4 ms·

> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests I do not like any of the 2 (even I could say I hate

by f1shy 2y ago

> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests I do not like any of the 2 (even I could say I hate them, in the sense I cannot watch for more than 10 s), but what do you mean with “let they say (…) whatever they want” I mean… is that not right?! Do you expect some kind of sensorship? I mean maybe is what YOU perceived as “anti-intellectual bs” whatever that means for you? Maybe they concur? Also “try to correct”? Sorry, maybe is a language thing, but “correct” seems to imply the guest said something “wrong”. Is the host always an authority to ”correct” a guest? I’m really not trying to attack or insult you, I’m just totally perplexed by the comment? I would HATE to see an interview where the host is “correcting” the guest in any color, shape or form. Maybe I am misinterpreting your reply. Maybe can you give an example of what you think is better, ans show a correction from host to guest, as you would like?

neom 2y ago
I regularly watch these "DW News Desk: Join the news conversation" "podcasts" (video series) - they are long form and a deep dive into a topic, often they have guests who are very passionate about some side of an issue, and it's extreme evident the hosts are well researched in the aspects of the issue that are divisive such that they can call out or steer the conversation in a manner I can more easily see the passion (/biased) of a guest. It's part of what I appreciate about world class journalism. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84ADeOLeQKVomcVI https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84AD...
arnvald 2y ago
I should have said “false” rather than “anti-intellectual”. I know the role of the host is not to be a fact-checker, but when a guest makes a false claim and then they speak about it without questioning it makes it sound like both people believe it’s true. I don’t remember exact examples, but one was something to the tune of: Guest: man the crime in America is crazy these days Host: yeah, totally Guest: I left city X because I couldn’t handle the crime there Host: yeah, it’s the worst Guest: it’s like New York in the 80s Host: and the mayor and the governor do nothing about it! Then of course the crime is not only nowhere near the 80s NY level, but also lower than in previous years when the guest apparently lived there. Again, I don’t expect the host to say “you’re wrong” every time a guest makes a wrong claim, but saying “come on, NY in the 80s was brutal, we’re nowhere near that” at least limits the exaggeration
- f1shy 2y ago
  > I should have said “false” rather than “anti-intellectual”. I know the role of the host is not to be a fact-checker, but when a guest makes a false claim and then they speak about it without questioning it makes it sound like both people believe it’s true. Ok! Now I understand, so you mean, e.g. somebody says “the sun is actually 20 degrees hot”, and they do not interject… I am then at your side on that. On the other hand… maybe they DO agree? Or maybe they just want to give a microphone even to questionable people? So… I’m not convinced, but now I understand you better. Anyway, I do not like them. Maybe the problem is beaause people expect journalism, but they do more like “friends talking in the bar”
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Have you considered that the other person may be correct? That’s probably what the interviewer is doing. For example in your made up example, maybe the data would correctly show crime was worse in the 80s, or maybe the data is wrong even if it says that. After all, when crimes are not addressed people stop reporting them - as one way data could be wrong. So maybe crime is worse than the 80s in some ways and it’s worth letting the guest continue with their perspective. Even if exaggerated though, I also find the overreaction to exaggeration to be unnecessary. I’m sure there are exaggerations you let slide when they aren’t important to you or when they’re aligned to your views.
emmelaich 2y ago
Agreed. The attitude that the interviewer must "correct" or "challenge" the interviewee just is not appropriate for this style of interview. This allows Rogan to get guests with all sorts of backgrounds and views.

by f1shy 2y ago

neom 2y ago

I regularly watch these "DW News Desk: Join the news conversation" "podcasts" (video series) - they are long form and a deep dive into a topic, often they have guests who are very passionate about some side of an issue, and it's extreme evident the hosts are well researched in the aspects of the issue that are divisive such that they can call out or steer the conversation in a manner I can more easily see the passion (/biased) of a guest. It's part of what I appreciate about world class journalism. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84ADeOLeQKVomcVI https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT6yxVwBEbi2VrKhg84AD...

arnvald 2y ago

I should have said “false” rather than “anti-intellectual”. I know the role of the host is not to be a fact-checker, but when a guest makes a false claim and then they speak about it without questioning it makes it sound like both people believe it’s true. I don’t remember exact examples, but one was something to the tune of: Guest: man the crime in America is crazy these days Host: yeah, totally Guest: I left city X because I couldn’t handle the crime there Host: yeah, it’s the worst Guest: it’s like New York in the 80s Host: and the mayor and the governor do nothing about it! Then of course the crime is not only nowhere near the 80s NY level, but also lower than in previous years when the guest apparently lived there. Again, I don’t expect the host to say “you’re wrong” every time a guest makes a wrong claim, but saying “come on, NY in the 80s was brutal, we’re nowhere near that” at least limits the exaggeration

f1shy 2y ago
> I should have said “false” rather than “anti-intellectual”. I know the role of the host is not to be a fact-checker, but when a guest makes a false claim and then they speak about it without questioning it makes it sound like both people believe it’s true. Ok! Now I understand, so you mean, e.g. somebody says “the sun is actually 20 degrees hot”, and they do not interject… I am then at your side on that. On the other hand… maybe they DO agree? Or maybe they just want to give a microphone even to questionable people? So… I’m not convinced, but now I understand you better. Anyway, I do not like them. Maybe the problem is beaause people expect journalism, but they do more like “friends talking in the bar”
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Have you considered that the other person may be correct? That’s probably what the interviewer is doing. For example in your made up example, maybe the data would correctly show crime was worse in the 80s, or maybe the data is wrong even if it says that. After all, when crimes are not addressed people stop reporting them - as one way data could be wrong. So maybe crime is worse than the 80s in some ways and it’s worth letting the guest continue with their perspective. Even if exaggerated though, I also find the overreaction to exaggeration to be unnecessary. I’m sure there are exaggerations you let slide when they aren’t important to you or when they’re aligned to your views.

emmelaich 2y ago

Agreed. The attitude that the interviewer must "correct" or "challenge" the interviewee just is not appropriate for this style of interview. This allows Rogan to get guests with all sorts of backgrounds and views.