Hunter S. Thompson Interview on Gonzo Journalism (1975) [video] | Hacker News Reader

Hunter S. Thompson Interview on Gonzo Journalism (1975) [video]

youtube.com

76 pointsraptorraver22 comments

” That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary’s trip. He crashed around America selling “consciousness expansion” without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously… All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create… a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody… or at least some force – is tending the light at the end of the tunnel.”

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of my all time favorite movies. It’s a disorienting and psychedelic plot filled with subtle yet striking insights into human nature. I highly recommend giving it a watch if you’re looking for a taste of Hunter S Thompson’s legacy.

Not sure why the downvotes. Perhaps it’s due to referring to Fear and Loathing as a movie instead of the book it’s based on. The movie is actually a good representation of the book and almost all of the dialog is taken word-for-word

I've been trying to think for a while, why the downvotes, and one thing definitely comes to my mind: For many people, the idea of Hunter S. Thompson is this drug-fueled lunatic acted by Johnny Depp. That this is all he is; leaving behind the amazing amount of writing about American society and politics.

Las Vegas is a tiny book. It's a great book, a story about excess and the American dream. And the movie is the dialog word-for-word, but it adds nothing to the legacy of Hunter S. Thompson. It's Depp getting famous by riding the fame of Hunter. And it is generally thought as a movie about taking drugs and doing crazy things. And, I might be wrong here, but this is how I see it after many of my schoolmates watched it and were quoting the scenes.

And I like the movie. I love his writing. And I think Terry Gilliam was the right director to do this movie. I still kind of want to reject this idea of this movie to be the first thing people think when they talk about Hunter. He was so much more.

>It's Depp getting famous by riding the fame of Hunter.

Depp was already more famous than Thompson when the movie was made, not that that counts for much.

It's funny to think how he also destroyed it all by following his hero's footsteps, isn't it?

Maybe I'm being nostalgic, but I don't see this type of open discussions in media today, where on the one hand you'll have a reputable, mainstream journalist and on the other you'll have someone who thinks so far out the box that you'll have to invent a new word before classifying them and what they produce, even though they come from different parts of the what-have-you spectrum, is pure intellectual brilliance that's bliss to consume.

I miss that aspect of the past. Maybe I shouldn't but I do.

Hasn't it just moved to podcasts? You are right though, the traditional media just deals in half truths and artificially modifying information to suit whatever will make people click.

"Orange juice (whatever) causes/cures cancer" or "some person said controversial thing" or "aggressive interviewer with an axe to grind" and actually when you go to the original sources in context this is very rarely justified or true. I actually think the lack of sourcing of things is horrendous when full versions of quoted interviews are usually available to be linked. And then there is the disingenuousness of the people who are attempting to appear in the media, they will literally say anything.

I'm really not sure where we are when I trust most of the podcasts I listen to to tell me more accurate information than the BBC or CNN or Fox or The Times etc. but here we are.

>> traditional media just deals in half truths

>> I trust most of the podcasts I listen to

But so does pod casters, even Joe "Vitamin D" Rogan does it. Half-truths sell magazines.

It seems we've created a society where being "right" and pointing fingers are highly lucrative ways of conducting ourselves. It seems we have forgotten the ways of the past where even the most unalike could find consensus around basic matters and have fruitful discussions around your point of view as well as mine, because we knew, we're both far from being 100% "right".

The arrogance of the human race, it makes me so sad.

> consensus around basic matters

But the thing is Joe (and others) will have the conversations you’re describing- it’s not forgotten. Part of having a good conversation is being comfortable with being wrong. He’s explicit about being a joke comedian sports commentator, and can sympathetically talk with anyone. Conversations with ground rules of truth are those that tend to be dry and pre-processed. The listener can think too and figure out what makes sense. Part of what makes gonzo fun, too.

>Conversations with ground rules of truth are those that tend to be dry and pre-processed.

Focusing too much on truth turns your conversations into legalese. People will be more focused on not being wrong than communicating useful information and ideas.

Conversation happens in half-truths. You can't expect anyone to know all the ins and outs of everything they discuss - even scientists in their field of expertise. These half-truths are usually unintentional.

The media has the problem of half-truths while seeming credible. In the modern media a news reporter reports on a protest and describes it as "mostly peaceful" while in the background you can see buildings on fire. This is an intentional half-truth, but it's branded with the media organization's credibility.

There is a huge correlation between people low in Vitamin D and bad COVID-19 outcomes, correlation != causation, sure. It’s usually too late to expect giving vitamin D at the point of hospitalisation to expect it to help. I’m for most people taking vitamin d regularly for all sorts of reasons. I’d be much more circumspect about Ivermectin but the studies are being done now to see if it can help, to say it absolutely won’t work is unknown. I think promoting it is pretty bad personally and I don’t take my medical advice from Joe Rogan. Medcram is pretty informative though.

>> huge correlation between people low in Vitamin D and bad COVID-19 outcomes

>> correlation != causation

Thank you for that perfect explanation of "what is half-truth".

Well I’m not here to defend Joe Rogan but I think most people should be taking Vitamin D. Listen to the stuff medcram have put out on this, it’s really informative and science based and doesn’t make outlandish claims.

Thanks for illustrating that you “half-understoood” the argument.

Which part _did_ I understand and what part did I not, according to you?

Sorry, I'm sometimes snarky in the mornings. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, I presume they meant that correlation does not always equal causation, but that there is a middle ground of the "unknown" rather than just the inverse of a logical, mathematical statement. If you see a pattern from enough correlations, then you might let go of some of your own hubris. It's not black and white, and so on.

I'm sorry you feel I've been too binary and full of hubris. I'll take that to heart. Cheers!

>>traditional media just deals in half truths and artificially modifying information

You know, this also could be a definition for Gonzo journalism which by its nature is 'truth inspired'.

Unfortunately, most of traditional media is both really intertwined with government actors, and mostly interested in matters of politics, instead of sciences, technology, and more meaningful and informative things.

News is, unfortunately, mostly propaganda and de facto marketing & public relations of government officials instead of about interesting topics you can learn from.

I mean, I guess? Just as an example NYT has entire sections about science, technology, art, travel. They're pretty mainstream.

There's a lot of noise out there but there's still good journalism happening.

Perhaps Gonzo has been industrialized: “when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”

Salisbury's clearly well-informed and knows how to ask a question without probing or catering to Thompson. Thompson is home at ease in his snow-covered Aspen hamlet. They're both journalists/writers with a mutual respect for one another and the craft. And the medium in that era was often there to capture a record of the proceedings, not to generate a product of it. It's not a lost art per se, but having all the great interview ingredients from what's on display in this video sure seem to be rare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com