BLUESKY-HIRES_.jpg

Liberal attempt to block news article highlights

[ad_1]

Details about Ottawa’s takedown requests to social media companies were recently revealed

Article content

Recently released documents show that although the federal government is sparing in its requests to social media companies to take down comments, such requests can be abused to censor news coverage that paints the government in a bad light. This is especially concerning given the Liberals’ attempts to gain more control over the internet.

Advertisement 2

Article content

Details about Ottawa’s takedown requests were revealed in a 159-page document, which was prepared in response to a written question on the House of Commons order paper by Conservative MP Dean Allison. The document shows that, between Jan. 1, 2020 and Feb. 7, 2023, while most departments refrained from making requests, a handful of government agencies asked that content be taken down for questionable reasons, such as “misinformation,” “offensive language” and basic criticism.

The most egregious request was made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an administrative tribunal that decides who to let into the country and who to kick out. On Sept. 27, 2021, the board asked Facebook and Twitter to remove links to a Toronto Sun story “containing serious errors of fact risking undermining public confidence in the independence of the board as well as the integrity of the refugee determination system.” The request was denied.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

The article that the board tried to censor was likely a column by Lorne Gunter that was published the day before. It covered a confidential leaked email sent on Sept. 20, 2021, by the board’s chair and chief executive officer, Richard Wex, which proposed to admit any refugee who could make an “intersectional” claim.

The proposal defined intersectionality as a claimant who checked two or more identity boxes that impact the individual’s “lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression,” including “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability or immigration status.” It was also proposed that adjudicators give refugee applicants the benefit of the doubt if they gave false information, because trauma might lead them to remember differently.

Advertisement 4

Article content

Together, it meant that pretty much anyone could be granted refugee status. Given that Canada’s government is currently trying to grow the population as fast as possible, widening the criteria for the Immigration and Refugee Board to grant refugee status would provide a lot of help.

Yet the reality is that Canada already has a hard time assisting the refugees it currently has — nearly one-third of homeless shelter users in Toronto, for example, are refugees. To Wex, it might have seemed like a good idea, but such a proposal would place even more strain on our existing support systems. The public had every right to know what was going on.

The leak sparked a witch hunt for the whistleblower and a letter by Wex to the Toronto Sun alleging errors in the paper’s coverage (which were detailed by Gunter in a subsequent column). The board also asked for the article to be corrected or retracted. It’s not a stretch to guess that this was paired with a series of requests to the social media giants to remove the embarrassing article.

Advertisement 5

Article content

The request to pull the article was inappropriate — the public had the right to know about the proposal, and if Wex was so certain the Toronto Sun story was unfounded, he could have made his case to the public instead of trying to use backchannels to suppress the news.

The rest of the takedown requests were less exciting, thankfully. The most common reason for government staff making takedown requests was impersonation — they wanted social media companies to remove fake accounts purporting to be official, which is perfectly reasonable.

There were, however, some takedown requests that give cause for concern. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans asked Twitter to remove a tweet after someone posted the photo and name of one of its officers, complaining that he “thinks he is the law.” The tweet disappeared but it wasn’t clear to department staff whether it was removed by Twitter or the individual who posted it.

Advertisement 6

Article content

Twitter also denied a Competition Bureau request to remove an offensive reply to a tweet about Fraud Prevention Month in 2020, as well as a Business Development Bank of Canada request to remove an offensive comment about an employee.

Overall, it’s uncommon for departments to make large numbers of requests: only four government organizations disclosed more than 10 takedown requests, many of which were reasonable. The Communications Security Establishment made more than 60, all for brand infringements or impersonation (all but one, which is still being considered, were granted). The Canadian Commercial Corporation made about 20 requests, all for impersonation (around half of which were granted).

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) made around 25 requests, mostly for hate speech, harassment or bullying on Instagram (none were granted). The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), made 20 requests, mostly for “offensive language.” Most of them were denied. The high number of unreasonable requests on the part of PHAC and the CBSA suggest they are more on the censorious side.

Advertisement 7

Article content

One caveat to the data drop is that a few government organizations didn’t provide any information: CBC-Radio Canada and the National Arts Centre didn’t answer the request on time, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) didn’t disclose for “operational requirements” and security reasons.

