3 ms·

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understan

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.

breakingrules 3y ago
if you have a modern bar for accuracy, you require evidence. when you require evidence, because you've spotted a ton of lies in the media, most of it gets rejected. we did not ask for untrustworthy media, algorithms, exploitation and bribery dictate that.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers? I'm not convinced.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to take less money from big entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier to follow their incentives and style than work out what a media company is trying to push this week.
  - cgio 3y ago
    I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Oh, sure. It costs nothing to buy off a single podcaster. There are blatant shills all over the place. Still better than cable news. CNN literally hired Clapper as a presenter - you couldn't pull a stunt like that the way most podcasts are structured. There'd have to many opportunities for people to press him on the Orwellean spy system that he helped set up. I don't recall any support for domestic mass surveillance among the US voting public. Compare that to someone in the CIA buying off Joe Rogan - he might sell out some day, but if he got so bad he was offering softball interviews to the likes of Clapper then he's not going to be able to keep the same pull he does now. People have a distaste for that level of blatant propaganda.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Journalism. Reaching out to involved parties for comment, boots on the ground, making retractions, reserving judgement, citing sources, seeking and contextualizing opposition and/or expertise, making an attempt to prefer observation over interpretation, pushing back on wild claims, etc etc etc. I was acutely aware of partisan bias in MSM but I didn't appreciate just how much they actually did get right until the deluge of "MSM sux, here's what THEY don't want you to know" replaced it.
    - lukeholder 3y ago
      You do realise he has a large team of journalist behind him?
      - jjoonathan 3y ago
        If they are doing any of the above, it would be a 180 degree change from the Russel Brand that I blocked from my feeds a few years ago.
        vuln 3y ago
        So you’re making assumptions of Brand’s content that you haven’t seen in years? What are you basing your assumptions on? What the journalists tell you? Seems like a pretty disingenuous take.
        ifyoubuildit 3y ago
        This is a good summary of the threads I'm seeing here.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
    Just in terms of viewership do you have a specific source for saying his audience is comparable? I am having trouble finding something reasonable. e.g. 6.58M youtube subscribers 80 million television households as subscribers for CNN Although these numbers are not really comparable ~700k daily watchers for CNN: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-ratings-for-august-2023/536968/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-ratings-... 800k video views for Russel: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand Although of course video views != daily watchers (one person can watch multiple ones & that number can be juiced)
    - roenxi 3y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/business/media/cnn-profit-chris-licht.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/business/media/cnn-profit... or https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/03/14/cnns-ratings-woes-continue-as-network-has-its-lowest-rated-week-in-more-than-7-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/03/14/cnns-rat... for example - CNN is pulling a viewership of ~400k people and you can see Brand's videos generally averaging above that on YouTube.
      - X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
        I agree this points to a somewhat similar level of reach, but you can't actually compare views to viewership
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    > People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. The dude has a video titled Hawaii Wildfire: Climate Change or Blackrock? His views are only coherent in the sense that he thinks everything is a shadowy conspiracy, which morons gobble up
RRWagner 3y ago
A very good concise insight
asdfman123 3y ago
Don't buy into the bad faith arguments. They aren't genuinely "asking questions," they're trying to bring what they already believe into the mainstream.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  AKA https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off
- gooseus 3y ago
  I forget where I read/saw it, but someone once made the point that because there are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, someone is always making some kind of statement based on a conscious decision about which questions to ask, and which not to ask. I think this is especially true when someone is repeatedly ask the same kinds of questions while simultaneously ignoring lots of other really good questions.
- rexkwondo 3y ago
  How are you determining what people (strangers) "already believe"?
  - asdfman123 3y ago
    Talking to them on the internet/real life over the past ten years
    - rexkwondo 3y ago
      To me, that feels like a broad brush and lazy way to shut down any uncomfortable conversation. If you find it works for you, more power to you
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Epistemologically you can't be completely sure, but when someone's discourse is habitually interwoven with rhetorical gambits and logical fallacies it's not unreasonable to conclude that they're actually a bullshit artist.
gorwell 3y ago
It's amusing they recognize NPCs that uncritically repeat the establishment narrative and question nothing, but don't recognize they are doing the same thing in reverse. "I Support The Current Thing" vs "I Oppose The Current Thing"
- AzzieElbab 3y ago
  sure, but one does not get clicks for telling people that "the current thing" is nuanced.

