8 ms·

I enjoy most JRE episodes, this one as well. However the one thing I do not get is how he is always complaining about CNN not reporting this or how nytimes is

by syspec 6y ago

I enjoy most JRE episodes, this one as well. However the one thing I do not get is how he is always complaining about CNN not reporting this or how nytimes is practiced bad journalism going so far as to call cnn fake news, but he never discusses Fox News which is actually the most popular news network by far (record profits this year if 1.5B) and the most obviously bias. It really weakens his position, and paints him as only a pseudo centrist

paulpauper 6y ago
I think it is implied that he thinks both are bad
originalvichy 6y ago
I’m not from the US but I can see that this is yet another effect of two-party politics rotting your country. Centrists and pseudo-centrists are giving outright lies more weight by trying to be ”balanced and not biased”. Giving weight to someone’s lies just because they are led to believe that truth is always in the middle. This leaves all editorial responsibility to the reader. And when the reader sees that a media source is not publishing a story that they are violating their responsibility to give the unfiltered ”truth” to the masses so that they can decide its truthiness. A media source not being just a printer of statements beccomes a weakness. The internet has a lot to do with this since the value of editorial practices does not exist online in the same sense. Bots and blue-checkmark-people give any story validity on twitter.
- sampo 6y ago
  > I’m not from the US but I can see that this is yet another effect of two-party politics rotting your country. United States is perhaps the oldest continuously existing democracy [0], in has existed 244 years, and most of that time (about 200 years) it has been a two-party system. I don't think it's the two-party system that is responsible for the rotting now. Something else is going on. [0] Well, we can debate how to define a democracy (an interesting and educational debate), and who is oldest still existing depends on the definition. But a good case can be made that it's the US.
  - chme 6y ago
    > Something else is going on. Money in politics probably as well.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    Very debatable. Democratic traditions in other countries long predate even the existence of the US; it wasn't the first with universal suffrage; it had a troubled history even after that till at least the 1960s, even before we get to any contemporary problems. I don't know there is a legitimate claimant on the "first democracy" title, or even if we are there yet, but unlikely the US.
    - sampo 6y ago
      > first with universal suffrage So depending on the definition of "country", the oldest existing democracy is either Finland (1906-) or Norway (1913-)? Finland: Universal suffrage from 1906, as an autonomous grand duchy of the Russian Empire. Independent country from 1917. Norway: Independent country. Universal suffrage from 1913. Or maybe, depending on the definition of "suffrage": New Zealand: Women can vote from 1893, women can run as candidates for some positions from 1919, Women can run for all position from 1941.
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        Yeah, my view also is it's likely one of the smaller, less heralded countries. New Zealand a good contender. For the pre-universal democracies, Iceland has a parliament going back a thousand years.
        sampo 6y ago
        > New Zealand a good contender You don't give much weight for women to be able to be lawmakers themselves? As long as women have the right to vote male candidates to an all-male parliament, the suffrage is universal enough for you?
        6y ago
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  While the two party system does have problems they tend to be vastly overstated (and are much more difficult to solve than the complainers want to acknowledge). The problem is that US conservatives, both elites and ordinary voters, have become profoundly radicalized since 1964, and specifically since the Civil Rights Act (Edit: though the underpinnings for this started with McCarthyism and Brown v. Board - it was really the 1964 election that moved this radicalism into the white conservative mainstream, not just the Birchers.) In that sense things are really similar to Weimar Germany, which was a multiparty democracy in which there were many viable non-Nazi options for conservative voters. Yet German conservatives across the board decided that a Nazi dictatorship was preferable to a democracy where socialists might win. In general it is very difficult to sustain a democracy when 40% of the electorate rejects the concept.
  - hhas01 6y ago
    See Senator Barry Goldwater’s Southern Strategy. The Republican party won over the white southern votes that it craved, and all it had to sell was its soul. Rinse and repeat with the fundagelicals in the 1980s to establish an unshakeable base. From there it’s just a matter of persuading the rest of the country not to vote for anyone else. Telling that you’re downvoted, but honestly the Overton window today would give even old Adolph a suntan. 50 years of the Republican party gently transitioning the US to a one-party state, with a spineless Democratic “opposition” content to normalize each new lurch to the extreme. Democracy doesn’t die in the dark but on top of a stove: like a pot of gently simmering frogs.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  I live next to Poland. They have a multiparty democracy and a serious turmoil in the streets now, because their polarization problem mirrors the American one very closely. I think this is an effect of social media. It rewards the most extreme positions with likes and shares, hollowing out the former core of shared values.
