Hi, i am here with Sandy Rodriguez. She is a former editor for Mexican newspaper Reforma, one of the most influential publications in Latin America. In this capacity, she interviewed numerous leaders and A-List celebrities, covered international fashion weeks and Hollywood press junkets, and took part in a prestigious fellowship program for international journalists sponsored by LG and Seoul National University in South Korea.

JOIN NOW!! AND BE PART OF MASTERMIND PROGRAM

learn how to activate yourself for a better future!

https://createanewtomorrow.com/master...

CHECK THIS LINK FOR A FREE GIFT FOR YOU!

https://www.createanewtomorrow.com/gift

DO YOU WANT TO BE OUR NEXT SPECIAL GUEST?

Book an appointment now and let's create a new world together!

https://booking.builderall.com/calend...

CHECK THIS OTHER WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION!

https://www.CreateAnewtomorrow.com

https://www.Achievehealthusa.com

Create a fundamental change in the global community from a strictly reactive system of medicine that focuses on symptom and emergency treatment to a proactive system based on whole-being health as well as illness and injury prevention. Personally teach and influence at least one million people.

We are a multifaceted Health and Wellness company that specializes in Corporate Wellness and Culture Consulting, Industry Speaking engagements and Continuing education for the industry.

We Help corporations by solving the most costly problems they have with Productivity and Health Care while creating a culture that thrives on accomplishment and community.

We help organizations think outside of the box and gain tools that allow them to be nimble and strong as tides and markets shift.

We Up level the skills and tools of other practitioners by providing them continuing education that actually leads to greater success and standing in the business community.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

0:00  

Has it occurred to you that the systems we live by are not designed to get results? We pay for procedures instead of outcomes, focusing on emergencies rather than preventing disease and living a healthy lifestyle. For over 25 years, I've taken care of Olympians Paralympians a list actors in fortune 1000 companies decide not get results, they did not get results. I realized that while powerful people who control the system want to keep the status quo, if I were to educate the masses, you would demand change. So I'm taking the gloves off and going after the systems as they are joining me on my mission to create a new tomorrow as I chat with industry experts, elite athletes, thought leaders and government officials about how we activate our vision for a better world. We may agree, and we may disagree, but I'm not backing down. I'm Ari, Gronich, and this is create a new tomorrow podcast.

Welcome back to another episode of create a new tomorrow. I'm your host, Ari Gronich. Remember to like subscribe, rate review comment on the end of this show, just so that we can start the conversation and get it going. All right. We've got with us today, Sandy Rodriguez. Sandy has been a translator. She's been a journalist for different both US and Mexico publications. She's lifestyle website and cinco multimedia company heart of Hollywood motion pictures. So she's done a lot in the industry. I'm going to let her kind of give you a little bit of her background and why she became who she is.

1:47  

Thank you so much, Ari, it's wonderful to be joining you today. I love your show. Well, after that beautiful introduction. Let me tell you, yes, you're right that I have been doing many different things. For a very long time. I was involved very directly in journalism. I was one of the editorial coordinators for one of the foremost newspapers in Latin America. That was a newspaper called reformer, which has been around for decades, and it's very, very successful. And that was something that I was very passionate about journalism and my career specifically, I can't say enough good things about about the time that I spent at reforma. But eventually, after about a decade and a half a little bit more than that, I had a personal non professional reasons to decide to move to Los Angeles. So I had to move from Mexico City to Los Angeles, which made sense on a personal level for specific reasons that I will later expound upon. But professionally speaking, it might not have been the wisest of choices, because I was walking away from a successful career at the very height of my career, and moving to a new town, where I knew very few people. And more to the point I This was at a particular point in history, where, you know, the blogosphere, if we can call it that it was booming, and a lot of people were creating free content. Now, of course, you cannot say that there was a quality standard across the board. But some people were coming out with extraordinary content, very high quality content for free. So that would certainly did not motivate new employers to say, Hey, welcome, new person to the fold. Welcome. We have plenty of money for you. No, of course not. People were doing that more for fun or to voice opinions at the time. So there really was, it was a little bit challenging finding projects to collaborate on. I did find several, several interesting projects, several interesting companies and people to work with. But this was mostly, let's say, for fun because it was not one called gainful employment, I was happy to do so. But I did need to find something else, which is when I felt a totally new venue, which as you mentioned, had to do with translations. I translated a number of books, maybe 10s of books, all kinds of business books, self improvement, medical novels, a number of books of different of different kinds, all of them bestsellers from major publishing houses. And I also eventually fell into a totally new career. That was chord interpreting. And to be honest story, I adore it. It was a wonderful fight. And as you said, I'm doing a lot of things, but most of them have something in common, which is language communication. They all center around That, that that specific field. And I consider myself a bilingual communications expert because of that, I'm very well versed in different forms of communication. And I just love to connect with people such as yourself.

5:14  

That's, that's pretty awesome. So we kind of talked a little bit before the show. And one of the questions that I wanted to talk to you about is translating different languages, in my eyes is a completely different mindset. Yet, you know, you get into the culture and the mindset of the language that you're learning or the language that you're translating. So how does that work for you? Because obviously, your main other language is Spanish. And so, you know, to me, there's a very distinct culture in the Spanish language and as well as a culture at whole. So how does the language influence the mindset and the culture?

6:02  

I think it's very interesting. I think that that can be answered in two different ways. Sorry. For example, if you are, say, a bilingual or trilingual individual, or you personally know a number of languages, it might be that you learn one at a specific point in your life and the other one at a different point in your life. So your personality can actually vary, depending on the language you're using. Let me give you an example. Let's say that, as a teenager, you exclusively spoke German. Okay. And then you started learning, say English as an accomplished adult. I believe that when you personally spoke German, your whole attitude might be more useful, and more playful and more teenage like, than when speaking in English for a number of reasons, not only because it would remind you of a particular point in your life, but also, because of the fact that he would have the vocabulary that is in line with that type of stage in life. I actually know a person once. And this is quite fascinating. That had two distinct personalities. It was so strange. When you heard this person speaking Spanish. This was a woman that was originally I believe, from California. So when she was speaking Spanish, which was her second language, she was very polite, very proper, a sweetheart. And when speaking English, I would say that she was quite the opposite. Now, I think that that might have been, because her Spanish was still not entirely fluent. So normally, when you're learning a language, your teachers will teach you the most polite phrases. How do you do good morning to you, sir, etc. So normally, that is what you would learn. And maybe that is not aligned with your personality at all. So definitely, that would be something that would be within one individual. So that would be one way to answer the question. Now, on a more general level, on a more culture wide level, it's also quite interesting, because, of course, I don't know, an extreme amount of languages. But it is true that some languages have more of, let's say, a feel, or the possibility the linguistic possibilities to discuss you as an individual or USA as part of a collective whole. So the words and the language that is spoken, might be slightly different, there might not be direct translations for something very specific, because some languages might be more focused on the individual than others. Specifically, I'm to show you a distinction that has to do with cultural differences from Spanish to English. In English, a construction similar to

