10 ms·

All Gas No Brakes is fantastic - strongly recommend to anyone remotely interested in journalism. This article sort of suggests he’s not a journalist - which I h

All Gas No Brakes is fantastic - strongly recommend to anyone remotely interested in journalism. This article sort of suggests he’s not a journalist - which I have to take issue with... He asks as few questions as possible and intentionally doesn’t steer the conversation - which is maybe not the kind of investigative drilling were used to in modern times - but is exactly what journalism needs. Every video provides enough context that you don’t feel silly commenting on it - you aren’t nagged by that “what did they say right after that clever edit back to the studio...” feeling. Extremely happy AGNB got signed to AbsoLutley. I want Tim & Eric to do to news what they did to comedy.

AndrewOMartin 6y ago
This was the interviewing technique that impressed me most when I listened to Joe Rogan (the few times that I have). Shutting the fuck up means that you allow the interviewee to steer the conversation, and if you'll allow me to torture the metaphor, you quickly learn whether they're able to confidently navigate the conceptual terrain or promptly drive into a ravine. I've even tried it myself a few times in social situations and the quality of the conversation often shoots up.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  The style works for All Gas no Brakes because he wants to give people an insight into a niche subculture and often it is humorous, so that's no problem. But Joe Rogan fails horribly to actually call guests out on their bullshit given the amount of crazy people he invites. He simply let's them talk because 99% of the time Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place. Guests on Rogan frequently opine on serious questions as if they're speaking from a position of authority, and Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation.
  - amscanne 6y ago
    > Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation. You’re begging the question. Who’s to say Rogan’s intent isn’t “to give people an insight” into some crazy person’s ideas? I don’t think the role of an interviewer is to unilaterally keep people “honest” or contextualize. Sometimes it’s simply to steer the conversation through different arenas and keep it interesting. I like to read a lot of articles by people all over the political spectrum. They don’t need “contextualizing” in order for me to evaluate them critically, and neither do interviews.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      It's fine if you can do it, but not everyone can. When he had Alex Jones on his podcast I actually had this debate with someone else, and I went to Facebook, I searched for discussions or posts of the video (you can do this right now too I guess), and the amount of people who actually believed Alex Jones is crazy, in some comment sections it probably was the majority of users. You had people repeating everything from Jews running the world, to Sandy hook victims being actors, to pizzagate, and so on. Joe Rogan has 30 million listeners, he has a responsibility when it comes to what he puts out into the world. As it stands it basically a clearinghouse for bad ideas and conspiracy theories.
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        My distaste for Joe Rogan is the same as the parents in this thread - may times he is in over his head while his guest plainly states bullshit that goes unchallenged. Joe has shown he can push back but his style of interview isn't a debate. However, the idea that Joe has a responsibility is something I heard and don't understand. Who bestow'd on Joe this responsibility? How has the responsibility changed from when he had 30,000 viewers? And why is he supposed to change his format? I ask this question for two reasons. One, the very idea of saying "you can no longer talk about X because you have Y million viewers" is an odd sort of censorship. Does my Freedom of Speech end when I gain Y amount of followers? Two, when did the World become so helpless that Joe "Wow look at the size of that Gorilla" Rogan has become the Messiah of the people?
  - overgard 6y ago
    Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree. I think his style is very conversational and deferential to his guests in letting them make their point without interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting people and interviews them in a style that lets them get into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he has a responsibility outside of that. This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why they believe those things. I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but he also has enough influence that it's important to understand how he formed his audience in the first place. It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch of people, but it's more likely that there were people out there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to know why that wave is there.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Is it good to have a show where the guest can lie about whatever they want unchallenged? That just selects for good bullshitters. Fox's Wallace and Axios's Jonathan had great Trump interviews where Trump where they let him drive himself into a ravine by asking tough questions.
- moneytide1 6y ago
  I see it as beneficial spreading agro for the room. The camera man plays a major role in this immediate-proximity-social-attention-fluctuation. Before cameras were palm sized, and after they were a novelty (before mass produced television), they were large and bright lights were needed. This meant that the camera direction is what we're all supposed to be paying attention to. Holding the microphone also delivers this same cue (directing any flow once others ping to join this sudden "focus" since the guys with the mic and camera with large light have now shown up to the gathering). In all of "All Gas No Brakes" videos, the context is a crowd assembly. Since the interviewer is mostly holding the microphone in front of a crowd member, both in the middle of the event and off to the side for personal interviews, there is opportunity for "anyone who wants to broadcast." But it is not a news network van pulling up. It is a similar format, but without restrictions. People are comfortable with parody and satire in his presence - anything goes because you have the audience of a neutral observer. He does have a duty to guide the conversation with the occasional steering prompt you refer to, and it has a rhythm to it. Much of the content is edited monologue footage, and that is the opportunity he grants them with unconditional attentiveness.