- Ataraxy 6y ago
  It's a consequence of these media outlets being more "entertainment" then actual news. When the news itself gets lost in a circlejerk from whichever direction because they have to fill hours in a day or words on a page with otherwise meaningless opinion and/or conjecture then it's easy to be disillusioned by it.
xupybd 6y ago
Fox's bias are well known and have been known about for a long time. Complaints about CNN are more common because CNN's bias is new. At least to the point that it has impacted it journalism so deeply.
- evgen 6y ago
  It is not bias at CNN, it is that the conservative media and pundits have spent so long working the refs that people who do not know any better assume the bias exists and continue to parrot the point.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    No that is a total load of BS. CNN is horribly biased. They are guilty of extreme sensationalism with a leftward bent.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Sorry. You are clearly a right-wing partisan who sees bias in any source of information that does not reinforce your pre-determined ground truth. It is unfortunate that you are stuck in this bubble, but thankfully the rest of us no longer need to care.
      - vtaylor100 6y ago
        I am an ardent progressive and a strong Bernie supporter. I see CNN as totally, hopelessly, and egregiously biased.
0xy 6y ago
They all deserve equal criticism, there is no scale of bias because they're all bottom feeders. The New York Times repeatedly claimed there were WMDs in Iraq based on evidence that was fabricated. This helped sell the invasion to the public leading to the deaths of thousands of people. [1] CNN was caught leaking debate questions in 2016 to the Democrats [2] and falsely linking an innocent man to a fabricated Russia conspiracy and then being forced to retract and roll the 3 journalists involved in the deception. [3] That's just scratching the surface! [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do... [3] https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/06/26/cnn-resign-russia-scaramucci-239975 https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/06/26/cnn-resig...
- zapnuk 6y ago
  The NYT apologised for their Iraq war coverage [1]. The people involved in your [2] and [3] got fired/resigned, and acted on their own. Meanwhile the right wing media still hangs on to lies or very misleading reporting/propaganda without consequences. Is there any apology for the WMD reporting by right wing media? Did any fox news staffers got fired for propagating lies (climate change not existing for example)? On the contrary, the very popular Fox news anchor Shepard Smith ended his career because of misleading reports (Clinton + uranium one) spread by fox news. Claiming they are somewhat similar is plain wrong. Also, it's the classic 'trick' used by self described centrists to normalize right wing ideas when in reality on is clearly more wrong than the other (e.g. Hunter Biden conspiracy vs Trump nepotism). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th... [2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1604139400679 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
  - 0xy 6y ago
    >The NYT apologised for their Iraq war coverage Is this an adequate punishment for the thousands of families decimated in the US and the Middle East? How many people have to die before it can't be brushed away with "we're sorry"? >Hunter Biden conspiracy This is conjecture. The emails have not been disproven. In fact, at least one email has been cryptographically verified using DKIM headers by an independent third party Errata Security. [1] Additionally, both the FBI and the head of the DNI have stated that the leak is not the result of Russian disinformation. [2] If you have proof that the FBI, DNI and Errata Security are in fact wrong, you need to back up your claims. >Is there any apology for the WMD reporting by right wing media You seem to have erroneously accused me of defending Fox News. Please re-read my comment. You'll find I called them a bottom feeder in no uncertain terms. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1322007153415200768 https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1322007153415200768 [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disin...
schwartzworld 6y ago
I'm not a Joe Rogan fan but I share this opinion. Fox News isn't fake news because it isn't news at all. it's literally just a propaganda network. NYT is supposed to be a higher standard. As to centrism, I'm not sure Rogan has enough of a coherent ideology to even call him a centrist.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Sure, when you know the "news" is all fake, it is easy to call it not news. But people who watch Fox News - for the most part - are watching for actual news. They often believe it. They aren't questioning the 'facts'. It isn't even as fake as Tabloids saying "I had an alien baby!". While Fox is as trustworthy as 'The Onion', 'The Onion' openly states it is satire: Fox News is still claiming news and facts.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    There used to be a line between op-ed (i.e. subjective-centric) and news (i.e., important, relevant and objective-centric); and journalism used to be firmly alighted with the news side of that paradigm. Things have changed. Dramatically. And for the worse. Anything and everything is considered news. Relevance and important are not longer relevant; the reporting shamelessly anti-objective. Anyone can at this point call themselves a journalist, without any understanding of the actions and ethics such a title entails. Axe-grinding and whistle-drowning are all too common. The bottom line: A healthy, proper and transparent Fourth Estate matters. I can't speak for the rest of the world but in the USA the Fourth Estate is in the ICU, and has been for some time now. This is not a diagnosis that is new since Jan 2017.