9:02  

let's say, things were set up, things happened, people arrived, that kind of construction is relatively common, that is not a natural construct in Spanish. Normally, in Spanish, it's a little bit more descriptive, so that let's say you cannot be as vague or ambiguous in many cases as you might like to be without sounding very unnatural. That would be an example. But beyond the words themselves, I think that the way language sounds is also quite fascinating are because, as I was mentioning, I currently work as a court interpreter in the court system. And something that I feel should be addressed is the fact that some languages sound very sweet and very charming really, and some their natural sound, at least to our Western ears, or our English speaking ears sound very good. Reading are violent or rough, or, in some ways even menacing, when that's not the intention at all. So I think that it could happen that, let's say, if you're on a jury, and somebody a witness, for instance, is speaking a language that sounds like that, that sounds violent, maybe you might assume, oh, this person is clearly a super aggressive individual. And that might not be the case at all. He might be saying something super sweet, like, I was not there that they are, you know, something that is in no way menacing. But it might be perceived as something a little bit more violent. I actually had a similar experience. Not in recent years, some languages, for instance, certain Eastern European languages, and certainly German and some languages of that nature from those parts of the world. Sounds a little bit aggressive to us, both English speakers and Spanish speakers, and certainly people that might speak Italian or French, or some of the sweeter sounding, Latin, derived languages. So um, I met this man, a neighbor, and I thought, Oh, my goodness, he must be in a bad mood, because he was speaking in what I perceive to be tremendously aggressive. He was speaking English, yes. But in a way that was, to me, rather Curt. But then I learned I heard him speak his native tongue. And I thought, No, it's just that he has an accent and his natural tone. Sounds very, you know, like he's cutting you off. Like he's being a little bit aggressive. That's the thing. He's not being mean, he's not being rude. It's just the way his accent sounds. So that's something very important to keep in mind. And it works. The other way around. somebody with a sweeter sounding natural accent, might be saying the most horrifying of things. And you wouldn't really get that, right. It's just a situation where the sound is very different.

12:04  

Absolutely. You know, it's funny to me, because I look at things like the Bible, and the Torah, and the translation, the things that get lost in translation between old Aramaic, and then Hebrew, and then Latin. And then English, let's say that that's the the only few languages that you know came in between. And then I think of things like the game telephone, that we used to play, we were a kid where you whisper in somebody's ear a phrase, and it goes around the room, and then you find out what it has become, when when you get to the, you know, the other side, and what gets lost in translation. It's not just the words that get lost, it's the tone and the emphasis of word. And the place where you would put a comma, you know, in languages where there may not be a comma or a separation of, of those words, right, or, like in Hebrew, there's no vowels and Aramaic, there's no vowels. And so you have to interpret what the word is, and the sound and the Val and you know, before you can get it. So what gets lost in translation between cultures is really prevalent right now, in our society. We don't we have many different cultures that do not speak the same language, even within the English language. And I think that if if we began to try to translate the languages and understand what's actually being said, we may have a different interpretation of the culture that it came from. Do you find that that might be the case as well?

13:59  

I think you're completely right. I think that's completely accurate. In many cases, the issue lies in the fact that there are no words to say what needs to be said. For instance, in English, you might say, I saw somebody screaming and shouting and yelling, okay, in Spanish, there's just one word to describe all three things. So if you were to write a paragraph, that included all of those three things, your Spanish translator might be at a loss, because they simply could not, you know, maybe use all three words in a sentence for emphasis. It would be very difficult for a Spanish interpreter to work around that, for instance, and I've had the experience, you're mentioning the Bible specifically. But I've had the experience of translating many books of many different styles. All of them have been bestsellers for one specific reason. So recently, publishing houses only request translations of best selling material. That's the only thing because of financial constraints, that's the only way that it can be done. So it's very, it's a very high level of responsibility for a translator, they need to do a very good job because this is a book that is known to be a bestseller. And it will, it must become a bestseller in the language you're translating it into. But it becomes difficult in this sense, there, it's not so much a language thing, but more of a tradition of writing or a writing style that is used in different cultures. In general, I would say that writing in English be a business correspondence, a book, or even something as as extremely detailed as the Bible, I would say that overall, it's a very straightforward language, if that's the way that it that it's used, it's it's the writing tradition, that's the way it's simply it's done. Whereas in Spanish, things tend to be very roundabout. That is especially true in business correspondence, but it's also very true in literature. So if somebody were to do an exact translation of a document, or contract a book, from Spanish to English, it might appear to be that it's poorly done. If you were to go like literal, if you were to do this very literally, because the the English reader would say, well, that does not sound natural. Certainly that must be wrong, this person was not very experienced. So that is what would happen if you were to translate precisely what is being said. That is also why when interpreting we are trained to translate not so much word by word, because that would tend to happen, it would sound very choppy and strange, but rather to go by ideas or by meanings, so it might be, let's say, a saying such as I'm thinking, the early bird catches the worm or something of that nature, that is not the way you would say to Spanish, it would sound very strange, and the other way around as well. So you will find an equivalent saying something that has the same meaning. And use that instead. Because if you purify to go word by word, it becomes very complicated. And specifically what you were mentioning, in the case of, of the Bible cow, it can become like a game of telephone. Well, in the case of the Bible, certainly because there are many translations. But even if we were to go on a smaller scale, let's say that you gave me something to translate to Spanish and I did that. But then you told me, Hey, you know, I want you to do it, to give it back to me in English again, because now I want it back in English, and I had lost your original copy. Okay, I would have to do it again from scratch. And it might not be identical to your first your original text, because of the simple reason that there are so many ways to express the same thing synonyms, that it might not be identical, it would be the same meaning, but the specific words might be different. And in a case, as important as the Bible, that causes problems because the Bible much like say, a contract has I mean, every individual word is scrutinized. And people might assign a very specific meaning to the choice of words. So even something as minor as a comma as minor as a semi column as minor as a preposition might actually change the meaning dramatically. And that's why our translation involves a huge degree of responsibility. Certainly,