CSIS could be making hundreds of requests and we wouldn’t know about it, but overall, the data shows that, for the most part, civil servants are hands-off when it comes to getting social media companies to censor the internet.

The few that do use their power against the public interest are a cause for concern, though. The federal government is moving aggressively to give itself new powers over the internet with the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), and the potential to censor content through government-mandated adjustments to social media algorithms is a real possibility. MPs will need to make a lot more data requests like Dean Allison did in order to keep the public informed.

National Post

This column was originally published in the NP Platformed newsletter. Sign up here.

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Join the Conversation

[ad_2]
Source link

BLUESKY-HIRES_.jpg

Liberal attempt to block news article highlights d…

[ad_1]

Details about Ottawa’s takedown requests to social media companies were recently revealed

Article content

Recently released documents show that although the federal government is sparing in its requests to social media companies to take down comments, such requests can be abused to censor news coverage that paints the government in a bad light. This is especially concerning given the Liberals’ attempts to gain more control over the internet.

Advertisement 2

Article content

Details about Ottawa’s takedown requests were revealed in a 159-page document, which was prepared in response to a written question on the House of Commons order paper by Conservative MP Dean Allison. The document shows that, between Jan. 1, 2020 and Feb. 7, 2023, while most departments refrained from making requests, a handful of government agencies asked that content be taken down for questionable reasons, such as “misinformation,” “offensive language” and basic criticism.

The most egregious request was made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an administrative tribunal that decides who to let into the country and who to kick out. On Sept. 27, 2021, the board asked Facebook and Twitter to remove links to a Toronto Sun story “containing serious errors of fact risking undermining public confidence in the independence of the board as well as the integrity of the refugee determination system.” The request was denied.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

The article that the board tried to censor was likely a column by Lorne Gunter that was published the day before. It covered a confidential leaked email sent on Sept. 20, 2021, by the board’s chair and chief executive officer, Richard Wex, which proposed to admit any refugee who could make an “intersectional” claim.

The proposal defined intersectionality as a claimant who checked two or more identity boxes that impact the individual’s “lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression,” including “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability or immigration status.” It was also proposed that adjudicators give refugee applicants the benefit of the doubt if they gave false information, because trauma might lead them to remember differently.

Advertisement 4

Article content

Together, it meant that pretty much anyone could be granted refugee status. Given that Canada’s government is currently trying to grow the population as fast as possible, widening the criteria for the Immigration and Refugee Board to grant refugee status would provide a lot of help.

Yet the reality is that Canada already has a hard time assisting the refugees it currently has — nearly one-third of homeless shelter users in Toronto, for example, are refugees. To Wex, it might have seemed like a good idea, but such a proposal would place even more strain on our existing support systems. The public had every right to know what was going on.

The leak sparked a witch hunt for the whistleblower and a letter by Wex to the Toronto Sun alleging errors in the paper’s coverage (which were detailed by Gunter in a subsequent column). The board also asked for the article to be corrected or retracted. It’s not a stretch to guess that this was paired with a series of requests to the social media giants to remove the embarrassing article.

Advertisement 5

Article content

The request to pull the article was inappropriate — the public had the right to know about the proposal, and if Wex was so certain the Toronto Sun story was unfounded, he could have made his case to the public instead of trying to use backchannels to suppress the news.

The rest of the takedown requests were less exciting, thankfully. The most common reason for government staff making takedown requests was impersonation — they wanted social media companies to remove fake accounts purporting to be official, which is perfectly reasonable.

There were, however, some takedown requests that give cause for concern. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans asked Twitter to remove a tweet after someone posted the photo and name of one of its officers, complaining that he “thinks he is the law.” The tweet disappeared but it wasn’t clear to department staff whether it was removed by Twitter or the individual who posted it.

Advertisement 6

Article content

Twitter also denied a Competition Bureau request to remove an offensive reply to a tweet about Fraud Prevention Month in 2020, as well as a Business Development Bank of Canada request to remove an offensive comment about an employee.

Overall, it’s uncommon for departments to make large numbers of requests: only four government organizations disclosed more than 10 takedown requests, many of which were reasonable. The Communications Security Establishment made more than 60, all for brand infringements or impersonation (all but one, which is still being considered, were granted). The Canadian Commercial Corporation made about 20 requests, all for impersonation (around half of which were granted).

