正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Following our previous post about Chris Buckler's BBC interview with Tristan Morrow - who spoke about leaving the Orange Order and identifying as a trans woman - we listened to another segment from the same edition of The Stephen Nolan Show. The discussion was about Féile an Phobail's decision... to cancel a Women's Rights Network panel event on women's sex-based rights. Overall, it was a much more balanced discussion. Buckler challenged both guests, questioned claims from both sides and pushed back at various points. But several moments stood out. One was a claim by People Before Profit's Fiona Ferguson that organisations like the Women's Rights Network wanted "people's genitals to be checked before they're allowed to go into toilets." Buckler then asked WRN NI's Nora Calder: "Do you want people's genitals checked before they go to the toilet?" When a guest makes a highly contentious factual claim, shouldn't the first question be whether there's evidence to support it? Otherwise, an unsubstantiated allegation risks becoming the premise of the discussion - rather than something to be tested. Ferguson also invoked contested suicide statistics relating to transgender people, which also went unchallenged. But there are broader editorial questions too. Tristan Morrow - a young man who identifies as a woman - was given 21 minutes of airtime, during which his perspective was explored with relatively little challenge. Where is the equivalent long-form interview with a woman explaining why single-sex spaces matter to her? Or with someone who says they have suffered discrimination because of their lawful gender-critical beliefs? The BBC also chose to publish Morrow's interview separately on BBC Sounds as a standalone programme, giving further prominence to one side's personal testimony. And prior to introducing this segment Buckler reflected on the response to the interview with Tristan Morrow saying he'd received "lovely messages" from listeners. There is, of course, nothing wrong with telling his story. And due impartiality doesn't require every viewpoint to receive equal airtime. But it does require careful editorial judgement about which voices are amplified, how contested claims are handled, and whose experiences audiences are invited to understand. Taken together, this coverage raises legitimate questions about whether that standard was met. 🎧 We've shared a short clip here. You can listen to the full discussion from on The Stephen Nolan Show (22 July). Tristan Morrow's interview is also available separately on BBC Sounds as a standalone programme.show more

SEEN in Journalism

23,579 subscribers

13,982 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

"Tristan identifies as a trans woman. Her preferred pronouns are she/her." These are the words of BBC Radio Ulster presenter Chris Buckler during today's interview with Fiona McAnena from Sex Matters. About a male guest. They were discussing his recent interview with Tristan Morrow - a young man who left the Orange Order and now identifies as a trans woman. SEEN in Journalism criticised that interview for: - Inaccuracy: using female pronouns for a man - Failing to challenge contested ideological claims - Not mentioning women once - despite covering disputes over women's sex-based spaces We've now had the chance to listen back to today's interview with Fiona (McAnena). While it was encouraging to hear a gender-critical woman given similar airtime, the two interviews could hardly have been more different. Morrow was largely allowed to tell his personal story uninterrupted and with relatively little challenge. McAnena faced repeated interruptions and hostile questioning, much of it relating to the recent controversy over the cancellation of a Women's Rights Network event at the Belfast arts festival Féile an Phobail. Among the questions Buckler put to her - some more than once - were: - Do you accept that people born male should be allowed to live as women? - Do you object to referring to Tristan Morrow as "she"? - How does using female pronouns for trans women impact your rights? - Do you believe trans people have a right to exist? - Do you accept there are adults who feel they are in the wrong body? - Would you welcome a trans person to your event ? McAnena did an admirable job of steering the conversation back to women's rights. Buckler repeatedly returned it to transgender identity. Buckler also made several references to SEEN in Journalism's criticism of his interview with Morrow, but appeared to misunderstand the substance of our argument. We did not say he should have included a female voice to "push back" on Morrow. We said he never mentioned women or women's rights once during a 21-minute interview about a dispute rooted in women's sex-based spaces. That is a different point entirely. We also raised concerns about inaccurate language - using female pronouns to describe a male guest. Rather than engaging with those concerns, Buckler appeared to double down - at one point, appearing to rebuke McAnena for referring to Morrow as "he". But our criticism wasn't about politeness. It was about accuracy. A principle the BBC should hold in the highest regard. At one point, Buckler said he wasn't speaking from either side. Yet across these two interviews, listeners learnt far more about identifying as trans than they did about why women defend sex-based rights. Good journalism should help audiences understand competing perspectives, not steer them towards one.

"Tristan identifies as a trans woman. Her preferred pronouns are she/her." These are the words of BBC Radio Ulster presenter Chris Buckler during today's interview with Fiona McAnena from Sex Matters. About a male guest. They were discussing his recent interview with Tristan Morrow - a young man who left the Orange Order and now identifies as a trans woman. SEEN in Journalism criticised that interview for: - Inaccuracy: using female pronouns for a man - Failing to challenge contested ideological claims - Not mentioning women once - despite covering disputes over women's sex-based spaces We've now had the chance to listen back to today's interview with Fiona (McAnena). While it was encouraging to hear a gender-critical woman given similar airtime, the two interviews could hardly have been more different. Morrow was largely allowed to tell his personal story uninterrupted and with relatively little challenge. McAnena faced repeated interruptions and hostile questioning, much of it relating to the recent controversy over the cancellation of a Women's Rights Network event at the Belfast arts festival Féile an Phobail. Among the questions Buckler put to her - some more than once - were: - Do you accept that people born male should be allowed to live as women? - Do you object to referring to Tristan Morrow as "she"? - How does using female pronouns for trans women impact your rights? - Do you believe trans people have a right to exist? - Do you accept there are adults who feel they are in the wrong body? - Would you welcome a trans person to your event ? McAnena did an admirable job of steering the conversation back to women's rights. Buckler repeatedly returned it to transgender identity. Buckler also made several references to SEEN in Journalism's criticism of his interview with Morrow, but appeared to misunderstand the substance of our argument. We did not say he should have included a female voice to "push back" on Morrow. We said he never mentioned women or women's rights once during a 21-minute interview about a dispute rooted in women's sex-based spaces. That is a different point entirely. We also raised concerns about inaccurate language - using female pronouns to describe a male guest. Rather than engaging with those concerns, Buckler appeared to double down - at one point, appearing to rebuke McAnena for referring to Morrow as "he". But our criticism wasn't about politeness. It was about accuracy. A principle the BBC should hold in the highest regard. At one point, Buckler said he wasn't speaking from either side. Yet across these two interviews, listeners learnt far more about identifying as trans than they did about why women defend sex-based rights. Good journalism should help audiences understand competing perspectives, not steer them towards one.

