I actually listened to that one and even though I don't agree with everything that was discussed during that 3 hour interview, a few things struck me as odd in the huge wave of criticism that followed.
- Dr Malone has a rather impressive CV and a rather relevant one when it comes to Covid. This is a point that is glossed over by most media. He's not some crackpot theorist but somebody with a rather impressive research career centered on doing research around major virus outbreaks. Or at least that's what Joe Rogan spends about an hour of the interview trying to establish as the ground truth. Like him or not, when somebody like that says something, you might want to listen. Or if that reputation has some flaws, an eager fact checker might want to highlight that. Instead it was glossed over. If this is somehow not true, I've yet to find an article challenging that reputation.
- In the podcast, Dr Malone and Rogan discuss the cancel culture and the fact that several notable colleagues of his have had to deal with that. To the point where medical licenses were cancelled. And that he too has been under attack following a rather negative piece in the Atlantic.
- Some pretty harsh criticism is voiced towards Pfizer and the FDA's failure to do its job in overseeing the way Pfizer rushed the vaccine to market and maybe cut a few corners with testing protocols. Those are serious accusations. When they are made by somebody with Malone's apparent reputation, a serious journalist might want to fact check them. I've not seen any attempt at that.
- During the interview, Dr. Malone singles out the Atlantic article that criticized him and the author of that article as an inexperienced "woke" journalist that basically got their facts wrong. And then every other mainstream media goes on to use specifically that article as the core basis for "cancelling" Malone. What happened to allowing the other side to counter? Isn't that what you are supposed to do as a good journalist?
You don't have to agree with any of what was discussed during that interview of course but I find it notable that mainstream media gloss over most of that and fail to fact check any of it. There are some rather serious issues that were discussed in this interview that as of yet have not been challenged and instead are simply ignored.
For example, I read a pretty harsh article on the BBC a few days ago that was actually attempting to "fact check" exactly this episode on a few things and it left me wondering if they'd even bothered to listen to this episode or whether I actually listened to the same thing. A Guardian actually mentioned the Atlantic article. Neither of them gave Malone an opportunity to respond. Given the amount of time spent during the podcast discussing exactly that article, that is more than a bit sloppy.
I noticed as well the bias in Rogan's interview and maybe a bit eagerly jumping to conclusions by Joe Rogan. For me that falls under free speech. But still, it was an interesting exchange and packed with a lot of detail and well argued opinions that, as of yet, remain mostly unchallenged. That worries me.
For reference, I got vaccinated, boostered, and will get another shot. But I have a few growing concerns regarding the special status of Pfizer at this point and their apparent influence over mainstream media and politicians to basically run what looks like a character assassination campaign. There's plenty there for a serious journalist to fact check. Maybe the most worrying thing is the apparent self censure ship mainstream media seem to be applying to themselves.