4 ms·
Highly recommend John Oliver on Bari Weiss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gieTx_P6INQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gieTx_P6INQ
by benzible 1y ago
Highly recommend John Oliver on Bari Weiss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gieTx_P6INQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gieTx_P6INQ
- CharlesW 1y agoSeconded. I didn’t know anything about her but figured I should, and found it well worth the time.
- cxr 1y agoHow strange: - by one's own admission, doesn't know much about the matter (EDIT: correction, "didn’t know anything"), and yet - still feels confident enough to voice one's approval for a given information source positioning itself as informative Suppose it's a bad source—filled with sleights of hand and intellectual dishonesty for cheap laughs, for example. How would you know?
- CharlesW 1y agoHad you watched TFV before posting this, you’d have known that easily-verified receipts are shared as part of the overview.
- cxr 1y agoA couple things: 1. I watched the video prior to posting. 2. Did you verify them?
- benzible 1y agoYou're doing the thing where you ignore all the substance to concern-troll about the source. The Oliver piece walks through extensively documented failures in Weiss's work - from Times colleagues contradicting her "civil war" claims in real-time, to Washington University finding her trans clinic allegations unsubstantiated, to families she featured publicly stating she misrepresented their stories. NBC, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Missouri Independent all did independent follow-up reporting that contradicted her work. You're not engaging with any of the actual substance - you're just doing meta-commentary about whether people should trust sources. If you've got a substantive defense of her work that addresses the specifics of Oliver's piece, let's hear it. Otherwise this is just ad hominem.
- aiunt 1y agoJohn Oliver is well-known for his shameless propagandizing even more so than Bari Weiss is. He particularly relies on lies of omission and attacking strawman arguments. This video is the pot calling the kettle black. Moral smugness combined with a total lack of intellectual curiosity, dressed up as comedy, does not make for reliable analysis on anything.
- benzible 1y agoWay to answer a comment pointing out substance-free ad hominem with... substance-free ad hominem.
- CharlesW 1y ago(2) A few I did, to learn more. Fun facts: The show has won multiple Peabody Awards which explicitly cite its work as "rigorous journalism disguised as comedy". Its large research/fact-checking team is largely staffed with people with journalism and policy background. Every word spoken is vetted for accuracy and potential liability by HBO's legal department. (1) Did you find anything factually incorrect with the episode?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 1y agoFolks like Oliver hate Weiss because her path to success—building a real business that meets a customer demand, generates revenue and employs people—is one that can’t be gifted upon someone based on their checking boxes and playing office politics. The weasel word here is “qualified.”
- tptacek 1y agoThis doesn't make any sense. No part of Oliver's career --- I'm not a fan --- has been based on checking boxes and "playing office politics".
- rayiner 1y agoI didn’t say his viewpoint was self-serving. It’s ideological. A system based on box checking and politics makes it easier to achieve liberal social and political goals.
- tptacek 1y agoSeems like a just-so story. You could have just said Oliver has it out for Weiss over politics and ideology, and I'd have agreed. But you came up with this weird specific story instead.
- rayiner 1y agoI’d say that elevation of box checking and paper credentialism over accomplishments is one specific, relevant aspect of that ideological difference.
- kasey_junk 1y agoI’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you suggesting that John Oliver got where he is via box checking and credentialism?
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]