SEEN in Journalism

79,364 次观看 • 1 个月前

PART 2 ➡️ Last week, BBC Three Counties devoted an hour-long segment to the new EHRC Code on single-sex spaces. It featured three men talking for around 30 minutes - but no female guest to explain why women's single-sex spaces matter. We've since learned that a suitable organisation was approached for an interview, but was then told it was not needed. Last week's post (link below) looked at the omission of female voices. But the framing of the discussion is notable too - starting with the title: 'is it right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?' The presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith followed up with: "My question to you today is: is that right, or does that seem unnecessarily unkind and mean?” But the new EHRC Code isn't an optional act of kindness. It sets out how organisations are expected to comply with equality law following the Supreme Court's ruling that "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex Vernon-Smith introduced his first guest, barrister Robin Moira White, apologising in advance in case he used language that might be considered 'offensive'. Later, he repeated a similar message to a caller. But it's not "offensive" to state the truth. Saying that a man is a man is factually correct. White also made a number of significant claims that went largely unchallenged. Including: - Excluding a trans-identifying male from female toilets would "probably" amount to discrimination - Members of the public could become "toilet police" - There are "around 40 times" as many 'butch lesbians' as trans people - The changes could cost "several billion" pounds - The Supreme Court ruling is likely to be reversed within two or three years Robin Moira White has a distinctly male voice, yet female pronouns were used throughout the interview. Later, listeners were introduced to "Michelle" from Watford as a woman, only to hear another distinctly male voice. That creates the kind of dissonance that leaves listeners questioning whether they heard correctly. Good journalism should help audiences understand what they're hearing, not leave them wondering whether they've misunderstood it. It’s isn't about helping audiences arrive at a preferred conclusion. It's about helping them understand the facts clearly enough to reach their own.

PART 2 ➡️ Last week, BBC Three Counties devoted an hour-long segment to the new EHRC Code on single-sex spaces. It featured three men talking for around 30 minutes - but no female guest to explain why women's single-sex spaces matter. We've since learned that a suitable organisation was approached for an interview, but was then told it was not needed. Last week's post (link below) looked at the omission of female voices. But the framing of the discussion is notable too - starting with the title: 'is it right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?' The presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith followed up with: "My question to you today is: is that right, or does that seem unnecessarily unkind and mean?” But the new EHRC Code isn't an optional act of kindness. It sets out how organisations are expected to comply with equality law following the Supreme Court's ruling that "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex Vernon-Smith introduced his first guest, barrister Robin Moira White, apologising in advance in case he used language that might be considered 'offensive'. Later, he repeated a similar message to a caller. But it's not "offensive" to state the truth. Saying that a man is a man is factually correct. White also made a number of significant claims that went largely unchallenged. Including: - Excluding a trans-identifying male from female toilets would "probably" amount to discrimination - Members of the public could become "toilet police" - There are "around 40 times" as many 'butch lesbians' as trans people - The changes could cost "several billion" pounds - The Supreme Court ruling is likely to be reversed within two or three years Robin Moira White has a distinctly male voice, yet female pronouns were used throughout the interview. Later, listeners were introduced to "Michelle" from Watford as a woman, only to hear another distinctly male voice. That creates the kind of dissonance that leaves listeners questioning whether they heard correctly. Good journalism should help audiences understand what they're hearing, not leave them wondering whether they've misunderstood it. It’s isn't about helping audiences arrive at a preferred conclusion. It's about helping them understand the facts clearly enough to reach their own.

SEEN in Journalism

85,783 次观看 • 1 个月前

Yesterday BBC Three Counties devoted almost 30 minutes of airtime to three male contributors - for a discussion about whether men who identify as women should use female toilets. Presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith spoke to: 1. Robin Moira White - a male barrister who identifies as a woman (approx 12 mins) 2. Nora Padilla - policy manager at trans-rights campaign group TransActual (approx 5 mins) 3. “Michelle” from Watford - a male who identifies as a woman (approx 11 mins) Vernon-Smith did offer some challenge - reading out messages supporting single-sex toilets and inviting women who objected to men in their single sex spaces to call in. But why wasn’t a gender-critical guest invited onto the show in the first place? And why did the discussion seem to centre around personal preference - rather than matters of law? The most extraordinary section was the lengthy interview with a man called “Michelle” from Watford (we’ve included the clip here), who - as well as saying he does use women’s toilets - made the following statements: “All I want to do is […] wash hands, check the lipstick and come out.” “I usually get some nice compliments about the outfit and accessories I’m wearing.” “We don’t want to be challenged every time we go to powder our nose.” “Why do you think we want to be women? Because we love and respect everything feminine.” These comments - which clearly stereotype womanhood - went largely unchallenged. And when Michelle said women didn’t mind sharing toilets with him, Vernon-Smith didn’t ask the obvious question: might they object, but feel too afraid to say? Michelle also volunteered that he had not “fully transitioned”. Yet Vernon-Smith did not explore why a male who retains his male anatomy believes he should use facilities where women are attending to intimate bodily needs. Almost 30 minutes for three male contributors to discuss women’s toilets - but no female guest booked to explain why single-sex spaces matter. That’s the editorial choice worth examining.

Yesterday BBC Three Counties devoted almost 30 minutes of airtime to three male contributors - for a discussion about whether men who identify as women should use female toilets. Presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith spoke to: 1. Robin Moira White - a male barrister who identifies as a woman (approx 12 mins) 2. Nora Padilla - policy manager at trans-rights campaign group TransActual (approx 5 mins) 3. “Michelle” from Watford - a male who identifies as a woman (approx 11 mins) Vernon-Smith did offer some challenge - reading out messages supporting single-sex toilets and inviting women who objected to men in their single sex spaces to call in. But why wasn’t a gender-critical guest invited onto the show in the first place? And why did the discussion seem to centre around personal preference - rather than matters of law? The most extraordinary section was the lengthy interview with a man called “Michelle” from Watford (we’ve included the clip here), who - as well as saying he does use women’s toilets - made the following statements: “All I want to do is […] wash hands, check the lipstick and come out.” “I usually get some nice compliments about the outfit and accessories I’m wearing.” “We don’t want to be challenged every time we go to powder our nose.” “Why do you think we want to be women? Because we love and respect everything feminine.” These comments - which clearly stereotype womanhood - went largely unchallenged. And when Michelle said women didn’t mind sharing toilets with him, Vernon-Smith didn’t ask the obvious question: might they object, but feel too afraid to say? Michelle also volunteered that he had not “fully transitioned”. Yet Vernon-Smith did not explore why a male who retains his male anatomy believes he should use facilities where women are attending to intimate bodily needs. Almost 30 minutes for three male contributors to discuss women’s toilets - but no female guest booked to explain why single-sex spaces matter. That’s the editorial choice worth examining.

