Subscribe to Lemonada Premium for Bonus Content

Description

Today, V breaks down the implications of doctors’ testimony about the Uvalde victims and why it could be a turning point to promote change in gun safety regulations. They also take a look at what the current Jan. 6 hearings related to Insurrection Day at the Capitol could mean for Trump’s future. And they uncover how the U.S. government’s space agency is forming a task force to find out more about potential extraterrestrial life. Then, stay tuned for an in-depth conversation with one of the most visible reporters online – Washington Post tech journalist Taylor Lorenz. Taylor joins V to talk about all things internet culture, what it means to report on the internet and how to hold internet culture accountable at a time where online arguments and lack of civility have become the norm.Follow Taylor online at @TaylorLorenz and catch her work at the Washington Post.

Keep up with V on TikTok at @underthedesknews and on Twitter at @VitusSpehar. And stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia.

Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows go to lemonadamedia.com/sponsors.Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.

Transcript

SPEAKERS

V Spehar, Katya Echazarreta, Taylor Lorenz

V Spehar  00:00

Hey friends, it’s Tuesday, June 14th, 2022. Welcome to V INTERESTING, where we break down the viral and very interesting news you might have missed. I’m V Spehar. And on today’s show, NASA has formed a task force to answer the question, Are we alone? No! There’s aliens in the sky. And we do in fact need to know if they tried to touch your uncle’s butt back in the summer of 79′. I’ll also be joined by Washington Post tech reporter Taylor Lorenz; she and I will talk about all things internet culture and what the future holds for democracy in an era of all powerful social media platforms.

Taylor Lorenz  00:56

Right now. We’re having huge issues around extremism and far right kind of mobilization on the internet and media companies, especially legacy media companies are so unprepared for it.

V Spehar  01:10

And later, we’ve had two hearings from the January 6th committee, do they matter? Why are they doing this? And what exactly could it lead to? And we’re going to close with my secret guilty pleasure dishing on celebrity gossip, because I promise we are going to need it. All that more is coming up on today’s V INTERESTING. Let’s be smart together. And now for the headlines you cared most about. First up, we’re gonna get a little heavy here, we’re going to share some important but graphic testimony from a pediatrician in Uvalde, Texas. I had a viral video last week. I mean, I think it’s up to like 2 million views right now. 10s of 1000s of shares where I said, this is the stuff that media never tells you about. And then I tried to explain it as gentle away as possible. In folks think of a gunshot, they think of what they’ve seen on TV, and they are normally picturing a gunshot wound that’s about the size of a dime, maybe a little bit of blood. A bullet fired from an AR15 is three times as fast and powerful. And the exit wound is about the size of an orange or a coaster in this case. People can survive a gunshot wound from a handgun; they cannot survive the devastating high velocity impact of that kind of bullet. So I’m basically quoting from a 2018 Atlantic article authored by radiologist Heather Shear, she had treated the teenage victims of the Parkland shooting, and she’s the one who described the gunshot exit wounds as being as big as an orange. And people were, they were pressed about my video. You don’t know anything about guns, you’re using the death of kids to force an agenda, unfollow. And most terrifyingly, you should see what my hollow points can do.

V Spehar  03:03

Look, I have to admit, after reading those comments, I was scared. And I was second guessing myself. I mean, like the folks ditching my video and commenting are gun enthusiast. They’re experts. One thing I’ll give the gun folks is they’re obsessed. They know their machines inside and out. So I was taking their feedback to heart even though I was like terrified. I was thinking like, maybe I did misspeak, maybe this isn’t right. But then late last week, enter Dr. Roy Guerrero, a pediatrician in Texas who treated children at the Uvalde Memorial Hospital on the day of the mass shooting. He testified in front of Congress that quote, he saw two children whose bodies had been so pulverized by the bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been so ripped apart, that the only clue as to their identities, was the blood spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them. The downplaying of how destructive AR15 style weapons are on the bodies of these victims is part and parcel of the marketing of these weapons, making us feel like we can’t speak about guns because we’re not gun owners or we’re not experts or we’re not veterans is part of the gun lobby’s agenda to quiet any criticism of gun ownership. Gaslighting us is not going to stop innocent people from getting killed. And since the doctor testified dozens of other doctors and just about every major news network has done some form of explainer on the severity of injuries that are brought on by these weapons. So how do we make this time different? In true American fashion, capitalism is yet again the cause, the issue and the remedy. In the wake of the Uvalde shooting 223, CEOs sent a letter to the Senate demanding bold, urgent action stating gun violence cost the American taxpayer employers and communities a staggering $280 billion per year, that’s billion with the B, everyday citizens are doing their part as well. Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of people joined coordinated march for our lives demonstrations across the nation, demanding common sense gun reform.

