About this video

• Video Title: I confronted this journalist about lies in her article...
• Channel: Destiny
• Speakers: Destiny, Taylor
• Duration: 01:50:44

Overview

This video features a contentious discussion between Destiny and a journalist named Taylor regarding an article written by Taylor. The primary focus of their debate is the funding and disclosure practices of various organizations, particularly in relation to journalistic fellowships and political influence campaigns. They debate the nature of "dark money," the transparency of funding sources, and the ethical obligations of journalists versus influencers. The conversation also touches upon broader issues of online censorship, mass surveillance, and the role of big tech companies.

Key takeaways

• Qatari Funding Allegation: The conversation begins with a journalist, Taylor, addressing an accusation that she is funded by a "Qatari person," which she denies. This leads to a discussion about her funding sources, specifically mentioning Pierre Omidar and the Omidar Network.
• Journalistic Ethics and Funding: A significant portion of the discussion revolves around whether receiving funds from Omidar, or through entities structured as LLCs and potentially funded by various sources, violates journalistic ethics, particularly for freelance journalists working with mainstream media. Taylor argues that her fellowship was funded by Omidar directly and was a legitimate journalistic endeavor, not "dark money."
• "Dark Money" Debate: Destiny and Taylor engage in a prolonged debate about the definition and implications of "dark money" and how it applies to different funding mechanisms, including the role of LLCs and foundations. Destiny questions the transparency of Taylor's funding, while Taylor maintains her journalistic integrity and adherence to ethical codes.
• Chorus Program and Influencer Contracts: The discussion shifts to a program called "Chorus," which Taylor wrote about, alleging it's a secret political influence campaign that pays influencers. They debate the nature of the contracts provided to these influencers, including alleged content restrictions and the non-disclosure of funding sources. Taylor asserts her article is based on facts and contract details, while Destiny questions her sourcing and interpretation of the contracts.
• Mass Surveillance and Civil Liberties: Towards the end, the conversation broadens to discuss mass surveillance laws, the erosion of privacy online, the role of AI, and the potential impact of these issues on civil liberties. They touch upon legislation like KOSA and the online safety act, and the differing approaches of the US and Europe.

Here's a list of interruptions, indicating who interrupted whom:

• Destiny interrupted by Taylor:
  • "It's not you. I could say the same thing about you." (00:17)
  • "Are you talking about the Are you talking about the Omidiar?" (1:23)
  • "Wait, if you if you just said it's through an LLC, then that means it's not directly funded by him." (4:17)
  • "Taylor, you're not answering the question I just asked. I'm gonna ask the same question again. Does that organization, that LLC, do they publish their tax returns, all their schedule C's, all their schedule, everything else?" (4:52)
  • "Oh my god. Yes, they do. Literally, Destiny, go on the website and look at the press. Can you pull up the press release, please, that they issued that explains this to you?" (5:07)
  • "What am I looking for?" (5:18)
  • "You keep saying confused, but you're just you're being slippery. Very slippery." (5:29)
  • "Trust me when I say you cannot be accepting political dark money and working as a mainstream media journalist. You cannot. You you could write sure you could write an opinion column maybe, but certainly you cannot do reporting. You cannot that would be against the ethics policy of any mainstream media place that I've ever worked for and a bunch of digital media places that I've worked for. You cannot do that." (2:34)
  • "Well, first of all, yes you can. Of course you can. You don't have to declare every single income source or any Of course you can. Yeah, of course you can. You don't have to declare every single source of income and every single thing in your life." (2:24)
  • "No, it's not dark money. I know exactly who funded it. It's not a 501c4, whatever. It's structured as an LLC." (1:59)
  • "The LLC is what's cutting you the money." (4:22)
  • "I'm sorry that you're confused by this. Let's" (4:25)
  • "I'm so sorry. Listen, I've I was nice to you in the past. The these little strategies don't work on me. Okay, I'm not confused. Strategy opener, just to be clear, right?" (4:28)
  • "This is very easy. That LLC that pays you, do they publicly publish all of the recipients of income to that LLC? Are those revenue statements publicly available?" (4:36)
  • "Yes, they they publicly issued a statement because there was so much" (4:48)
  • "They do not receive funding for" (6:39)
  • "I don't know what you're reading. I'm waiting for you to link me what you're reading." (6:40)
  • "Okay, so here we go. They make it very clear and say on the record they do not receive funding for" (6:31)
  • "Omidar network receives no funding for the reporters and residents program via the 1630 fund or any other outside sources." (6:58)