SEEN in Journalism

172,574 次观看 • 1 个月前

We've just been passed the BBC's response to a complaint after Good Morning Scotland concealed an academic's links to Labour during an interview about the winter fuel payment and a warning from Age Scotland. We've reproduced the complaint and response below. We've also included the full interview. There's something untoward at play here. The complaint: Good Morning Scotland conducted an interview with professor June Andrews. The interview centred around the cut to the winter fuel payment and had been prompted by criticism by Age Scotland of the UK Labour Govt's decision to cut the benefit. The charity had claimed that cutting the benefit would see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The interview was conducted by Laura Maxwell who introduced the academic as follows "Well Professor June Andrews is an expert in the care of older people." The academic challenged Age Scotland's claims and backed Labour's decision to cut the benefit. Professor Andrews views were later used on the programme to challenge Scottish Govt minister Ivan McKee. The academic was presented as someone with no political allegiances or viewpoints. This was far from the truth. Professor June Andrews is a Labour supporter and party activist who makes no attempt to hide her political allegiance. A quick glance at her social media profile - publicly available at the time of the interview - makes this clear, with post after post promoting tweets from senior Labour party figures. The academic tweeted an image during the recent general election campaign showing her with other Labour party activists as they campaigned for Labour candidate Gregor Poynton. Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines states 'We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.' Professor June Andrews was far from unbiased. Good Morning Scotland should have told listeners that the academic was a Labour party activist and supporter. In failing to do so the programme breached Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines. A public apology is merited. The response: We note your comments regarding Good Morning Scotland on 28 October and the interview with Prof June Andrews. As you mention, Prof Andrews was introduced as an “an expert in the care of older people” and was being interviewed for her view in this capacity, following Age Scotland’s claim that the cutting of the universal winter fuel benefit for pensioners will see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. Prof Andrews, given her area of expertise, has been a contributor on a number of occasions to items regarding the care of older people and was again introduced in this context, with a range of views on the subject heard within the wider programme – this included hearing directly from Scottish Government minister Ivan McKee, as you say. While we wouldn’t agree with a suggestion that simply holding any political views was a requisite for such an introduction, given the capacity in which Prof Andrews was invited onto the programme to speak, we would suggest that the conveyance to listeners of any political views that a contributor may hold is not limited to how a guest is introduced; for example, there is the opportunity within the line of questioning and by any political points being scrutinised and challenged – accepting that, in a live interview, in keeping the interview and programme on track, it isn’t always possible to challenge a guest on every point they’ve made and that it may be a subsequent interview or similar piece of our output that provides for other views and points to be put across. We note your call for a public apology but don’t believe it is merited here. We would, however, remind our teams of the merit of identifying and challenging, there and then, political points made during interviews. Thank you again for getting in touch.

MSM Monitor

28,722 次观看 • 1 年前

On Sunday morning, BBC Scotland broadcast a ten-minute discussion about “queer identities”- with virtually no meaningful challenge to the terminology or claims being made. Presenter Tony Kearney was interviewing Alice Oseman, author of the Heartstopper graphic novels, which centre on a romance between two teenage boys and have been adapted into a popular Netflix series. Kearney praised Heartstopper for bringing terminology such as “aromantic” and “asexual” into mainstream media and “normalising” identities that might otherwise be marginalised. But he didn’t clarify what those terms - or, indeed, the phrase “queer identities” - actually mean. Nor did he acknowledge that some of these labels, and the ideas underpinning them, are contested. When Oseman referred to legal rulings being “fought against”, the trans community being under intense scrutiny and public discourse causing trans people “so much harm”, Kearney didn’t ask which rulings, what scrutiny or which discourse she meant. These claims were allowed to pass as settled facts. In a ten-minute interview, there was just one passing reference to “pushback” before the discussion moved swiftly to countries where homosexuality is illegal - an important issue, but a different one from contested ideas about gender identity. This was broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland’s Sunday Morning, described as: “Two hours of music and conversation with a faith and ethical perspective. Taking the week’s events to ask what they say about our values and beliefs.” Just to be clear: the issue isn’t that the BBC discussed Heartstopper. It’s that contested ideas were presented without context or challenge - and without a single genuinely probing question. We've clipped the most notable sections together here. The full interview is available on BBC Sounds - approx 03:48 - 14:23, (19 July 2026)

On Sunday morning, BBC Scotland broadcast a ten-minute discussion about “queer identities”- with virtually no meaningful challenge to the terminology or claims being made. Presenter Tony Kearney was interviewing Alice Oseman, author of the Heartstopper graphic novels, which centre on a romance between two teenage boys and have been adapted into a popular Netflix series. Kearney praised Heartstopper for bringing terminology such as “aromantic” and “asexual” into mainstream media and “normalising” identities that might otherwise be marginalised. But he didn’t clarify what those terms - or, indeed, the phrase “queer identities” - actually mean. Nor did he acknowledge that some of these labels, and the ideas underpinning them, are contested. When Oseman referred to legal rulings being “fought against”, the trans community being under intense scrutiny and public discourse causing trans people “so much harm”, Kearney didn’t ask which rulings, what scrutiny or which discourse she meant. These claims were allowed to pass as settled facts. In a ten-minute interview, there was just one passing reference to “pushback” before the discussion moved swiftly to countries where homosexuality is illegal - an important issue, but a different one from contested ideas about gender identity. This was broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland’s Sunday Morning, described as: “Two hours of music and conversation with a faith and ethical perspective. Taking the week’s events to ask what they say about our values and beliefs.” Just to be clear: the issue isn’t that the BBC discussed Heartstopper. It’s that contested ideas were presented without context or challenge - and without a single genuinely probing question. We've clipped the most notable sections together here. The full interview is available on BBC Sounds - approx 03:48 - 14:23, (19 July 2026)

SEEN in Journalism

16,103 次观看 • 2 个月前

Catch up thread from this week. First up Woman’s Hour and its ‘misogyny’ interview with Raewyn Connell, who it described as a ‘feminist sociologist studying the social theory of gender relations and masculinity’. While there might be reasons to interview a man about the misogyny of claiming to be a woman, only a team of raging activists would pretend he is a woman and ask him about his personal experience of ‘misogyny’ (of which he has none) and how to tackle it. He had no relevant expertise, except in his own perpetuation of misogyny, he added nothing, wasn’t asked the obvious questions, and was a poor, stumbling and dull radio guest. We’ve contacted the Controller of Radio 4 and the Head of Editorial Policy. /

