Sup you beautiful bastards hope you havin' a fantastic Thursday
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and let's just jump into it.
And the first bit of news we're gonna talk about today is an update around
convicted sex offender Brock Turner.
And for those don't remember the specifics, convicted sex offender Brock Turner was found guilty of:
sexual penetration of an unconscious person, sexual penetration of an
intoxicated person, and intent to commit rape.
And for his crimes, convicted sex offender Brock Turner faced up to 14 years in a state prison,
but ended up only being sentenced to six months and ended up only actually having to serve 3.
And where we last left this story, convicted sex offender Brock Turner was trying to appeal his conviction.
Convicted sex offender Brock Turner's lawyer arguing that because
when he was on top of this unconscious drunk girl because he had his clothes on he was pursuing "outercourse".
And so that meant he wasn't actually intending to commit rape. And if that sounds completely ludicrous to you, do not worry the three-judge panel
hearing this argument agreed.
Judge Franklin Elia writing in the unanimous opinion,
"The fact that the defendant was engaging in a different sexual act at the time the encounter was
interrupted (namely "dry humping") does not foreclose the inference that he intended, ultimately, to rape."
"Neither the evidence nor common sense supports defendant's
contention that 'dry humping' is mutually exclusive to actual intercourse."
Or to paraphrase, 'You stupid, your argument's stupid, you trash, appeal denied.'
And so ultimately it was a bad day for a convicted sex offender Brock Turner and thus a good day for most decent people.
And ultimately where I'm going to end this story is I just-I want to end this by sending out a
message; the first, I'd like to send a "go fuck yourself" to convicted sex offender Brock Turner,  you disgusting piece of trash,
I'd like also to say "go fuck yourself" to your disgusting father who described this sexual assault as "20 minutes of action", and a final
"go fuck yourself" to Judge Erin Persky who sentenced Brock Turner to 6 months
because he was worried about the severe impact it would have on this 20 year old boy. You're talking about someone that you,
you convicted of being a sex offender. You're trash. I'm glad you're recalled and I hope that your decision lives with you forever.
And that's where I'm going to end this one.
And very quickly, I had people ask me to chime in on this James Charles situation.
James Charles if you don't know is a massive creator on YouTube, gets 4 to 5 million views on average per video.
And this story ends up kind of actually being an update to something we had previously talked about.
And that's because YouTube's resident Sister tweeted,
"Just read an article about youtuber net worths and couldn't help but laugh at how low the estimates all were.
Traditional media stays ignorant to the fact that most of us run empires and have better
engagement than traditional media celebrities, but keep making those lists lol."
Also saying,
"If you think about it, what are the real differences between typical celebrities and big youtubers?
Both have talents, both have millions of people watching them both do endorsement deals
and can sell product, both get press, both get paid a lot. I'm curious to hear your input."
"Only major difference is the pay gap and respect.
Youtubers bring the same assets to the table (if not more because in most cases we're more easily accessible to our followers)
yet we're paid a fraction by advertisers and still not taken seriously by brands or media. It's frustrating."
So this seems to connect, I'm not sure if he's talking about the exact same article,
but this seems to connect to something we've talked about in the past which was the paid difference between
mainstream celebrities on Instagram and digital influencers.
The main point, following James's tweets,
he received some hate, one writing,
"You complaining about not getting enough respect and money is a joke."
Another writing,
"Yes, yes, yes, yes, people work two jobs and get barely enough to feed their family. He come in complaining about being underpaid?
I love James but it makes me mad."
Others taking specific aim at the talent part writing,
"Vlogging isn't a talent. Doing challenges isn't a talent. Doing pranks isn't a talent. Unboxing stuff isn't a talent, etc.
Not saying there aren't talented youtubers or non talented celebrities,
but there's a clear gap in what's considered interesting with the separate mediums."
But also, in addition to that there were fans that were supportive,
there were also other creators chiming in.
You have people like Mikey (Glam and Gore) and people like the Gabbie Show (Gabbie Hanna).
And as far as my personal takeaway here, I think the place where I agree with James Charles and this isn't surprising
I essentially said the same thing before I think the advertising world incredibly
Underestimates digital influencers versus mainstream celebrity,
despite the top digital influencers being comparable to the top mainstream celebrities.
I'm talking about in a digital world with digital deals,
if some digital influencer gets 5 million views on something
Versus a mainstream celebrity that gets 5 million views. Right the gap in pay there is silly
I saw some marketers after my last videos say 'well it's because the mainstream people they have a brand'.
And my personal response to that is it already is in some avenues and will become more and more of an outdated idea. Digital versus mainstream star?
I mean that's been blurring for years
The only thing that matters is the number of people seeing something engaging in something and sharing something.
Right, it's just the mindset of the numbers are the numbers.