- Ataraxy 6y ago
  The vast majority of people don't have a coherent ideology. It legitimately comes down to however you frame a question to someone.
- vixen99 6y ago
  (Fox) 'It isn't news at all'? You mean you watch it regularly and can therefore vouch for its zero news content? Why would you want to do that and if you don't, how can you make such an evidently uninformed comment? What's the difference between propaganda and literal propaganda?
bjoli 6y ago
From across the pond I have the feeling that fox news is a lost cause, whereas liberal media seems to, at least officially, hold journalistic integrity as a high priority and actually believe what they say. One quite obvious example from the Atlantic: There was a trump speech maybe 2 months ago when trump acknowledged that there has been people in the military complex profiteering from war (and also choosing the lovely words "making our wonderful wonderful bombs" or something along those lines). This is something that the Atlantic has been saying since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But for some reason they chose not to write something along the lines of "trump acknowledges war profiteering" and recapping why some people (probably including the reader base of the Atlantic) believe that war profiteering in the military-industrial complex is bad thing. Instead they chose to angle it like "trump criticises the army. The atlantic supports the troops!". This is just a small thing that I (a leftist, Marxist Swedish commie-sheeple) saw when doing my weekly skimming of the news on your side of the pond. There is of course a more complex political game going on, but at the same time: is it so hard to understand why someone becomes disillusioned with the media landscape?
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  It wasn't only The Atlantic that ignored that. I didn't see a single media outlet acknowledge it. Not a single "friend" on FB or Twitter called it out. Not since Eisenhower had the MIC been recognized by a POTUS like that, and the reference wasn't ignored; it wasn't even recognized. That's highly disturbing. But it gets worse. Under the current admin the DoD budget has ballooned to nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Imagine that. The POTUS is able to inflate that budget with nearly zero outrage, and then he turns around and calls out the MIC and again no outrage (about the hypocrisy). The disconnect - media and public - is flabbergasting. How can this be? In plain sight??
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  The Atlantic isn't "liberal media." It isn't really a news magazine at all. It's an opinion rag with pundits who range across the ideological spectrum. You will no more find news there than reading the NY Times or Wall Street Journal's opinion sections.
tomp 6y ago
Same as Israel is criticised more often for (minor) human rights abuses than Syria for major ones. We expect more of them. My guess is also that Glenn is centre-left so he probably used to trust NYT and CNN while having ignored Fox News since forever.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  Glenn is right-wing and always has been. And he doesn’t ignore Fox News now - he’s one of Tucker Carlson’s most frequent guests! Glenn Greenwald postures as a civil libertarian when he wants to attack liberals. He has basically not said a word about Trump’s drone program (which by design is dramatically more lethal than Obama’s policy), and not a word about Trump lawlessly defending convicted war criminals and encouraging more war crimes. This is because Greenwald is a dishonest hack. As someone who admired Greenwald for years and personally had discussions with him where he (temporarily) changed my mind about things through badgering and gaslighting, I am still very upset that I didn’t see this sooner.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Isnt Greenwald an outspoken Bernie Sanders supporter? IMHO he cannot be pigeonholed into a neat "right wing / left wing" scheme like that.
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      There are a lot of right-wing Bernie Sanders supporters! A huge part of his appeal is general stances against corruption. Also, though Bernie is more anti-capitalist than most Democrats, he is also very squishy on issues of racism and misogyny. There are a lot of voters out there who support left-wing economics and right-wing social policy, and Bernie has appeal for a lot of them. There’s a large contingent on the left who are anti-“identity politics.” My dad is center-right, despises Republicans, and likes Bernie (votes for him in both primaries) but thinks Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib are too radical. In terms of economic policy this makes little sense, but that’s not what’s going on here.
dandanua 6y ago
He is rich, and Trump's gang is targeting rich people before anything else. Rich people know (or feel) this, so they collaborate, consciously or not.
fastbluewave 6y ago
I think one point of defence for this would be that it's so obvious that Fox is biased, that it need not be mentioned. I think Joe also mentioned at some point that he used to read and watch CNN a lot (and he implied that he trusted it at the time), so perhaps this is the reason why he's now putting it down.
