Spotify And Rogan: How To Engage With Misinformation | The Problem With Jon Stewart Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Listen to the full episode:
theproblem.link/JoanDonovan
Dr. Joan Donovan, an expert in misinformation and online extremism at Harvard, joins Jon for a discussion about what he said about Rogan, how misinformation thrives in our digital ecosystem, and what we can do to fix it. And yes, this WILL be on the test.
Featuring Kris Acimovic, Jay Jurden, and Dr. Joan Donovan.
The Problem With Jon Stewart is now streaming on Apple TV+ theproblem.link/AppleTV
Listen to The Problem With Jon Stewart podcast on Apple Podcasts, where available.
theproblem.link/ApplePodcast
Subscribe to The Problem with Jon Stewart’s RUclips channel:
theproblem.link/RUclips
Follow The Problem With Jon Stewart
Instagram:
theproblem.link/Insta
Twitter:
theproblem.link/Twitter
Follow Apple TV:
Instagram:
theproblem.link/AppleTVInsta
Facebook:
theproblem.link/AppleTVFacebook
Twitter:
theproblem.link/AppleTVTwitter
Giphy:
theproblem.link/AppleTVGiphy
Follow Apple TV+
Instagram:
theproblem.link/AppleTVPlusInsta
Apple TV+ is a streaming service with original stories from the most creative minds in TV and film. Watch now on the Apple TV app:
apple.co/AppleTVapp
#TheProblemWithJonStewart #Podcast #AppleTV #Spotify 
Приколы
I love that we are getting more Jon. My issue with the good Dr here is that she is working from a view that conventional methods of information sharing (Mainstream media, Government, Scholars) are valid and researched and trustworthy. If those traditional sources had kept the public trust then people like Joe would not have the audience they have. In the 80's and 90's I watched news and believed it with a 90% conviction now I can barely watch the news and when I do I wonder the profit motive for the angle of what they are telling us.
All you need to do is watch the commercials CNN and Fox allow on their network to know how much they don’t give a shit about anything but profit and eyeballs
Wholly agree. But I appreciate her considered study and focus on what's going on now.
She continuously uses the word "truth", completely missing Jon's point that you don't always know the truth. Asking questions and being critical is sometimes a necessary component in revealing the truth.
preach brother. My story follows yours almost exactly and I have the exact same opinion. None of this would have happened if mainstream trust had been maintained. What I believe now vs what I believed coming home from school every day and watching the mainstream is utterly shocking.
I recommend Chomsky and Herman's manufacturing consent, or a number of Chomsky's lectures available on RUclips for a deeper understanding on the topic. The only issue I see in your statement is the validation of Joe's opportunism and monetization of the situation. Yes, the media are not to be trusted, but the answer to that is not putting stock in pseudoscience and conspiracy, especially when it's harmful. It's at best another distraction and divisive tool that keeps the plebs punching sideways. I think in that fashion it's just another tributary of a vast manipulative ecosystem.
I've always believed that when a media outlet need to make a correction, that correction should take the same time and prominence as the misinformation. If your front page has misinformation, then the correction needs to be in the same place. If you push narrative during primetime that later turns to be false, then you need to spend primetime makeing your retraction.
You can't just bury a retraction at the end of your program or newspaper and think you're doing the discource a service.
yet, the harm is done - many people will keep and spread the miss-information, but they wont see the correction or they won't inform their friends that they spread miss-information because it makes them look bad. Then there is the confirmation bias etc...
@@vanivari359 What would your suggestion be?
@@JamesJessenfedden
In the olden days we would class it as rumours or gossips…
Major media outlets make corrections or retractions but it is not on the front page, it gets buried on page 10. As was previously mentioned, the damage is done.
When an attorney makes a bogus statement and the judge tells the jury to disregard... Do they really just bleep bloop it from their memory.
Gossip. Rumor. Balderdash.
I have not agreed with Joan yet I force myself to listen. I also looked her up to make sure she was who she was presented for us to believe. It was my responsibility to vet her and her claims.
All of this social media is really not much different than a fool standing on the town square ranting, or printing a flyer with your version of the current events.
I, the row of cabbage, am responsible for the vetting of the information. I am responsible for my actions to listen and get upset, to nod in agreement, or to change the channel. I really respect Jon stewart, and I often disagree with his opinions. I respect Joe Rogan and don't always like his opinions. I choose to listen or to not listen.
This whole "controversy" over dis/mis information is bullshit. As the consumer, I control what I buy/use. Cheerios does not make my heart healthy... Lies! Misinformation!
Antiwrimkle cream... Lies! Disingenuous deliberate lies. I do not listen to either CNN or fox as they both speak from a bias.
Given the doc was a sociologist, she failed miserably to touch base on that aspect of correspondence. We've known for eons that even if you give things "equal attention," people won't tune in for a variety of reasons not limited to basic time economics, anchoring, the "we know all about the zerg" phenomenon, etc. It's like with tempered complaints or compliments vs criticisms - for every criticism, you need 2-3 *genuine* compliments because the person will focus on the negative to a far greater degree.
