Comment by sjtindell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjtindell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ironic because Fox News has zero credibility. Their prime time anchor Tucker Carlson won against slander charges in court by arguing that he does not state actual facts and instead engages in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations.

And since the beginning of Covid Joe Rogan has stopped being just a dude who hangs out and smokes with his buddies, something I used to love about the show. He is constantly and consistently political, making medical claims and other kinds of claims that are nonsensical. He’s started favoring certain types of guests, and avoiding the friends who call him out.

I used to argue vehemently that free speech can be infringed upon under no circumstance. I still will. But now I see the “other side” more clearly, that is, where is the line when someone has one of the largest platforms in the world and uses it to spread dangerous misinformation? He’s way past just some dude. I have friends who take what he says as gospel, because they want to learn how to be men and Joe is a man’s man. At the same time, he does make good arguments in favor of discourse, hearing different viewpoints, etc. so how do we handle this?

The other American networks are no different. Just yesterday CNN’s Jim Acosta called Virginia under Republican Governor Youngkin a “Soviet-style police state.” I don’t see how that’s better or worse than any of Carlson’s hyperbolic statements. CNN in particular has spread plenty of misinformation, such as in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion or during 2020’s “firey but mostly peaceful” riots.

People have the ability to remember and compare similar statements and events. Double standards applied unfairly tend to get remembered for a very long time. I think the best thing would be to apply even standards across the board for “misinformation”, and tend towards less rather than more censorship.

It is even crazier if you read the story as told by FoxNews:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jim-acosta-virginia-soviet...

> CNN host Jim Acosta on Tuesday suggested Virginia was being run like a "Soviet-style police state" under new Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

> During a segment on his fill-in primetime show, Acosta, while making the comparison, cited an email tip line set up by Youngkin's administration in which parents can report teachers that teach "divisive" topics to their children, such as critical race theory, while also mocking the way Youngkin dressed.

which is hyperbole about hyperbole. Then you read it from realpolitics:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/26/cnns_acos...

> CNN's Jim Acosta recognized that the country is divided, and he had someone to blame during a Tuesday segment with Molly Jong Fast.

> "It seems Republican leaders have gone all-in on dividing the country in many ways," Acosta said.

> "I seem to remember Glenn Youngkin campaigning in a fleece vest in Virginia. He was running as a different kind of Republican. I was told there was going to be a vest, not a Soviet-style police state across the Potomac from Washington," he said about the new Virginia governor.

Who spend most of their time quoting what Acosta actually said in one block (while FoxNews shuffles the quotes around so it would fit their narrative). The news is basically trash these days. Of course, once it comes out that the governer basically instituted a tip line to out teachers who might be teaching something construed as critical race theory, all the non-far right wingers are already on board with Acosta's outrage.

Here's how the actual executive order defines "inherently divisive"- seems worth a tip line to me:

>For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.

Full text here:

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/news-releases/2022/january...

Yes, so absolutely nothing about critical race theory, as foxnews claimed.

I literally said

> They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations.

He appeals to the crowd that seems to think the contrarian stance is always the smarter stance. If the mainstream reports Ivermectin is for horses and doesn't treat covid, they latch onto one half-truth that it's for horses like they cracked the code and use this to undermine the credibility of anyone telling them it's not useful for treating covid even if there are human applications.

I've realized in my conversations with Rogan fans and Fox News fans alike, to them all lies are equal, everyone lies, nothing is true, so they pick the things they like as truths. These people will tell you Joe Rogan is an entertainer not to be listened to, and then spout off a bunch of opinions they got from his show as their reasons for all kinds of decisions.

Saying that Ivermectin is for horses is like saying penicillin is for horses. True, but deliberately deceptive.

They carried out a disinformation campaign using half-truths. They could complain that this tactic is valid because Ivermectin is ineffective for Covid. But they junked their credibility with the horse nonsense.

We handle this how we were handling it yesterday, let people say whatever they want and decide for ourselves if what they say makes sense.

To be fair to Tucker Carlson... Facebook did the exact same thing but claimed all of their fact checkers under that legal umbrella in their own court case.

That's really interesting, do you have a source?

See what the judge said[1], specifically:

> The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.

All media sources hide behind "being just entertainment and not factual opinion" just like the New York Times or MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who, when she was sued for saying OAN is "paid Russian propaganda”, won the case because “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation”[2] even though MSNBC couldn't prove OAN was paid by Russia.

[1]: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb... [2]: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-i... "paid Russian propaganda”

If mainstream media isn't offering acceptable male role models then it provides a space for people like Joe to fill the void.

Jesus, how can anyone spout the term “dangerous misinformation” with a straight face?

These are adults you’re talking about - either you believe the have the capacity to validate what they here on their own or you don’t.

Humans are messy, someone will hear idea A (good) and turn it into idea B (bad). Some will be told the right thing and choose not to do it.

We don’t suddenly treat all adults like children (which is what censoring Rogan would be) just because a few decide to make stupid decisions.

I’d say we should handle it with more speech. All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation. Make each episode at least an hour, and have an actual discussion. They don’t need to smoke weed or anything, but people like rogan because he does still feel like just some guy with a podcast, and mainstream media is less popular than ever because people are sick of being told what to think and not to question things.

That would be infinitely more engaging than a clickbait headline and 3 minutes from an “expert” on CNN/MSNBC/Fox.

I don't know if that's feasible. Joe Rogan can have hour-long podcasts because hour-long podcasts are his job. It is not the job of experts to have hour-long podcasts dissecting another podcast-- their jobs are to be experts in whatever their field is in. Dissecting a wrong person may not be helpful if they don't have the equipment, the same following, the polish, the time, or the presentation skill... because its not their job.

> All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation.

Sounds like something an expert in a field would a) not have enough time to do, b) usually lack the charisma to do and c) draw them away from arguably more pertinent tasks, such as research?

I think a better course of action would be to stop believing one can be educated on topics they know nothing about, and without context, purely by passively absorbing information from podcasts.

OTOH trust is not unconditional, it must be acquired. People don't trust authorities, and it is hardly fault of Joe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com