9 ms·

You're really giving too much credit to podcasts here. If you were to look at your argument from the other side, the fact that it costs next to nothing makes it

You're really giving too much credit to podcasts here. If you were to look at your argument from the other side, the fact that it costs next to nothing makes it a really cheap way to spread biased/false information. (See: Alex Jones) The majority of podcasts I've listened to have an obvious political bias, even the ones I would deem mostly objective clearly show some of the hosts biases. I've actually stopped listening to some because of this. ('Reply All' and 'Rich Dad Radio Show', for example, at opposite ends of the spectrum.) If you know of a podcast that purely, subjectively presents news, I'd love to hear it!

narrator 5y ago
Alex Jones's biggest sin is he's boring. He repeats himself over and over again. You could listen to him for 30 minutes and then tune in 12 months later and it's the same stuff, whatever you make of it. Art Bell was a conspiracy theory guy back in the day on late night radio, but he was damned interesting and talked to all kinds of random interesting weirdos. Many of them not that credible, but at least interesting. Not to sound old and cranky, but back in my day, when you heard someone interviewed, it was up to the person listening to evaluate their credibility and not to be protected in a little bubble because one was assumed to be too easily influenced to listen to the unvetted. Podcasts are by no means "The Truth", but at least they are not on the mainstream narrative script and they often don't have a purely political focus. As long as they aren't solely discussing the mainstream news narrative or reacting to it, they can be very interesting. I think Bret Weinstein can be pretty interesting as far as media criticism goes. The Other Life podcast[1] is an example of a podcast that's very disconnected from the mainstream narratives and feels like I'm sitting in a cafe in the 90s drinking coffee with a bunch of intellectual weirdos. Maybe not your cup of tea, or coffee, but it's better than listening to the mainstream news and filling myself with that garbage. [1]https://otherlife.transistor.fm/episodes https://otherlife.transistor.fm/episodes
- totony 5y ago
  Also podcasts are mostly assumed to be biased by the host, as he directs the conversation. Mainstream news has more indirection from reader to writer so the bias is less tangible.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > Alex Jones's biggest sin is he's boring. Not the Sandy Hook stuff? Surely that's got to be at least in the running.
  - MobileVet 5y ago
    Every time I think of this I am enraged. What he did to those parents was a special kind of darkness. So abhorrent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowflake_ptr 5y ago
    What "Sandy Hook stuff" are you talking about?
- splithalf 5y ago
  How could one listen to enough Alex Jones to know this? I like the idea of Alex Jones, paranoid style American politics is a tradition and has its uses, but it’s to me a bit like pro wrestling. It’s not content that’s pitched toward the upper 2/3rds of the bell curve. He is a canary.
seaorg 5y ago
With low budget operations there is at least the possibility of objectivity. When there is a bunch of money involved there is not. And that’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion and words of the technical director of CNN.
- thefounder 5y ago
  On the other hand if it's a low budget op it will be bought cheaply like buying troll farms or paying "influencers" to promote all kind of crap. In the end you may get the same crap but in a more distributed manner.
- bildung 5y ago
  There's almost zero political topics where objectivity is possible. That goal itself is usually already ideology (the goal of unbiasedness often stands in opposition of truth). Look at global warming: Either it is man-made or not, either it is a problem for our future or not. There's no objective middle ground. Sure, one could simply have news that say "there is a drougth in the center of the US, stronger than other droughts in the last 50 years", without any context. But even this is not objective, because omitting the context of global warming already skews the message. Or let's use a real historical example: The Soviet Union's invasion into Poland in 1939. Without any context, the SU is clearly the agressor. But with the context of Polands invasion into the SU in 1919 things suddenly look different. And with the additional context of Russia annecting polish territory in the 18th century it looks different again and so on and so on. There clearly is no way to communicate this objectively (i.e. in this case, pro-Russia people could ask why I'd stop here and not with some polish-lithuanian action before the 18th century).
  - wruza 5y ago
