5 ms·
One thing I don't like about Lex is that he doesn't really challenge his guests (which is one of the reasons why he can bring many well known names, as they kno
by justapassenger 4y ago
One thing I don't like about Lex is that he doesn't really challenge his guests (which is one of the reasons why he can bring many well known names, as they know they can mostly give their talking points).
That's not a ding against him, as he has very wide range of guests, so he lacks expertise to challenge them, but something to keep in mind.
- deepzn 4y agoHe's not perfect. Though I find it pleasant that he has a mostly neutral point of view as that's when you can get the most information out of a discussion. I think in many traditional media formats, the opposite is the case, which is what we're used to. Like for e.g. Charlie Rose, or any of the biased media outlets today. One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing. He's not completely neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and at the same time doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. That being said, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
- dandanua 4y agoYeah, his interview with Pfizer CEO was essentially an advertisement. He also advertises cryptocurrencies a lot, like they are the next money system in the world. Largely downgrading all their harm and inabilities. The man just making his own fortune. On the other hand, the freedom that guests have is worthwhile.