V Spehar  05:12

And the marches are working. It actually worked. It is working. It is different this time. Sunday afternoon, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who represents the Sandy Hook district, and Republican John Cornyn of Texas, announced a gun reform proposal which has bipartisan support and is ready to present to the larger Senate immediately. So what’s in the bill, I can’t wait to tell you what’s in the bill. First, establishment and funding for the creation of universal red flag laws for all states. Red flag laws allow families or the police to petition federal courts to order temporary removal of firearms from people who are at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. This bill would also give money to state crisis intervention and recovery programs, funding for school safety resources and major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs at the local level. It does not raise the age to purchase a gun to 21 is many had hoped, but it does make juvenile records of gun buyers under age 21 available, they will have to undergo a background check. And they’re hoping that at a minimum, they can catch folks with a history of violent behavior in childhood and prevent them from attaining a gun. what the bill does is great. It’s been called the lowest common denominator for gun reform or a baby step. But what the bill doesn’t do also bears repeating. It does not take guns away from law abiding citizens. It does not mandate any compulsory buyback program like they’re doing in Canada, it does not regulate magazine capacity. It doesn’t even regulate how many guns or how many rounds of ammo a person can hold. It does not take your guns away period. It also does not remove gun manufacturer and dealer liability immunity. In 2005, Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with a stroke of a pen or liters made the gun industry completely immune from nearly all civil lawsuits, which has left families and gun violence victims without an avenue to seek justice. There is no other industry in this nation that has that level of unprecedented protection. Now, we’ll be following this bill through the expected rounds of edits. But the good news is they got it. They got the votes. There are 10 Republican senators that are on record right now saying they support it, which means we could see gun reform passed as early as this month.

V Spehar  07:47

Well, I mean, if you had any question at all as to what the purpose of the January 6 committee hearings were wonder no more my fam. We have now seen two episodes of Law and Order insurrection at the Capitol. And we know it’s the committee’s goal to prove that Trump was personally at the center of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, starting with the fact that as early as April 2020, Trump began telling people that the only way he lose the election is by fraud. And look, they don’t want to just like prove Trump lied and move on. Oh, no. Two members of the committee, Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff, both said on separate shows that they have enough evidence to pursue a criminal indictment of Donald Trump. No indictment is not a term that you’ve just like dropped casually. It is a very big deal. Indictment is pretty far down the road of like, Did you maybe do a crime, indictment is like, Yes. Yes, you did. We’re saying you did this crime. Here are the formal charges against you, time to get arrested. Sir, do seems like it at least Congresswoman Liz Cheney and her colleagues laid out in testimony yesterday that Trump knew he hadn’t truly won the presidency when he officially and fraudulently declared victory on election night 2020. They confirmed that establishment Republicans, constitutional lawyers and senior aides to the former president all told him that this idea that the election had been stolen from him was quote, nonsense, but instead of listening to them, Trump decided to take the advice of an obviously inebriated Rudy Giuliani, those are Liz Cheney’s words, not mine. And that is when they started what we now know as the big lie. Oh my God, I am literally sweating. We are living in unprecedented times. We’re just never going to escape it. So, what does this exactly mean? It means Donald J. Trump is very close to being the first former president in American history to be indicted on criminal felony charges.

V Spehar  10:21

So what are these federal charges? First off, Trump knew that he had lost the election, but mounted a massive disinformation campaign claiming the election had been stolen. That is felony fraud. Next, he and his associates acted in concert to attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election, including corruptly pressuring the Department of Justice, the Vice President and other elected officials to participate in his plan, that is obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. They’re also saying that he summoned a violent mob and directed them illegally to march on the Capitol, that is inciting a riot or insurrection and seditious conspiracy. Lastly, the fact that he refused to take action to stop the assaults on the Capitol and members of Congress. Well, that is participating in a riot or insurrection. Very serious charges, but nothing can happen at the federal level until Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice decide to move forward with the indictment of Trump. It is Garland’s game to call the tip off for and garland is a hesitate or he has been very hesitant to prosecute anything that could be deemed politically motivated, which is part of why there may be as many as eight of these televised hearings, it is as much to convince the Department of Justice that there is wrongdoing that needs to be prosecuted, as it is to convince the American public that people should be held accountable. The committee has this like dream that this extensive display of evidence is going to bring the country together, that at some point, the overwhelming volume of evidence that seditious conspiracy was at play will be something that most Americans can rally around. And that collective vibe of yeah, this was like kind of insurrectiony, will take the burden off of seeing 45 in handcuffs, which reminds me of that viral TikTok sound.