  • "That's really important, Duty, because I could not work as a freelance journalist if I accepted dark money. I couldn't. I would be fired. If a journalist did that, that would be a scandal. That we are not allowed to do that. Cut and dry. That's not to say that political influencers aren't allowed to. Political influencers, commentators, you're right. You could write for the opinion pages of certain outlets for sure if you accept these, you know, sorts of deals. But I am not I am a working journalist. I cannot accept those deals. And this is not the reporters and residence program is not a political it. We have people with all over the political spectrum that are part of that program. I'm not a Democrat. I'm in that program. Right. Okay. So, I think there's" (7:06)
  • "Can you explain to me how do you think these the hybrid funding mechanisms work?" (7:51)
  • "There's no hybrid funding mechanism. The money is directly from Pierre Omidar. Pierre Omidar funds this reporting residence. It is a fellowship. He funds a lot in journalism. I am allowed to take part in the fellowship again through these journalistic ethics codes. Now, if it was a dark money fund, if it was the 1630 fund doing a journalistic fellowship, I couldn't take part in that because I don't know who's funding it." (7:56)
  • "Okay? So, the reason why the Omidio network says that they don't receive outside funding is because it's one of these dual structured hybrid dark money funds. They themselves don't get money from an outside fund. All of it comes from the dual the hybrid entity, the LLC half, which doesn't report where all of its money comes from." (8:19)
  • "They It does report. It it comes from Pier Midar. It's his fund, but it's not just him funding it. Our programmatic work is supported entirely via our foundation and LLC. That foundation and LLC." (8:38)
  • "No, money can come from anywhere for that." (8:52)
  • "Show me one piece of Show me one piece of evidence that any money for the reporting and residence fund did not come from Pierro Midor." (8:53)
  • "It comes directly from Pier Midor. He funds it." (9:03)
  • "Do you understand? You know that a person in an LLC are two different things, right?" (9:06)
  • "Yes. But he funds the program. He funds the program." (9:09)
  • "I know that the Occupy Wall Street people, corporation people, you seem to be confused on this. Okay. An LLC is not a person, right? So when you say he's funding it directly, that's not true." (9:14)
  • "The even if what you were saying was true, you could say he's the sole funer through an LLC." (9:23)
  • "You don't know who funds it because it's a dark money fund. That's the whole thing. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO MONEY. DESTINY. I promise you. I do know who funds it. Eomidar funds it directly. We know that he brags about it. It's a whole thing. That's the reason why he does this program. I don't know what to tell you. I couldn't freelance all. Do you think all of these journalists, all of these mainstream journalists that work at at major mainstream outlets, do you think that they would be allowed to sign the ethics policies that we sign if we were part of a dark money or? No, we're not." (9:29)
  • "None of you. I don't think there is a policy that says you could have never accepted money from any other type of super PAC or hybrid 501c or 401c." (9:56)
  • "Oh my god. Absolutely. You cannot work as a journalist and take super PAC money or dark money from political orgs. You absolutely cannot do that. You would never ever be able to do that. That would be very unethical and it would be against any journalistic code of ethics that you could possibly agree to. That is like basic 101 journalism. Come on. That that would be crazy if a journalist did that because then they would they could be getting secretly paid by political by people with political agendas." (10:04)
  • "But you can always be getting paid by people with political agendas." (10:34)
  • "No, you no you can't. Not through a not through a pack or a or a dark money group and and be a working journalist." (10:37)
  • "I could just I could just pay you. If I were to give you $20,000, how would the New York Times know? You can't accept I guess technically you could lie, but that again that would you would be fired and it would be a big news story. That's crazy. You couldn't that you you're not even allowed to accept gifts over $50 if you're a journalist." (10:44)
  • "Yeah, but who would I'm just saying that the idea that this is like an impossible thing or whatever and the and this focus on like quote unquote dark money. No one would have any idea. Like I'm sure that they ask you for a political" (11:03)
  • "they can't there's no way unless they have your tax returns. Nobody can know who you're getting paid from unless they have a copy of your tax returns. You're I get I mean sure you could go steal something from a store and nobody would know. That doesn't mean that it's not a crime. Like what are you talking about?" (11:13)
  • "Well, hold on. Ethics agreements are not going to be the same thing as like a crime if you violate an ethics agreement for something that you signed for a journalistic." (11:28)