- jariel 6y ago
  It's funny but true. Fox is just an aberration, I assume we all know they are not reasonable - or at least their opinion parts (and it's mostly opinion). But the rest of the press ostensibly holds themselves to higher standards. That said, I don't agree with a lot of what Greenwald has to say either.
- TheOperator 6y ago
  I laughed at the Truth of this. Fox News honestly doesn't even register as a legitimate news organization for me most of the time. I actively avoid using them as a source. It's like getting upset over supermarket tabloids. Yet this organization sure had an awful lot of blood on its hands with its recent pandemic coverage and yet all I ever hear about is papers like the New York Times. Rogan himself seems to have shown a lot of sympathy for Fox News worst tendencies on this matter. The last time I remember outlets like the NYT having so much blood on their hands was during the Iraq war and that reporting was about a generation ago, AND Fox was even worse than them even back then. Yet all I hear about is the perils of the dastardly MSM and their legions of partisan so called fact checkers.
  - danielrpa 6y ago
    Despite the extreme bias of Fox News - and I can't believe I'm writing this - it is still a bit less biased than CNN. I very occasionally see articles lightly criticizing Trump there and recently they had a piece talking about the pros and cons of each presidential candidate. So while Fox is 99% biased towards Trump, CNN appears 100% biased against him. Actually, I've been reading both sites in the past few months. My rule of thumb is that while each site in isolation is unreadable, whatever they agree on (which is very little) must be the truth!
eNTi 6y ago
Sorry but name calling is what people do if they have no real critisism. I don't even know what a pseudo centrist is supposed to be. What does pseudo in this regard even mean? Are you a bot?
- netsharc 6y ago
  How to understand your 3rd paragraph in light of your 1st paragraph?
willio58 6y ago
I’ve heard episodes where he shits on fox. I think he focuses more on liberal news outlets because he actually leans liberal himself. And I completely understand this because as a left-leaning person CNN has become an obsolete atrocity of a news network.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  He voted for Bernie, he's definetly on the liberal side. He complains about CNN because he felt it used to be his news network so to speak.
refurb 6y ago
”and the most obviously bias.” Maybe the most obvious to you, but CNN has always been biased. “Don’t point out the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a plank in your own”.
friendlybus 6y ago
Rogan isn't political. He just pretends to be for money.
nabla9 6y ago
Rogan is not doing journalism, or serious interviews trying to get into bottom of anything. It's just a show and content creation. He is just going with anyone who comes into his show. Here is little deeper take of Greenwald: Inside Glenn Greenwald’s Blowup with the Intercept https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa...
- jariel 6y ago
  By giving interesting people a large, open, unconstrained platform and plenty of time to speak, he's going 'way deeper' than most of the mainstream press. Joe is smart but you're right, he does play the nice guy and doesn't ask his guests hard questions - but the format is really powerful. I watched 2.5 hours (!!!) of Bernie Sanders speak and came to the realization that I don't think I'd seen Bernie speak for more than 5 minutes previous to that - ever. People are supposed to elect national leaders on the basis of sound-bytes, controlled scenarios, ridiculous 'gotcha debates'? I really don't think you'll find a longer format out there for anyone. It literally takes time to get to know people and the open, conversational format, particularly the length is really helpful. On cable news you get 1 minute if you're lucky, a longer, hurried interview if you're famous. Many of the 'issues du jour' require some explanation - every unfortunate interaction between police and some assailant that's on the national news has nuance, certainly many of the more theoretical issues have nuance. And public figures, speakers are very often misinterpreted, misquoted. Not only is there enough time on the format, people are tuning in. Though you're right to point out Joe is not doing regular journalism by asking the tough questions - he is doing something else, which asking 'un PC' questions which would never get asked in highly politicized or sensitive information systems. If there is 'editorial bias' on the part of Joe, it's easily circumvented by the guests who have time to answer the questions. Contrast this with most broadcast outlets who design the questions, don't give time to respond, heavily edit the question/response, and shave it down to tiny digestible formats. Joe Rogan's mere existence is really counter intuitive - if major press outlets were doing their jobs well I don't think he would exist. He's found a credible, if not perfect niche.
  - 6y ago
chme 6y ago
Most people only complain out of frustration about stuff they care about it.
neilsense 6y ago
He's a liberal so he just assumes everyone knows Fox News is nonsense. His worry is that the liberal media outlets are practicing their own forms of lying.
wil421 6y ago
Joe Rogan is probably more of a pseudo everything than anyone else. He will also ignore reality and loves conspiracy/fantasy stuff.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by syspec 6y ago

