4 ms·

> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests This is correct. Friedman praises himself to listen

> they let their guests say whatever anti-intellectual bs they wanted, without trying to correct the guests This is correct. Friedman praises himself to listen to "all sides". I think this is good in principle, but he invites all types of professional bullshitters and propagandists and let them go without the slightest pushback which is pretty disturbing. He probably wouldn't have the same range of guests if he wasn't only throwing soft balls though. To his credit, I found that Rogan was at least pushing back a bit against (what he perceived as) BS (haven't listened to him for a while though). In any case, I hope for Americans these guys don't define the US intellectual landscape.

no_wizard 2y ago
Rogan doesn’t really pushback at all, or in cases where he may face more criticism, pushbacks superficially. He lost all credibility to me (which was already in short supply to be honest) when this became a pattern. There is no meaningful pushback in Rogan interviews, and while I never fully agreed with most of what Rogan had to say over the years I did praise in the past that he was willing to ask hard questions and press answers, but that was long long ago now.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> invites all types of professional bullshitters and propagandists and let them go without the slightest pushback which is pretty disturbing Do you also say the same thing about traditional journalists, who could also be easily labeled professional bullshitters and propagandists? I don’t find Lex’s approach disturbing at all. It’s only disturbing to those threatened by new information or different opinions or free speech in general. I find his conversations explore relevant topics surrounding a guest effectively.
- yodsanklai 2y ago
  When there's a guest who speaks obvious nonsense, and Friedman knows it, I don't think it's right to leave it unchallenged. At least, as a viewer this is what I'd like to hear (whether I like the guest or not). Of course, this applies to traditional journalists. And this has nothing to do with free speech.

no_wizard 2y ago

Rogan doesn’t really pushback at all, or in cases where he may face more criticism, pushbacks superficially. He lost all credibility to me (which was already in short supply to be honest) when this became a pattern. There is no meaningful pushback in Rogan interviews, and while I never fully agreed with most of what Rogan had to say over the years I did praise in the past that he was willing to ask hard questions and press answers, but that was long long ago now.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> invites all types of professional bullshitters and propagandists and let them go without the slightest pushback which is pretty disturbing Do you also say the same thing about traditional journalists, who could also be easily labeled professional bullshitters and propagandists? I don’t find Lex’s approach disturbing at all. It’s only disturbing to those threatened by new information or different opinions or free speech in general. I find his conversations explore relevant topics surrounding a guest effectively.

yodsanklai 2y ago
When there's a guest who speaks obvious nonsense, and Friedman knows it, I don't think it's right to leave it unchallenged. At least, as a viewer this is what I'd like to hear (whether I like the guest or not). Of course, this applies to traditional journalists. And this has nothing to do with free speech.