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) made around 25 requests, mostly for hate speech, harassment or bullying on Instagram (none were granted). The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), made 20 requests, mostly for “offensive language.” Most of them were denied. The high number of unreasonable requests on the part of PHAC and the CBSA suggest they are more on the censorious side.

Advertisement 7

Article content

One caveat to the data drop is that a few government organizations didn’t provide any information: CBC-Radio Canada and the National Arts Centre didn’t answer the request on time, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) didn’t disclose for “operational requirements” and security reasons.

CSIS could be making hundreds of requests and we wouldn’t know about it, but overall, the data shows that, for the most part, civil servants are hands-off when it comes to getting social media companies to censor the internet.

The few that do use their power against the public interest are a cause for concern, though. The federal government is moving aggressively to give itself new powers over the internet with the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), and the potential to censor content through government-mandated adjustments to social media algorithms is a real possibility. MPs will need to make a lot more data requests like Dean Allison did in order to keep the public informed.

National Post

This column was originally published in the NP Platformed newsletter. Sign up here.

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Join the Conversation

[ad_2]
Source link

Layah Heilpern and Gideon Heilpern Announced as

[ad_1]

Los Angeles, CA, May 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The recently announced Hourglass Foundation Incubator has brought on power team Layah and Gideon Heilpern as Media Partners. “Layah and Gideon Heilpern are both firebrand influencers who aren’t afraid to speak their minds and go against the grain,” commented Hourglass Foundation President, Jett Tang.

“Layah is a true star in the making and was incredible as a Judge on season one of The Next Crypto Gem tv show,” said Jett, who also produced the series. “We are thrilled to have Layah and Gideon as media partners and are looking forward to working together on many more projects.”

Brian D. Evans, Layah Heilpern, George Tung, Judges on The Next Crypto Gem

Gideon is an entrepreneurial charismatic individual who specializes in brand strategy within digital media. He is a huge advocate for freedom and empowerment and is passionate for life and curious for knowledge and growth. He serves as the Manager of well-known crypto personality, Layah Heilpern.

Layah has dedicated the last 5 years of her career to analyzing and reporting on cryptocurrencies. Her goal is to empower people to take personal responsibility over their finances, health, happiness and general life success. She is the author of Undressing Bitcion: A Revealing Guide to the World’s Most Revolutionary Asset. In the book, Layah guides her readers through the technicalities of bitcoin, while also providing philosophical commentary including a breakdown of the problems that led to the rise of this ‘magic internet money.”

Layah reaches 150 million monthly impressions on her socials, with over 1 million followers across multiple platforms.

Host of The Layah Heilpern Show, she presents raw stripped back conversations about bitcoin, politics, and entrepreneurship. She also is a regular guest on leading Television and Radio programs in the US and UK, including Fox News, GB News, and LBC where she provides expert insight on the state of crypto.

With this duo on board, the Hourglass Foundation aims to spread the word and bring attention to everything they have been working on. The main goal is to elevate the Web 3 space and play a major role in ushering in mainstream adoption of blockchain technology while also guiding and growing projects that join their ecosystem through the Hourglass Incubator program.

Source: The Hourglass Foundation

Los Angeles, CA

Media Contact: sarah@tokenpr.com

Disclaimer:

This press release may contain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements describe future expectations, plans, results, or strategies (including product offerings, regulatory plans and business plans) and may change without notice. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, including the risks that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

Attachment



[ad_2]
Source link

Screen-Shot-2022-10-06-at-7.03.50-PM-e1665324882282.png

Twitter hosts entire Super Mario Bros. movie

[ad_1]

More than 100 million people have paid to watch Super Mario Bros., the blockbuster hit that made its box-office billion this weekend. But you could find it for free online, too. Pirate Bay? No, Twitter! It kept getting posted there, reports Nilay Patel. Absent the laid-off moderators there’s not much to stop it happening beyond whatever whimsical PR crisis management is applied to the specific problem.

One copy of the movie has been up since April 28th and has amassed… 9.3 million views as of posting. You can also find Avatar: The Way of Water on Twitter this way. Hey, why do you think the previous administration at Twitter never enabled 60-minute uploads before?