But the place where I would distance myself with James Charles would probably be that note
of laughing at how low the estimates on where. Not every YouTube creator has the same business model.
Yes, I do know youtubers that are millionaires but I also know a range of youtubers that get anywhere from like a hundred or two hundred
thousand views for video to millions of views per video and they are not millionaires.
I mean some of these guys depending on the content or their business structure or lack of our kind of living paycheck-to-paycheck
So I guess personally I'm fine with mainstream media being somewhat ignorant to what people make because I feel like it would be far worse
if they were overestimating for a lot of creators. But with all of that said, I do want to pass the question off to you
What are your thoughts around this? Any and all thoughts you have on this topic, I'd love to hear?
But from that I want to share some stuff I loved today and Today in Awesome brought to you by betterhelp.com/DeFranco
And BetterHelp if you don't know is the fantastic service and app where you get affordable private online counseling.
Right from your computer, your tablet, your phone, you get access to licensed trained experienced accredited psychologists
and all you got to do to get started is just go to betterhelp.com/DeFranco.
You fill out a questionnaire, they match you with a counselor, and you can start counseling today.
And they're not just a sponsor for me, a company I work with, they are a service I use.
When it comes to therapy, I think a lot of people get a lot of different things. For me, it's-it's venting, expressing the unexpressed,
and also I feel like I've gained these tools that are helping me navigate my life, my personal relationships.
The main point if any of this sounds interesting you want to kind of check it out go to
betterhelp.com/DeFranco and check it out for yourself.
The first bit of awesome today is we got a six minute gameplay trailer for Red Dead Redemption Two
and oh October cannot come soon enough
I am so pumped for this game and it's not just because I'm hoping Rockstar Games follows me on Twitter and then maybe sends me
a copy of the game early. Eh?  Definitely not that.
Then if you're looking for some more news awesome, we posted a new episode of DeFranco Now over on youtube.com/PhillyD.
If you're not familiar with that show, it's one we're developing, we actually make it along with you.
On today's episode you get to meet one of the newer members of our team Maria.
So definitely check it out and what's best of all is other than you know the general conversation in the comments there
If you ever feel like there are things that aren't being discussed about individual topics,
you can always be a part of the show as well
Then we got a trailer for Slaughterhouse Rulez with Simon Pegg.
Then, and it's one of my guilty pleasures awesome, you got a new video for 2 Chainz Most Expensivest.
Then we have Laura Harrier and breaking down her favorite instagram follows.
We also had Nina Dobrev and Vanessa Hudgens answering the web's most searched questions.
We also had Michael Cera on Hot One's.
We also got Colin Jost and Michael Che taking a lie-detector test.
And if you want to see the full versions of everything I just shared,
the secret link of the day, anything at all, links as always are in the description down below.
And then let's talk about an update around the California wildfires we've been talking about the past week and a half.
Now as we've discussed, there are numerous fires in California right now the largest being the Mendocino
Complex Fire that has burned through over three hundred thousand acres.
But one of the last fires we talked about was the Holy Fire and now an arrest has been made in connection with that fire.
Police arresting 51 year old Forrest Gordon Clark and he's been charged with two counts of arson,
a count of threat to terrorize, and misdemeanor count of resisting arrest.
According to reports Clark has lived in the area for over a decade
Also a big thing of note is his house was reportedly the only house in his 14 house neighborhood that was not burned down.
Also according to Mike Milligan a volunteer fire chief, he received threatening emails from Clark last week.
And in there, he says that "the community would burn". Also saying Clark ran through the community last week screaming
There's also a video of Clark from  before he was arrested and it definitely seems like he's off
And that's on top of another video where you see him ranting about MS 13 to an independent journalist
I've been terrorized by MS 13 and 30th Street. Okay, they told me that they're send
Eight Mexicans big Mexicans and they were gonna kill me.
I need to get on a TV so if I die at least you know who did it.
And as far as what happens next for Clark, well one, he's being held on 1 million dollar bail and two
It is very likely that we're talking about a life in prison situation.
And Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer spoke on this note saying,
"Every single arsonist who has been prosecuted in the state of California, for the most part, has several screws loose."
"We have gained convictions in this state, we have gotten life in prison even with individuals who have mental issues,
it doesn't mean that they don't understand what they are doing, it just means they're not necessarily stable."
And in addition to this story there's also some controversy around these fires now.
And a lot of it has to do with this tweet from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that tweeted,
"Today, more than 2000 volunteer inmate firefighters, including 58 youth offenders, are battling wildfire flames throughout California.
Inmate firefighters serve a vital role, clearing thick brush down to bare soil to stop the fires spread.
And in response to this there were a lot of people outraged, surprised. They didn't know that this was a thing.
It turns out California inmates fighting fires goes back to the forties.
And essentially the way it works is that it is voluntary and not open to everyone.