18:36  

yeah. You know, it's funny that the reason I always bring up the Bible when it comes to translations is just a minor one. But there's, you know, that saying about Jesus having walked on the water, well, that that word on wasn't in the language it was, I so didn't walk on the water walked by the water. And if you I mean, just those two words alone, change the meaning so drastically, of what's being said. And so therefore, the misinterpretation that gets misinterpreted over and over and over again, throughout, you know, history and telling stories, becomes something so much larger than maybe it was, and, you know, I look at how does that conflate up and then how can I relate that to current society of oven which language has become so interestingly separative You know, there was there's there's each borough, for instance of New York City has a different accent. I guess the tell if somebody was from the Bronx from the Queen from Queens from Brooklyn from Manhattan, I can tell just by their accent, where they were from, and then you go, let's say to the south in Tennessee versus Louisiana versus Texas, very, you know, different, or Atlanta, very different accents, very different wording, and inflections and so on, and how much misinterpretation of things get said, right? And then how is it that we are separate as a society so much and so divided and divisive? And would it behoove us to shift so that we all have kind of one language? Or is it better to really understand the language that the person is speaking? You know, what, where? Where do we find that balance so that we can kind of come together as a society. And I'll just take it one last step further, because I know you've done medical books. So I believe that alternative healthcare and Western healthcare have a language issue. They don't speak the same language, because they weren't trained in the same things. And so the language that one speaks is completely different. And if we learn to speak to the language of the person that we're trying to influence, we'll get better outcomes, because we'll have more understanding. So I'm going to leave it there. But that's just kind of like the process in my mind of one of the issues that maybe has a solution, so that we can bring ourselves back together versus divided. So separately.

21:44  

I think that that's a very interesting point that you're touching upon about how language can cause a rift. And I agree that that's something that that should be addressed. I also think that even within one same language, people can have many different interpretations of one specific sentence, I remember reading about a situation in which an armed officer heard somebody tell an armed person, give it to him. Now that the officer assumed that the person that was being told to give it to him was also armed. In reality, that other person didn't have a gun, they had a wallet. And when their friend said, Give it to him, the officer assumed that that the person had a gun and give it to him meant shoot the police officer. So obviously, the officer had that understanding. When in reality, the friend was saying, Give it to him, like give the man your wallet, show him it's a wallet. So it was one same sentence that can be interpreted, like give it to them, like kill him, or give it to him had him your wallet, that is one same sentence that can be interpreted or taken in two different ways. I've, I've had that happen in, in court situations, for instance, in domestic violence situations in Spanish, one same sentence might mean, he broke up with me, or he Well, he said he was going to break up with me, or he said he was going to finish me off, which as you can see, has a tremendously different connotation. So yes, certainly, it's very important to go a little bit beyond even if you say, I heard this with my very own ears, you need to understand that you might not be understanding what the person meant. We need to give people the benefit of the doubt, I think, certainly I'm discussing situations where you may or might not have time to give people the benefit of the doubt. But let's say in everyday circumstances, it's very important to, to take things, break them down a little, maybe we hear something or we feel that we are being told something that might be insulting or disparaging or something that we might not want to hear. But that might not be what the person meant at all. And it can certainly cause tremendous risks. It's quite interesting that sometimes you were talking about how, how many divisions can be formed, especially now that that people have very extreme opinions about things. I had this experience to people might listen to one specific political speech or one specific speech from say, a businessman. And everybody hears what they want to hear. They might kind of pick up on the one sentence that confirms their bias confirms whatever they want it to think about that person and completely ignore the rest. As somebody that is very moderate because I believe myself to be Very interesting people on on both extremes might hear one very same thing and have totally different takeaways. So that's also an important thing to consider that even if we say, I heard something, I heard it myself, yes. But you might hear it in a way that is very specific, based on your previous perceptions on your previous beliefs on your previous biases. And it's quite interesting. It really is interesting. I don't know if you've ever had an experience where you were you were part of a conversation. And later when discussing that conversation with other people that were also there, it seems to be that everybody came out with a different understanding.

25:43  

That Absolutely, I mean, that happens all the time. Every You know, every time just like if you get in a car accident, you have 15 witnesses, you have 15 completely different stories of what what they saw happen. And so here's here becomes a question. The soundbite culture is all about taking things out of context. Because if you're only playing the soundbite, and not what surrounded it, you are taking it out of context. And then as journalism has progressed, unfortunately, the way it has the commentators who are supposed to be the journalists, which report what happens, and having their own bias that they start commentating on this soundbite that they've taken out of context, and therefore, the people who listen to those journalists are only getting a soundbite taken out of context and an opinion based on a pre disposed bias, regardless of sides. It's either way. And so the question becomes like, how do we? How do we solve this as as a society because to me, journalism, used to be report the facts, once the facts are reported. A commentator might have an opinion about what happened, but they're gonna say, this is what happened. And then now, here's my opinion of what happened. Versus here is a little piece out of context of what somebody said, you know, so how do we solve this so that we can get back to believing in our media, believing that the things that are being said, are not agenda driven? are not anything other than here's what happened?

27:48  

That's a fascinating question. And I think you're absolutely right, in that sound bites are definitely what is being used most these days. I think that there is a reason for that. And that is that we have shorter attention spans, there's that. And also, there are just so many media outlets out there that they need to grab your attention. And a sound bite is basically the, let's say, equivalent to clickbait. The moment you hear something short, you might say, Oh, that's interesting. Let's have a look at what's going on with that. So it does grab your attention. There's a reason for that. And not only to create, you know, conflict, if there's a there's an actual reason you want to drive traffic to your site, to your channel, to your newscast to your media outlet, whichever it may be. So journalists, and many people these days do focus on sound bites, clickbait, and anything that might sound shocking enough to grab eyeballs grab attention. Certainly that's that's something that is done. Now, certainly, as a society, or as a person that consumes information, be it online or by any other means. We need to be a little bit less naive and understand what the purpose of the sound bites is. And the purpose is the same thing as with clickbait, it's to cause us to focus and say, oh, and pay attention to just just grab our attention. That's your main focus. Certainly, sometimes they are, like you said, very agenda driven. If a specific news outlet has something in mind, they can certainly cherry pick specific parts of a political speech or a speech given by any individual to advance their agenda and say, See, I told you so he said this, she said this. They say that, certainly, yes. But we need to be, as consumers a little bit aware of what's going on that so that we are not easily swayed, or, I mean, certainly, it's fun to say, Oh, you know what that person said? I mean, it's fun. It's interesting. It's attention grabbing, but we need to understand that there is an agenda behind that. And the agenda might either be to promote a specific person or a special tipping policy, or have that person canceled or make them become disliked. Or the agenda might be something as as innocent as simply driving more traffic to a specific website or news outlet. But in any case, as a consumer, we need to know that there is a purpose, much like what happens when we see commercials. They're fun, they're entertaining, some are very beautifully produced, they might have very cool music. But we know i mean that we take them at face value. I don't think that anybody says, Oh, I know that this product that I saw on TV must be fantastic. Because I saw it on a commercial. No, I mean, I think we're mature enough to understand there's there are interests in place. So we need to understand that a sound bite is a sound bite, it's something taken entirely out of context. Now, views are thing now how can we go back to the days of yore? Okay. Here's the thing, I do agree that in the past, long form articles were more the norm than they are now more recording on fax was done, then then it's done. Now. However, I do think that, at least in as far as I can remember, and I'm sure that this was the case even before. There's a journalistic saying, which is if it bleeds, it leads, which basically means things that are shocking things that are bad things that are negative, we want those are human interest story might be fun and fine. And occasionally, you know, a sprinkling of that is certainly something everybody wants heartwarming, you know, over the holidays, of course, but let's say on a normal day to day basis, what used to make front pages was always a terrible news, the terrible the violent, the bloody beheadings, killings, a terrorist. So that is also not entirely not to say that it didn't happen, because surely it did, especially effects are being reported. And there are witnesses supporting this. And there, there's no denying that these are facts, but it does give you a slightly skewed perception of reality. Because there are many things going on at any given time that are just not reported on that's one thing. For for many reasons, I cannot think that it's similar. Because if you just walk past a newsstand, like we used to do in the past, and the front page, that's something like a fireman rescues kitty out of a tree. Sure, it's interesting, but it might not be front page news. Whereas if it's something horrible, like killing mass murder, that tends to attract attention a little bit more. So we also need to be conscious of that as media consumers, even if we do enjoy the longer form reporting more, knowing that it might skew toward the negative. But that's not not the whole picture. Definitely.