“Brand Safety Disaster” would be a good band name. Supported by “Revenue Collapse” and “Upload Philtre”



[ad_2]
Source link

GettyImages-1087705674.jpg

‘Buy American’ shouldn’t block our progress toward

[ad_1]

The finish line is within sight. “Internet for All,” as the Biden administration put it, will soon be a reality if America keeps its priorities straight.

During his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden set a high bar, “We’re going to buy American,” as the U.S. spends billions of dollars on new broadband connections. This is a smart strategy to create American jobs and boost the U.S. economy, but our leaders must not sacrifice speed in the race to close the digital divide in cases where “Buy American” isn’t yet a realistic option.

Strengthened during the pandemic when all finally understood that broadband is a necessity, bipartisan cooperation brought America a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve universal connectivity. To date, more than $90 billion has been earmarked by Congress and the administration to finish the private sector’s work of connecting every home in America with broadband internet service.

During this sprint toward “Internet for All,” America’s leaders should avoid creating hurdles that will delay progress.

Under the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, for example, every participating state — as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia — will receive a minimum of $100 million for internet infrastructure, with more to be doled out based on each state’s proportional number of unserved locations. Cartesian estimates that fiber providers will contribute another $22 billion in funds for $64 billion in total, which is “sufficient to achieve the program’s availability goal” of making broadband service “available to all eligible locations.” That’s a first.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law by President Biden on November 15, 2021, also included $14.2 billion for the Affordable Connectivity Program, which has helped over 17 million American families pay for a home broadband connection that they otherwise would struggle to afford. What’s more, the bill set aside $2.75 billion for Digital Equity programs; $2 billion for the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program; $2 billion for the Rural Utilities Service Distance Learning, Telemedicine and Broadband Program; and $1 billion for a new Middle Mile grant program. This truly is broadband’s moment in the sun.

During this sprint toward “Internet for All,” America’s leaders should avoid creating hurdles that will delay progress. Every American deserves to have the chance to “attend class, start a small business, visit with their doctor, and participate in the modern economy.”

The Build America Buy America Act, which was enacted as part of the IIJA, requires infrastructure projects (including internet infrastructure funded by the BEAD Program) to use domestically sourced materials. But broadband networks are complex; they’re more than just fiber cables. Some essential pieces of the puzzle like certain electronic products aren’t currently manufactured in America and the components that make up those products are not available in the United States.

We should always do our best to honor President Biden’s goal to “Buy American,” but not at the expense of leaving Americans offline while they wait for every switch, router and radio to be made in the U.S. After all, the Government Accountability Office recently estimated that the BEAD Program alone could create 23,000 jobs for skilled telecommunications workers … just to build out the infrastructure. Spending will predominantly go toward U.S. paychecks and balance sheets, even if we need to rely on foreign manufacturers for a limited number of network components.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo recently announced that CommScope and Corning are investing nearly $550 million and creating hundreds of new jobs in America to build fiber optic cables. Although the Obama administration provided a blanket “Buy American” waiver for IT products in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), recognizing that the U.S. share of global computer and electronics output had dropped 8.2 percentage points between 1999 and 2009, the Biden administration is right to seek a solution that is balanced, maximizing U.S. production when possible while permitting select network components to be sourced from outside our borders when necessary.

There are so many good things happening to close the digital divide, including the Federal Communications Commission recently devoting $66 million to Affordable Broadband Outreach Grants. Let’s not lose that momentum. Let’s not sacrifice the great for the perfect.

It’s time for the Biden administration to guard against the unintended consequences of the “Buy American” ideal and keep its eye on the prize: Everyone in America — including communities of color, rural communities and older Americans — needs broadband now.

[ad_2]
Source link

modi-16.jpg

100 episodes of PM Modi’s Mann ki Baat: Understand…

[ad_1]

Mann Ki Baat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popular radio programme, completed 100 episodes on Sunday. Over the last almost nine years, the broadcast experiment that had a global history but no significant Indian precedents, has become a successful element in the communications strategy of the Prime Minister, a leader who believes in talking directly to the masses.

In terms of similar global examples of radio broadcasts, what came before Mann ki Baat?