According to reports,
"It comprises only inmates who earn a minimum custody status through good behavior behind bars and
excludes arsonists, kidnappers, sex offenders, gang affiliates, and those serving life sentences."
Adding,
To join the squad, inmates must meet high physical standards and complete a demanding course of trained."
And reportedly, their pay for fighting the fires is $1 an hour plus $2 a day.
And according to some of the reports the inmates say part of the reason they do this is
just the ability to get out of the prison as well as better treatment.
So that's why you have a lot of critics saying well, is it really voluntary?
You have these people locked up, now you're giving them an opportunity to get out and some money and better treatment.
But then the debate here also bleeds into the involuntarily labor.
Hundreds of thousands of prisoners in this country have daily jobs for which they get paid on average twenty cents an hour.
And it's a very heavily debated topic.
You have some people saying 'well, of course prison labor, you know you messed up,
you're doing your time there, you need to contribute in some way'.
But at the same time, you people saying it's the equivalent of slave labor.
If you watched Thor: Ragnarok, you might even remember they kind of joke about it.
She says 'slaves',  the Grandmaster says 'Eh I don't like that word. She's like, 'oh, I mean the prisoners with jobs'.
So in general there is a debate an issue there but back to the firefighters.
There's also been extra backlash around this specific issue because all of these prisoners who are helping fight the fire
once they get out it is incredibly unlikely that they will become a firefighter.
And this is often due to what people have referred to as complicated occupational licensing laws.
This is because, and we'll stick to just the firefighters here, to become the firefighter most departments require you have an EMT license.
But according to reports EMT certifying boards often reject
applications from someone with a criminal history.
And so actually on this note, I want to pass a question off to you.
Well, actually a few. One, what do you think about these inmates who are fighting the fire?
Do you think it's good or it's great, or no, do you find it incredibly wrong or troubling?
And to what do you think about the, I would refer to it as, the limiting of potential for people who have been convicted of crimes.
Whether it be issues like the licensing issue we talked about here or even just a person's ability to vote being taken away.
Do you feel like that makes sense or do you feel like it just makes it
More likely for that person to end up in jail or at the very least fail.
And I love knowing your thoughts on this one.
And then let's talk about an interesting update around the special counsel, Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump
And the reason we have something to talk about here is because Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said some interesting things in the past day.
The first of which is that he did an interview with Sean Hannity and he said that the investigation
should be over by September adding that the investigation "... isn't going to fizzle. It's going to blow up on them."
And then reportedly separately Giuliani spoke to Axios and said, and I'll just read this,
"That there are two topics the president's lawyers want to rule out in order to agree to
a Trump sit down with Mueller. One, why Trump fired FBI director James Comey and two, what Trump said to Comey about the
investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn."
And I've gotta say, that seems kind of odd and telling.
It feels a little bit in the lane of 'Okay, I agree to do this sit-down interview as long as:
One, there are no questions about my missing wife and two, no questions about why in the
36 hour window where she may have disappeared, I got only the trunk of my car deep cleaned'.
It feels like just even that request is even more reason why we should ask those questions.
In the case of President Trump,
it's very interesting why you would say we cannot talk about these specific things that also happen to possibly connect you to obstruction of justice
And I mentioned this because I think it is then we realize how unreasonable and ridiculous what he is putting out there is.
One, unless President Trump or House Republicans do something, this investigation will not be over in September.
And so that part to me feels very much like Giuliani is putting this line in the sand
so the moment that they go over 'Oh, this is ridiculous, it's a failure, and this is ridiculous'
And also because it's incredibly unlikely that Muller would agree to not ask questions around those two things,
they can go 'Oh, we tried to meet them, but they're being unreasonable to our reasonable request.
And here's a question,
why would Giuliani say now that Donald Trump cannot answer these questions when just a week ago
he was saying they don't have a goddamn thing.
His quote. He said , "It's like a guy playing poker. He's bluffing and he's only got a pair of twos."
It's kind of interesting;
it's almost as if everything Giuliani is doing is a theatrical PR piece
And then let's talk about this craziness around Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media.
And Sinclair, if you don't know owns a huge number of local TV stations in the United States,
and recently more people have also become aware of Sinclair because of those compilation videos that went viral,
all those local news stations and anchors presenting certain topics with prepared scripts
"And this is extremely dangerous to our Democracy."
And Tribune Media, like Sinclair, also owns a significant amount of regional TV stations.
And so it was massive news when there was a planned merger between the two companies
But as of today Tribune media has not only pulled out of the deal,
they are now reportedly planning on suing Sinclair for breach of contract.
And this is horrible news for Sinclair not only because, well, being sued's not a great thing,
but also because if this merger had gone through, Sinclair would have been one of the largest Conservative broadcast groups. I'm talking even rivaling Fox News.
So what happened?