32:50  

Gotcha. So one of the things that I heard you say is that the attention span has gone down so much. And this has been something that I've heard repeated over and over and over and over and over again. And my question is, is it the attention span? Or is it the expectation because I know, I watched my kids, and they'll get on to YouTube and watch hours of training and a thing that they're interested in, whether it's, you know, finances or politics, I mean, they'll they'll consume a mass amount of information. And they seem to have extremely long attention spans. And so I hear us say, well, the attention span has dropped in seven seconds. Now, the attention span is so we're almost lower than a goldfish. I mean, we have no attention. Is this just an expectation that they're trying to feed us because I've never experienced having a seven second attention span, I, you know, my attention span is however long I'm interested in a subject, if I'm interested in something, I can look at it for hours, and hours and hours and hours, and time disappears completely. And if I'm not interested, I probably am going to be off subject, you know, pretty quickly. But typically, it's not seven seconds. And so I think that that might be something the media is feeding me instead of something that's actually real. So can we address that a little bit because you repeated it. So obviously, it's something you've heard of but I disagree completely. I think that they're pandering,

34:46  

I think have a very valid point, airy, and I think that both things can be simultaneously true in the sense, I think what is meant or at least the way I perceive it or the way I mean, it is In the sense that when making a selection, the attention span is indeed, at least in my experience very limited, because there are almost unlimited options. And you only have limited time. For example, let's say that I want to take a course in, I want to take a guitar tutorial, let's say online. Okay, certainly once I find the tutorial that I like, I can certainly focus on that for a good long time, hours at a time days at a time, I'll be in the flow, I will love it. Time will just pass by that that is very true. However, I might be bombarded with 50 different tutorials, and then I'll start getting emails saying I have a better tutorial, and then I'll start getting flyers in the mail. And it'll be like, Okay, let me see. Okay. Does this instructor look talented enough? No. Okay, does this one look like they might capture my attention? No. So just making the decision is where it has to be like in a split second, almost, maybe, um, maybe that's just my experience. I agree that when you do like something, and when you find something that you like, you will focus, but let me give you an example. I like reading both physical books and electronics. What I often do is that I download samples of what can I say maybe 30 books at a time, because I'm interested in many topics. But to be honest, sorry, I open one. And if my attention is not captured by paragraph two, or three, it's by the next one by eventually I find one that I like that I purchased that one. And of course, I will delve into that I will spend an entire afternoon. And I will be delighted. But I think that I really don't have a lot of time, or I'm not giving them a chance. Beyond seconds. To be honest. Once I find something that I like, I might even become very loyal and follow the author or follow the Twitter or follow whoever I decided on online, and I might subscribe to their newsletter. But just the decision making, I do think it's almost like a split second thing.

37:01  

Right? So that sounds to me, like discernment versus attention span. And you're discerning, am I interested in what I'm just reading? Or what I'm just hearing? Or am I not interested in it at all. It's not something that strikes a fancy. That to me is discernment versus attention span. And like I said, I think that I think the media perpetuates that myth as a pandering and an excuse, to be able to show a soundbite out of context and say, This is what it means. And oh, by the way, you know, you don't have an attention span to even follow it. So I'm going to go on to the next soundbite. And then I'll tell you what it means because you won't have a You Won't you, you audience won't have the attention span. Because we collectively don't anymore to actually listen to this soundbite and then research what it was actually what was actually around it, and find out what it is. So I'm going to do your work for you. And what I you know, it's funny what I tell my son when he wants to, he's seven years old when he wants to go on and, you know, watch YouTube and do all these things. I tell them, you're borrowing your imagination from somebody else. And in the case of the media, you're borrowing your knowledge from somebody else, and then claiming it as your own because it It fits your belief system, versus actually knowing if that information is correct or not correct. If it's in context, out of context, what it really meant, what the person was really trying to say, what that policy really is, you know, I think it's a way of us basically abdicating our responsibility, our civic responsibility to learn and know things and just regurgitate the the things that the nearest person who believes in what we believe in is saying, and, and then the news and the media say, Oh, well, we can use this, to push our agenda on the people who believe in what we're believing in, and we'll tell them what they want to hear what they you know, the pieces of what we heard, that we know will trigger them the most. And to me, that's not really journalism. And so that's kind of where I want to pick up on this is that's not journalism. To me. That's opinion and there used to be an opinion column in the newspapers. I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be that was the purpose of the opinion column. There was the news and then there was the opinion. And and I find that that all news is Pretty much non factual opinion nowadays.

40:04  

I think you make very, very valid points. I have completely agree with many of the things that you're saying. I have seen certainly opinion columns recently. But you know, you're right in that they blur in with normal column C stay, because because you're absolutely right, most of the, let's say, reporting, those indeed include commentary, personal opinions, or at least it attempts to sway in one way or another. I hadn't thought about it like that. But I think you're absolutely accurate. I also think, are that what you're saying about these things, getting a little bit mixed up, and not having a clear distinction between facts and opinions, has even gone a step further, because in the past, let's say you had your news, and you also had your entertainment news or your celebrity news. Now, these days, entertainment news is the new celebrity news is the news, they are very much intertwined. So it's important to also remember that in many cases, what we might call news these days has not only the or not necessarily the objective, or the goal of informing but rather of entertaining, and it not might not be as accurate as one would expect it to be. So you really do need to take everything that you see with a grain of salt. Definitely.