Catch up thread from this week. First up Woman’s Hour and its ‘misogyny’ interview with Raewyn Connell, who it described as a ‘feminist sociologist studying the social theory of gender relations and masculinity’. While there might be reasons to interview a man about the misogyny of claiming to be a woman, only a team of raging activists would pretend he is a woman and ask him about his personal experience of ‘misogyny’ (of which he has none) and how to tackle it. He had no relevant expertise, except in his own perpetuation of misogyny, he added nothing, wasn’t asked the obvious questions, and was a poor, stumbling and dull radio guest. We’ve contacted the Controller of Radio 4 and the Head of Editorial Policy. /

SEEN in Journalism

75,316 次观看 • 6 个月前

Rosaria Butterfield boldly sharing truth at the Answers for Women conference this weekend, apparently after eating a breakfast of Grape-Nuts sprinkled with gunpowder: "...It's a sin to tell a lie, but it's also a sin to believe a lie. And so, there is no such thing as a gay man or a lesbian woman or a transgender woman (and then you can fill in all of the different categories that come under the umbrella, LGBTQ). And the reason is because, in Genesis where we have to start, we are given our identity. Our identity is in the image of God, bearing it as a man or as a woman. There are two kinds of people in the world—a man or a woman. A man who says he's a gay man is a man with a sin pattern that Jesus came to help set him free from if he will mortify it, repent, believe, go to war. It's very hard to do that. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but that is our job, and you know what? It's not just somebody whose indwelling sin is homosexuality who happens to have that call. It's everyone, because we are all born in the sin of Adam. And it is because of the sin of Adam that we have sin in our nature. And that quite frankly means that every person in this room needs to wake up every morning, drive a thousand fresh nails into your choice sin and do that before breakfast and then do the same thing before lunch. And if you do that, Satan's gonna get a little tired of you. But here's the problem, homosexuality is the only sin pattern with a civil rights group behind it. And therefore, people who are deceived, as I was and Christopher [Yuan], by the lusts of our flesh have a cheering community behind you, and this is where you get the rub. You see, it used to be that the church was clear and the world was the world, but because we have wolves in shepherds' clothing, we have way too many young people who are leaving the true church and claiming, 'Well, my same-sex attracted pastor told me it's not a sin to be gay.' And you know, we are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. I want to be gentle with the people who are trapped in the lie of LGBTQ, but I am not gentle with the wolves...I quite frankly think they need to get a job selling insurance until they repent..." [Apologies for my shoddy video skills, but sadly, a big monitor was placed on the stage, blocking my view of the speakers for the Q&A.]

Rosaria Butterfield boldly sharing truth at the Answers for Women conference this weekend, apparently after eating a breakfast of Grape-Nuts sprinkled with gunpowder: "...It's a sin to tell a lie, but it's also a sin to believe a lie. And so, there is no such thing as a gay man or a lesbian woman or a transgender woman (and then you can fill in all of the different categories that come under the umbrella, LGBTQ). And the reason is because, in Genesis where we have to start, we are given our identity. Our identity is in the image of God, bearing it as a man or as a woman. There are two kinds of people in the world—a man or a woman. A man who says he's a gay man is a man with a sin pattern that Jesus came to help set him free from if he will mortify it, repent, believe, go to war. It's very hard to do that. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but that is our job, and you know what? It's not just somebody whose indwelling sin is homosexuality who happens to have that call. It's everyone, because we are all born in the sin of Adam. And it is because of the sin of Adam that we have sin in our nature. And that quite frankly means that every person in this room needs to wake up every morning, drive a thousand fresh nails into your choice sin and do that before breakfast and then do the same thing before lunch. And if you do that, Satan's gonna get a little tired of you. But here's the problem, homosexuality is the only sin pattern with a civil rights group behind it. And therefore, people who are deceived, as I was and Christopher [Yuan], by the lusts of our flesh have a cheering community behind you, and this is where you get the rub. You see, it used to be that the church was clear and the world was the world, but because we have wolves in shepherds' clothing, we have way too many young people who are leaving the true church and claiming, 'Well, my same-sex attracted pastor told me it's not a sin to be gay.' And you know, we are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. I want to be gentle with the people who are trapped in the lie of LGBTQ, but I am not gentle with the wolves...I quite frankly think they need to get a job selling insurance until they repent..." [Apologies for my shoddy video skills, but sadly, a big monitor was placed on the stage, blocking my view of the speakers for the Q&A.]

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

169,746 次观看 • 5 个月前

A lot of people are talking about Dede McGuire's interview with Luenell and perceiving it as a level of disrespect on par with how Mo’nique was disrespected by radio personalities back a few years ago. It's clear that you all haven't seen D.D.'s response Nor have I seen her response circulating on here so let me put it out there. You can have a different opinion and I understand that but trying to paint Dede as someone that is aiding in disrespecting Black women, as one of the only Black women with a syndicated show on radio, is a bit much. Luenell was very pressed about a local mention when she was about to have a whole hour on Dede in the morning and was going to get national recognition. Like come on man. And then she even announced that she was already in a bad mood so she sort of brought that into the interview.

A lot of people are talking about Dede McGuire's interview with Luenell and perceiving it as a level of disrespect on par with how Mo’nique was disrespected by radio personalities back a few years ago. It's clear that you all haven't seen D.D.'s response Nor have I seen her response circulating on here so let me put it out there. You can have a different opinion and I understand that but trying to paint Dede as someone that is aiding in disrespecting Black women, as one of the only Black women with a syndicated show on radio, is a bit much. Luenell was very pressed about a local mention when she was about to have a whole hour on Dede in the morning and was going to get national recognition. Like come on man. And then she even announced that she was already in a bad mood so she sort of brought that into the interview.

Randall Barnes

68,938 次观看 • 2 个月前

Ouch 🤕 Anton Daniels is trending on YouTube after his diabolical performance on Corey Holcomb’s 5150 show… Content creators are highlighting Anton’s recent panel show where Anton disrespected his co-host, Quinton, who is straight — by calling him a homosexual d..ck sucker because of a disagreement regarding Meeca.. The same woman who Corey referred to as Anton’s side chick… The panel discussion was about popular social media stars Kristy and Desmond Scott who are divorcing after 11 years, following infidelity claims…. The video was published on January 11, 2026, which is about a week before Anton’s tragic interview with Corey — where Anton also disrespected Corey and referred to him as a d….ck sucker and a homosexual… To add insult to injury, Anton who has been married for 20 plus years, gets upset when Quinton says that women are only interested in Anton for his money… Anton then replies as if he is competing with Quinton, who is a single young man — for the same woman…Why would a married Anton be competing with any man for women???This is getting too messing — and Anton is exposing himself left and right…