How did a three point nine billion dollar deal that would have given Sinclair access to 7 out of 10 American household. How did that fail?
I mean most Americans weren't even aware that this was even a thing until July 24.
And that's because on that day President Trump tweeted,
"So sad and unfair that the FCC wouldn't approve the Sinclair Broadcast merger with Tribune.
This would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the people.
Liberal Fake News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not Sinclair. Disgraceful!
But a big important note here is at that time when Trump sent that tweet, the FCC had not denied the merger yet
and they never actually ended up officially doing so. It only officially fell apart today because of Tribune Media.
And the other weird thing is that appears Trump is implying the FCC has a liberal bias because
roughly a decade ago it approved a merger between NBC and Comcast.
But he's talking about the FCC, which is currently head by Ajit Pai, who was appointed by Trump.
I mean, Pai is the guy who got rid of net neutrality.
He has a proven track record of loosening regulations.
He's also removed rules that actually would have hurt this merger.
And actually a great example is that, during the Obama administration,
a rule was put in place that a broadcast company could only reach 39% of the TV audience.
Now Pai kept that rule, but he reintroduced an old loophole, the UHF Discount.
In this quote unquote discount allowed some TV stations to deduct half of their audience.
All they had to do was broadcast on the UHF standard, which emits a weaker signal.
So when it's that guy who potentially has an issue or as he said July 16th,
"... had serious concerns about a merger"
That's a huge red flag
And so at that time Pai asked the FCC's four commissioners to give it to review of the merger to an administrative law judge to determine
the legality of Sinclair's proposal.
And on July 19th, the draft order was released that agreed with Pai's concerns and
called into question whether Sinclair was being transparent enough in how is represented its planned merger to regulators.
And also questioned whether the merger would be in the public's interest.
The FCC's report stating,
"The record raises significant questions as to whether those proposed divestitures
were in fact sham transactions."
And so here is where it gets really interesting
What are they talking about with sham transactions?
Well, for context, in deals like this, the government has an active role in making sure a company doesn't become too
powerful and control too much of the market
And an example here is right now there is a planned merger between Disney and Fox.
And in order to make the deal more likely to happen, Fox is splitting up its corporation.
So Fox News and 28 regional Fox stations won't be joining Disney.
And what we saw with Sinclair's proposal is that, after the merger, they would sell off 23 stations that they owned,
hoping it would satisfy regulators.
But what Ajit Pai was concerned about and what the regulators and the administrative judge found
was that the planned sell-off of the stations was a farce. It was a sham.
They found that a significant number of the 23 stations would still effectively fall under Sinclair control.
For example, Sinclair planned to sell their Chicago station to Stephen Fader
who also runs a company controlled by Sinclair executive chairman, David D Smith,
meaning Smith would still have a leadership position at both companies.
And that isn't even the only example of the Smith family retaining control of a would be former Sinclair station.
You had two stations in Texas also being sold to the same family.
And on top of that, reportedly, they were also planning on selling off these stations at.
far below the expected market price for a station in markets of that size
Then we go back to that Chicago station. Reportedly, they were gonna sell that at $60 million.
Well for comparison's sake, Fox bought a Chicago station in 2012 for $425 million.
And those two stations in Dallas and Houston, they would be sold off for 60 million as well.
And so all of that brings us back to today where because of all of this Tribune media has now backed out of the deal and
now, in an official press release they stated,
"In the merger agreement, Sinclair committed to use it's reasonable best efforts to obtain regulatory approval as promptly as possible."
Adding,
"Instead, in an effort to maintain control over stations it was obligated to sell,
Sinclair engaged in unnecessarily aggressive and protracted negotiations with
the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission over regulatory requirements,
refused to sell stations in the markets as required to obtain, approval and proposed aggressive divestment structures and related party sales that were either
rejected outright or posed a high risk of rejection and delay-all in derogation of Sinclair's contractual obligation."
And they are reportedly suing Sinclair for over 1 billion dollars.
And they're claiming those are the costs that Tribune incurred while they were trying to make this merger happen.
But ultimately that is where we are with a story right now and it'll be very interesting to see what
Sinclair Broadcast Group does from here, what happens with the lawsuit?
I also just wanted to talk about this story because I do find it genuinely interesting
and also I feel like there are a lot of us simplified misrepresentations of the situation and I thought it was important people
Hopefully understand what actually was happening here.
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
And of course remember, this is the Philip DeFranco show. This is also supposed to be a conversation
So whether it be the last story, the first story, anything in between that stuck out to you
I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
And remember if you liked this video, hit that like button; if you disliked it
I don't care, hit the dislike button. You spent the time watching this video.
Engagement's engagement. You're not doing what you think you're doing
Also, if you're new here, it's that subscribe button.
But that said of course, as always, my name is Philip DeFranco,
you've just been Phil'd in. I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.