It is incredibly difficult to engage with members of a group who care more about their team winning than rational thought.
This applies equally to all teams. Just wanted to point that out.
@@MarvinMcDougle3 well thankfully that's just your opinion and not fact.
@@GODCONVOYPRIME Also my opinion: Anakin Skywalker's poops are the smelliest. It's his high Thetan count or whatever.
We are talking about conservatives correct?
@@MarvinMcDougle3 Nope. See republicans are required to lie and cheat to win elections. Democrats do not have such requirements.
Man, the years that this guy went off into where ever he went to (like home) or whatever the reasons were, probably just needed a recharge of the battery and soul, but Jon Effin Stewart came back with a vengeance!!! Everything he is putting out is absolutely top notch. And all extremely 1. Enlightening 2. Entertaining as hell. So glad youre back sir!
I know! It's so great to have him back and so fierce, taking no shit.
Totally agree!!! I loved that guy long before now... such a smart and extremely well informed individual! But I absolutely believe that despite all of his funniest of TRUTHFUL and down to earth monologs from a decade ago and longer.. what we are seeing of Jon is absolutely his best work!! And as frustrating as I'm sure it is... this guy is eager as hell to learn and take each of us along with him! The guy is hungry and certainly despite everything seems to enjoy his work.
Its difficult to even fathom where we would be today without the down to earth commentary AND ENLIGHTENMENT this guy has given American voters over the course of his career! Truly a fascinating guy. So thankful for what this can has done! Mostly recently with his words outside of congress a couple weeks ago!!!
@@TheProletariat. Harvard slugs no longer deserve airtime. Too bad Jon's program directors don't know that.
My favorite part was when Jon gave a 2 minute monologue about how he was berated as a misinformation agent during the Iraq war and then the professor effectively never addressed it.
I had goosebumps during the entire monologue.
@@ahmetdurgun2002 same. Hearing truth in 2022, particularly about the track record of some oft hear for-profit institutions, always gives me goosebumps.
@@ahmetdurgun2002 I cheered and scared my dog.
She's only there to speak about specific people
@@bklan9899 Exactly. She gave away the game at the end when she referenced the “braintrust” of people that would never let her engage with Rumsfeld in a live setting.
This expert lady from Harvard says that "people" are demanding more from internet platforms and harsher punishments yet never addresses why the establishment media never is punished for more erroneous misinformation they spread. What was this lady here for?
Exactly. She seem like a puppet of New York Times.
And criticizes Rogan and other platforms for not doing something Msm never did and argues for Msm to be the arbiter of that... how wonderfull... what could go wrong with that
A "Credintialed talking point". That's it
just wondering how many of u believe the xinjiang uighurs genocide in china, lol
@@sushilover5367 ? wut u tolkien aboot
Jon Stewart is the one of the only people who reminds me that there are still sane human beings left in the world.
Sadly, there are major problems with engagement. In a Sept 2013 article in Popular Science they discussed the studies that convinced them to turn off their comment section. The studies basically showed that comment sections underneath scientific information (or any complex topic/expert opinion) is undermined by comment sections. The more a person engages, the less their opinion lines up with factual information.
What was interesting to hear was when she said that engagement also causes people develop opinions where they wouldn’t otherwise. This is so important to emphasize because it’s an underrated value to know nothing about something you know nothing about.
Why is it important to know nothing about something you know nothing about? Because if you know false information before accurate information, you are likely to reject accurate information. You cannot unlearn things easily. Disinformation campaigns capitalize on this fact and seek to create a person’s initial understanding of a topic (ie CRT).
If your first impression of a topic is negative, your brain will literally react with fight or flight when the topic is brought up, making you less rational.
Anyway, all this to say that engagement is actually deeply problematic because more cooks in the kitchen doesn’t make a better meal. Sometimes you gotta ask people to get the fuck out your kitchen so you can make it right.
🎯
Sounds like how the coronavirus narrative was imprinted on people's brains. They're having a tough time letting it go now that Ukraine is the crisis of concern.
The biggest disseminators of misinformation are the US govt and corporate mainstream media.
It is _not_ regular people in comment sections who are being crushed by the same boot of the system as you.
exactly
As someone with university degrees in media and communication theory and political science, as well as over 20 years of experience with debating competitions, a few comments:
- A conversation, discussion, or debate that doesn't deal with the controversial isn't worth anything. There's no point in debating that which everyone agrees on. Joe Rogan is the most popular because by having controversial guests and discussions, his show is the most worthwhile, in terms of giving people stuff to think about, which is how critical thinking skills are developed. Not by unquestioningly accepting authoritative truths from the experts (who are often wrong).