donkeyd 6y ago
I think I first saw them when they'd just uploaded their 3rd episode and instantly subscribed. I'm really amazed at how much they've grown already!
crocodiletears 6y ago
By my estimate, he's probably one of the few people worth calling a journalist anymore. Watered-down as the term has become with bloggers, hacks who spend all their time on Twitter railing against the immaturities of our present administration in hot-takes devoid of original investigation or thought, and self-important ideologues who think they exist to intellectually shepherd the unwashed masses to whatever promised land their politics would have them believe in. All Gas No Breaks provides an impressively sweeping look at anyone and everyone you might encounter wherever he chooses to visit. He presents the fanatics and the well reasoned in pretty much even measure. If he does anyone editorial favors, it's hard to see where. It's a refreshing change from the staged shots and selective presentation we've become accustomed to seeing from the likes of Fox, the NYT, MSNBC, Breitbart, WaPo, and CNN.
- agildehaus 6y ago
  Really? No selective presentation? AGNB is almost entirely selective presentation.
  - crocodiletears 6y ago
    I didn't allege no selectiveness, I alleged that he presents a comparably larger intersection than other outlets. Certainly he's selecting footage for entertainment, and his selection in no way proportional to the events he cover's participants. Looking back on my comment, I overemphasized his even-handedness in terms of screen-time, but that's beside the thrust of my point. He casts a wide net, and the content of his videos reflect that.
- sukilot 6y ago
  This is called "both sides ism" where you give equal time to the sane view and the insane fringe view and call it "fairness"
  - crocodiletears 6y ago
    Both sides-ism is a snappy accusation used by partisans to suppress access to information and context, predicated on the idea that coverage is equivelant to either an endorsement or proportional to the significance of a viewpoint or group relative to the broader population. If there are N perspectives about something I'm considering, or N significant actions undertaken by an individual or groups during an event I'm trying to understand, sanding off the ugly bits to fit a given moral narrative is a disservice to the audience. I personally look to journalism for knowledge, and to help inform my understanding of the world. Not moral guidance.
Taek 6y ago
I was at Area 51, which he covered. And while his video was very entertaining, it did not represent at all what it was like to be there. AGNB is exceptional at finding the crazy people and encouraging them to be themselves on camera. 98% of the people at area 51 (admittedly a lower percentage than most events) were completely normal, non-conspiracy individuals, mostly from the midwest.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Interesting that they were mostly from the midwest.
  - grogenaut 6y ago
    If you're going to drive to cali/vegas, why not stop by A51, death valley, painted desert, and The Grand Canyon on the way? I know we did when I moved my brother to college at USC from STL.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    People outside the Midwest have more interesting nearby places to visit
- ethanbond 6y ago
  But... they were at Area 51... It seems that alone would indicate that they are not non-conspiracy individuals.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    The Area 51 thing was a viral meme on social media. It hit the mainstream. It was a little like a flash mob. Even its origin was comedic.
    - ethanbond 6y ago
      Yeah but most ordinary people don’t travel hundreds of miles into the middle of a desert to a classified military installation to “flash mob.”
themacguffinman 6y ago
But is it informative? I've watched a few of his videos now and they feel unrepresentative of the topic or group he's covering. It feels like he cherry picks the zaniest people in the room, which is great for comedy and entertainment value but leaves me thinking: ok these people have some interesting things to say, but are they representative of any group or movement or anything important? I end the video questioning if I've actually learnt anything meaningful about the world and its problems, or if I've just watched a modern-day freak show.
- fiblye 6y ago
  The newest videos about the recent protests offer a slice of every viewpoint. They show the people who just want to make a mess, the people who think there should be peaceful change, the people who think there should be violent change, and the people who just don’t care. Of course, the wildest people stand out, but they’re all given pretty fair time to explain why they’re doing what they are. And I think the point is to clearly avoid the polished and prepared representatives who have a quote perfectly prepared for the media. The point is to find the people who aren’t polished and show what they’re doing.
  - pedrogpimenta 6y ago
    The last videos and the most political ones are clearly showing the effort to portray a little bit of everything.
- pedrogpimenta 6y ago
  That's exactly what it is. And it's why it is "important". He's not pretending to give a message about the issue he's "covering". He's covering the event and showing some part of that.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    But he is inviting the reader to form an impression, and doing so in an intentionally misleading way of selecting his subjects.
lm28469 6y ago
> He asks as few questions as possible and intentionally doesn’t steer the conversation Do you have videos of the whole process? I've only seen his YouTube videos and it couldn't be further from what you said. There are so many cuts that there is no way to tell what questions the people are answering In the rocket launch video for example we don't even get to hear most questions, we mostly hear people talking, they're obviously answering something the interviewer said but we don't know what it is. The entire video is making fun of the worst people he could find there, it's very funny for sure but I wouldn't call it journalism. It's clearly more of a comedy than pure journalism to me, a bit like "Joe goes", funny but not very informative

