9 ms·

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him pushing his opinion anyway. If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. I’ll also note that much of the time the licensed doctors he invites on aren’t actually in relevant specialties at all. And in many cases they are grifters in some way or another.

leereeves 5y ago
Serious question: What media doesn't choose their guests to fit their opinions or their political stance? I'd like to watch that one.
- HL33tibCe7 5y ago
  The coronavirus experts that the mainstream media platformed are far more representative of the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community than the experts Joe Rogan platformed.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Yes, as the evidence comes in, it seems probable that the mainstream media got Invermectin right. They've gotten other things wrong. Whether they ultimately turn out to be right or wrong about any particular topic, the problem occurs much earlier: they choose their position before conclusive evidence is available, often, as in this case, based mostly on politics, then skew their coverage to fit. I'd prefer to hear the arguments and evidence from an impartial source, not a political position.
  - azangru 5y ago
    > are far more representative of the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community But that isn't the answer to the question asked in the parent comment. The parent was wondering which media would choose guests that have a differing view from theirs. The mainstream media happened to align with the people representing the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community, and were rarely inviting Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, or Jay Bhattacharia, who had different views.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    The media manufactures opinion so that isn't surprising, the same can be said for the Hunter Biden laptop story, or WMD in Iraq.
  - lkfjasdlkjfsad 5y ago
- chefandy 5y ago
  Honestly— PBS News Hour. You’re just as likely to see current or former GOP talking heads like Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan as some DNC talking head. In fact, scrolling down their page just now, McConnell is the only actual politician I saw interviewed, though they did have a Biden speech clip. Keep in mind that inviting Political opponents into your show can advance your political message if you lampoon them — but PBS News Hour has about the same ratio of push to pull interviewing politicians, never ever interrupts, and doesn’t ask cheap shot gotcha questions. They are more likely to choose topics from a loosely mainstream democrat perspective — you’d be more likely to see a story about the ACLU releasing a statement about immigration than a law enforcement agency doing the same, but that sheriff or whatever is going to get equal respect and air time in that segment… and it’s not that extreme of a shift compared to mainstream outlets. So I firmly believe that they fit the criteria for your specific question. Truthfully I think most people just don’t want that.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Agreed. News Hour is definitely left leaning but they let people talk and seem to make a genuine effort to provide information. Which is something most other news programs have stopped doing. They just want to produce outrage and conflict. You can listen to CNN, MSNBC or Fox for hours and the only thing you have learned is what you should be angry about. You will have learned nothing about the actual topic.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I agree; for COVID news, none of those three are even remotely reliable. What disappoints me the most is CNN, they really have no reason to be as useless as they are while also riling up emotions.
      - spaetzleesser 5y ago
        CNN is just terrible. They have turned into the left wing Fox News. They report mainly on opinion, not news.
coldtea 5y ago
>If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. So? Some experts are more experts than others?
- headsoup 5y ago
  Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the science" has got it right though.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    The same thought came to mind regarding how easily manipulated the US population is regarding wars. They keep falling for the same fallacy of making conclusions without enough evidence.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing. Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong. Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are. So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity. Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream. You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.
    - headsoup 5y ago
moonchrome 5y ago
>This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. Don't like to defend Joe Rogan, but he literally had the guy that laughed him off at CNN (Sanjay Gupta). While he is often pushy with dumb ideas he will often have guests that contradict him. I stopped listening to him regularly because hearing his opinion along so many guests gets kind of old, and he isn't the smartest guy in the world so it gets boring even faster. But I wouldn't characterize him as closeminded.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
- HL33tibCe7 5y ago
  I have never said that he _only_ platforms experts that agree with him. I’m saying the skew is enormous. So (say) 99% of the relevant scientific and medical community realise ivermectin is bogus and the vaccines work. But he’ll invite on (say) a 75/25 split for/against ivermectin.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    - HL33tibCe7 5y ago
      You need to go back and re-read my comment. He is skewing by cherry-picking. The two aren’t mutually incompatible.