Ouch 🤕 Anton Daniels is trending on YouTube after his diabolical performance on Corey Holcomb’s 5150 show… Content creators are highlighting Anton’s recent panel show where Anton disrespected his co-host, Quinton, who is straight — by calling him a homosexual d..ck sucker because of a disagreement regarding Meeca.. The same woman who Corey referred to as Anton’s side chick… The panel discussion was about popular social media stars Kristy and Desmond Scott who are divorcing after 11 years, following infidelity claims…. The video was published on January 11, 2026, which is about a week before Anton’s tragic interview with Corey — where Anton also disrespected Corey and referred to him as a d….ck sucker and a homosexual… To add insult to injury, Anton who has been married for 20 plus years, gets upset when Quinton says that women are only interested in Anton for his money… Anton then replies as if he is competing with Quinton, who is a single young man — for the same woman…Why would a married Anton be competing with any man for women???This is getting too messing — and Anton is exposing himself left and right…

HarrietEve9

61,067 次观看 • 8 个月前

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's message to everyone using Claude or ChatGPT at home: "I won't lie to you. There are real dangers." Amodei was asked what he would say to an ordinary person using AI at home, someone like the aunt of his interviewer, Jo Ling Kent. He started by naming the mood: "Look, my message is there's a lot of fear right now." From there, he took that fear head-on with three points: the benefits are real, the dangers are real, and you should get a say in what happens next. First, the benefits: "First of all, as always, this is a great technology and it has lots of positive uses. So let's just start with that. You know, we have hundreds of millions of people using our technology every week to do wonderful things." He points to messages that land in his inbox regularly: "Every week I get an email from someone who says this, you know, I was talking to Claude and Claude diagnosed this disease that my doctors had missed. I get emails like this every week. So, let's not forget that." Then came the part he says too much of the industry wouldn't admit: "But in terms of the dangers of the technology, I won't lie to you. There are real dangers." He calls out his own industry directly: "And I think for too long the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risk. The idea was that they would present it as positive as [possible]. We've never done that, but too much of the industry did that." For Amodei, the fix starts with honesty and extends to the person at home: "And so it starts with telling the truth. And the truth is there are risks. Risks are real. But also, you have a say in how these risks are addressed." He explains what that looks like in practice: "We're doing the best we can to work with government to create the proper oversight of this technology to give voters and elected officials a say in how this technology is deployed. And we want to work with those folks as much as we can." His goal is for everyday users to get both the benefits and a voice in the decisions: "I want everyone to feel like they're appreciating the incredible benefits of the technology, but also they have a say in their voice and in their vote in determining how this technology is deployed." And Dario Amodei rejects the idea that AI's future belongs to a handful of people: "This isn't a decision for a few people alone. This is a decision for everyone." He's also clear about how much is riding on it: "But it is an important decision. I won't lie that the stakes aren't high."

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's message to everyone using Claude or ChatGPT at home: "I won't lie to you. There are real dangers." Amodei was asked what he would say to an ordinary person using AI at home, someone like the aunt of his interviewer, Jo Ling Kent. He started by naming the mood: "Look, my message is there's a lot of fear right now." From there, he took that fear head-on with three points: the benefits are real, the dangers are real, and you should get a say in what happens next. First, the benefits: "First of all, as always, this is a great technology and it has lots of positive uses. So let's just start with that. You know, we have hundreds of millions of people using our technology every week to do wonderful things." He points to messages that land in his inbox regularly: "Every week I get an email from someone who says this, you know, I was talking to Claude and Claude diagnosed this disease that my doctors had missed. I get emails like this every week. So, let's not forget that." Then came the part he says too much of the industry wouldn't admit: "But in terms of the dangers of the technology, I won't lie to you. There are real dangers." He calls out his own industry directly: "And I think for too long the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risk. The idea was that they would present it as positive as [possible]. We've never done that, but too much of the industry did that." For Amodei, the fix starts with honesty and extends to the person at home: "And so it starts with telling the truth. And the truth is there are risks. Risks are real. But also, you have a say in how these risks are addressed." He explains what that looks like in practice: "We're doing the best we can to work with government to create the proper oversight of this technology to give voters and elected officials a say in how this technology is deployed. And we want to work with those folks as much as we can." His goal is for everyday users to get both the benefits and a voice in the decisions: "I want everyone to feel like they're appreciating the incredible benefits of the technology, but also they have a say in their voice and in their vote in determining how this technology is deployed." And Dario Amodei rejects the idea that AI's future belongs to a handful of people: "This isn't a decision for a few people alone. This is a decision for everyone." He's also clear about how much is riding on it: "But it is an important decision. I won't lie that the stakes aren't high."

Big Brain AI

37,505 次观看 • 11 天前

Dear Stephen Kokx and The WM Review, I listened to your “Where Is the Church?” podcast today, hoping for a substantive answer to that very question. After nearly an hour and ten minutes, you finally addressed it as follows: Stephen: “What sort of light can you shed on those thorny questions, when it comes to jurisdiction and where the Church actually is?” Seán: “…in a sense, the Church is where she’s always been. She is the body of men who are baptized, who profession the Faith, and are subject to legitimate pastors where they are — where they are. Now, as I said earlier on, they’re not here.” Seán went on to say he does “believe there must be, indeed, living legitimate successors to the Apostles. Exactly where they are, that’s a difficult question. It’s not one that I’m afraid to answer, but it’s a long question; it’s a long answer; it’s a complicated answer; and it requires an element of good will on the part of people who you’re speaking to — and if someone doesn’t really grasp the nature of the crisis, they’re just going to hear that kind of explanation and think, ‘That’s just totally contrived,’ or, ‘That’s just impossible.’ So, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I think it does need a full treatment.” I’m confused. The title of your show was literally, “Where Is the Church?” and yet you chose not to provide any sort of substantive answer. Why? Because only those who “really grasp the nature of the crisis” and are of “good will” are able to understand your explanation? With all due respect, that sounds rather gnostic and patronizing to me. Also, Seán, the fact that you “don’t see a problem” with your inability to identify “living legitimate successors to the Apostles” is astounding. You claim to accept Fr. Berry’s teaching (as all Catholics should) that “the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age” (The Church of Christ, p. 78 yet you are unable to identify even a single such pastor on earth today — and you don’t find that even a little problematic? But back to “the nature of the crisis.” What is it, according to you both? Based on your comments during the show, I think it can be summed up as follows: (1) Vatican II was a revolutionary event that established an entirely new religion. (2) As a result, and since 1965, the Catholic Church has been “obscured” by an entirely separate entity, the “Conciliar/Synodal Church,” which holds and teaches the new religion established by Vatican II. Well, my question remains: Where is the Catholic Church today, which you claim still exists on earth? Let’s make it even more practical: To whom should someone go who wants to be received into the Catholic Church today? The SSPX? The CMRI? The RCI? What about someone who has cut himself off from the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy? Who currently has the authority to lift the censure and receive such a person back into the Church? These are not “gotcha” questions, gentlemen. This is me engaging you in good faith, seeking real answers to very serious questions on which the salvation of souls depend (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).