V Spehar  12:35

Oh my god, that one never gets old. Speaking of people who are captured, abducted against their will, I don’t know, we got to work. We got to work on these a little bit more. NASA has launched a study of UFOs despite quote, reputational risk, the space agency announced Thursday that it is setting up an independent team to see how much information is publicly available on aliens and UFOs. I can’t take it. They are going to gather public information on Aliens. Does that mean they’re going to like collect, analyze and Chronicle people’s alleged encounters being abducted by aliens? Because I need on that team? Like, how do you get to be the interviewer? The study is going to begin in the fall and it’s going to last nine months. So I guess I do have some time to get my application in. But here’s the big issue I see with this study. They’ve only given $100,000 Like, you’re going to study aliens, you’re gonna study things that we’ve never seen before. You’re gonna tell us that there’s extra life out there in the universe and you only you’re gonna throw like 100 grand at it? I need like a million dollars on this. If there’s not a million dollars on the project that is set out to like, figure out is there life out there? And are they doing weird stuff to our butts, then? Are we even American? Like what do we value in this country anymore? I’ve seen a million dollars thrown it far less than that. Didn’t we give like billions of dollars to Elon Musk? Like just claw back some of that I need this over here in this pocket. Oh my god, I’m gonna put up a fundraiser to help these folks out. I don’t know why NASA is so bougie but so cash poor but I know that you guys would chip in. It’s our American duty as not what you can do for your country down. That’s not right. Anyway, NASA is gonna study aliens and I truly cannot wait to find out what they learn. And now we are running out of time again. So here are just three quick hits. First step very important. There is a Sriracha coming Huy Fong foods. The maker of the popular Sriracha hot chili sauce said a shortage of chili peppers is limiting its ability to produce several of its in demand sauces. The California based company cited climate conditions as part of the problem so stock up now. In other out of this world news, the first Mexican born woman has made her way to space. She sailed through the atmosphere on one of Jeff Bezos Blue Origin rockets alongside five other passengers who paid an undisclosed sum for their seats. An engineer and science communicator from Guadalajara Mexico was selected by a nonprofit called Space for Humanity. She joined this mission from a pool of 1000s of applicants, and she’s a TikToker. Here she is starting her journey.

Katya Echazarreta  15:29

I’m going to space and I’m taking you with me. So far, I’ve done my flightsuit fitting, I’ve done a whole bunch of meetings, signed a whole lot of contracts. I have currently started to go through some mental training, just so that I can be present in the moment, but also so I can learn how to deal with what is about to happen. Immediate.

V Spehar  15:53

There’s also a great video of her and others on the flight floating around in space, you can find her on TikTok at @katvolatge. And some new world records were set. One of my favorite breaks from the news is to check and see like what’s happening on the Guinness World Records. Maybe we’ll try for one here. We’ll see. In the meanwhile, all of our miles, are British man threw a tortilla 90 feet 11 inches, breaking the old record of just 54 feet. The Miami eco mermaid made waves as she swam 26.22 miles off the choppy waters of Miami Beach, Florida. She now holds the record for longest swim while wearing a mermaid fin. And TikTok’s  Nick DiGiovanni and Lynn Davis made the world’s largest chicken nugget weighing in at 46 pounds. Congratulations to the new Guinness world record holders. On that note, we’re going to take a quick little break. And then we’re gonna come back with Taylor Lorenz. She’s a columnist for the Washington Post covering tech and online culture. And we get to ask her if she ever thinks about leaving legacy media to go it alone.

