I like the free-flowing version of many of your most interesting podcasts...but "for facts sake" maybe there could be a post-podcast place where any errors of fact could be listed to straighten the record-we could visit that place if we wished, post-podcast
We should recognize the difference between two things: on the one hand, an unintended factual error that is later recognized and admitted; on the other hand, an outright lie that is either denied, doubled down on, or met with nothing more than a shrug.
Among Trump's mortal sins that you did not mention are the extrajudicial murders on the high seas. Sarah, in this week's discussion with Andrew Weissman, poses that our President has too weak a stomach to complete the outright murders that were done by the leaders he contends to be more powerful than: Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
Lest we not forget the stomach he has for murdering people in boats, please. Obviously, all the other deaths due to DOGE cuts and Medicaid reductions do not phase him. And, he is genuinely gleeful at the dropping of bombs on boats, i.e. murder. I doubt that our President left unrestrained by looming elections would have any hesitancy to do the same to the people of Iran, Lebanon, and his perceived enemies here at home. Heaven help us over the next two years, even if there is a strong victory by those candidates who have the stomach to oppose him.
Thierry Henry is the GOAT for me but was only ONE member of the GOAT Arsenal team. His former teammate, Patrick Viera, is punditing with Gary Lineker (an England GOAT) on Netflix’s The Rest Is Football.
Factual is much better JVL! TRUTH as well. Yes it's knid of a high standard but in these days and times many more people are seeking truth because there is so much misinformation and lies out there that truth is truly a better route. I hope this makes sense.
I'm mostly here to keep up JVL's ego. His Webby win seems so long ago.... Anyway.
I do think we should demand that everyone attempt to be as factual as possible. From historical podcasts to hey we're just asking questions about things. That doesn't mean every ball and strike needs to be called correctly in the moment. Just that when a mistake is made it is acknowledged and the correct information put out. I think media companies should consider doing a daily post of corrections. Call it what we got wrong yesterday. Just stick it out there. Not everyone will read it, but it'll be there for those who check.
Re standards of accuracy: if you go to the trouble of correcting errors, even minor ones, then you care about accuracy. If you NEVER do that then you are dangerously close to Trump territory where facts just don't matter. We are fortunate that you and the Bulwark do care, and act as a bulwark against Trumpism in all it's forms. That Rogan doesn't do corrections says that he views his program as solely entertainment and a source of income. Each to his own.
'One of the things Democrats used to say early in the Trump years was, “This is not who we are.”' (JVL). I never said that and yelled at the television, "You elected the bastard and you want to say you didn't? This is exactly who you are."
The other thing I don't understand, and even JVL says this sometimes along with other journalists, "Trump's charisma...." We are either used to different definitions of charisma or different kinds of men. Trump is charismatic? Since when? He is disgusting slime and always has been; he is physiclly repulsive and the world's laughing stock; he couldn't speak or write English properly if his life depended on it; a politician without a native language is no politician at all. He is a white racist and always has been. I fail utterly to see how Trump has charisma.
I think Americans, especially Trump critics, should burst the sparkling, charismatic bubble and ask themselves why they hold fast to the myth of "Trump's charisma." I think it's because it's the last and only thing that they can attribute to him thus explaining his election. "There must be a reason that he's president. He has charisma." He no more has charisma than language literacy. He is one of the most uncharismatic people who has landed in politics.
Trump was not elected because he has charisma, which he does not. He was elected because because they are very serious problems with the US electorate and always have been. He was elected because there is a serious problem with the presence of massive amounts of money in the political arena and always has been. He was elected because he is a vile, racist white man and there are enough people in this country that are, themselves, vile racists and they enjoy electing as many vile, racist white men as possible and always have. He was elected a second time because people enjoyed the first time and could care less that there are three very unequal branches of government thus leading the way to autocratic rule. Trump was elected because he is a misogynist and the majority of people in this country are misogynists and believe that taking away women's rights is the right thing to do and always have believed that.
Please stop being delusional about Trump's charisma and confront the hard truths of the US electorate, US history, and Trump himself.