  • "You would be you would not work in journalism. You would not work in journalism. And let me tell you, there's a if you were accepting secret money, trust me, that is so unethical that it would be a major news story. Now, have people could could you do it and lie about it and get away with it? I have no idea. Honestly, I think that somebody would find out because that would be such a major news story if a big time journalist did something like that. It would be such a gross violation of journalistic ethics. I cannot I mean," (11:35)
  • "people write opeds. I don't understand what you're like" (12:04)
  • "an oped is not the same as a reporter. So, op-eds are not written by reporters, right? Opeds are something different. That's an opinion piece. So, a senator can write an op-ed, right? If you are a news reporter, you are bound by journalistic ethics." (12:07)
  • "Okay. Can you sort through this? Can you help me help me help me understand this?" (12:20)
  • "Okay. So, like on page 11 here, we can look at the Omdar network fund and we can see that there is money that they get donated to them from like private equity and other sorts of people. We don't know who these are. This is a" (12:25)
  • "that's from the political fund that's not related to the reporters and residence program which is solely funded by by Pierre Omar. It's solely funded by the LLC that has a network fund that receives dark money. That's how these entities work. I can break it down. We could go through a whole thing and break it out if you want. Like" (12:36)
  • "Destiny, I'm sorry that you feel this way. I I don't know what to tell you. If you think that there's a secret scheme," (12:54)
  • "it's not secret. It's all public. It's all known." (12:57)
  • "Again, this Well, that's funny that you bring it up. It is public and known. Unlike these dark money programs, which are not public, which are" (13:03)
  • "They're also publicly known. They say we have this entity. It raises money. We don't have to report everybody that dates to it, but we report who we donate to." (13:11)
  • "They're not They're doing political The reason my story was a story is because it was not politically It was not publicly known. They were not publicly disclosing. Right." (13:17)
  • "Wait, what wasn't publicly What do you mean" (13:26)
  • "the 1630 fund engaging in these influencer schemes? That was something that was not publicly known. That's why" (13:28)
  • "1630 fund donating money or giving money to chorus should be in their filings. It was not publicly known. That's why" (13:36)
  • "it should be in their filings." (13:43)
  • "Well, surprise surprise. It was never known. It was never revealed." (13:45)
  • "Do you see how you say I understand and again I know you other people. You keep saying it wasn't known as in it wasn't part of the mainstream but you're not responding to my question. You're very good at these conversations. You're very tricky. You're very tricky. But one example is showing up in the media. No, but you're alleging you acknowledge that what you're alleging would be like an FC violation, right? if these entities were giving large sums of money to people and it wasn't showing up on any of their filings that this would be illegal." (13:50)
  • "Um, first of all, it's not an FC violation because there's no FEC ruling that says that, you know, you have to disclose your influencer sort of efforts or whatever, right?" (14:10)
  • "Influencer efforts. No, no, no. For these hybrid entities, the ones that do this, the pairing of the I haven't read about it was like the C3C4 pairings or whatever, these hybrid entities, you don't have to report where the money is coming from, but you do have to report where the money goes to. So on the So my understanding is I would have to go back and look at all this cuz the tax structure is relatively complicated. If I do it would be for my edification because you don't you don't understand these things work but the C3 or the C4 whatever will receive money and then they don't have to report where the money is coming from but they can dump a lot of that money into a C3 that does have to report where it's coming from. So like chorus will say like we're getting money from the 635 and then they'll say that we're paying it out to certain creators or whatever depending on the type of entity that they're structured under. But" (14:21)
  • "so show me where any of that happened prior to my story. Well, I want to see where the I want you to link me where the reporters and residents, the LLC that they're getting the money from." (14:55)
  • "Sorry, Destiny. Whoa. You just changed this topic." (15:03)
  • "Well, no, no. You This is how you change. No, no. You change this from this and you change to this. So, I'm asking you, can you show me what show me where? No, no. You wait. You acknowledged the conversation started with the Omid thing, right? That's the conver." (15:05)
  • "I want to close loop on what you said. You said that there was disclosure about this this funding program before my article. Show me where that was. I would have to go and look up the web archives of the page to see if it to where I don't have this information off hand." (15:19)
  • "You don't have it because it doesn't exist." (15:32)