V Spehar  17:07

Okay, it is week two on the show. And we have been talking a lot about internet culture, the news, and news media and that is going to continue today with a content creator in her own right. But also someone who works in legacy media reporting on the internet. Taylor Lorenz is a columnist at the Washington Post, she covers technology and online culture. Before that she was at the New York Times, she also has an incredible portfolio of online work, including more than half a million followers on TikTok. So we all know that the internet often breaks the news, it makes the news and many times is a head of the legacy media news. So I wanted to bring on Taylor to talk a little bit about what it means to report on the internet and hold internet culture accountable. And a time when the line between what’s happening on the internet. And what’s happening in reality is blurry. Taylor, thank you so much for joining me today.

Taylor Lorenz  18:02

Thanks for having me.

V Spehar  18:04

So some people might not understand the type of reporting that you’re doing. Because it’s you know, we’re so used to like, maybe hearing about politicians or celebrities or local news media, right, we understand what that is. And you’re sort of like out here in the internet reporting on the internet, which is such an unordered, like rogue place? How have you convinced people that the stories you’re telling about the Creator economy and these emerging platforms are worth covering?

Taylor Lorenz  18:32

Yeah, well, I think the most powerful thing about technology and the internet is its ability to connect people and allow people to better communicate. So I really cover any kind of technology that helps facilitate communication and connection. So you know, I’m not usually writing about like the new Tesla or anything like that. But if there’s some kind of new chat app, or social platform, I’m all over it. And, you know, content creators connect with people at scale their power users of these social platforms. So I write a lot about that world. As you mentioned, I’m also kind of a content creator myself, and that I’m a user of all of these platforms pretty heavily. And so that’s kind of how I think about the distinction of what I cover. I would say it was more of a fight, like the first probably 70% of my career, to get people to take this stuff seriously. It was not even a full beat at most newsrooms. And even today, I would say, 99% of people in a lot of legacy newsrooms have no understanding of this world. And I mean, no understanding. So it’s fun to kind of be that person and try and educate them. But it can also be a little bit of a challenge as well.

V Spehar  19:43

Right. Because we live in this world, right? I think maybe you coined this term or maybe you use this term a lot, extremely online. And when you are going back to a traditional newsroom, like the Washington Post, or like the LA Times, we have to do so much education to those editors to be like, listen, I’m telling you this is important. Oftentimes we get something weeks before the traditional news media would have found that interesting. And what’s brand new on TikTok is like old news. Sometimes by the time it hits Instagram or it hits mainstream. That’s so frustrating.

Taylor Lorenz  20:17

Yeah, I mean, I think it’s always it’s always been that way. Whereas, you know, those of us who spend all day marinating in the internet, like we see these things emerge. I mean, I think back to Tumblr as well, that’s where like, so many memes kind of came out. That’s where culture was happening or Twitter. I mean, obviously, now it’s all TikTok that’s kind of driving the news cycle and these narratives, but it’s kind of explaining that to legacy news, it’s flagging stories early. And also just understanding the discourse and how things are evolving and kind of helping to cover it in a way that doesn’t feel totally irrelevant and removed from the actual online conversation.

V Spehar  20:56

I totally agree. And I learned so much from the kids on the internet, like, even as an elder millennial myself, like you’re saying, I’m like, listen, I don’t always get exactly what’s going on TikTok. But if they’re talking about it, I promise you it’s important.

Taylor Lorenz  21:08

Yeah, well, I think it’s about first of all, we should treat young people with respect, like I think many news organizations do not treat young people with respect at all. And they’re extremely condescending, and dismissive of, you know, young people’s ideas and what they’re doing. So I think starting from a place of respect, no matter who you’re covering is, is really important. And then the second thing I say is like, the internet is not just for young people, it is not, you know, covering internet culture is not just like a young person saying, I mean, I covered so much stuff like the Wall Street bets, you know, sort of GameStop stock stuff, which was affecting the stock market on January 6, where we saw, you know, online mobilization happening through Facebook, and obviously, radicalization is happening, like the internet and these social platforms, they are really affecting, you know, everyone of all ages. And it’s such a mistake to think internet culture, that’s just writing about the kids.

V Spehar  22:06

I hear you, I wish that we could bring back like the MTV News Channel, one news type thing, where it’s like, young people were the face of it, young people were driving the content, but it was backed up by the legacy stations and the fact that it was treated more seriously or at least to me, as a kid when I was consuming it, it felt very seriously, because some of the accounts that we have the legacy media accounts have that are streaming or that are on Tik Tok, or that on our Instagram, they can come off as very clearly they’re not taking it as seriously or very clearly, they’re not delivering news in a way that is holding truth to power and that is promoting democracy. They’re like, okay, this is our meme account, and we’re going to be silly, and it’s like, what a wasted opportunity.