Dear Stephen Kokx and The WM Review, I listened to your “Where Is the Church?” podcast today, hoping for a substantive answer to that very question. After nearly an hour and ten minutes, you finally addressed it as follows: Stephen: “What sort of light can you shed on those thorny questions, when it comes to jurisdiction and where the Church actually is?” Seán: “…in a sense, the Church is where she’s always been. She is the body of men who are baptized, who profession the Faith, and are subject to legitimate pastors where they are — where they are. Now, as I said earlier on, they’re not here.” Seán went on to say he does “believe there must be, indeed, living legitimate successors to the Apostles. Exactly where they are, that’s a difficult question. It’s not one that I’m afraid to answer, but it’s a long question; it’s a long answer; it’s a complicated answer; and it requires an element of good will on the part of people who you’re speaking to — and if someone doesn’t really grasp the nature of the crisis, they’re just going to hear that kind of explanation and think, ‘That’s just totally contrived,’ or, ‘That’s just impossible.’ So, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I think it does need a full treatment.” I’m confused. The title of your show was literally, “Where Is the Church?” and yet you chose not to provide any sort of substantive answer. Why? Because only those who “really grasp the nature of the crisis” and are of “good will” are able to understand your explanation? With all due respect, that sounds rather gnostic and patronizing to me. Also, Seán, the fact that you “don’t see a problem” with your inability to identify “living legitimate successors to the Apostles” is astounding. You claim to accept Fr. Berry’s teaching (as all Catholics should) that “the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age” (The Church of Christ, p. 78 yet you are unable to identify even a single such pastor on earth today — and you don’t find that even a little problematic? But back to “the nature of the crisis.” What is it, according to you both? Based on your comments during the show, I think it can be summed up as follows: (1) Vatican II was a revolutionary event that established an entirely new religion. (2) As a result, and since 1965, the Catholic Church has been “obscured” by an entirely separate entity, the “Conciliar/Synodal Church,” which holds and teaches the new religion established by Vatican II. Well, my question remains: Where is the Catholic Church today, which you claim still exists on earth? Let’s make it even more practical: To whom should someone go who wants to be received into the Catholic Church today? The SSPX? The CMRI? The RCI? What about someone who has cut himself off from the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy? Who currently has the authority to lift the censure and receive such a person back into the Church? These are not “gotcha” questions, gentlemen. This is me engaging you in good faith, seeking real answers to very serious questions on which the salvation of souls depend (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).

Matt Gaspers

18,997 次观看 • 4 个月前

Erbil-based Shams TV explains why they held off on airing their exclusive interview with Syrian President أحمد الشرع: The journalist explains that the pre-interview understanding from the channel was for the segment to serve as a way to calm the waters with regards to the Damascus-Kurdish conflict in Syria. He said the general vibe in Erbil is against the interview, and the Syrian president was savvy in his answers and emphasized he had no quarrel with the Kurdish people. Yet, the journalist says he was surprised that the president started off taking a hard line against the SDF. He says he tried to nudge him through questions toward a conciliatory tone, but he kept escalating. 'He had enough of General Mazloum and the SDF, and he would not give them another chance, only to adhere to the March agreement.' It was a final warning. He said he'd never accept to have a militia in the country, insisting on only one country and one army. The journalist said the interview was supposed to be 30 minutes but ran to 53. Afterwards, he said, he checked with his colleagues, and the consensus was that the interview would inflame things rather than calm the waters, so they decided to hold it until further notice.

Erbil-based Shams TV explains why they held off on airing their exclusive interview with Syrian President أحمد الشرع: The journalist explains that the pre-interview understanding from the channel was for the segment to serve as a way to calm the waters with regards to the Damascus-Kurdish conflict in Syria. He said the general vibe in Erbil is against the interview, and the Syrian president was savvy in his answers and emphasized he had no quarrel with the Kurdish people. Yet, the journalist says he was surprised that the president started off taking a hard line against the SDF. He says he tried to nudge him through questions toward a conciliatory tone, but he kept escalating. 'He had enough of General Mazloum and the SDF, and he would not give them another chance, only to adhere to the March agreement.' It was a final warning. He said he'd never accept to have a militia in the country, insisting on only one country and one army. The journalist said the interview was supposed to be 30 minutes but ran to 53. Afterwards, he said, he checked with his colleagues, and the consensus was that the interview would inflame things rather than calm the waters, so they decided to hold it until further notice.

Hassan I. Hassan

76,245 次观看 • 8 个月前

Our first stop in Italy was a sit-down with a former BBC-style journalist who also served as a politician here. Then we went straight to the theater for a screening of "An Inconvenient Study", followed by a panel I had been looking forward to for a long time. It was with four Italian doctors and scientists, sitting down to talk about what they actually saw during COVID. Italy was the story. After China, Italy was where the world watched people die on television and decided this was the end. I wanted to know if that's what was really happening on the ground, from the people who were there. Those conversations are coming. All I can say is wow.

Our first stop in Italy was a sit-down with a former BBC-style journalist who also served as a politician here. Then we went straight to the theater for a screening of "An Inconvenient Study", followed by a panel I had been looking forward to for a long time. It was with four Italian doctors and scientists, sitting down to talk about what they actually saw during COVID. Italy was the story. After China, Italy was where the world watched people die on television and decided this was the end. I wanted to know if that's what was really happening on the ground, from the people who were there. Those conversations are coming. All I can say is wow.

Del Bigtree

14,577 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 AND THEN MEGYN KELLY BURIED IT TOO After being fired from TheBlaze, ⚽️ sat down with the The Megyn Kelly Show for a two-hour taped interview - going on record for the first time about his investigation into the J6 pipe bomber case and his naming of Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff as a potential suspect. That interview will not be aired. This morning, Baker posted this statement from the Megyn Kelly Show on X: "After extensive independent legal review, without having access to certain sources referenced throughout the interview, we are not able to air the interview at this time… We remain very interested in this story, and will be in touch should there be further developments." Baker says he cannot confirm why the interview was pulled - but he's not willing to call it coincidence either. "I do know of a recent story where the DOJ actually flew out an individual to meet with a journalist to talk them out of running an interview." Think on that... Baker is now publicly demanding the dismissal of FBI Director Kash Patel and says there is a lot more still to come. The pattern here is not subtle.