  • "I don't have it off hand because I wasn't ready for that conversation. I have to go and get the links through this." (15:34)
  • "All right." (15:38)
  • "I very much would love for you to find that. And I think that when you go to find it, you will find it doesn't exist because prior to my article, none of this was public. And that is the whole problem I would argue with these funding systems is that unless a journalist gets a hold of it. They're not inherently public or they're not inherently disclosed to the followers of these influencers while they're creating this content. And that's a problem. I'm a journalist. I disclose where I get my money. Now, you seem to have some issue with the Omidar's reporting and residence program. I can promise you that it is not a grand conspiracy that myself and all of these other journalists have taken part in this program and that it's somehow, you know, you're sort of conflating it with the 1630 fund. It's nothing like that. Not to mention," (15:40)
  • "it's exactly like that. It is." (15:56)
  • "It's nothing. It's not like, not to mention, well, I'll say the second part, Destiny, a an investigative journalism fellowship is nothing like a political a secret political influencer program at all." (15:57)
  • "What was secret? Wait, what part is secret?" (16:41)
  • "It was never public. The the funding program with Chorus was never public. It was never public. It was never disclosed. None of these influencers disclosed it. That's the whole problem." (16:42)
  • "Hold on. Hold on. Wait. Wait. You're what? You're you're making different statements. Whether or not an influencer disclosed whether or not they're part of chorus is a fundamentally different claim than whether or not the chorus reports where their money comes from or if the 1630 fund reports." (16:56)
  • "It was never disclosed that they ran a secretive funding program for influencers. That was never public. That was never public. That's why my story was a story because it was never public." (17:08)
  • "All the money that flows out from the 1630 fund has to be part of public filings. Yes," (17:18)
  • "it was not." (17:23)
  • "Wait, wait, wait. Can you say yes or no to that? Are you able to answer that question? All the money that flows out for like political or activists or whatever stuff, any kind of like thing like that from the secret phone, all of that has to be on a public tax filing." (17:24)
  • "I have no idea. But regardless," (17:36)
  • "if you're reporting on this, how can you have no idea if the statement I just said is true?" (17:40)
  • "Show me where it was public. So, show me where it was public before I published my story. Show me where it was public." (17:44)
  • "Okay, so here's a form 990. This is 117 pages long. This is of the 1630 fund. This is for 2024. I would have to, I guess, go find their 2025 one, but this here should have every single thing listed in terms of where their money. Show me. So, show me where So, show me where it's disclosed." (17:50)
  • "I don't even know. I don't know what the entity is registered under. I can find this information for you, but it's going to take me some time. I can't I don't have this right on my fingertips." (18:06)
  • "If you're going to But if you're going to say this argument that this was all public and that it was disclosed, where was it disclosed?" (18:12)
  • "Are you okay? So, then let me understand. You're saying that they hid this that it was not disclosed on legally required forms." (18:19)
  • "No. If you read my article," (18:27)
  • "do you see how tricky you're being? I could see how tricky you're being. I know a lot of people can't see how tricky you are sometimes, but like you're not answering that question." (18:29)
  • "That's me. I'm I'm answering your question, but I don't know. You're" (18:35)
  • "My question very specifically was, well, okay, it's two questions, and you can answer both of these. One is, would it be legally required for the 1630 fund to disclose that money was flowing out to an entity like this? Number one. And number two, are you saying that they did not disclose that against the law?" (18:37)
  • "Neither of those things were were in my article. Neither." (18:52)
  • "Can you answer either of those questions or No, can you not? You're really not going to. Well, actually, if you if you pull if you if you want to make those claims, I think you should be the one to back it up." (18:55)
  • "I'm not the journalist. I'm just a lowly influencer. The 630 fund paid me $900 million this year to to press you on this." (19:05)
  • "You're making claims. So, back so back them up." (19:11)
  • "I did go back. I did a research show about this like 6 months ago when the article came out. You go look at the VOD if you want or I can find this information again. We can have a talk in a few days if you want." (19:13)
  • "In that in the VOD, you don't you you don't you don't ever show proof ever. in the one where we went over this like five or six months ago." (19:20)
  • "You do not show proof that there was disclosure prior to my article. You do not show that" (19:28)
  • "the form 9990s are public." (19:32)