AndrewOMartin 6y ago

This was the interviewing technique that impressed me most when I listened to Joe Rogan (the few times that I have). Shutting the fuck up means that you allow the interviewee to steer the conversation, and if you'll allow me to torture the metaphor, you quickly learn whether they're able to confidently navigate the conceptual terrain or promptly drive into a ravine. I've even tried it myself a few times in social situations and the quality of the conversation often shoots up.

Barrin92 6y ago
The style works for All Gas no Brakes because he wants to give people an insight into a niche subculture and often it is humorous, so that's no problem. But Joe Rogan fails horribly to actually call guests out on their bullshit given the amount of crazy people he invites. He simply let's them talk because 99% of the time Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place. Guests on Rogan frequently opine on serious questions as if they're speaking from a position of authority, and Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation.
- amscanne 6y ago
  > Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation. You’re begging the question. Who’s to say Rogan’s intent isn’t “to give people an insight” into some crazy person’s ideas? I don’t think the role of an interviewer is to unilaterally keep people “honest” or contextualize. Sometimes it’s simply to steer the conversation through different arenas and keep it interesting. I like to read a lot of articles by people all over the political spectrum. They don’t need “contextualizing” in order for me to evaluate them critically, and neither do interviews.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    It's fine if you can do it, but not everyone can. When he had Alex Jones on his podcast I actually had this debate with someone else, and I went to Facebook, I searched for discussions or posts of the video (you can do this right now too I guess), and the amount of people who actually believed Alex Jones is crazy, in some comment sections it probably was the majority of users. You had people repeating everything from Jews running the world, to Sandy hook victims being actors, to pizzagate, and so on. Joe Rogan has 30 million listeners, he has a responsibility when it comes to what he puts out into the world. As it stands it basically a clearinghouse for bad ideas and conspiracy theories.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      My distaste for Joe Rogan is the same as the parents in this thread - may times he is in over his head while his guest plainly states bullshit that goes unchallenged. Joe has shown he can push back but his style of interview isn't a debate. However, the idea that Joe has a responsibility is something I heard and don't understand. Who bestow'd on Joe this responsibility? How has the responsibility changed from when he had 30,000 viewers? And why is he supposed to change his format? I ask this question for two reasons. One, the very idea of saying "you can no longer talk about X because you have Y million viewers" is an odd sort of censorship. Does my Freedom of Speech end when I gain Y amount of followers? Two, when did the World become so helpless that Joe "Wow look at the size of that Gorilla" Rogan has become the Messiah of the people?
- overgard 6y ago
  Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree. I think his style is very conversational and deferential to his guests in letting them make their point without interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting people and interviews them in a style that lets them get into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he has a responsibility outside of that. This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why they believe those things. I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but he also has enough influence that it's important to understand how he formed his audience in the first place. It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch of people, but it's more likely that there were people out there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to know why that wave is there.
sukilot 6y ago
Is it good to have a show where the guest can lie about whatever they want unchallenged? That just selects for good bullshitters. Fox's Wallace and Axios's Jonathan had great Trump interviews where Trump where they let him drive himself into a ravine by asking tough questions.
moneytide1 6y ago
I see it as beneficial spreading agro for the room. The camera man plays a major role in this immediate-proximity-social-attention-fluctuation. Before cameras were palm sized, and after they were a novelty (before mass produced television), they were large and bright lights were needed. This meant that the camera direction is what we're all supposed to be paying attention to. Holding the microphone also delivers this same cue (directing any flow once others ping to join this sudden "focus" since the guys with the mic and camera with large light have now shown up to the gathering). In all of "All Gas No Brakes" videos, the context is a crowd assembly. Since the interviewer is mostly holding the microphone in front of a crowd member, both in the middle of the event and off to the side for personal interviews, there is opportunity for "anyone who wants to broadcast." But it is not a news network van pulling up. It is a similar format, but without restrictions. People are comfortable with parody and satire in his presence - anything goes because you have the audience of a neutral observer. He does have a duty to guide the conversation with the occasional steering prompt you refer to, and it has a rhythm to it. Much of the content is edited monologue footage, and that is the opportunity he grants them with unconditional attentiveness.

donkeyd 6y ago

I think I first saw them when they'd just uploaded their 3rd episode and instantly subscribed. I'm really amazed at how much they've grown already!