Taylor Lorenz  22:44

My biggest pet peeve ever and this, you know, I used to run social for so many newsrooms, and it’s just like, I hate the idea of like, okay, here’s our serious journalism and our core news team. And okay, you silly little ragtag bunch of kids over there, you’re gonna go make videos for the internet, like, good luck, you know? It’s like, no, this should all be integrated into our newsroom. Like, it’s not the internet is just not like a fun, silly place to, oh, let’s tell the news to kids in this goofy way. Like, no, let’s like, treat them with respect and understand that kids are smart, and they know how to, like, consume a news video. You know, I just think that that’s important. That’s not to say that people can’t be silly or fun. You know, Washington Post has very fun TikTok. But all of this needs to be integrated into the newsroom itself. And also they need to understand the power dynamics of the internet, they still it’s like we need these senior leaders to understand the dark side of the internet as well. And that’s what they’ve ignored for so long. They just a lot of newsroom leaders are they still think of it as like funny cat videos and stuff? And it’s like, no, no, this is where like, millions of Americans are being radicalized. And actually, you know, those people are also working to dismantle legacy media. I mean, I deal with this, every single article I write. People try to take down these institutions. And in order to fight that we need to really understand the shape of the campaigns and understand how people are attacking the free press and free speech.

V Spehar  24:11

You just mentioned January 6, that I want us to just kind of like talk about it for one second, as the January 6 hearings are ongoing right now. And we’re obviously going to see people’s reactions to what they’re going to see the day that we’re filming. This is obviously before the first episode, I guess I would call it of the January 6 Commission hearings is going to be tonight, even though you’re hearing this on Tuesday. How do you think people’s reactions to that hearing are going to help spread the message or potentially provide misinformation on the message?

Taylor Lorenz  24:46

Well, I think misinformation is part of what led to I mean, it is absolutely what led to January 6, and this misinformation around election fraud. I think it’ll be interesting to see how the narrative spins out. Obviously, this is just it’s All, like completely politicized at this point, but you already have big right wing influencers, content creators trying to seed certain narratives and push their own agendas around it. So I don’t know how much more information we’ll get in terms of like the tech aspects of it. And like Facebook’s role in it, or, you know, I wrote a lot at the time about live streamers. And, you know, many people who storm the Capitol live streamed and actually monetize those live streams. And then they sold merch, and we’re monetizing, basically, through E commerce platforms. And so I guess, as we think about the way the, you know, quote, unquote, creative economy scales, I think a lot of people think of the creative economy as like, oh, you know, Mr. Beast, or a bunch of kids in LA in a content house. They’re not thinking of that, like radicalized streamer on D live that’s made $5,000 by storming the Capitol, you know?

V Spehar  25:55

Can you actually talk a little bit more about that, this is something I’m very curious about. I don’t, I’m not on YouTube, I’m not a streamer. But I have, you know, my TikTok thing going on, which is very its own world. But the monetization of streaming these incredibly divisive events, essentially, without a filter or without editorialization in some cases, just for the money that it brings in, and honestly, I don’t blame streamers for bringing in money for giving that first person sort of like Citizen photo journalist perspective, but it can be very addictive and very dangerous to do that, in some ways. Yeah?

Taylor Lorenz  26:32

Oh, yeah. I mean, absolutely. I think there’s a lot of ethical questions around that stuff. It’s like you said, it’s, there’s all of these questions. In one sense, we want transparency, we want people streaming from the ground of certain events. But then you see sort of how sometimes footage can also be used by the police for good and bad. I mean, in some sense, it’s the fact that everyone was there to kind of create content on January 6, allowed a lot of people that were breaking the law to be to be caught, and to kind of figure out who these insurrectionists were. But then I also think of like the Black Lives Matter, protests and how, you know, live streams and raw video footage from people on the ground was also being used to identify and track down protesters, which was, you know, people that weren’t even necessarily breaking the law, were suddenly on the police’s radar. So I think as journalists, we just need to be very judicious in how we stream. I think, sometimes content creators are going for engagement over everything else. And so I think, again, these ethical questions will play out as more and more people become content creators themselves. And as the media moves into these in more and more into these spaces,

V Spehar  27:49

We were talking to Jules last week, from Good morning bad news about the risks of showing the pictures, right, we were speaking in particular about showing the pictures of graphic violence, whether that be the graphic photos that may or may not exist at the Uvalde shooting or of Ukraine, and now we have this issue with the gunman streaming, or people streaming other violent acts. What is the internet doing to protect people’s privacy? Or are they like, what are they doing to stop streamers who are doing violent acts?