      - edmcnulty101 5y ago
        It's skew to you because the world is binary to you. My opinions vs The bad guys. Joe Rogan has people with all kinds of differing opinions to create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. As I said, there's no reason to have more than one main stream person repeating the same thing repeated on every network. When Labotomies won the Nobel Prize you would have possibly been upset that anyone would be questioning the science.
        bena 5y ago
        > create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. This is demonstrably false. Ideas on Joe Rogan do not win on merit. Unless merit is based on quantity of bullshit.
nradov 5y ago
Do you mean licensed doctors like Peter Attia or Michael Osterholm? As guests on Joe Rogan's podcast, both of them repeatedly recommended that people get vaccinated, and said that there wasn't reliable evidence for ivermectin. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=PDXSLx8tTomvIlSxxjTDww&utm_source=copy-link https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=P... https://open.spotify.com/episode/5VSukFrMYGae1ILd0e4HuR?si=BvzPxC9cR86fez7gSQQtdA&utm_source=copy-link https://open.spotify.com/episode/5VSukFrMYGae1ILd0e4HuR?si=B...
eggy 5y ago
So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the highly-paid experts who have pushed for science as a belief rather than a method or system for examining phenomenon. How many people have they harmed (children being masked while old farts in government hug and talk face-to-face; pushing vaccines on 5-11 year-olds with a 12% efficacy after only 30 days, on and on). I think people just like to dog pile on people like Rogan; they should be turning some of that scrutiny upon the people they listen to or extol as experts. CNN calling Ivermectin "horse dewormer" or "horse medicine" was blatant propaganda, and not journalism, yet people rely on CNN for their information, too much I fear.
- decremental 5y ago
- thurn 5y ago
  You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.
  - gatlin 5y ago
    Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...
    - topaz0 5y ago
      I think the linked piece makes an important point, but I disagree that that point is relevant here. "Your argument pattern-matches to tu quoque" is probably an unhelpful thing to say, but what GP says is more like: "Your points about other people are not relevant to the discussion we were having out this one person, and therefore are unhelpful. This pattern of bad argument is sometimes known as tu quoque." Seems fine to me. Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.
phoinix 5y ago
spaetzleesser 5y ago
When the pandemic started I got some of the best information on Rogan. He had some immunologists on that predicted exactly how it would turn out. While a lot of people still believed that this could be stopped these guys predicted that it would run through the population. Which it did. I don’t really like this need for people to hear only what they want to hear and get angry when people say something they don’t like. Rogan lets people on and lets them talk. Sometimes it’s interesting , sometimes it’s not, sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong. I much prefer Rogan over all the people on big news that constantly spin things one way or the other to get more viewers. The mainstream news has lost the ability to give straight news.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I would be highly suspicious that in this post, the msm is tasked with the standard of giving “straight news” but Joe Rogan is apparently no more quality with “sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong”. Why would you actively prefer one mediocre source of news over another mediocre source of news? They both seem mediocre and neither seem worth listening to.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Rogan is not a news program and doesn't claim to be one . His thing is conversations with interesting people.H It can be serious scientists, questionable scientists, flat earthers, UFO people, Alex Jones and many others. He lets them talk and it's up to you do with it whatever you want. I personally find it very interesting to listen to political extremists, conspiracy guys, COVID deniers or flat earthers and learn what they are thinking. I don't need or want to be protected from wrong information. Actually it's very important to know where people you are disagreeing with are coming from. It's very unhealthy to only hear what you think is true. If people want to get protected from wrong information a good start would be advertising. Maybe the woke people at Spotify should start there.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      All I’m saying is that I don’t get why Joe Rogan and MSM are even comparable if they’re being held to totally different standards. You can critique them both without comparing them. They can both spout misinformation and bias differently because they are fundamentally different products. And they can critique each other’s biases and failures because, wel, they’re different things??
gadders 5y ago
If you cherry pick your experts enough you end up believing that the Wuhan Lab Leak theory is hate-speech and that Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation campaign.
Graffur 5y ago
Joe brings on guests that are informative and interesting. He didn't come up with a scheme to hype up Ivermectin or any other treatment. Do you think otherwise? I believe he has had on: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Michael Osterholm and and Dr. Peter Hotez. That doesn't look to be cherry-picking experts to push an absurd position.
MarcoZavala 5y ago

leereeves 5y ago

Serious question: What media doesn't choose their guests to fit their opinions or their political stance? I'd like to watch that one.