paulpauper 6y ago

I think it is implied that he thinks both are bad

originalvichy 6y ago

I’m not from the US but I can see that this is yet another effect of two-party politics rotting your country. Centrists and pseudo-centrists are giving outright lies more weight by trying to be ”balanced and not biased”. Giving weight to someone’s lies just because they are led to believe that truth is always in the middle. This leaves all editorial responsibility to the reader. And when the reader sees that a media source is not publishing a story that they are violating their responsibility to give the unfiltered ”truth” to the masses so that they can decide its truthiness. A media source not being just a printer of statements beccomes a weakness. The internet has a lot to do with this since the value of editorial practices does not exist online in the same sense. Bots and blue-checkmark-people give any story validity on twitter.

sampo 6y ago
> I’m not from the US but I can see that this is yet another effect of two-party politics rotting your country. United States is perhaps the oldest continuously existing democracy [0], in has existed 244 years, and most of that time (about 200 years) it has been a two-party system. I don't think it's the two-party system that is responsible for the rotting now. Something else is going on. [0] Well, we can debate how to define a democracy (an interesting and educational debate), and who is oldest still existing depends on the definition. But a good case can be made that it's the US.
- chme 6y ago
  > Something else is going on. Money in politics probably as well.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Very debatable. Democratic traditions in other countries long predate even the existence of the US; it wasn't the first with universal suffrage; it had a troubled history even after that till at least the 1960s, even before we get to any contemporary problems. I don't know there is a legitimate claimant on the "first democracy" title, or even if we are there yet, but unlikely the US.
  - sampo 6y ago
    > first with universal suffrage So depending on the definition of "country", the oldest existing democracy is either Finland (1906-) or Norway (1913-)? Finland: Universal suffrage from 1906, as an autonomous grand duchy of the Russian Empire. Independent country from 1917. Norway: Independent country. Universal suffrage from 1913. Or maybe, depending on the definition of "suffrage": New Zealand: Women can vote from 1893, women can run as candidates for some positions from 1919, Women can run for all position from 1941.
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      Yeah, my view also is it's likely one of the smaller, less heralded countries. New Zealand a good contender. For the pre-universal democracies, Iceland has a parliament going back a thousand years.
      - sampo 6y ago
        > New Zealand a good contender You don't give much weight for women to be able to be lawmakers themselves? As long as women have the right to vote male candidates to an all-male parliament, the suffrage is universal enough for you?
        6y ago
ojnabieoot 6y ago
While the two party system does have problems they tend to be vastly overstated (and are much more difficult to solve than the complainers want to acknowledge). The problem is that US conservatives, both elites and ordinary voters, have become profoundly radicalized since 1964, and specifically since the Civil Rights Act (Edit: though the underpinnings for this started with McCarthyism and Brown v. Board - it was really the 1964 election that moved this radicalism into the white conservative mainstream, not just the Birchers.) In that sense things are really similar to Weimar Germany, which was a multiparty democracy in which there were many viable non-Nazi options for conservative voters. Yet German conservatives across the board decided that a Nazi dictatorship was preferable to a democracy where socialists might win. In general it is very difficult to sustain a democracy when 40% of the electorate rejects the concept.
- hhas01 6y ago
  See Senator Barry Goldwater’s Southern Strategy. The Republican party won over the white southern votes that it craved, and all it had to sell was its soul. Rinse and repeat with the fundagelicals in the 1980s to establish an unshakeable base. From there it’s just a matter of persuading the rest of the country not to vote for anyone else. Telling that you’re downvoted, but honestly the Overton window today would give even old Adolph a suntan. 50 years of the Republican party gently transitioning the US to a one-party state, with a spineless Democratic “opposition” content to normalize each new lurch to the extreme. Democracy doesn’t die in the dark but on top of a stove: like a pot of gently simmering frogs.
inglor_cz 6y ago
I live next to Poland. They have a multiparty democracy and a serious turmoil in the streets now, because their polarization problem mirrors the American one very closely. I think this is an effect of social media. It rewards the most extreme positions with likes and shares, hollowing out the former core of shared values.
Ataraxy 6y ago
It's a consequence of these media outlets being more "entertainment" then actual news. When the news itself gets lost in a circlejerk from whichever direction because they have to fill hours in a day or words on a page with otherwise meaningless opinion and/or conjecture then it's easy to be disillusioned by it.