41:29  

Absolutely. So how do you how do you think that people who rely on the information that's coming out of that box to be accurate? How do those people gain the discernment? To know Is this correct information? Is it not? Especially when you can't really Google things anymore? Because I mean, other than being overwhelming, we we've seen you, if you look up on Google one phrase, and you look it up on Yahoo, the same phrase, or on being the same phrase, or on DuckDuckGo, the same phrase, you're going to get completely different set of responses and results. And so how does somebody get to a place, you know, where they actually know what's happening, and there is no ambiguity of what's going on, because they're looking at news and facts versus opinions and hyperbole.

42:33  

I think that it's almost impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty that a certain thing is a reality, simply because often there are many ways to view reality. But for instance, one one piece of advice that I would definitely give people, sometimes I see news stories, and I'm using air quotes, because they're more like, yeah, like commentary on something that happened. Let's say that there might be a clickbait headline saying, so and so said this and that. And then it says, during his speech, this person said this thing, okay, what you can do is say, why don't I just go and watch the speech, you can simply go watch the speech specifically, and listen for yourself and see exactly what the person said, what he was, what words he was using his demeanor, what the context was, you can get a better understanding if you actually go to the source material and see what was said, rather than hearing somebody have a conversation or say something about what was said, This avoids what you were saying a moment ago about things seeming like the old game of telephone, rather than saying, Okay, this person said that this person said that the other person said this thing, just watch the original thing, I think that would be one, one possibility. The other thing that I would definitely recommend is this. When you personally have a specific opinion on an issue, for whatever reason, algorithms in your social media, they will become like an echo chamber, you will see a lot of information that just confirms whatever you already believed in. So it makes sense to me to occasionally just to see what's out there, step outside of your comfort zone and see what the opposite side of the continuum has to say. Even if it's just for informational purposes, just to see what's going on. And you might find that you actually resonate with some of the ideas from another group of people that you had never even thought to consider because you were stuck in your echo chamber, which is what your own social media was feeding you based off your own personal likes. So I think that that that is valid also. I don't think that it's possible to say regarding any specific issue, I know if this is going on. Bad with 100% degree of certainty. Also because everything benefits someone at hurt someone else, I see that often not to get tremendously political. But for instance, when people need to vote on propositions, normally every proposition has an upside and has a downside. Now you might say, well, the upside is more important to me than the downside. So I'm voting for this thing. Okay, great. You voted for this thing. But saying yes to this means that the budget for something else might need to be cut. What if that other thing is also important to you? Okay. Well, it's almost important, it's almost impossible to have a very clear picture of everything, and its implications for everyone at all times, you can only do the best you can, I believe. And that means taking everything at face value when it comes to commentary, because commentary is commentary, everybody has their own opinion, the best that you can do is find the source material and focus on that. Certainly, you cannot be present in certain private press conferences and such. But many things these days especially, are readily found and almost instantly if they're not being live streamed there shortly being uploaded quickly enough so that you can get at least a better understanding. If you hear a sound bite or see a clickbait headline that you find a little bit alarming. It really does serve you well, to go back to the source material, listen to the speech, look at what was going on, what was the thing that was being said, as you used to, like read with what was said, I've seen. Let me give you examples. One time I saw

a very shocking cover discussing a certain ingredient in food, and it said such and such ingredient, how much harm can it possibly do, therefore implying that it was terrible. I'm guessing that a lot of people walked past it, and you'll stand and automatically made up their mind that this was a horrible, radiant, deadly threat. Terrible, very, very damaging. But I actually bought the magazine, I read the article calmly, and experts weighed in, and the actual answer to the question on the cover was not at all, it's a very helpful ingredient. It's healthy, it's fine. There's no problem with the agreement at all. But the way the cover headline was phrased, really gave people a totally different opinion that was clearly meant to attract attention. But in looking at it a little bit more deeply. And then going and doing a little research on the people giving their opinions. As it turns out, I now believe that particular ingredient to be perfectly fine, I have no issues with it. What I'm here to cover might be very hesitant to give it a try. And so that's that's something also to to understand why people are using headlines.

47:51  

Gotcha. your mic volume did a little muffle a little bit. So just letting you know. So the here's your here's a question. Since you're not a journalist at the moment, you're doing the court reporting. I can ask you this question. Are there any news organizations, media organizations these days that you trust information from?

48:21  

Let me tell you, when here's the thing, and it might sound like something not everybody can do. But I find that when I want to see accurate reporting about Mexico, I might go to American sources. If I want to read accurate information about the US on like go to Mexican sources, German sources, other different sources, because they tend not to have a particular interest in what is going on their agenda. I mean, especially if it's especially when it's a country that really has no specific interest. They have nothing to gain or lose by by advancing a specific agenda. It tends to be more trustworthy. That's what I tried to do. And for the most part, I believe that it has worked well.

49:07  

That's interesting, because what, for instance, when I was in Athens during the 2004, Paralympics, that was right, when the bush gore campaign was happening. And I would watch the US version of CNN in in my Greek hotel, and then I'd watch, you know, the Greek version of the same news, and it was completely, completely different. There was there was not even a semblance of what was being said on them that that equal the same thing, right? there very, very different interpretations of those debates. And what's interesting about it is, again, just that saying that I just said was interpretation would imply a language barrier, right? And so that language barrier that lost in translation, that personal interpretation, all of those things have kind of come together in this perfect storm of leaving, at least in the United States. The fake media, you know, everybody's all over this, the news is not real. And while I can absolutely see that being the case, and and that being a truth, I think that if, if somebody were to get a little bit more into the weeds of it, they'll find where that truth is. But, and this is really important for the audience to get is they need you need. And I'm saying need, like really strenuously you need to immediately prior to reading or listening or hearing or consuming, take account of your predisposed bias, take account of what you already believe is true or not true. And so that you can come into it with a fresh, open mindset. Because otherwise, you're only going to hear from that preconceived bias. In that, right.

51:35  

I absolutely agree. No matter what you think, well, you can see it even in scientific study. You can infer anything from a study that confirms what you already wanted to hear what you already thought was true. That is something to always keep in mind, especially when reading statistics, or when seeing numbers. A lot of the times the public sees numbers or study, statistics, research, the words empty, thrown around, or anything that sounds highly scientific or highly statistics backed. So they might assume, okay, those are facts. Why, because I see the numbers, I see figures. Again, it's not the numbers are necessarily massaged, or in any way faked. But any study or any, anything you want to prove, can be proven simply by using the right data. And there's always data in support of anything. So I think your suggestion, to be very aware of previous biases and beliefs to be very important so that people can come into new information with a fresh set of eyes, just seeing what's out there and not being closed off to information that might contradict their previous beliefs. Absolutely.