HL33tibCe7 5y ago
The coronavirus experts that the mainstream media platformed are far more representative of the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community than the experts Joe Rogan platformed.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Yes, as the evidence comes in, it seems probable that the mainstream media got Invermectin right. They've gotten other things wrong. Whether they ultimately turn out to be right or wrong about any particular topic, the problem occurs much earlier: they choose their position before conclusive evidence is available, often, as in this case, based mostly on politics, then skew their coverage to fit. I'd prefer to hear the arguments and evidence from an impartial source, not a political position.
- azangru 5y ago
  > are far more representative of the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community But that isn't the answer to the question asked in the parent comment. The parent was wondering which media would choose guests that have a differing view from theirs. The mainstream media happened to align with the people representing the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community, and were rarely inviting Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, or Jay Bhattacharia, who had different views.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  The media manufactures opinion so that isn't surprising, the same can be said for the Hunter Biden laptop story, or WMD in Iraq.
- lkfjasdlkjfsad 5y ago
chefandy 5y ago
Honestly— PBS News Hour. You’re just as likely to see current or former GOP talking heads like Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan as some DNC talking head. In fact, scrolling down their page just now, McConnell is the only actual politician I saw interviewed, though they did have a Biden speech clip. Keep in mind that inviting Political opponents into your show can advance your political message if you lampoon them — but PBS News Hour has about the same ratio of push to pull interviewing politicians, never ever interrupts, and doesn’t ask cheap shot gotcha questions. They are more likely to choose topics from a loosely mainstream democrat perspective — you’d be more likely to see a story about the ACLU releasing a statement about immigration than a law enforcement agency doing the same, but that sheriff or whatever is going to get equal respect and air time in that segment… and it’s not that extreme of a shift compared to mainstream outlets. So I firmly believe that they fit the criteria for your specific question. Truthfully I think most people just don’t want that.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Agreed. News Hour is definitely left leaning but they let people talk and seem to make a genuine effort to provide information. Which is something most other news programs have stopped doing. They just want to produce outrage and conflict. You can listen to CNN, MSNBC or Fox for hours and the only thing you have learned is what you should be angry about. You will have learned nothing about the actual topic.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I agree; for COVID news, none of those three are even remotely reliable. What disappoints me the most is CNN, they really have no reason to be as useless as they are while also riling up emotions.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      CNN is just terrible. They have turned into the left wing Fox News. They report mainly on opinion, not news.

coldtea 5y ago

>If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. So? Some experts are more experts than others?

headsoup 5y ago
Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the science" has got it right though.
- cudgy 5y ago
  The same thought came to mind regarding how easily manipulated the US population is regarding wars. They keep falling for the same fallacy of making conclusions without enough evidence.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing. Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong. Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are. So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity. Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream. You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.
  - headsoup 5y ago

moonchrome 5y ago

>This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. Don't like to defend Joe Rogan, but he literally had the guy that laughed him off at CNN (Sanjay Gupta). While he is often pushy with dumb ideas he will often have guests that contradict him. I stopped listening to him regularly because hearing his opinion along so many guests gets kind of old, and he isn't the smartest guy in the world so it gets boring even faster. But I wouldn't characterize him as closeminded.

edmcnulty101 5y ago

HL33tibCe7 5y ago
I have never said that he _only_ platforms experts that agree with him. I’m saying the skew is enormous. So (say) 99% of the relevant scientific and medical community realise ivermectin is bogus and the vaccines work. But he’ll invite on (say) a 75/25 split for/against ivermectin.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  - HL33tibCe7 5y ago
    You need to go back and re-read my comment. He is skewing by cherry-picking. The two aren’t mutually incompatible.
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      It's skew to you because the world is binary to you. My opinions vs The bad guys. Joe Rogan has people with all kinds of differing opinions to create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. As I said, there's no reason to have more than one main stream person repeating the same thing repeated on every network. When Labotomies won the Nobel Prize you would have possibly been upset that anyone would be questioning the science.
      - bena 5y ago
        > create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. This is demonstrably false. Ideas on Joe Rogan do not win on merit. Unless merit is based on quantity of bullshit.