xupybd 6y ago

Fox's bias are well known and have been known about for a long time. Complaints about CNN are more common because CNN's bias is new. At least to the point that it has impacted it journalism so deeply.

evgen 6y ago
It is not bias at CNN, it is that the conservative media and pundits have spent so long working the refs that people who do not know any better assume the bias exists and continue to parrot the point.
- xupybd 6y ago
  No that is a total load of BS. CNN is horribly biased. They are guilty of extreme sensationalism with a leftward bent.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Sorry. You are clearly a right-wing partisan who sees bias in any source of information that does not reinforce your pre-determined ground truth. It is unfortunate that you are stuck in this bubble, but thankfully the rest of us no longer need to care.
    - vtaylor100 6y ago
      I am an ardent progressive and a strong Bernie supporter. I see CNN as totally, hopelessly, and egregiously biased.

0xy 6y ago

They all deserve equal criticism, there is no scale of bias because they're all bottom feeders. The New York Times repeatedly claimed there were WMDs in Iraq based on evidence that was fabricated. This helped sell the invasion to the public leading to the deaths of thousands of people. [1] CNN was caught leaking debate questions in 2016 to the Democrats [2] and falsely linking an innocent man to a fabricated Russia conspiracy and then being forced to retract and roll the 3 journalists involved in the deception. [3] That's just scratching the surface! [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do... [3] https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/06/26/cnn-resign-russia-scaramucci-239975 https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/06/26/cnn-resig...

zapnuk 6y ago
The NYT apologised for their Iraq war coverage [1]. The people involved in your [2] and [3] got fired/resigned, and acted on their own. Meanwhile the right wing media still hangs on to lies or very misleading reporting/propaganda without consequences. Is there any apology for the WMD reporting by right wing media? Did any fox news staffers got fired for propagating lies (climate change not existing for example)? On the contrary, the very popular Fox news anchor Shepard Smith ended his career because of misleading reports (Clinton + uranium one) spread by fox news. Claiming they are somewhat similar is plain wrong. Also, it's the classic 'trick' used by self described centrists to normalize right wing ideas when in reality on is clearly more wrong than the other (e.g. Hunter Biden conspiracy vs Trump nepotism). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th... [2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1604139400679 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
- 0xy 6y ago
  >The NYT apologised for their Iraq war coverage Is this an adequate punishment for the thousands of families decimated in the US and the Middle East? How many people have to die before it can't be brushed away with "we're sorry"? >Hunter Biden conspiracy This is conjecture. The emails have not been disproven. In fact, at least one email has been cryptographically verified using DKIM headers by an independent third party Errata Security. [1] Additionally, both the FBI and the head of the DNI have stated that the leak is not the result of Russian disinformation. [2] If you have proof that the FBI, DNI and Errata Security are in fact wrong, you need to back up your claims. >Is there any apology for the WMD reporting by right wing media You seem to have erroneously accused me of defending Fox News. Please re-read my comment. You'll find I called them a bottom feeder in no uncertain terms. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1322007153415200768 https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1322007153415200768 [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disin...

schwartzworld 6y ago

I'm not a Joe Rogan fan but I share this opinion. Fox News isn't fake news because it isn't news at all. it's literally just a propaganda network. NYT is supposed to be a higher standard. As to centrism, I'm not sure Rogan has enough of a coherent ideology to even call him a centrist.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Sure, when you know the "news" is all fake, it is easy to call it not news. But people who watch Fox News - for the most part - are watching for actual news. They often believe it. They aren't questioning the 'facts'. It isn't even as fake as Tabloids saying "I had an alien baby!". While Fox is as trustworthy as 'The Onion', 'The Onion' openly states it is satire: Fox News is still claiming news and facts.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  There used to be a line between op-ed (i.e. subjective-centric) and news (i.e., important, relevant and objective-centric); and journalism used to be firmly alighted with the news side of that paradigm. Things have changed. Dramatically. And for the worse. Anything and everything is considered news. Relevance and important are not longer relevant; the reporting shamelessly anti-objective. Anyone can at this point call themselves a journalist, without any understanding of the actions and ethics such a title entails. Axe-grinding and whistle-drowning are all too common. The bottom line: A healthy, proper and transparent Fourth Estate matters. I can't speak for the rest of the world but in the USA the Fourth Estate is in the ICU, and has been for some time now. This is not a diagnosis that is new since Jan 2017.
Ataraxy 6y ago
The vast majority of people don't have a coherent ideology. It legitimately comes down to however you frame a question to someone.
vixen99 6y ago
(Fox) 'It isn't news at all'? You mean you watch it regularly and can therefore vouch for its zero news content? Why would you want to do that and if you don't, how can you make such an evidently uninformed comment? What's the difference between propaganda and literal propaganda?