🚨 AND THEN MEGYN KELLY BURIED IT TOO After being fired from TheBlaze, ⚽️ sat down with the The Megyn Kelly Show for a two-hour taped interview - going on record for the first time about his investigation into the J6 pipe bomber case and his naming of Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff as a potential suspect. That interview will not be aired. This morning, Baker posted this statement from the Megyn Kelly Show on X: "After extensive independent legal review, without having access to certain sources referenced throughout the interview, we are not able to air the interview at this time… We remain very interested in this story, and will be in touch should there be further developments." Baker says he cannot confirm why the interview was pulled - but he's not willing to call it coincidence either. "I do know of a recent story where the DOJ actually flew out an individual to meet with a journalist to talk them out of running an interview." Think on that... Baker is now publicly demanding the dismissal of FBI Director Kash Patel and says there is a lot more still to come. The pattern here is not subtle.

LindellTV

141,678 次观看 • 5 个月前

Everyone is sharing a clip from Caleb Hammer where a guest on his show goes on an antisemitic rant. To tell you the truth, I'm less concerned with the clip of that man struggling to put together a sentence than I am with this clip, which shows Caleb and the man's wife joking about having a "Jew nose." The guy is clearly a rabid antisemite, but who gave him a platform to speak? Who didn't push back on any of the antisemitic things he said? And who joked around with him about Jewish noses? We cannot reason with antisemites like this man in the white shirt, but we can reason with the people around him who likely think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing because it's not as bad.

Everyone is sharing a clip from Caleb Hammer where a guest on his show goes on an antisemitic rant. To tell you the truth, I'm less concerned with the clip of that man struggling to put together a sentence than I am with this clip, which shows Caleb and the man's wife joking about having a "Jew nose." The guy is clearly a rabid antisemite, but who gave him a platform to speak? Who didn't push back on any of the antisemitic things he said? And who joked around with him about Jewish noses? We cannot reason with antisemites like this man in the white shirt, but we can reason with the people around him who likely think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing because it's not as bad.

Hen Mazzig

73,641 次观看 • 3 个月前

Big Thanks to GBNews/FreeSpeechNation and Josh Howie for using the platform to put out the alarm about St Mark’s Church in Southend hosting a “Binder Swap” event with a session about “Medical Transitioning”. I’m grateful to everyone who’s made a noise about this including Julie Bindel who was really supportive about sounding the alarm on this. I’m also grateful to everyone who wrote letters to the relevant safeguarding authorities after I posted about it - We definitely made an impact as late on Friday night the church Vicar made a post declaring the event to be 18+ (obviously not everyone got the memo because they had to stick a note on the door on the day too). Additionally, a reporter went to the event on the day, and was told by the Vicar that there was “no binder swap”. but also saw a man with a big bag of binders turn up to the event! I personally don’t think a vicar should be lying about such a thing… …We all saw the poster, and that man with the bag full of binders was there for a reason! I think it’s egregious that a Christian church (Church of England) is trying to get away with what I consider to be gr00ming for “Trans” ideology. Anyway, great to see this story get airtime 🙏

Big Thanks to GBNews/FreeSpeechNation and Josh Howie for using the platform to put out the alarm about St Mark’s Church in Southend hosting a “Binder Swap” event with a session about “Medical Transitioning”. I’m grateful to everyone who’s made a noise about this including Julie Bindel who was really supportive about sounding the alarm on this. I’m also grateful to everyone who wrote letters to the relevant safeguarding authorities after I posted about it - We definitely made an impact as late on Friday night the church Vicar made a post declaring the event to be 18+ (obviously not everyone got the memo because they had to stick a note on the door on the day too). Additionally, a reporter went to the event on the day, and was told by the Vicar that there was “no binder swap”. but also saw a man with a big bag of binders turn up to the event! I personally don’t think a vicar should be lying about such a thing… …We all saw the poster, and that man with the bag full of binders was there for a reason! I think it’s egregious that a Christian church (Church of England) is trying to get away with what I consider to be gr00ming for “Trans” ideology. Anyway, great to see this story get airtime 🙏

TheFamousArtistBirdyRose

13,300 次观看 • 7 个月前

“For me it’s just common sense, that there should be any suggestion that people aren’t allowed to live the life they want to live & to be with who they want to be with & to express themselves whole heartedly, I mean as long as you’re not hurting anyone else & everyone else just needs to butt out.” David Tennant seemingly has no clue what critics of gender ideology are saying & actually opposing. So let’s make it clear: • First of all, common sense is knowing that there are only two sexes, sex is immutable & plays many vital roles in society, from sexuality to safeguarding to rights to procreation. • Next, no one is suggesting that people can’t live how they want to live. This is a nothing statement. There are, basically, 8 billion ways to live life. As many possibilities are there are humans. The issue is that one group of people has fallen for a lie and wants everyone else to live that lie to some extent as gender ideology is a direct attack on how everyone else lives, from speech to education to how society is structured to rights. • Consenting adults can choose who they want to be in intimate relationships with, that fight has long been won. But gender ideology actually wants to undo that, telling lesbians that they must accept men who claim to be women as lesbians & gay men must accept women who claim to be men as gay men. Now, if being with a person who is lying about their sex is your type, fine. But for everyone else, they also need their rights. Rights to lesbian only spaces & events & rights to gay man only spaces & events, all based in reality. Heterosexual people claiming to be homosexual and then enforcing heterosexuality upon a homosexual group is not progress. • Who is saying people can’t express themselves? Men can wear dresses & makeup if they want. Women can cut their hair short & do whatever they think men do. We’ve all got one life, live it in a way that makes sense to you. But understand: your expression does not change material reality, and is not a free pass to take away other people’s rights. Rights, rights, rights. • Many people are hurt by the ideology David Tennant & the like are pushing. Women’s rights are abolished, LGB people’s rights are dismantled (while simultaneously getting the blame for this nonsense), children’s right to grow up with their body in tact is demolished, and then there is freedom of belief, speech & association which impacts everyone. Don’t believe me? Try not believing in gender ideology & see how much freedom of belief you have in the workplace. Try creating a female only space and see how many men demand access to it, with institutions like human rights commissions backing them. Try being a female athlete missing out on competition because a man decided he is a woman and used his biological physical advantage to destroy your dreams. Just try to imagine that there are more issues in life than how one “identifies”. • Telling people to “butt out” is a clear indication that someone has never once considered how gender ideology plays out in society on a macro scale & why people would be against it, and that he doesn’t actually have empathy for people who are different to him while identifying as someone who does. If you don’t understand what your critics are saying, don’t criticize them until you do. The end.