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.

breakingrules 3y ago

if you have a modern bar for accuracy, you require evidence. when you require evidence, because you've spotted a ton of lies in the media, most of it gets rejected. we did not ask for untrustworthy media, algorithms, exploitation and bribery dictate that.

jjoonathan 3y ago

Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers? I'm not convinced.

roenxi 3y ago
> ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to take less money from big entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier to follow their incentives and style than work out what a media company is trying to push this week.
- cgio 3y ago
  I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Oh, sure. It costs nothing to buy off a single podcaster. There are blatant shills all over the place. Still better than cable news. CNN literally hired Clapper as a presenter - you couldn't pull a stunt like that the way most podcasts are structured. There'd have to many opportunities for people to press him on the Orwellean spy system that he helped set up. I don't recall any support for domestic mass surveillance among the US voting public. Compare that to someone in the CIA buying off Joe Rogan - he might sell out some day, but if he got so bad he was offering softball interviews to the likes of Clapper then he's not going to be able to keep the same pull he does now. People have a distaste for that level of blatant propaganda.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Journalism. Reaching out to involved parties for comment, boots on the ground, making retractions, reserving judgement, citing sources, seeking and contextualizing opposition and/or expertise, making an attempt to prefer observation over interpretation, pushing back on wild claims, etc etc etc. I was acutely aware of partisan bias in MSM but I didn't appreciate just how much they actually did get right until the deluge of "MSM sux, here's what THEY don't want you to know" replaced it.
  - lukeholder 3y ago
    You do realise he has a large team of journalist behind him?
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      If they are doing any of the above, it would be a 180 degree change from the Russel Brand that I blocked from my feeds a few years ago.
      - vuln 3y ago
        So you’re making assumptions of Brand’s content that you haven’t seen in years? What are you basing your assumptions on? What the journalists tell you? Seems like a pretty disingenuous take.
        ifyoubuildit 3y ago
        This is a good summary of the threads I'm seeing here.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
  Just in terms of viewership do you have a specific source for saying his audience is comparable? I am having trouble finding something reasonable. e.g. 6.58M youtube subscribers 80 million television households as subscribers for CNN Although these numbers are not really comparable ~700k daily watchers for CNN: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-ratings-for-august-2023/536968/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-cable-news-ratings-... 800k video views for Russel: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/russellbrand Although of course video views != daily watchers (one person can watch multiple ones & that number can be juiced)
  - roenxi 3y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/business/media/cnn-profit-chris-licht.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/business/media/cnn-profit... or https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/03/14/cnns-ratings-woes-continue-as-network-has-its-lowest-rated-week-in-more-than-7-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/03/14/cnns-rat... for example - CNN is pulling a viewership of ~400k people and you can see Brand's videos generally averaging above that on YouTube.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
      I agree this points to a somewhat similar level of reach, but you can't actually compare views to viewership
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. The dude has a video titled Hawaii Wildfire: Climate Change or Blackrock? His views are only coherent in the sense that he thinks everything is a shadowy conspiracy, which morons gobble up

RRWagner 3y ago

A very good concise insight

asdfman123 3y ago

Don't buy into the bad faith arguments. They aren't genuinely "asking questions," they're trying to bring what they already believe into the mainstream.

ceejayoz 3y ago
AKA https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/JAQ_off
gooseus 3y ago
I forget where I read/saw it, but someone once made the point that because there are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, someone is always making some kind of statement based on a conscious decision about which questions to ask, and which not to ask. I think this is especially true when someone is repeatedly ask the same kinds of questions while simultaneously ignoring lots of other really good questions.
rexkwondo 3y ago
How are you determining what people (strangers) "already believe"?
- asdfman123 3y ago
  Talking to them on the internet/real life over the past ten years
  - rexkwondo 3y ago
    To me, that feels like a broad brush and lazy way to shut down any uncomfortable conversation. If you find it works for you, more power to you
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Epistemologically you can't be completely sure, but when someone's discourse is habitually interwoven with rhetorical gambits and logical fallacies it's not unreasonable to conclude that they're actually a bullshit artist.

gorwell 3y ago

It's amusing they recognize NPCs that uncritically repeat the establishment narrative and question nothing, but don't recognize they are doing the same thing in reverse. "I Support The Current Thing" vs "I Oppose The Current Thing"

AzzieElbab 3y ago
sure, but one does not get clicks for telling people that "the current thing" is nuanced.