bjoli 6y ago

From across the pond I have the feeling that fox news is a lost cause, whereas liberal media seems to, at least officially, hold journalistic integrity as a high priority and actually believe what they say. One quite obvious example from the Atlantic: There was a trump speech maybe 2 months ago when trump acknowledged that there has been people in the military complex profiteering from war (and also choosing the lovely words "making our wonderful wonderful bombs" or something along those lines). This is something that the Atlantic has been saying since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But for some reason they chose not to write something along the lines of "trump acknowledges war profiteering" and recapping why some people (probably including the reader base of the Atlantic) believe that war profiteering in the military-industrial complex is bad thing. Instead they chose to angle it like "trump criticises the army. The atlantic supports the troops!". This is just a small thing that I (a leftist, Marxist Swedish commie-sheeple) saw when doing my weekly skimming of the news on your side of the pond. There is of course a more complex political game going on, but at the same time: is it so hard to understand why someone becomes disillusioned with the media landscape?

chiefalchemist 6y ago
It wasn't only The Atlantic that ignored that. I didn't see a single media outlet acknowledge it. Not a single "friend" on FB or Twitter called it out. Not since Eisenhower had the MIC been recognized by a POTUS like that, and the reference wasn't ignored; it wasn't even recognized. That's highly disturbing. But it gets worse. Under the current admin the DoD budget has ballooned to nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Imagine that. The POTUS is able to inflate that budget with nearly zero outrage, and then he turns around and calls out the MIC and again no outrage (about the hypocrisy). The disconnect - media and public - is flabbergasting. How can this be? In plain sight??
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
The Atlantic isn't "liberal media." It isn't really a news magazine at all. It's an opinion rag with pundits who range across the ideological spectrum. You will no more find news there than reading the NY Times or Wall Street Journal's opinion sections.

tomp 6y ago

Same as Israel is criticised more often for (minor) human rights abuses than Syria for major ones. We expect more of them. My guess is also that Glenn is centre-left so he probably used to trust NYT and CNN while having ignored Fox News since forever.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
Glenn is right-wing and always has been. And he doesn’t ignore Fox News now - he’s one of Tucker Carlson’s most frequent guests! Glenn Greenwald postures as a civil libertarian when he wants to attack liberals. He has basically not said a word about Trump’s drone program (which by design is dramatically more lethal than Obama’s policy), and not a word about Trump lawlessly defending convicted war criminals and encouraging more war crimes. This is because Greenwald is a dishonest hack. As someone who admired Greenwald for years and personally had discussions with him where he (temporarily) changed my mind about things through badgering and gaslighting, I am still very upset that I didn’t see this sooner.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Isnt Greenwald an outspoken Bernie Sanders supporter? IMHO he cannot be pigeonholed into a neat "right wing / left wing" scheme like that.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    There are a lot of right-wing Bernie Sanders supporters! A huge part of his appeal is general stances against corruption. Also, though Bernie is more anti-capitalist than most Democrats, he is also very squishy on issues of racism and misogyny. There are a lot of voters out there who support left-wing economics and right-wing social policy, and Bernie has appeal for a lot of them. There’s a large contingent on the left who are anti-“identity politics.” My dad is center-right, despises Republicans, and likes Bernie (votes for him in both primaries) but thinks Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib are too radical. In terms of economic policy this makes little sense, but that’s not what’s going on here.

dandanua 6y ago

He is rich, and Trump's gang is targeting rich people before anything else. Rich people know (or feel) this, so they collaborate, consciously or not.

fastbluewave 6y ago

I think one point of defence for this would be that it's so obvious that Fox is biased, that it need not be mentioned. I think Joe also mentioned at some point that he used to read and watch CNN a lot (and he implied that he trusted it at the time), so perhaps this is the reason why he's now putting it down.