'On TNL last week I said that the Iranian regime “just killed, like, 15,000 of their citizens, like, four months ago.”' (JVL)
I object more to the totally unnecessary "likes" than the factual error. Between "like" and "you know" I'm not certain that spoken American can regain its hearty spontaneous syntax.
I really like the question that JVL asks about what the standard of truth should be for different forms of content.
I don't have an answer but I think it's right that different forms could be held to different standards. Extemporaneous speaking follows a different standard from researched pieces I think, similar to how a journalist first reporting on the news of an event may be more fuzzy or uncertain about the details whereas a follow-up report giving a retrospective of what's known is hopefully more precise.
The overriding standard for me is not that the speaker has perfect adherence to truth in their statements, but just that they exhibit a habit or follow a professional standard that binds them to the truth. It's usually not hard to differentiate the folks who care about truth from those who don't - there's often a glaring gulf between their records when you go back and fact check the things they said confidently against the reality.
A way forward could be to boost information literacy amongst the public, until each person would be able to assign something like a nutrition label to digital content. I think the public had to go thru a similar process back when books started being published en masse with the printing press.
Librarians might be able to shed light on what a good standard for digital media would look like then. Just as you might know what standard to apply to a piece of writing depending on the section of the library it is found in: fiction or nonfiction, scientific journal, autobiography, etc. then maybe digital content could be categorized into different forms, each with its own standard.
The problem I have is the use of double standards or the blurring of lines between forms of content that abide by inherently different standards - the way that content creators who follow a low standard can end up accorded a lot of credence by regular folks, by impersonating professionals who follow a higher standard. As an example of where this can lead I think, you can consider the paradox of the Trump supporters who say he always tells the truth even when they admit he lies, or the supporters who believe he's a successful businessman.
I feel we don't yet have the right identifiers and rules in place to assign the right standard for radio, let alone TV legacy news or digital media content. People still regularly get fooled by giving credence to liars in all of those forums - consider things like some AM Talk radio shows that spew rightwing propaganda, reality TV or faux infotainment news, or AI generated fabrications purporting to be real. A main problem is the public mistakes the entertainment for actual information.
Right now it feels like we're in the interregnum for digital media especially - we are all learning in real time how much credence to give a show like Joe Rogan's. It's like that quote that the old world is dying and the new world has not been formed so now is the time of monsters.
Maybe the best we can do is to promote information literacy by insisting on things like fixing mistakes and adhering to a high standard of truth, touting the value of good journalistic standards. Maybe also continuing to call it out when establishments like Fox News or CBS News or voices like Joe Rogan's claim to care about truth but don't change their ways or correct their habits after they fall short.
The way to rid ourselves of the monsters who make a living off of falsehoods during this interregnum maybe would be to make their hideousness so obvious to the world, that the people start to shun them and seek voices that are faithful to the truth instead.
Have a live fact checker and then correct errors live. know it will cost more, but I think it would be worth it. The bookstore mix up is not a concern but the number and timeframe of deaths of Iranian citizens is.
Or at least as you’re talking say something like, “I think it’s 15,000 Iranians, but we’ll check that and post the information.
How about using an AI agent to fact check podcast commentary in real time? Either podcasters are mandated to install it, or the viewer can opt in, sorta like subtitles.
About the Podcast Standards: I guess we should start distinguishing between "News" and "Opinion" pieces. This is super complicated though. Is an interview with Tim Miller news? Maybe if it's on TV. Is an interview with Joe Rogan, even on TV, ever news? Even if he's interviewing a government official or candidate? Is there a professional Journalist standard?
The biggest problem with podcasts I hear all the time is the casual glancing over non-factual statements. The host or guest will just bullet point a bunch of "facts" and there are usually some doozies in there. Never to be interrogated by the counter personality. If there is one... Ben Shapiro is just as guilty of it as any of Joe Rogan's pseudoarcheology guests. I think it's super bad in right wing speres because conservatism leads you to believe that we should keep doing things the way we've always done them, and because of that, they are true. So, when you say "Reagan destroyed the USSR" you're just restating a lie that's widely believed as true among the predisposed audience.