  • "Show me where it was disclosed. Show me where it was disclosed prior to my article. That there was this political influencer program that they were funding that they were funding influencers. Show me where that was disclosed." (19:35)
  • "Okay, I will add this to my" (19:48)
  • "And also, will you do me a favor as well? Show me the list of influencers that received the funding. Can you show me that as well? Cuz you're" (19:58)
  • "has to disclose that part. I don't know if theorist" (20:08)
  • "Oh, well, since you're saying it, we're talking about multiple entities here. I don't know if you don't know how these are working in in conjunction with each other or if you just rely on like the tricky language in order to not actually have to answer any questions related to any of this stuff." (20:12)
  • "All of these ridiculous attacks and I'm just asking you to back up your claims. If you claimed that it was all public, show me where" (20:24)
  • "you're playing games. I never claimed it was all public. I claimed that these should show up on public filings now." (20:32)
  • "Okay, I'll I'll look it up. I will look it up for you. I'll find the forms. I'll throw them at you. I'll have you I'm sure you'll wiggle out of it another way. So, back to the Omidar thing. Back to the Omidar thing. The thing that we started talking about, the Omid Taylor, for the Omidar thing, the LLC that funds it solely. What is this LLC? Can you give me information about this LLC? How do you know that it only receives money from Pierre?" (20:39)
  • "Because again, this is a this is a investigative reporting fellow." (21:02)
  • "You're not answering the question. How do you know that LLC only receives money? I don't know. I'm not asking you what it is. I'm asking how do you know it only receives money from Pierre?" (21:06)
  • "You're you're interrupting me. Are you ready to listen or are you going to continue to interrupt?" (21:13)
  • "If you can answer the question, I'm ready to listen." (21:18)
  • "You're not answering the question again." (21:22)
  • "I I am I am telling you the answer to the question and I'm sorry that it doesn't" (21:24)
  • "We already agreed that you could just lie about your source of income and nobody would know. So that doesn't" (21:28)
  • "No, you couldn't. No, no, you can't you can't do that. I I mean certainly I of all people could not do that. I am a very high-profile journalist. to argue that journalists that such as myself which are under enormous scrutiny are all secretly taking pack and dark money which I just want to emphasize to you Destiny please please you continue to conflate a political influence program with a non nonpartisan" (21:32)
  • "you're all you're doing is all you're doing is you're you're continuing to squirm away from the point" (21:58)
  • "you I could say the same thing about you can you actually stop making these ridiculous comments about You're tricky. You're squirming away. And can you actually engage with what I'm saying? A non a nonpartisan" (22:05)
  • "non-political investigative journalism program is nothing like a paid political influence scheme. They're not even remotely similar." (22:14)
  • "How do you know that the is your claim that that LLC is solely funded by Pierre?" (22:43)
  • "That is what we are that is that is how we are able to take part in this program. Do you think" (22:50)
  • "is your Are you telling me that the LLC is solely funded by Pierre?" (22:59)
  • "I would imagine yes, because that's how we're able to take part of the program." (22:45)
  • "So the fact that you would say I would imagine seems to necessitate you using your imagination and the reason why you have to use the imagination is because it's dark because you don't know which is fine. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm sure the Midor network and everybody they state their goals and everything which is why it's not a huge deal. Same thing with the 1630 fund and the same thing with" (22:48)
  • "funded to answer your question. Yes, it is funded by Pierre Omidar. Yes, that is what we are told when we" (23:05)
  • "I didn't ask if it was funded by Pier. I said it was the sole funer. Pierre Omidar is the LLC that it gets money from. The only person that puts money in the LLC is Pierre Omidar" (23:10)
  • "or or perhaps his, you know, maybe he puts it in through something else. But yes, it's Pier Midar's money. Yes. Yes, it is Pierre Midiar's money." (23:21)
  • "It's a dark money fund. The reason why you can't answer the question, you know," (23:28)
  • "it is it is" (23:30)
  • "it is not. It is not. I don't know what to tell you other than I could not participate in doing journalism if I was" (23:33)
  • "and do you think all of the other journalists putting me aside there's major journalists right that take part in this investigative nonpartisan reporting fellowship but I I I believe you that you think all of this is some big collusion regardless Destiny why don't you engage with the fact that a nonpartisan" (23:39)
  • "non-political investigative reporting fellowship is nothing like a secret political influence scheme. They're not even remotely similar." (23:44)