nradov 5y ago

Do you mean licensed doctors like Peter Attia or Michael Osterholm? As guests on Joe Rogan's podcast, both of them repeatedly recommended that people get vaccinated, and said that there wasn't reliable evidence for ivermectin. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=PDXSLx8tTomvIlSxxjTDww&utm_source=copy-link https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=P... https://open.spotify.com/episode/5VSukFrMYGae1ILd0e4HuR?si=BvzPxC9cR86fez7gSQQtdA&utm_source=copy-link https://open.spotify.com/episode/5VSukFrMYGae1ILd0e4HuR?si=B...

eggy 5y ago

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the highly-paid experts who have pushed for science as a belief rather than a method or system for examining phenomenon. How many people have they harmed (children being masked while old farts in government hug and talk face-to-face; pushing vaccines on 5-11 year-olds with a 12% efficacy after only 30 days, on and on). I think people just like to dog pile on people like Rogan; they should be turning some of that scrutiny upon the people they listen to or extol as experts. CNN calling Ivermectin "horse dewormer" or "horse medicine" was blatant propaganda, and not journalism, yet people rely on CNN for their information, too much I fear.

decremental 5y ago
thurn 5y ago
You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.
- gatlin 5y ago
  Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...
  - topaz0 5y ago
    I think the linked piece makes an important point, but I disagree that that point is relevant here. "Your argument pattern-matches to tu quoque" is probably an unhelpful thing to say, but what GP says is more like: "Your points about other people are not relevant to the discussion we were having out this one person, and therefore are unhelpful. This pattern of bad argument is sometimes known as tu quoque." Seems fine to me. Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.

phoinix 5y ago

spaetzleesser 5y ago

When the pandemic started I got some of the best information on Rogan. He had some immunologists on that predicted exactly how it would turn out. While a lot of people still believed that this could be stopped these guys predicted that it would run through the population. Which it did. I don’t really like this need for people to hear only what they want to hear and get angry when people say something they don’t like. Rogan lets people on and lets them talk. Sometimes it’s interesting , sometimes it’s not, sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong. I much prefer Rogan over all the people on big news that constantly spin things one way or the other to get more viewers. The mainstream news has lost the ability to give straight news.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I would be highly suspicious that in this post, the msm is tasked with the standard of giving “straight news” but Joe Rogan is apparently no more quality with “sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong”. Why would you actively prefer one mediocre source of news over another mediocre source of news? They both seem mediocre and neither seem worth listening to.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Rogan is not a news program and doesn't claim to be one . His thing is conversations with interesting people.H It can be serious scientists, questionable scientists, flat earthers, UFO people, Alex Jones and many others. He lets them talk and it's up to you do with it whatever you want. I personally find it very interesting to listen to political extremists, conspiracy guys, COVID deniers or flat earthers and learn what they are thinking. I don't need or want to be protected from wrong information. Actually it's very important to know where people you are disagreeing with are coming from. It's very unhealthy to only hear what you think is true. If people want to get protected from wrong information a good start would be advertising. Maybe the woke people at Spotify should start there.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    All I’m saying is that I don’t get why Joe Rogan and MSM are even comparable if they’re being held to totally different standards. You can critique them both without comparing them. They can both spout misinformation and bias differently because they are fundamentally different products. And they can critique each other’s biases and failures because, wel, they’re different things??

gadders 5y ago

If you cherry pick your experts enough you end up believing that the Wuhan Lab Leak theory is hate-speech and that Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation campaign.

Graffur 5y ago

Joe brings on guests that are informative and interesting. He didn't come up with a scheme to hype up Ivermectin or any other treatment. Do you think otherwise? I believe he has had on: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Michael Osterholm and and Dr. Peter Hotez. That doesn't look to be cherry-picking experts to push an absurd position.

MarcoZavala 5y ago