    there is a drougth in the center of the US, stronger than other droughts in the last 50 years", without any context. But even this is not objective, because omitting the context of global warming already skews the message. Why? You can’t explain all the things (even if you’re backed with true data) in one article – that would take a library. A drought by itself doesn’t skew anything, but maybe your intent is more that just that. The Soviet Union's invasion into Poland in 1939 This is a circular problem. Either do not call it “invasion” or do and so be it. The fact that some monkey punched some other in year 40000 BC has nothing to do with active political contracts. I will not even downvote you on the internet if I find out that our gggps shot at each other in ww1/2, it’s irrelevant now. Most of these people are dead. If you want to remain neutral (nearest to “objective”, which isn’t a thing in case of a physical land), call it a conflict based on historical events and let a reader investigate, discuss and decide who is right and who is wrong, if any, if they ever want that decision. Maybe most people don’t really give a genuine fuck about who is right (if that was a bet, I’d go all in with it). I would even read political news then. Modern “good boys bad boys” or “oh see you see what you done” stories only make me laugh or facepalm. I’m a reader, not a puppet. No surprise younger people only want tiktok and clothes.
roenxi 5y ago
Doesn't Joe Rogan typically have a bigger audience than an average so-called-mainstream news program? The economics might play out that it is more expensive to get him to endorse something than get it run on a major network. There aren't many (any, really) quality guarantees on non-podcast media anyway. It isn't like they get any negative feedback when they lie or make mistakes. Viewers can't even withdraw support for specific known liars on a channel. It is unclear why a podcast would be at a structural disadvantage to any other media source, and probably higher reputational stakes.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  I forgot he existed since moving to Spotify’s walled garden.
  - Tostino 5y ago
    Maybe you did, but I don't think that's true of the general population. He seems to have increased in popularity since.
    - andy_ppp 5y ago
      I don’t think anyone knows for sure? I miss not listening to them when used to see them appear in Overcast :-)
      - zhenyakovalyov 5y ago
        same here. spotify does not seem to get the user experience right unfortunately, particularly around offline/low data use. or may be it’s just me not liking “one stop shops” when it comes to podcasts and music. i started tuning in less, but i still do.
        andy_ppp 5y ago
        It might be controversial but I feel Spotify have never done good ui.
kbenson 5y ago
Reply All is (or was, before it imploded) an interesting one as a stand in for how this has played out on the left. They got more and more blatant about their views over the years, and even though I generally ascribe to the same views, I would rather not have them put forth so blatantly, especially in a program that purports to be investigative. My assumption is that with the increasing polarization, many shows followed their audiences to the poles. It feels rare these days for someone to not stake out a stance on some culture war battle, whether subtly or not. It's honestly weird that Joe Rogan feel like one of the least biased popular programs to listen to out there, or the least biased in a consistent direction at least. You also get a lot of off the wall crazy shit on there, but honestly someone willing to have enough of an open mind to have people on like that not just to make fun of is a nice change of pace, even if the things are ridiculous, given how entrenched everyone else is in their positions.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  >It's honestly weird that Joe Rogan feel like one of the least biased popular programs to listen to out there, There are plenty of other hosts that do a much better job than Rogan (David French & Yascha Mounk). Rogan does indeed have a slant, it just doesn't fit into the most stereotypical red v blue one.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Eh, it is pretty tough to stay purely objective about political reporting these days. "Both sides" play political messaging games, but the Republican party led by Mitch McConnell is a pack of barbarians at the gates of our political system. They'll destroy all Americans' faith in democracy and each other, if it means the GOP can suppress minorities and keep their own pockets lined. So while "Pod Save America" for example is biased, I still believe their takes on what is happening at the federal level are informative and thought-provoking.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    Take a look at this opinion from a distance and see if you think it accurately reflects the views of half of the American population or if you might have internalized some biases
realce 5y ago
You're ready for On The Media - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm
- donkeyd 5y ago
  Thanks, I looked it up, but it seems very left-oriented. So it really kinda confirms my point. Unless I'm missing something, since I only briefly looked into it.
  - realce 5y ago
    It's the old-school cynical left tho, not the modern knee-jerk woke left. To each their own!

