Tapping Out

The green room world.

By
46

On today’s episode of The Remnant, Jonah’s disdain for the elderly leads him to step into the intellectual octagon with a man nine days his senior: novelist and CNN host Jake Tapper. Jake’s new show, United States of Scandal, takes a darkly comedic look at some of America’s wildest political controversies, and Jonah’s eager to discuss all the sordid details while keeping the nudity as tasteful as possible. Is Washington full of conspiracies? How many chemicals were in Larry King’s hair? And do scandals even matter anymore in the age of Trump?

Show Notes:

– Jake’s new show, United States of Scandal

– Jake on the origins of the series

– Watch this episode on YouTube

By
Comments (46)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The best part was the bit at the end about the Kelce brothers marrying Taylor while vaccinating themselves and endorsing Joe Biden at the same time.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Patrick Aris

    Jake says it's been so long since there's been a sex scandal involving a female public official. Did he forget about Katie Hill? What about that VA congressional candidate, Susanna Gibson, who was livestreaming her bedroom escapades with her husband for tips online?

    Collapse
  3. Phillyex1

    Tapper gets away with too much right bashing when he’s on The Remnant. I don’t disagree with any of his criticisms of Trump or the other MAGA crazies, but let’s at least give the illusion of being fair and balanced. He wouldn’t dare mention all the Hamas boosters on his side of the aisle for example.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Michael McGuire

    Jake mentioning “The Wave” was awesome. I have mentioned this to so many people and no one has ever heard of it. It made a huge impression on me watching it in History class in 8th grade.

    Collapse
  5. Amanda D

    I enjoyed this podcast! I appreciated the positive rapport between two people who sit on opposite sides of “the fence”.

    Collapse
  6. Michael.Terrien

    One person's take on CNN. I do not watch Fox or MSNBC except on very rare occasions (e.g. I might scroll around on election night). I do not even know if I have Newsmax. I've literally never seen it. I don't watch a lot of cable news at all. But when I do want some live TV to get some news, it's CNN. I also visit its website, not obsessively, but probably weekly. So my opinion of CNN, where ever it comes from, doesn't come from nutpicked snippets. It comes from viewing the product, if intermittently.

    From what I can tell, it is deeply partisan. When I turn it on, I regularly wind up turning it off. Twenty minutes of "why we hate Trump today" gets tedious. And I don't like Trump any more than you do. The website often looks like the Hamas propaganda network, with a solid mix of "why we hate Trump today" thrown in for variety.

    I'm glad you're there. I'm sure CNN is better for having you. But IMHO the network has a very long way to go before it can be considered anything approaching a straight news product. The story selection marks it as a solidly left wing, partisan democrat, operation.

    Collapse
    1. Joseph Stevens

      I would agree. CBS morning headlines I catch dropping my daughter off in the morning seem to be much more straight news. My in-laws occasionally have CNN on in the background and yeah, they have a long way to go to even get to left of center. I will say their online site which I visit daily is probably more left wing than nbcnews.

      Collapse
  7. Dennis_a_garcia

    I am once again awed and humbled to learn that The Dispatch and Dispatch Media have been able to put aside their Hatfields and McCoys style rivalry in order to work together so that this podcast might reach us.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  8. Avatar photo
    Pgrossjr47

    Either stop bleeping out the 4-letter words or find a tone that doesn't startle the heck out of me.

    Collapse
  9. Heavymelon

    Jonah, you mentioned that the president can’t legally shut down the border—I assume because of asylum seekers—and I’d love to hear you, the dispatch pod, or AO explore that further. For what it’s worth, Andy McCarthy argues that “it is not true under existing federal law that an illegal alien who makes it onto U.S. soil has a right to be processed or seek asylum. As things stand, that is a wayward proposition, and there is no need for a new law to reform it.”

    Collapse
  10. Austin from Atlanta

    What was that weird thing at the end about “officer-involved shooting” being a BS term that doesn’t mean anything? My understanding is it literally means that an officer was involved in a situation where shots were fired. I am not aware of it being synonymous with “a cop killed somebody” as Tapper said. And for someone who clearly puts a great deal of thought into the media and how news is covered, “a cop killed somebody” does not feel like the ideal framing in its own right.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John

      Every time I've heard "officer-involved shooting," it means a cop shot someone.

      I suppose the term could apply to times when someone shot a cop, but I don't recall that happening. It looks like a euphemism.

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        It feels like confirmation bias to me. I found news articles that used the term to describe police officers firing weapons where no deaths occurred. At a certain point, we have to have language to communicate information with economy, yet simply saying "a cop shot..." reduces understanding rather than aids it. I suppose it could be called a euphemism, but only to the degree we include virtually any technical or specific language used instead of less clear language. We aren't talking about "right-sizing the company" here.

        Collapse
Load More