crocodiletears 6y ago

By my estimate, he's probably one of the few people worth calling a journalist anymore. Watered-down as the term has become with bloggers, hacks who spend all their time on Twitter railing against the immaturities of our present administration in hot-takes devoid of original investigation or thought, and self-important ideologues who think they exist to intellectually shepherd the unwashed masses to whatever promised land their politics would have them believe in. All Gas No Breaks provides an impressively sweeping look at anyone and everyone you might encounter wherever he chooses to visit. He presents the fanatics and the well reasoned in pretty much even measure. If he does anyone editorial favors, it's hard to see where. It's a refreshing change from the staged shots and selective presentation we've become accustomed to seeing from the likes of Fox, the NYT, MSNBC, Breitbart, WaPo, and CNN.

agildehaus 6y ago
Really? No selective presentation? AGNB is almost entirely selective presentation.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  I didn't allege no selectiveness, I alleged that he presents a comparably larger intersection than other outlets. Certainly he's selecting footage for entertainment, and his selection in no way proportional to the events he cover's participants. Looking back on my comment, I overemphasized his even-handedness in terms of screen-time, but that's beside the thrust of my point. He casts a wide net, and the content of his videos reflect that.
sukilot 6y ago
This is called "both sides ism" where you give equal time to the sane view and the insane fringe view and call it "fairness"
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  Both sides-ism is a snappy accusation used by partisans to suppress access to information and context, predicated on the idea that coverage is equivelant to either an endorsement or proportional to the significance of a viewpoint or group relative to the broader population. If there are N perspectives about something I'm considering, or N significant actions undertaken by an individual or groups during an event I'm trying to understand, sanding off the ugly bits to fit a given moral narrative is a disservice to the audience. I personally look to journalism for knowledge, and to help inform my understanding of the world. Not moral guidance.

Taek 6y ago

I was at Area 51, which he covered. And while his video was very entertaining, it did not represent at all what it was like to be there. AGNB is exceptional at finding the crazy people and encouraging them to be themselves on camera. 98% of the people at area 51 (admittedly a lower percentage than most events) were completely normal, non-conspiracy individuals, mostly from the midwest.

crocodiletears 6y ago
Interesting that they were mostly from the midwest.
- grogenaut 6y ago
  If you're going to drive to cali/vegas, why not stop by A51, death valley, painted desert, and The Grand Canyon on the way? I know we did when I moved my brother to college at USC from STL.
- sukilot 6y ago
  People outside the Midwest have more interesting nearby places to visit
ethanbond 6y ago
But... they were at Area 51... It seems that alone would indicate that they are not non-conspiracy individuals.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  The Area 51 thing was a viral meme on social media. It hit the mainstream. It was a little like a flash mob. Even its origin was comedic.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Yeah but most ordinary people don’t travel hundreds of miles into the middle of a desert to a classified military installation to “flash mob.”

themacguffinman 6y ago

But is it informative? I've watched a few of his videos now and they feel unrepresentative of the topic or group he's covering. It feels like he cherry picks the zaniest people in the room, which is great for comedy and entertainment value but leaves me thinking: ok these people have some interesting things to say, but are they representative of any group or movement or anything important? I end the video questioning if I've actually learnt anything meaningful about the world and its problems, or if I've just watched a modern-day freak show.

fiblye 6y ago
The newest videos about the recent protests offer a slice of every viewpoint. They show the people who just want to make a mess, the people who think there should be peaceful change, the people who think there should be violent change, and the people who just don’t care. Of course, the wildest people stand out, but they’re all given pretty fair time to explain why they’re doing what they are. And I think the point is to clearly avoid the polished and prepared representatives who have a quote perfectly prepared for the media. The point is to find the people who aren’t polished and show what they’re doing.
- pedrogpimenta 6y ago
  The last videos and the most political ones are clearly showing the effort to portray a little bit of everything.
pedrogpimenta 6y ago
That's exactly what it is. And it's why it is "important". He's not pretending to give a message about the issue he's "covering". He's covering the event and showing some part of that.
- sukilot 6y ago
  But he is inviting the reader to form an impression, and doing so in an intentionally misleading way of selecting his subjects.

lm28469 6y ago

> He asks as few questions as possible and intentionally doesn’t steer the conversation Do you have videos of the whole process? I've only seen his YouTube videos and it couldn't be further from what you said. There are so many cuts that there is no way to tell what questions the people are answering In the rocket launch video for example we don't even get to hear most questions, we mostly hear people talking, they're obviously answering something the interviewer said but we don't know what it is. The entire video is making fun of the worst people he could find there, it's very funny for sure but I wouldn't call it journalism. It's clearly more of a comedy than pure journalism to me, a bit like "Joe goes", funny but not very informative