narrator 5y ago

Alex Jones's biggest sin is he's boring. He repeats himself over and over again. You could listen to him for 30 minutes and then tune in 12 months later and it's the same stuff, whatever you make of it. Art Bell was a conspiracy theory guy back in the day on late night radio, but he was damned interesting and talked to all kinds of random interesting weirdos. Many of them not that credible, but at least interesting. Not to sound old and cranky, but back in my day, when you heard someone interviewed, it was up to the person listening to evaluate their credibility and not to be protected in a little bubble because one was assumed to be too easily influenced to listen to the unvetted. Podcasts are by no means "The Truth", but at least they are not on the mainstream narrative script and they often don't have a purely political focus. As long as they aren't solely discussing the mainstream news narrative or reacting to it, they can be very interesting. I think Bret Weinstein can be pretty interesting as far as media criticism goes. The Other Life podcast[1] is an example of a podcast that's very disconnected from the mainstream narratives and feels like I'm sitting in a cafe in the 90s drinking coffee with a bunch of intellectual weirdos. Maybe not your cup of tea, or coffee, but it's better than listening to the mainstream news and filling myself with that garbage. [1]https://otherlife.transistor.fm/episodes https://otherlife.transistor.fm/episodes

totony 5y ago
Also podcasts are mostly assumed to be biased by the host, as he directs the conversation. Mainstream news has more indirection from reader to writer so the bias is less tangible.
ianleeclark 5y ago
> Alex Jones's biggest sin is he's boring. Not the Sandy Hook stuff? Surely that's got to be at least in the running.
- MobileVet 5y ago
  Every time I think of this I am enraged. What he did to those parents was a special kind of darkness. So abhorrent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- snowflake_ptr 5y ago
  What "Sandy Hook stuff" are you talking about?
splithalf 5y ago
How could one listen to enough Alex Jones to know this? I like the idea of Alex Jones, paranoid style American politics is a tradition and has its uses, but it’s to me a bit like pro wrestling. It’s not content that’s pitched toward the upper 2/3rds of the bell curve. He is a canary.

seaorg 5y ago

With low budget operations there is at least the possibility of objectivity. When there is a bunch of money involved there is not. And that’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion and words of the technical director of CNN.

thefounder 5y ago
On the other hand if it's a low budget op it will be bought cheaply like buying troll farms or paying "influencers" to promote all kind of crap. In the end you may get the same crap but in a more distributed manner.
bildung 5y ago
There's almost zero political topics where objectivity is possible. That goal itself is usually already ideology (the goal of unbiasedness often stands in opposition of truth). Look at global warming: Either it is man-made or not, either it is a problem for our future or not. There's no objective middle ground. Sure, one could simply have news that say "there is a drougth in the center of the US, stronger than other droughts in the last 50 years", without any context. But even this is not objective, because omitting the context of global warming already skews the message. Or let's use a real historical example: The Soviet Union's invasion into Poland in 1939. Without any context, the SU is clearly the agressor. But with the context of Polands invasion into the SU in 1919 things suddenly look different. And with the additional context of Russia annecting polish territory in the 18th century it looks different again and so on and so on. There clearly is no way to communicate this objectively (i.e. in this case, pro-Russia people could ask why I'd stop here and not with some polish-lithuanian action before the 18th century).
- wruza 5y ago
  there is a drougth in the center of the US, stronger than other droughts in the last 50 years", without any context. But even this is not objective, because omitting the context of global warming already skews the message. Why? You can’t explain all the things (even if you’re backed with true data) in one article – that would take a library. A drought by itself doesn’t skew anything, but maybe your intent is more that just that. The Soviet Union's invasion into Poland in 1939 This is a circular problem. Either do not call it “invasion” or do and so be it. The fact that some monkey punched some other in year 40000 BC has nothing to do with active political contracts. I will not even downvote you on the internet if I find out that our gggps shot at each other in ww1/2, it’s irrelevant now. Most of these people are dead. If you want to remain neutral (nearest to “objective”, which isn’t a thing in case of a physical land), call it a conflict based on historical events and let a reader investigate, discuss and decide who is right and who is wrong, if any, if they ever want that decision. Maybe most people don’t really give a genuine fuck about who is right (if that was a bet, I’d go all in with it). I would even read political news then. Modern “good boys bad boys” or “oh see you see what you done” stories only make me laugh or facepalm. I’m a reader, not a puppet. No surprise younger people only want tiktok and clothes.

