLENN: So, Marissa, what should people do? I know you filed a lawsuit. But what should people do?

MARISSA: So, first of all, we are fighting Goliath. And we know it. Suing Google, slash, YouTube weighed very heavily on us. Obviously, was a very big decision, but we decided that we have to do. And we'll take any help we can get.

So we have a petition, which obviously brought some awareness to YouTube. And a willingness to at least communicate with us, if you can sign the petition on our website at PragerU.com. That would be immensely helpful. And share it with other people. This specific case is going to be tried in the court of public opinion, as well as in the court of law. And we need you to help us win the public opinion and bring awareness.

If you think about the word "Google," people think they can -- they use it as a verb, right? You can Google anything and find anything. But that is not the case. And the public should be aware of that. So we want everybody talking about that. And, of course, financially, this is not going to be inexpensive. So anybody who can help us in any way -- and, by the way, even $5 shows me and my team that we're not in this alone. So anybody who can give anything at any level is -- is hugely encouraging, and we need anything we can get.

GLENN: Marissa, I thank you so much. And your team is truly remarkable. And -- and I would go to work for you any day of the week. I think you guys are remarkable. And I'd be proud to be an intern there with the people that you have assembled. I'm sincere. I think you've created something really, truly remarkable. And you're making a difference. And I thank you for that. Thanks, Marissa.

MARISSA: Well, God bless you. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. PragerU.com.

Now, if you're a student, you cannot Google this, if you're using -- if you're at a university. You can't Google this and find it. This is the problem.

If you are not a student, I want you just to -- I want you to Google a couple of things. I want you to Google, why did America fight the Korean War? Prager U. And watch that.

I want you to -- I want you to Google, what's the other one? Why isn't communism as hated as Naziism?

Google, the world's most persecuted minority, Christians.

You watch those three things. Those have all been banned now by Google. By YouTube. And you can find them, unless you have settings on your computer that you have set them so your kids can't watch them. They'll never pop up for you. If you're at a university or if you're at a government institution, you will never be able to find them.

But if you don't have any filters, you're going to be able to find it. And I want you to watch those and ask yourself why. Why would those be deleted? Why are those -- with everything you can get on YouTube -- how many times have you walked in, and you've caught your kids online, and you're like, what the hell are you even watching?

How many times have you walked in on the Disney Channel?

I want you to watch those and tell me what you would say if you walked in and your kids were watching those videos? I'd hug my kids.

Google them. And then do everything you can to support Prager U. PragerU.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