“For me it’s just common sense, that there should be any suggestion that people aren’t allowed to live the life they want to live & to be with who they want to be with & to express themselves whole heartedly, I mean as long as you’re not hurting anyone else & everyone else just needs to butt out.” David Tennant seemingly has no clue what critics of gender ideology are saying & actually opposing. So let’s make it clear: • First of all, common sense is knowing that there are only two sexes, sex is immutable & plays many vital roles in society, from sexuality to safeguarding to rights to procreation. • Next, no one is suggesting that people can’t live how they want to live. This is a nothing statement. There are, basically, 8 billion ways to live life. As many possibilities are there are humans. The issue is that one group of people has fallen for a lie and wants everyone else to live that lie to some extent as gender ideology is a direct attack on how everyone else lives, from speech to education to how society is structured to rights. • Consenting adults can choose who they want to be in intimate relationships with, that fight has long been won. But gender ideology actually wants to undo that, telling lesbians that they must accept men who claim to be women as lesbians & gay men must accept women who claim to be men as gay men. Now, if being with a person who is lying about their sex is your type, fine. But for everyone else, they also need their rights. Rights to lesbian only spaces & events & rights to gay man only spaces & events, all based in reality. Heterosexual people claiming to be homosexual and then enforcing heterosexuality upon a homosexual group is not progress. • Who is saying people can’t express themselves? Men can wear dresses & makeup if they want. Women can cut their hair short & do whatever they think men do. We’ve all got one life, live it in a way that makes sense to you. But understand: your expression does not change material reality, and is not a free pass to take away other people’s rights. Rights, rights, rights. • Many people are hurt by the ideology David Tennant & the like are pushing. Women’s rights are abolished, LGB people’s rights are dismantled (while simultaneously getting the blame for this nonsense), children’s right to grow up with their body in tact is demolished, and then there is freedom of belief, speech & association which impacts everyone. Don’t believe me? Try not believing in gender ideology & see how much freedom of belief you have in the workplace. Try creating a female only space and see how many men demand access to it, with institutions like human rights commissions backing them. Try being a female athlete missing out on competition because a man decided he is a woman and used his biological physical advantage to destroy your dreams. Just try to imagine that there are more issues in life than how one “identifies”. • Telling people to “butt out” is a clear indication that someone has never once considered how gender ideology plays out in society on a macro scale & why people would be against it, and that he doesn’t actually have empathy for people who are different to him while identifying as someone who does. If you don’t understand what your critics are saying, don’t criticize them until you do. The end.

Sall Grover

1,055,019 次观看 • 2 年前

Last week, my husband sat down with Steven Bartlett from the Diary of a CEO. The behind the scenes on how we got such short notice to do his podcast was insane. Finding flights and trying to cram everything into a short period of time. We were on route to wrap up Pierre's USA tour when we got the email, we were in NYC. So now we had to figure out how to get to LA fast, and back on time for Monday's meetings in Ottawa. There was no way we were going to pass on this. Why? My personal thoughts were because I have watched Diary of a CEO for over a year, and what I have seen from Steven and his team is beyond anything else out there. The level of research they do on their guests, and their capacity to ask ANY question, the tough ones, the more personal ones, in such a professional manner. It is not about trying to get a “gotcha” moment. It is about truly getting to know and understand the person sitting across from Steven. This time, it was my husband. I saw him like in no other interview. Finally relaxed, being himself, so open to talk about everything, including his childhood, his adoptive parents AND biological parents. But also about our beloved Valentina. I can say with confidence that this is THE MOST IN-DEPTH interview Pierre has ever done. Steven did not hold back. But he does it with respect, and in a format that allows people to fully explain themselves. That is the magic of these long-format platforms. Pierre got to share his vision for Canada, the problems, the solutions. He also got to explain his WHY, which really is rooted in his childhood experiences. I am thankful for platforms like this that, in my personal opinion, are doing a better job than the current media out there. But even more thankful that there are hosts like Steven who operate on the principle of hearing all sides with an open mind and allowing people to express themselves. If I can be honest with you, my favourite YouTube channel is not Diary of a CEO. It actually is BEHIND THE DIARY (@behindthediary). That is where you get to see how Steven does it, how he builds a team. One thing I remember well is when he mentioned that he needs to work with people who keep an open mind because his goal is to talk to everyone. From Michelle Obama to Boris Johnson to Kamala Harris, and now my husband Pierre Poilievre, Steven sits there with an open mind and asks ALL questions without holding back. It is also important to note that it is equally important for the guest to do the same. So naturally, our team had no limitations on what he could ask. This is by far my favourite interview. 🫶🏻 Go watch it :

Last week, my husband sat down with Steven Bartlett from the Diary of a CEO. The behind the scenes on how we got such short notice to do his podcast was insane. Finding flights and trying to cram everything into a short period of time. We were on route to wrap up Pierre's USA tour when we got the email, we were in NYC. So now we had to figure out how to get to LA fast, and back on time for Monday's meetings in Ottawa. There was no way we were going to pass on this. Why? My personal thoughts were because I have watched Diary of a CEO for over a year, and what I have seen from Steven and his team is beyond anything else out there. The level of research they do on their guests, and their capacity to ask ANY question, the tough ones, the more personal ones, in such a professional manner. It is not about trying to get a “gotcha” moment. It is about truly getting to know and understand the person sitting across from Steven. This time, it was my husband. I saw him like in no other interview. Finally relaxed, being himself, so open to talk about everything, including his childhood, his adoptive parents AND biological parents. But also about our beloved Valentina. I can say with confidence that this is THE MOST IN-DEPTH interview Pierre has ever done. Steven did not hold back. But he does it with respect, and in a format that allows people to fully explain themselves. That is the magic of these long-format platforms. Pierre got to share his vision for Canada, the problems, the solutions. He also got to explain his WHY, which really is rooted in his childhood experiences. I am thankful for platforms like this that, in my personal opinion, are doing a better job than the current media out there. But even more thankful that there are hosts like Steven who operate on the principle of hearing all sides with an open mind and allowing people to express themselves. If I can be honest with you, my favourite YouTube channel is not Diary of a CEO. It actually is BEHIND THE DIARY (@behindthediary). That is where you get to see how Steven does it, how he builds a team. One thing I remember well is when he mentioned that he needs to work with people who keep an open mind because his goal is to talk to everyone. From Michelle Obama to Boris Johnson to Kamala Harris, and now my husband Pierre Poilievre, Steven sits there with an open mind and asks ALL questions without holding back. It is also important to note that it is equally important for the guest to do the same. So naturally, our team had no limitations on what he could ask. This is by far my favourite interview. 🫶🏻 Go watch it :

Anaida Poilievre

101,538 次观看 • 5 个月前