roenxi 5y ago

Doesn't Joe Rogan typically have a bigger audience than an average so-called-mainstream news program? The economics might play out that it is more expensive to get him to endorse something than get it run on a major network. There aren't many (any, really) quality guarantees on non-podcast media anyway. It isn't like they get any negative feedback when they lie or make mistakes. Viewers can't even withdraw support for specific known liars on a channel. It is unclear why a podcast would be at a structural disadvantage to any other media source, and probably higher reputational stakes.

andy_ppp 5y ago
I forgot he existed since moving to Spotify’s walled garden.
- Tostino 5y ago
  Maybe you did, but I don't think that's true of the general population. He seems to have increased in popularity since.
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    I don’t think anyone knows for sure? I miss not listening to them when used to see them appear in Overcast :-)
    - zhenyakovalyov 5y ago
      same here. spotify does not seem to get the user experience right unfortunately, particularly around offline/low data use. or may be it’s just me not liking “one stop shops” when it comes to podcasts and music. i started tuning in less, but i still do.
      - andy_ppp 5y ago
        It might be controversial but I feel Spotify have never done good ui.

kbenson 5y ago

Reply All is (or was, before it imploded) an interesting one as a stand in for how this has played out on the left. They got more and more blatant about their views over the years, and even though I generally ascribe to the same views, I would rather not have them put forth so blatantly, especially in a program that purports to be investigative. My assumption is that with the increasing polarization, many shows followed their audiences to the poles. It feels rare these days for someone to not stake out a stance on some culture war battle, whether subtly or not. It's honestly weird that Joe Rogan feel like one of the least biased popular programs to listen to out there, or the least biased in a consistent direction at least. You also get a lot of off the wall crazy shit on there, but honestly someone willing to have enough of an open mind to have people on like that not just to make fun of is a nice change of pace, even if the things are ridiculous, given how entrenched everyone else is in their positions.

throwaway6734 5y ago
>It's honestly weird that Joe Rogan feel like one of the least biased popular programs to listen to out there, There are plenty of other hosts that do a much better job than Rogan (David French & Yascha Mounk). Rogan does indeed have a slant, it just doesn't fit into the most stereotypical red v blue one.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Eh, it is pretty tough to stay purely objective about political reporting these days. "Both sides" play political messaging games, but the Republican party led by Mitch McConnell is a pack of barbarians at the gates of our political system. They'll destroy all Americans' faith in democracy and each other, if it means the GOP can suppress minorities and keep their own pockets lined. So while "Pod Save America" for example is biased, I still believe their takes on what is happening at the federal level are informative and thought-provoking.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  Take a look at this opinion from a distance and see if you think it accurately reflects the views of half of the American population or if you might have internalized some biases

realce 5y ago

You're ready for On The Media - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm

donkeyd 5y ago
Thanks, I looked it up, but it seems very left-oriented. So it really kinda confirms my point. Unless I'm missing something, since I only briefly looked into it.
- realce 5y ago
  It's the old-school cynical left tho, not the modern knee-jerk woke left. To each their own!