  • "But anyway, regardless, Destiny, the point is is that none of this was made public to viewers, to consumers, and I would argue that that's a problem. and creators in the program wanted to disclose and were told that they could not disclose per the contract. We quote the contract. I know that you think again this is Twitch receipts culture or whatever, but the Wired is a very legitimate journalistic outlet that frankly has no loyalty me to me. I'm just a freelancer. If there was anything that that these entities had, and don't act like Chorus didn't fight that article, okay? If they had anything to disprove those claims, if any of those those creators had contracts that were not accurately represented, they could absolutely disprove that privately. Even if they don't want to publicly disprove it, they could disprove it privately to the cotton lawyers who went out and sought that information from people online that were making those claims. But they don't have it because what we reported was correct and true, which is that it was not disclosed. It was not publicly disclosed. And these influencers themselves did not make any disclosures that they were part of this paid influence program while they were identifying themselves as journalists." (24:16)
  • "I don't think the influencers were part of a dark money political scheme. The influencer is getting money from Chorus." (24:48)
  • "Chorus is described in documents." (25:05)
  • "You can't answer the question. So annoying. Sorry. Go ahead." (25:07)
  • "Okay. You know what? If you're going to keep making these aside comments and say these things, it's not going to be we're not going to be able to have a conversation." (25:11)
  • "I'm Yeah, but I can't just let you lie to my audience. You understand that, right? That I do have some amount of integrity and I'm not just going to let you lie to my audience. The reason why you answer in a sneaky way is because you know that you can't contend with the question I give you." (25:18)
  • "You're not actually engaging with You're not engaging with my questions. I'm asking you was Kors was solely funded by the 1630 fund that you know where the course money is coming from and it's going to an influencer program." (25:27)
  • "You just yell like this over people and then your audience thinks that they that you know what you're talking about because you say you're sneaky. You're sneaky and you interrupt." (25:38)
  • "Taylor, you did a whole reporting thing on these hybrid entities. You don't know what a form 9990 is and you're claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about." (25:45)
  • "You I'm saying that you continue to interrupt because you're not answering my question." (25:53)
  • "I'm not talking to you condescendingly. I'm treating you like an adult when I ask you an actual question. You're not giving me the actual answer. You're just speaking around it." (25:55)
  • "You're just being really sneaky. You're not giving me the actual answer. You're talking around it. You're being very tricky." (26:02)
  • "I said multiple times if you want. I can go back and I can research the 1630 fund. Yeah, but your article, you've misqu your article over and over again, though. You do tricky site your article. We can go back through your article if you want. You still haven't published any of those public contracts, right? You made strong claims about the fact that people weren't allowed to disclose that they were part of course. That was never substantiated. Those are only according to the secret." (26:08)
  • "What do you mean is show me one example of an influencer that disclosed?" (26:29)
  • "That's not the same thing as them saying as them not being allowed to disclose. Right." (26:34)
  • "Do you think that the seven influencers who spoke? Do you think that they spoke because and and made those claims saying we aren't allowed to disclose and that the part that we cite in the contract that says that they're not allowed to disclose?" (26:38)
  • "So that small part that you site is not necessarily saying that. Number one. Number two, I don't know who those seven influencers were. Were you public about their identities? And then number three, we did we did read it. We read it tons of times. If you can publish that, if you can publish that clause, why can't you publish the whole thing?" (26:51)
  • "BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IDENTIFYING. BUT I WOULD ASK THE SAME CREATORS. I WOULD ASK THE SAME. WE CAN'T PUBLISH DIRECT SOURCE MATERIAL. YOU JUST DID. THAT'S COMING FROM A DIRECT SOURCE. THAT'S FROM THE CONTRACT, IS IT NOT?" (27:02)
  • "WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUBLISH THE FULL CONTRACTS THAT ARE WATERMARKED. I'M SORRY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. BUT WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? JUST RETYPE IT INTO ADOBE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU CAN COPY PASTE THE THING. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T REPUBLISH IT BECAUSE IT'S WATERMARKED?" (27:12)
  • "I'm telling you, we don't publish our source material, but we" (27:24)
  • "You're quoting the source material. You published it. It's literally I remember reading the article. Do you remember show me the evidence that you published the source material?" (27:27)
  • "No. Show me evidence from any of these creators. If it's false," (27:34)
  • "Taylor, that's not how journalism works. I don't disprove