Taylor Lorenz  28:25

Not much to be honest. I think these platforms have really, really, I think failed to stop a lot of really horrible stuff on the platforms. And I think platforms have been caught flat footed, because they really have not built robust content moderation systems, like they’re, you know, sometimes it’s not always so much the stream itself, a lot of times, like we saw, you know, with a recent shooting, the stream itself, maybe we’ll only get like 20 views or 150 views. But then the reshares of that stream will be replicated across platforms. And so these videos make their ways out, they can get, you know, millions of views, even if they aren’t viewed live. But I think you know, rather than even policing specific streams, which is its own challenge, we need to think about how radicalization is happening on the internet. I think, right now we’re having huge issues around extremism and far right mobilization on the internet and media companies, especially legacy media companies are so unprepared for it, they have no idea how to deal with it in so many ways. And so I think we really, really have a long way to go in terms of educating media companies and how to counter these bad faith campaigns.

V Spehar  29:42

Taylor coming from traditional media, having the pedigree that you do, working at all of these different places, having all this different experience and now building a name for yourself and building your own personal audience as an influencer, which I am saying with the highest regard would you ever walk away from newspapers and major press to be your own rainbow?

Taylor Lorenz  30:05

Yeah, I think about doing that all the time, because I’d probably make a lot more money. But I don’t know. I mean, I just to me, I value journalists like, I really feel like it’s important for journalism, and with all the problems of legacy media, and there are many, many problems, legacy media is not like flawless at all. I do believe that, like the journalism that comes out of places like the New York Times, The Washington Post, is really valuable for democracy. And I don’t want to live in a world where, you know, YouTube drama channels are our primary form of journalism, like that is not good for holding power to account. And so I really, sort of want to stay in and help people understand this world and take it seriously and, and help news organizations understand it so that we can recruit the next generation of really talented journalists, and so that we can do really good journalism that resonates on the internet, and so that we can still continue to hold power to account. You know, journalists are very good at kind of, like speaking truth to power and challenging narratives. And the internet is not good for that. I mean, just look at the depth and her trial, right? It’s like once, once a narrative takes hold, or once a certain side takes hold, people will just go along with it, because it’s popular, or it just kind of nobody challenges it. And I think it’s really important to have journalists like question things, push back on things, say what might be really unpopular in the moment, but ultimately bears out like, you’re going up against a dominant narrative, you’re going up against powerful people. And you need journalists to do that. And ideally, content creators do that, too. But I think content creators don’t always want to take that risk. Because, you know, they’re worried about themselves.

V Spehar  31:56

It’s hard, because again, and we’re back full circle. Content creators don’t have the kind of protections or understanding of how you even get those protections to do those things, right? Our platforms can be very fragile, because there isn’t this network of folks who are going to say I’m going to protect my Reporter The way that the legacy media groups should be doing sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Taylor, is there anything you have coming up that you’re excited to share with us? Where can people find you?

Taylor Lorenz  32:24

Well, you can find me on TikTok at @TaylorLorenz. Also at @TaylorLorenz on Twitter, Instagram pretty much everywhere else and read my work on the Washington Post.

V Spehar  32:34

Taylor, I have had such a good time chatting with you about all things internet and why we internet and who internet’s and how we can internet better. I am so grateful for our friendship and for the time to like we said like when stuff happens, I know I can call you, you can call me and we like chat through it. And that has been so valuable and so precious to me.

Taylor Lorenz  32:54

Yeah, it’s so great. I love fellow TikTok news people.

V Spehar  32:59

Taylor Lorenz, everybody make sure you go ahead and follow her on TikTok. Coming up something to feel good about or really this week it’s going to be something to gossip about.

