3 ms·

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 th

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.

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.