52:57  

Right. Yeah. You know, it's funny, long time ago, when I was really interested in what was happening on the news, which I'm really not anymore because it got too crazy. But I would I would do things like I would listen to rush limbaugh and I would listen to Dennis Prager and then I would also listen to people on the other side of that puzzle, right? I worked for the LA Times actually selling door to door when I was a teen. I had people tell me, you know, I get my news from rush limbaugh. Right? That was what they would tell me. And I'm like, Okay, well, this is an interesting thing to take note of in my 15 year old mind as that they don't get the news from the la times because it somehow has its bias and its echo chamber versus rush limbaugh's echo chamber versus I guess, a different newspapers. So I took note of that, that bias at that age. And so I listened and watched. I would watch glenn beck and I'd watch Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, I'd watch you know, CNN I got, I would go through different belief systems all in one day on the same information. And I would look at it and analyze it as, okay, this is the same 15 minute soundbite. So does, you know, our 15 second soundbite and this is three or four or five different interpretations of that soundbite. And so I would go back and say, Okay, what did what happened around that soundbite and I would take that into what I was doing because I really wanted to understand that was like the whole purpose of, of wasting my time and other people's business, which is what news is, is other people's business for the most part. So I'm wasting my time and other people's business and So I figured if I'm gonna do that I might as well learn what they want and what I want to know what they want me to know. And, and so I found it interesting because I've never fallen into an echo chamber. And during this really crazy time that we're living in all, I'll have an opinion about something based on my research and knowledge, and somebody will assign a label to me because of it. I've been assigned as a liberal snowflake. And I've been assigned as a Trump supporter, and I'm not either of those things. You know, if you're one thing, you can't be for another thing. And if you're for this thing, you can't be for that thing. Because you have, you know, it's like, it's like this, this world has lost its ability to consume information, critically think have some common sense based on what they're thinking, and then apply things like a butterfly effect, what are what is that action mean? And what is the action, the consequence that those actions mean? And so I blame. I blame the media and the fact that we deregulated in the late 70s, early 80s, our media and our news that was meant to be a nonprofit. For this the station's like, we gave you the FCC regulation to allow you to communicate. And the thing that we asked Is that your news our was not for profit, because it had to be just news. And we deregulated that started in the 70s, late 70s, early 80s. And then, look what's happened since then. And so that next question is, how do we get back to a place where we consume this information? And we regulate it? Maybe. So that it is, here's the facts, you know, like dragnet used to be just the facts, ma'am, nothing but the facts.

57:21  

I think that would not be possible without some sort of cash infusion from some source that had really zero interest in advancing one agenda over another. But quite frankly, I can't see how that would come to pass. And it is a vicious cycle. Not to sound like tremendously defeatist, but let me give you an example of something that happened in Mexico. This might happen, I'm trying to remember it might have been maybe not 10 years ago, but it was it was a while back. Okay, so what happened was that a new president came into office, a very polarizing president tremendously. So even more so than President Trump like tremendously polarizing. And one of the first things that this person said was, I'm going to cut down on government spending on things that are unimportant or inconsequential, for instance, I'm no longer going to advertise in newspapers. Now. I think that as a whole as a society, you would think, well, it makes perfect sense for the government and not to place ads in newspapers, because I mean, a they're already in power b that would make the, you know, newspapers more prone to speak well of that government, regardless of their own personal feelings or the facts. It sounds like a very good idea. So what happened was that indeed, of the government, overnight, they cut down all spending on newspaper ads, which sounds like a good idea. But the next thing that happened was that newspapers said, Hey, we have no budget, and they had to slash their workforce in half nearly overnight, leading to more, let's say more space for unpaid people that like to offer commentary and such. So it ended up being one would assume that that would lead to a more transparent or a more objective situation, but it really did not I don't think so it's it's a very hard situation to solve. I think that the only way for a specific media outlet to be entirely free of a biases beyond the normal biases that an individual reporter might have. Just to speak as a as a media outlet as a whole. It would need its money to come from let's say a private investor that was completely disinterested in in any you know, somebody that was not that had no specific feelings toward one or or another thing, because of your being funded by a candidate up party, Group, a lobby, obviously that's going to be refunded. In one way or another, that's that's a fact. And I mean, not even getting into political things, let's think about something more on the soft news side, let's say that you are a fashion magazine, and you have ads coming in from a certain fragrance manufacturer or a certain designer, obviously, you're going to feature them more heavily and more favorably in your pages. That's just a fact. And the only way to do away with that would be to have an ad free experience. I don't know what it would have to be a model where money was coming in from someone are some sorts that really was unrelated to what you were doing. And that's, that's hard to achieve. Definitely, I think that would be the only way to go about that. I don't see how it could be done otherwise.

1:00:48  

Okay. So unfortunately, that that viewpoint is a rather bleak viewpoint for worlds because a world that doesn't can't trust the facts, is going to end soon, right the country, and that we've seen this in pretty much every empire that has begun to do what we've begun to do is that it's not very long before the collapse, before it gets, you know, destroyed as is and has to be rebuilt. So that's a pretty bleak view, especially if in a 24 hour news cycle, we can't dedicate four hours to just the facts. And the other 20 can be moneymaking hours, but those four hours, maybe one every quarter, so to speak of the the day is here's the facts. This is what happened. This is what bill was passed. This is what that bill means for, you know, in actuality, this is what it does. No commentary. This is what, for instance, like people who don't like Trump, have no idea the amazing things that he's done for the things that they themselves would want done. Right. So for instance, there's been more arrests in human trafficking than any other president in history, right. And this is a fact, it's not, doesn't assign a morality to this president. But in this period of time, there was something that he did that allowed the police and the agencies to uncover and go after more of those people. And there's been more arrests in that thing. That's a fact. So without commentary, you can't say that. And have people know that who don't like Trump, and who listened to news that's against Trump, just like, in on the fox side, or on the on the side, that is all for Trump, you may not hear some of the things that he's done, that would say rip apart the natural park system, right. And that attacks nature and in the environment, you may not even hear about it, even if that's something you're interested in. Because you're interested in this kind of predisposed bias. And so that's where I'm saying, I don't think that it's as dire as you as you made it out to be. I don't think that we need to have them make no money or get these, you know, this thing, I think we need to regulate that four hours a day, on a 24 hour news cycle, you must tell the facts, and have no commentary and no opinion about the facts and the other 20 hours, you can talk all you want about what you think of it. But for those four hours, you need to tell the facts for this set of this section of the newspaper. It needs to be facts or this thing that you're you know, like, if you're a journalist, and you're telling news, there used to be this thing that journalists had to do, which was verify their sources, right, they verify the Yes, print something that was not factual. And that has absolutely shifted and changed. And I don't think that that's a money conversation. I think that's a morality conversation for a country and a regulation issue, just like pouring toxic waste out and making the the consequence, say a million dollars when a company's making $15 million a day to dump their waste, right, that that that incentive that I'd rather pay the million dollars and dump and not spend the 15 million Well, okay, but you're still dumping the toxic waste instead of not doing So that's a regulatory issue, in my opinion, versus I don't think it has to be as dire as, as what you had said, do you think would work?