jariel 6y ago
It's funny but true. Fox is just an aberration, I assume we all know they are not reasonable - or at least their opinion parts (and it's mostly opinion). But the rest of the press ostensibly holds themselves to higher standards. That said, I don't agree with a lot of what Greenwald has to say either.
TheOperator 6y ago
I laughed at the Truth of this. Fox News honestly doesn't even register as a legitimate news organization for me most of the time. I actively avoid using them as a source. It's like getting upset over supermarket tabloids. Yet this organization sure had an awful lot of blood on its hands with its recent pandemic coverage and yet all I ever hear about is papers like the New York Times. Rogan himself seems to have shown a lot of sympathy for Fox News worst tendencies on this matter. The last time I remember outlets like the NYT having so much blood on their hands was during the Iraq war and that reporting was about a generation ago, AND Fox was even worse than them even back then. Yet all I hear about is the perils of the dastardly MSM and their legions of partisan so called fact checkers.
- danielrpa 6y ago
  Despite the extreme bias of Fox News - and I can't believe I'm writing this - it is still a bit less biased than CNN. I very occasionally see articles lightly criticizing Trump there and recently they had a piece talking about the pros and cons of each presidential candidate. So while Fox is 99% biased towards Trump, CNN appears 100% biased against him. Actually, I've been reading both sites in the past few months. My rule of thumb is that while each site in isolation is unreadable, whatever they agree on (which is very little) must be the truth!

eNTi 6y ago

Sorry but name calling is what people do if they have no real critisism. I don't even know what a pseudo centrist is supposed to be. What does pseudo in this regard even mean? Are you a bot?

netsharc 6y ago
How to understand your 3rd paragraph in light of your 1st paragraph?

willio58 6y ago

I’ve heard episodes where he shits on fox. I think he focuses more on liberal news outlets because he actually leans liberal himself. And I completely understand this because as a left-leaning person CNN has become an obsolete atrocity of a news network.

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
He voted for Bernie, he's definetly on the liberal side. He complains about CNN because he felt it used to be his news network so to speak.

refurb 6y ago

”and the most obviously bias.” Maybe the most obvious to you, but CNN has always been biased. “Don’t point out the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a plank in your own”.

friendlybus 6y ago

Rogan isn't political. He just pretends to be for money.

nabla9 6y ago

Rogan is not doing journalism, or serious interviews trying to get into bottom of anything. It's just a show and content creation. He is just going with anyone who comes into his show. Here is little deeper take of Greenwald: Inside Glenn Greenwald’s Blowup with the Intercept https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa...

jariel 6y ago
By giving interesting people a large, open, unconstrained platform and plenty of time to speak, he's going 'way deeper' than most of the mainstream press. Joe is smart but you're right, he does play the nice guy and doesn't ask his guests hard questions - but the format is really powerful. I watched 2.5 hours (!!!) of Bernie Sanders speak and came to the realization that I don't think I'd seen Bernie speak for more than 5 minutes previous to that - ever. People are supposed to elect national leaders on the basis of sound-bytes, controlled scenarios, ridiculous 'gotcha debates'? I really don't think you'll find a longer format out there for anyone. It literally takes time to get to know people and the open, conversational format, particularly the length is really helpful. On cable news you get 1 minute if you're lucky, a longer, hurried interview if you're famous. Many of the 'issues du jour' require some explanation - every unfortunate interaction between police and some assailant that's on the national news has nuance, certainly many of the more theoretical issues have nuance. And public figures, speakers are very often misinterpreted, misquoted. Not only is there enough time on the format, people are tuning in. Though you're right to point out Joe is not doing regular journalism by asking the tough questions - he is doing something else, which asking 'un PC' questions which would never get asked in highly politicized or sensitive information systems. If there is 'editorial bias' on the part of Joe, it's easily circumvented by the guests who have time to answer the questions. Contrast this with most broadcast outlets who design the questions, don't give time to respond, heavily edit the question/response, and shave it down to tiny digestible formats. Joe Rogan's mere existence is really counter intuitive - if major press outlets were doing their jobs well I don't think he would exist. He's found a credible, if not perfect niche.
- 6y ago

chme 6y ago

Most people only complain out of frustration about stuff they care about it.

neilsense 6y ago

He's a liberal so he just assumes everyone knows Fox News is nonsense. His worry is that the liberal media outlets are practicing their own forms of lying.

wil421 6y ago

Joe Rogan is probably more of a pseudo everything than anyone else. He will also ignore reality and loves conspiracy/fantasy stuff.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]