The earliest example of the use of radio broadcasts by a national leader remains the “Fireside Chats”, a series of 30 radio addresses, each typically 20-30 minutes long, delivered by United States President Franklin D Roosevelt between 1933 and 1944.

mann ki baat People watch live telecast of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 100th episode of ‘ Mann Ki Baat ‘ address at a house in Bareja village in the outskirts of Ahmedabad on Sunday. (Express photo by Nirmal Harindran)

The chats were popular, and played a role in shaping American public opinion on a range of issues at a time when the US battled with crises ranging from the Great Depression to World War II. Roosevelt also used the chats to counter criticisms from the conservative media and to unpack his policies to the American public without the use of intermediaries.

Decades later, Ronald Reagan used a daily radio commentary that ran from 1975 to 1979 to build a reputation as a “great communicator”, and to prepare the ground for his successful presidential run in 1980. Reagan gave 1,027 addresses, reaching an estimated audience of 20-30 million listeners every week. The radio commentaries “helped Reagan transition from a national public figure appreciated more for his acting ability than his political acumen into a serious political figure”, according to a note on the US Library of Congress website.

Earlier, in an entirely different context, Subhas Chandra Bose had started Azad Hind Radio as part of Germany’s radio service, first broadcasting on January 7, 1942. The programmes were meant to create bonds between Indians living abroad with those in the motherland under British colonial rule.

 Mann Ki Baat infographic how certain topics are invoked in the show.

Why did the Prime Minister choose radio over newer broadcast mediums?

While leaders like former US Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump used television and videos on social media, Modi chose radio as the most effective medium in the Indian context to reach the last Indian at the end of the country’s last mile. He recognised that the rapid growth of Internet penetration notwithstanding, not everyone owned a mobile device — and that parts of the country would present problems of connectivity.

The Prime Minister has spoken about having understood the power of radio early on in life, when he travelled across the country as a pracharak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He said on an episode of Mann ki Baat that he had noticed people in the remote upper reaches of the Himalayas tuning in to radio for news as well as entertainment.

What are the issues/ themes that the PM has referred to most frequently?

Yoga, women-led initiatives, youth, and cleanliness have been among the most touched-upon topics on Mann ki Baat since it began in October 2014.

mann ki baat One of the salient features of the programme is its non-partisan approach to social issues.(Express photo by Nirmal Harindran)

The PM has also frequently spoken of the valour and sacrifice of India’s soldiers, the nation’s cultural heritage, and recounted the stories of the life and work of Padma awardees and other achievers. He has also spoken on issues of science and environment.

The PM has dwelt on khadi at length, transcripts of episodes show. He had casually asked people to wear khadi during the first episode of the programme — and in the second episode, he reported: “I had not asked anyone to be khadi-dhari. But the feedback I got from khadi stores was that in a week’s time, the sales had jumped up by 125 per cent!”

The 100th episode on Sunday recalled some of the important issues that he has spoken on — and how some of them became wider movements. Sunil Jaglan, who started the ‘Selfie with Daughter’ campaign in Haryana, a state with a skewed sex ratio, joined the PM on the show over a call. Soon after being mentioned on the show, ‘Selfie with Daughter’ had turned into a global campaign — and the result of such efforts can be seen in an improvement of the gender ratio in Haryana, the PM said.

Among similar campaigns are those related to cleanliness, environment and ecology, and encouraging people to buy local products and visit Indian tourist spots.

Has Mann ki Baat been a political/ electioneering tool of the PM?

One of the salient features of the programme is its non-partisan approach to social issues. It has helped to widen and deepen its reach, and allowed the PM to convey his ideas to a broad spectrum of people.

An official involved in the production of the show said that the idea and concept is to convey positivity — to involve the people in the nation’s progress, to make them feel a part of its growth trajectory, and to spread optimism. Politics and negativity do not find space in this vision, the official said.

During the two years of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns, almost all episodes had a health-related capsule. The PM repeatedly underlined the need for socially responsible and Covid-appropriate behaviour, and widespread vaccinations as the country battled the coronavirus.

The PM has also used the platform extensively to spread awareness about government schemes and initiatives — exports, the e-marketplace initiative, Pradhan Mantri Sangrahalaya, Azaadi ka Amrit Mahotsav, Har Ghar Tiranga, digital payments, startups and unicorns, and advancements in the space sector.