1:05:12  

I think it would work fabulously. I think that would be an excellent idea if it would, indeed be implemented. And I also wanted to touch upon something that you just mentioned, which is that in the past, verifying sources was absolutely necessary. It wasn't optional. And now it's rarely done. I think that I agree that it's not a money issue in that specific regard. I would venture to say that beyond being a morality issue, it has to do with logistics, these days, when websites are rushing to have breaking news up on their websites. To be honest, I think that the rush to be first causes a lot of sloppy reporting and not, you know, reporting sources, or even knowing if something is accurate. I think there's also that thing. Now, you might say, well, but even back in the day, even in print newspapers, of course, you're also racing against the clock. Yes, but not to this degree. I think that this is a little extreme now that people want to be the one breaking the news. And in fact, it's a little crazy, because if you're the website breaking the news, you might say something that's totally off. And immediately 10 other websites will report on what you report it. So now it's 10 different outlets making the same exact mistake over and over and over. And it could be a factual mistake, it can be something that's misquoted. I've seen that happen time and time again, I think, certainly, there's an element of morality, not putting something out there that not you're not sure about. But I think there's a lot of pressure. And that's something that that is a direct consequence of the immediacy these days.

1:06:54  

So then it gets to kind of part of my favorite topic, which is bullies, and, and the bullies of the system and why we allow the bullies to win, and, and do things that are completely against our own self interest. So we do things completely against our own self interest on a regular basis, because we're letting the bullies win. And it seems like in what you're saying, we're letting the bullies win. Instead of having integrity, journalistic integrity used to be extremely important. And now it's completely unimportant. And, and so how do we get back to teaching, training, and then learning this integrity piece, and then saying, if you as the bully as my boss, as the person above me telling me to do this the wrong way, don't stop telling me to do it the wrong way, and allow me to keep my integrity. Right? Then I'm going to report you, as the person stopping me like, we did this, this whole thing of, we allow the system to be broken, because we're afraid of it. Because we, you know, have Has everybody lost their freaking minds is what I is what I think of when I hear stuff like that, because who cares who's first, if you're not accurate, you're not accurate. That means that you're losing your integrity, that means that you can't be trusted. That means that you're a journalist, that has nothing to say to me. Because you're lying, right? And so therefore, when is it that you're going to stand up for your integrity to the system that's bullying you. And this goes the same thing to the doctors who are in the system who are looking at it going, I am morally injured as a doctor because I'm being told to treat patients in a way that goes completely against my training, my background, my knowledge and my belief in loving my my patients and treating them with healing and not and doing no harm. So they need to stay stand up. It's their responsibility in the position of and this is really hard to say this in the position of being the victim of the bully of the system. It's their job to stand up and get loud because silence is a bullies best friend. And the only way you stop a bully is by standing up getting loud and exposing them to the masses. Right. So when does a journalist report on their boss? When does a journalist say enough is enough? This is what I'm being told to say. And this is What is really true? How do we get back to that kind of integrity of a nation of a citizenry? that stops the bullies from being bullies? And says to them no more?

1:10:15  

I think that relies definitely on individual journalists. And certainly there are many, many of them with very high morals definitely a sense of pride in their craft. I mean, I certainly know a number of them. But I think that these people gravitate toward media outlets that are less prone to requesting crazier things. I mean, I'm thinking about specific people. If they were asked by their website, yes, you need to be the first one. If they were not sure about what they were saying. They simply would not do it again, let me give you again, not to speak super highly of my old employer, because I used to work there. But for instance, we would never let's say that we were going to be published tomorrow. And we were going to report on something minor to take place later tonight. For example, let's say that tonight, there was going to be concert, this is something very inconsequential. We couldn't write a concert was held yesterday, even though it stands to reason that tomorrow's news should say a concert was held yesterday, because it hadn't actually happened yet. What if it was canceled? What if there was a fire? What if there was an earthquake? What if there was something that stopped it, we would not even go up? We would not even venture to say that that was a fact, because it hadn't happened yet. And we did want to make sure that everything that we actually printed, was indeed accurate at its best we could I mean, of course, sometimes there were things that just slipped out of people's hands. But as far as humanly possible, we did make a commitment to that. And everything that was published went through so many sets of eyes, sorry, that you wouldn't even imagine there were tremendous controls in place. For instance, I was an editorial director. And to be honest, nobody made any decision alone at any level, nothing. Everything was first discussed in weekly meetings then discussed again, in several daily meetings, everything went to a number of sets of eyes from the reporter himself in a co editor than an editor than myself, then possibly director, ever there was so many filters sorry, that although that made us a little bit less nimble, as a smaller website, it guaranteed that I mean, any inaccuracy would be very rare. Whereas I think that in a situation like an understaffed website, you have a lot of things that make it easy for inaccuracies to slip by time, like I was mentioning just the time, the need for immediacy, the lack of other people supervise it not to say that always being micromanaged or being watched leads to anything good is not necessarily the case. But I do think that if you're the only person or there's only one person making decisions, it's possible that more inaccuracies might slip by, firstly, because everybody at a certain point develops a little blind spot is material that there, there might be something they're missing, it's very important to have somebody else, like what happened with a book and their editor, even if an author is very accomplished, they still need an editor just to see things that the original author might not have spotted. So I do think that filters and controls are important. Beyond that, just having a sense of responsibility, individual responsibility as a journalist and individual responsibility as the owner of a specific media outlet, and understanding what their purpose is, for example, you can build a news website with the sole purpose of informing in an unbiased way, and that's perfect. But he can also build a word website with the sole purpose of getting hits, making money and shocking people and bringing eyeballs to your content, which is also valid, it's just a different style. But as a consumer, you do need to understand what's behind what you're seeing, you have to take everything that seems to be a little bit.