I like the free-flowing version of many of your most interesting podcasts...but "for facts sake" maybe there could be a post-podcast place where any errors of fact could be listed to straighten the record-we could visit that place if we wished, post-podcast
John Cafaro looks like a bad Gomez Adams cosplayer.
We should recognize the difference between two things: on the one hand, an unintended factual error that is later recognized and admitted; on the other hand, an outright lie that is either denied, doubled down on, or met with nothing more than a shrug.
Among Trump's mortal sins that you did not mention are the extrajudicial murders on the high seas. Sarah, in this week's discussion with Andrew Weissman, poses that our President has too weak a stomach to complete the outright murders that were done by the leaders he contends to be more powerful than: Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
Lest we not forget the stomach he has for murdering people in boats, please. Obviously, all the other deaths due to DOGE cuts and Medicaid reductions do not phase him. And, he is genuinely gleeful at the dropping of bombs on boats, i.e. murder. I doubt that our President left unrestrained by looming elections would have any hesitancy to do the same to the people of Iran, Lebanon, and his perceived enemies here at home. Heaven help us over the next two years, even if there is a strong victory by those candidates who have the stomach to oppose him.
Thierry Henry is the GOAT for me but was only ONE member of the GOAT Arsenal team. His former teammate, Patrick Viera, is punditing with Gary Lineker (an England GOAT) on Netflix’s The Rest Is Football.
Factual is much better JVL! TRUTH as well. Yes it's knid of a high standard but in these days and times many more people are seeking truth because there is so much misinformation and lies out there that truth is truly a better route. I hope this makes sense.
I'm mostly here to keep up JVL's ego. His Webby win seems so long ago.... Anyway.
I do think we should demand that everyone attempt to be as factual as possible. From historical podcasts to hey we're just asking questions about things. That doesn't mean every ball and strike needs to be called correctly in the moment. Just that when a mistake is made it is acknowledged and the correct information put out. I think media companies should consider doing a daily post of corrections. Call it what we got wrong yesterday. Just stick it out there. Not everyone will read it, but it'll be there for those who check.
I think the Catholic Information Center is a front for Opus Dei.
Re standards of accuracy: if you go to the trouble of correcting errors, even minor ones, then you care about accuracy. If you NEVER do that then you are dangerously close to Trump territory where facts just don't matter. We are fortunate that you and the Bulwark do care, and act as a bulwark against Trumpism in all it's forms. That Rogan doesn't do corrections says that he views his program as solely entertainment and a source of income. Each to his own.
'One of the things Democrats used to say early in the Trump years was, “This is not who we are.”' (JVL). I never said that and yelled at the television, "You elected the bastard and you want to say you didn't? This is exactly who you are."
The other thing I don't understand, and even JVL says this sometimes along with other journalists, "Trump's charisma...." We are either used to different definitions of charisma or different kinds of men. Trump is charismatic? Since when? He is disgusting slime and always has been; he is physiclly repulsive and the world's laughing stock; he couldn't speak or write English properly if his life depended on it; a politician without a native language is no politician at all. He is a white racist and always has been. I fail utterly to see how Trump has charisma.
I think Americans, especially Trump critics, should burst the sparkling, charismatic bubble and ask themselves why they hold fast to the myth of "Trump's charisma." I think it's because it's the last and only thing that they can attribute to him thus explaining his election. "There must be a reason that he's president. He has charisma." He no more has charisma than language literacy. He is one of the most uncharismatic people who has landed in politics.
Trump was not elected because he has charisma, which he does not. He was elected because because they are very serious problems with the US electorate and always have been. He was elected because there is a serious problem with the presence of massive amounts of money in the political arena and always has been. He was elected because he is a vile, racist white man and there are enough people in this country that are, themselves, vile racists and they enjoy electing as many vile, racist white men as possible and always have. He was elected a second time because people enjoyed the first time and could care less that there are three very unequal branches of government thus leading the way to autocratic rule. Trump was elected because he is a misogynist and the majority of people in this country are misogynists and believe that taking away women's rights is the right thing to do and always have believed that.
Please stop being delusional about Trump's charisma and confront the hard truths of the US electorate, US history, and Trump himself.