What are the chords that Mann ki Baat strikes with listeners?

In an age of social media saturation, in which the PM is constantly active on Internet platforms, he has framed Mann ki Baat as a more intimate, longer-duration, participative interaction with the people. On Sunday, he framed the radio show as a national conversation that helps him connect with the people — “a matter of faith, of worship”, and a “thaal of prasad” at the feet of “Janata Janardan”.

“The very countrymen who are my everything… I could not live separated from them. Mann Ki Baat gave me a solution to this challenge, a way to connect with the common man,” he said.

Understanding the PM’s Mann ki Baat Senior leaders of the BJP listen to the 100th episode of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Mann Ki Baat’ radio programme, at BJP HQ in New Delhi, Sunday, April 30, 2023. (PTI Photo/Shahbaz Khan)

Mann ki Baat is consciously not a monologue by the PM. The design of the programme is participative, and involves the engagement of citizens. A backend communications network involving people writing in, and the PM personally engaging with ordinary people on the show, has increased interest.

Almost every show includes some new and interesting little-known information about India’s arts, craft, folk culture and heroes, etc. that inform and educate, and evoke and sustain listener interest.

Around 730 individuals have been mentioned by the PM on the show so far, said officials, adding that 281 private organisations (including NGOs and village self-help groups) working in states and Union Territories around the country have been praised for their inspirational work. Even 38 individuals from foreign countries have found mentions for their extraordinary work and stories, the officials said.



[ad_2]
Source link

Cam’ron Tells Story Behind His “You Mad” Bill

[ad_1]

Black America Web Featured Video

CLOSE

Diplomat's "Santana" Video Shoot - October 23, 2004

Source: Johnny Nunez / Getty

Cam’ron has many iconic pop culture moments, but his Bill O’Reilly appearance tops most.

The Harlem native appeared on O’Reilly’s show in 2003, where his yelling of “You Mad!” and “I got dirt on you, doggie!” made history. And now he’s finally opening up about how he booked a spot on the show during a recent interview with Kevin Clancy and John Feitelberg’s KFC Radio podcast on Barstool.

Cam admits that when he was approached about the Fox News show, he had no clue who O’Reilly was, making the interview even more hilarious.

“At the time, I was at Roc-A-Fella, and they had a great publicist at the time,” Cam explained. “A lot of those opportunities were presented but people were scared to take the opportunity so particularly with the Bill O’Reilly’ you mad situation, they was like, ‘You want to go on Bill O’Reilly?’ I’m like, ‘I don’t know who Bill O’ Reilly is. Who is that? Not really.’”

The Purple Haze rapper goes on to explain that once the The O’Reilly Factor host immediately generalized him at the beginning of the sitdown, he was ready to fight back.

“So now they just trying to prep me and now I’m extra like, ‘Oh, he’s an a-shole’ so whatever I’m ready for this,” Cam’ron said. “So basically, we get up there and the first thing he says is, ‘Cam’ron who’s known for rhyming about pimpin’ b-tches. And I’m like, ‘Bet, it’s on!’”

Fans of the interview remember that Cam was joined by his Roc-A-Fella brethren Dame Dash, who decided to join Cam’s interview the day before, after he already had his own interview with the talk show host.

“I’m supposed to go on by myself, so I heard Dame was on before that. And Dame is real arrogant, I don’t know. I didn’t see the episode. To where he feel he didn’t get the best of Bill O’ Reilly or whatever,” the Dipset frontman added.

“So, I remember being in the office and Dame comes in the office like, ‘Yo, you going on Bill O’ Reilly tomorrow?’ And I said ‘Yeah, I’m going tomorrow.’ And Dame says, ‘I don’t know if you’re ready by yourself, I’m going with you. No, I’m definitely going with you because you don’t know this type of guy.’”

You can watch Cam’s entire KFC Radio interview here, with the O’Reilly story beginning around the 14-minute mark.


Cam’ron Tells Behind-The-Scenes Story Of His Legendary “You Maaaad” Bill O’Reilly Appearance 
was originally published on
cassiuslife.com

[ad_2]
Source link