That seems to go beyond the facts with a grain of salt. It's very interesting that we have been discussing commentary so so often during this conversation, commentary tends to be very black and white. Rarely the somebody that's very middle of the road have their own up air column. It's not something that they're they tend to be interested in. Normally with somebody giving an opinion it tends to be a very favorable or a very different favorable opinion. And that also tends to cause what you were saying, for instance, people that might dislike a particular candidate or president, it's very bizarre to me, but because in real life, every individual you come across has some good things about them and some bad things about them. Everybody has something to be admired and something to be not admire. That's just human nature. Everybody has their ups and their downs. So I find it very bizarre that people find that their candidate is God at the light, a tree, fantastic, beautiful, perfect, or cedar. And the person they don't like is a demon, a horror, a terror, the the end of society, I mean, and that can go either way. That's that's the opinion on on both sides of the of the political spectrum. Which is a little bit strange, because everybody, I mean, no matter how much you might like or dislike a person, they might be supportive of a specific proposition or policy or idea that is not in line with what you like, what because you like the person, you're just assuming that every last thing the person does is either terrible or extraordinary. And that's not really the case. And certainly, extreme commentary does not help because it just reaffirms or highlights that.

1:16:21  

Absolutely. Thank you so much for that you're in the courthouse a lot. So we're going to go back there for a little bit. Do you find that these preconceived biases are attached to attorneys and judges, as they make their cases? And the people that make the decisions? Do you find that that the bias of those people are really playing a role in an effect on the outcomes in court?

1:16:52  

You know, I have heard that that is a very overarching belief that there is a lot of, of prejudice and bias is at play in any kind of decision. To be honest, not only have I not seen that at all, but in fact, I was surprised to not see that at all. Because I entered this line of work with that idea. I thought, okay, surely I'm going to see a lot of this. And in reality, I would say that that has not been my experience at all. If anything, attorneys are very good, for instance, at filtering out any member of a jury that might be biased against a client or a situation. That's normally what is done questions from attorneys to juries, aim to weed out anybody that might be very, very pro someone or against someone. So no, actually, I was surprised to find that, at least here. That was not my experience. I know that that is what is commonly believed. And that is what is normally reported on. I mean, I can't say that it does happen. I'm sure that it does in some cases, but personally, I have never witnessed anything of the sort. If anything, I would say that I'm surprised at the degree of objectivity that goes into this, especially because what is followed is normally not anybody's opinion, really, there's really a set of rules. And normally a very big boy boils down to something that is pre written this like for is this condition being met? Is this other condition being met? It's more like going down a checklist. human emotions are really not as much as play as as I would have assumed at least that's been my experience.

1:18:43  

Interesting. Interesting. Yeah, I haven't had the experience. But obviously, we hear a lot about court cases and things, you know, judges doing certain things and not doing other things based on their preconceived notions and, and biases and based on favoritism to certain lawyers that they like or don't like. So it's kind of interesting, get that insider experience that you have not having that happen. Is there anything else that you really like to talk about? We've had a very great conversation, I think that the audience has gotten a lot out of this. And you know, always at the end of any conversation, I'll ask you to give two or three actionable tips and tricks that somebody can do to improve their life create a new tomorrow today and activate their vision for a better world and, and based on this conversation, what are some things that you would suggest to the audience that they can do in order to get more information and less opinion more facts and less reactionary response to to programming.

1:20:02  

I think that the very last one of the very last things that we discussed was a very good tip in general, which is to understand what that whatever person or situation is being described, it's never all terrible are all wonderful. And if a piece of news is telling you No, no, no, this was all terrible alterable there's something wrong there. Or if it's something that's saying what you're reading or this thing, or this person, or this candidate, or this policy is all wonderful, that's also not to be trusted. Anything that is being described as 100%. Awful, or 100%. Excellent, is surely misleading. And a little bit more research needs to be done into that is what I think.

1:20:46  

Awesome. Anything else?

1:20:49  

Well, the other thing is to apply that also to your personal life, like in, in normal situations, when encountering new friends, meeting new people starting a new job, any situation you may find yourself in, you might find people that that you, at first, you might not enjoy meeting, you might say, oh, that seems like a difficult person, give them time, everybody has something good about them. Everybody has something that you might find pleasing, everybody can become a friend, eventually, I think it's just a matter of waiting it out or digging a little deeper. But absolutely.

1:21:22  

Yeah, you know, it's interesting, once you strive to understand somebody, it's hard not to like that person, you know, even if you don't agree with their position, or their, their, their thoughts, at least you understand where they're coming from. And typically, most people are coming from the same place that we are with the same wants and needs and desires in life. And it's hard to not like those people just because they might think a little differently or believe a little differently than you. So you have a book, why don't you give the topic of your book and a little bit about it so that the audience can get an idea and sense of who you are. And if they want to, to work with you or take a look at that book? How can they get ahold of you?

1:22:15  

Absolutely. So the book I wrote is titled choose to prevail. And in fact, I have it right here. This is a book that is meant to help the reader find insights that might help them overcome challenges, be they big or small. When I say big challenges, I'm referring to maybe the loss of a loved one, or any situation that is causing them great grief. And when I say minor challenges, I might mean something as minor really as encountering a lot of traffic, or perhaps feeling a little bit uncomfortable speaking in public, which is something many people struggle with. So many different types of struggles are addressed in the book, the way the book touches upon that is by suggesting ways to shift your perspective in regard to what is causing you grief, and also suggesting a few actionable steps. And in fact, there is one chapter that touches upon the fact that all of us have something in common, something's in common. So no matter who we may meet, even though they might seem tremendously different, there was always some common ground to be found. So that's something that we should keep in mind, no matter what it is that we're encountering. And if anybody cares to buy the book, it's available on all platforms, Amazon, Barnes and Noble Target. com, wherever they might enjoy buying their, their books. And thank you

1:23:38  

so much. Absolutely. It was a wonderful conversation. I like beating up the media, no offense to you, because I just believe that, that the media in general has a lot of soul searching that they need to do, and, and return to an integritas kind of way of doing their business so that we as the citizens who are are trying to learn about what's going on in our country can have an actual sense of what that is, instead of this theoretical conceptual polarized step. So I appreciate you coming on. And I hope you didn't take any of that as personally beating you up. But oh,

1:24:30  

no, I tried a conversation so much. And I agree so much with much of what you said. Absolutely.

1:24:36  

Well, thank you so much. And I appreciate that. So this has been another episode of create a new tomorrow I am your host, Ari Gronich. Remember to like subscribe rate review comments below so that we can start this conversation and really move along forward our society so that we could create a new tomorrow today and activate our vision for a better world. Thank you so much for being here. And I look forward to the next time.

1:25:03  

Thank you.

1:25:04  

Thank you for listening to this podcast. I appreciate all you do to create a new tomorrow for yourself and those around you. If you'd like to take this information further and are interested in joining a community of like minded people who are all passionate about activating their vision for a better world, go to the website, create a new tomorrow.com and find out how you can be part of making a bigger difference. I have a gift for you just for checking it out, and look forward to seeing you take the leap and joining our private paid mastermind community. Until then, see you on the next episode.