'On TNL last week I said that the Iranian regime “just killed, like, 15,000 of their citizens, like, four months ago.”' (JVL)
I object more to the totally unnecessary "likes" than the factual error. Between "like" and "you know" I'm not certain that spoken American can regain its hearty spontaneous syntax.
I really like the question that JVL asks about what the standard of truth should be for different forms of content.
I don't have an answer but I think it's right that different forms could be held to different standards. Extemporaneous speaking follows a different standard from researched pieces I think, similar to how a journalist first reporting on the news of an event may be more fuzzy or uncertain about the details whereas a follow-up report giving a retrospective of what's known is hopefully more precise.
The overriding standard for me is not that the speaker has perfect adherence to truth in their statements, but just that they exhibit a habit or follow a professional standard that binds them to the truth. It's usually not hard to differentiate the folks who care about truth from those who don't - there's often a glaring gulf between their records when you go back and fact check the things they said confidently against the reality.
A way forward could be to boost information literacy amongst the public, until each person would be able to assign something like a nutrition label to digital content. I think the public had to go thru a similar process back when books started being published en masse with the printing press.
Librarians might be able to shed light on what a good standard for digital media would look like then. Just as you might know what standard to apply to a piece of writing depending on the section of the library it is found in: fiction or nonfiction, scientific journal, autobiography, etc. then maybe digital content could be categorized into different forms, each with its own standard.
The problem I have is the use of double standards or the blurring of lines between forms of content that abide by inherently different standards - the way that content creators who follow a low standard can end up accorded a lot of credence by regular folks, by impersonating professionals who follow a higher standard. As an example of where this can lead I think, you can consider the paradox of the Trump supporters who say he always tells the truth even when they admit he lies, or the supporters who believe he's a successful businessman.
I feel we don't yet have the right identifiers and rules in place to assign the right standard for radio, let alone TV legacy news or digital media content. People still regularly get fooled by giving credence to liars in all of those forums - consider things like some AM Talk radio shows that spew rightwing propaganda, reality TV or faux infotainment news, or AI generated fabrications purporting to be real. A main problem is the public mistakes the entertainment for actual information.
Right now it feels like we're in the interregnum for digital media especially - we are all learning in real time how much credence to give a show like Joe Rogan's. It's like that quote that the old world is dying and the new world has not been formed so now is the time of monsters.
Maybe the best we can do is to promote information literacy by insisting on things like fixing mistakes and adhering to a high standard of truth, touting the value of good journalistic standards. Maybe also continuing to call it out when establishments like Fox News or CBS News or voices like Joe Rogan's claim to care about truth but don't change their ways or correct their habits after they fall short.
The way to rid ourselves of the monsters who make a living off of falsehoods during this interregnum maybe would be to make their hideousness so obvious to the world, that the people start to shun them and seek voices that are faithful to the truth instead.
Have a live fact checker and then correct errors live. know it will cost more, but I think it would be worth it. The bookstore mix up is not a concern but the number and timeframe of deaths of Iranian citizens is.
Or at least as you’re talking say something like, “I think it’s 15,000 Iranians, but we’ll check that and post the information.
How about using an AI agent to fact check podcast commentary in real time? Either podcasters are mandated to install it, or the viewer can opt in, sorta like subtitles.
Someone like Rogan should always have two opposing guests. The guests he does get are really out there.
About the Podcast Standards: I guess we should start distinguishing between "News" and "Opinion" pieces. This is super complicated though. Is an interview with Tim Miller news? Maybe if it's on TV. Is an interview with Joe Rogan, even on TV, ever news? Even if he's interviewing a government official or candidate? Is there a professional Journalist standard?
The biggest problem with podcasts I hear all the time is the casual glancing over non-factual statements. The host or guest will just bullet point a bunch of "facts" and there are usually some doozies in there. Never to be interrogated by the counter personality. If there is one... Ben Shapiro is just as guilty of it as any of Joe Rogan's pseudoarcheology guests. I think it's super bad in right wing speres because conservatism leads you to believe that we should keep doing things the way we've always done them, and because of that, they are true. So, when you say "Reagan destroyed the USSR" you're just restating a lie that's widely believed as true among the predisposed audience.