V Spehar  33:19

As always, before we go, I want to leave you with something to feel good about. But this week I was feeling a little bit more gossipy and sometimes gossiping just does make us feel better. So don’t judge me. We’re going to dive into some celebrity gossip. First up, we are still going to talk about Todd and Julie Chrisley because I am not over it yet. So these guys are reality TV stars from the show. Chrisley Knows Best. They were found guilty last week of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax fraud. What is so extra awkward about this is the Chrisley’s became famous literally for showcasing their lavish lifestyles, and they did it for 10 seasons.  And maybe possibly we did love everything about them. So, they’re facing 30 years in jail for basically pretending that they had money to get loans for more money that they then live these super luxurious life on, which got them the TV show, where they maybe thought they were going to make enough money to pay back the money they got by lying but then that didn’t happen. It’s very hard to follow but it might sound familiar because yes, these are very similar charges to the one that Joe and Teresa, […]. We haven’t figured out how to say that name yet. Very similar to the charges they caught back in 2013. Those charges sent the New Jersey housewife to prison for a little over 11 months, which you guys might not know this, but Teresa served at the same prison as Martha Stewart who a decade before went to that jail for Financial Crimes too. I mean, like what is going on our rich people? Okay, like more money, more problems? Indeed. Right. Anyway, the Chris Lee say they’re planning an appeal. They tried to blame this whole thing on an ex-employee, which is just like so basic. Isn’t that what everybody does?  And they are now working to secure the welfare of their children. Grayson is only 16 guys, Grayson, the little one he’s now 16. And they need to of course take care of Todd’s aging mother who lives with them. Yikes on bikes.

V Spehar  36:05

In better celebrity news, the princess of pop Ms. Britney Spears finally got married. Now she had been denied the right to wed during her conservatorship, but just a few days ago, finally tied the knot with her longtime boyfriend Sam Kashkari. So here’s the details on the wedding. There were only 60 guests invited and know her parents were not invited. Neither was Jamie Lynn. The wedding took place at her home in 1000. Oaks, a suburb of La what was truly just so unhinged about it. Of all the things that happen is before the nuptials even kicked off Brett’s ex-husband, Jason Alexander, you might remember him from the 55 our marriage, he broke into her home and live streamed himself trying to like show off her setup. It was like calling out to her. Fun fact, old boy was also reportedly at the January 6 Capital insurrection. So now we know what his kink is. It’s apparently breaking and entering. Anyway, police removed him, wedding went off without a hitch. parents and sister were not invited. Her sons also decided to not attend but they said that they do support her. Kevin Federline. Her baby daddy from before said it was just like a lot for the boys. Her brother was there. I didn’t even know she had a brother. Other famous guests include Paris and Kathy Hilton, Drew Barrymore, Ansel Elgort, Selena Gomez, Will I Am, Maria Menounos and of course the woman who is now calling herself mother Madonna. The gown was Versace. She walked down the aisle to Elvis’s can’t help falling in love she was wearing this was crazy to be, she was wearing a whopping 62 total carats of jewelry. So for anyone who said that Brit was looking to shuffle that her wedding, tell that to the 62 carats of jewelry. Her wedding colors were blush and bashful, which is not just a quote from Steel Magnolias Those were her actual colors. They didn’t do a first dance but the first song played was toxic, which do you baby, followed later by a duet of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton singing Paris’s hit song Stars Are Blind. Britney Spears was serving […] and we live for it. That is going to do it for this week. I hope y’all are staying safe and happy out there. We will be back this Friday with Kathy Rana and drag superstar Ms. Kasha Davis to discuss the Gay Agenda. Bump up. Thank you so much for sticking with me as I get my sea legs and podcasts planned. I’d love to know what you guys are thinking about, what you want to see on the show. Generally like just hear how you’re doing. So please we have a new feature. You can leave me a voicemail. The number is 612-293-8550, don’t forget to subscribe to Lemonada Premium on Apple podcasts. Follow me at @underthedesknews or at @vitusspehar. Thank you so much for giving me another week of your time and attention. I so truly value you.

V Spehar  39:04

V INTERESTING is a Lemonada Media Original. Our producers are Rachel Neel, Xorje Olivares, Martín Macías, Jr. And Dani Matias. Executive Producers are Stephanie Wittels Wachs and Jessica Cordova Kramer. Mixing and Scoring is by Brian Castillo, Johnny Evans and Ivan Kuraev. music is by Seth Applebaum. Please help others find the show by rating and reviewing wherever you listen and follow us across all social platforms at @VitusSpehar and @UnderTheDeskNews, also, @LemonadaMedia. If you want more be interesting, subscribe to Lemonada premium only on Apple podcasts.