- As for the responsibility for errors, everyone in every system gets things wrong. The choice isn't between wrong Joe who doesn't do corrections, and journalistic organizations that do corrections and are therefore fine. Joe will get things wrong, that's how learning works, while media organizations will actively disinform on behest of the government, their owners, and under pressure from the market or a mob, while also getting stuff wrong. Comparatively, I would trust Jon Stewart's intuition in this over any academician's opinion. Also, it's entirely possible that before the internet, we just barely ever knew that we are being lied to or fed nonsense.
- As for the technology aspect, I'm with Jon that the problem is in how the current algorithms are set up. Specifically, to benefit corporations, to maximize quantities, not quality, to further empower the powerful. Social media can be set up in any number of different, better ways, there's just not as much profit in it.
- As for curtailing the power of individuals to spread information, as a political scientist, I'm not surprised that governments, academicians, and corporations keep arguing that this is the solution, not to mention defining this as the problem to solve. One could just as easily argue that the elites have lost their trust justifiably - a system that cannot survive questioning is probably a pretty questionable system. Elites becoming better may be the real solution to the misinformation problem.
- Finally, I'm for engagement over deplatforming every day of the week. To try to silence your opposition is a form of violence, if subtle. Once you engage in violence, you motivate the other side to also engage in violence, of some kind. That is not a path to a society that's more civil.
Well said. Joe has conversations whereas corporate media pushes a one directional narrative. I remember the lead up to the second Iraq engagement (Still not officially a war I don't think) and how places like CNN and Fox were literally selling the narrative of WMD's which was false. So corporate media can push a narrative, that costs lives of Americans and other citizens of the world, and pay no price for it. Yet, here we are having discussion, about a guy, who has discussions on issues like the false narrative WMD's in Iraq. Joe Rogan breaks through the BS narrative we have been sold all of our lives, by the big corporate media conglomerates, by asking questions. Those in power do not like to be questioned and Since Joe Rogan is more popular than all of the corporate media combined, it makes sense why they would go on the attack to take him down a notch or two.
@@cappster exactly right
Amen. Censoring voices, opinions, and discussions to uncover the truth can't be the answer, especially when we can't trust the people and systems doing the censoring.
We need to put more responsibility on the individual to do their own fact checking and critical thinking. Buyer beware should be rule #1 on the Internet.
Is that elk meat upping your testosterone and making you more aggressive?
Nicely put, my 2 cents worth, the corrections thing is just bs, who is the arbiter of truth? and when last did any MSM say "Hey we printed this thing and it was totally wrong" Lady lives in Never Never Land.
I'm a progressive. I am pro-vaccinations. While I do listen to Joe Rogan, I am dismayed by his approach to covid and vaccines. The things that Dr. Joan Donovan said here on this podcast makes my hair stand on end. Incredibly authoritarian, she really does think she knows what's best for people and that people like her should get to decide.
For the love of all that is good, no one give this woman any real power, holy hell. She's an expert at this? Totally glazes over NYT and goes right to "holding platforms accountable" and "changing the tides of what does and doesn't get reach".
And this lady screams healthy… I mean the more chins the healthier, right?
That was exactly the sense I got. Scary, scary attitude.
@@hoosier3060 yeah we're not here to insult anyone. Not a good point and not related to the discussion.
@@gttechlife oh quit being a big wuss. She’s overweight and unhealthy. Both physically and mentally. The bridge between those two isn’t that big.
She is a sociologist. That should tell you everything.
Love this. I listened to Chappelle's speech at your Mark Twain award and beyond the personal moments, I agree wholeheartedly. Your thoughts and wisdom and willingness to question and listen are phenomenal. I was a freshman in college during the Daily Show and Chappelle's Show and I'm so glad you're back in media. Keep the dialogue going.
If Jon doesn't get his game back, Chappelle's gonna cut him a new one.
yeah, it really was an excellent speech, and so richly deserved, John is an absolute diamond.
Jon's voice is important now more than ever. We must protect this man at all costs.
So is Joe's! We are supposed to trust Harvard and Fauci?
Jon is not sticking his chin out and getting it kicked in like Jimmy Dore. He's not being brave, he's being a good boy.
Man, Jon freaking nailed the situation perfectly 6 minutes in. The mainstream had NO accountability and still basically doesn't.
💯 and the guest didn’t respond at all to his point.
Yep!
@@mattyt4082 the guest brought up that exact point at 4min or so.
Jon just summed it up at 10mins in.
Yeah, well the mainstream also doesn't get as ridiculous as the fringe media.
They certainly DO have more gatekeepers than the outliers who will say anything to hit the big time. Like big $$ sponsors.
Not enough, but certainly more than arsonist lunatics hawking their silver solution curealls.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing what "fringe media" are you referring to? Ok, lets use Alex Jones - he was wrong about Sandy Hook, apologized and retracted his story. "Theyre turning the damn frogs gay!" Turns out the pesticide Atrazine, wreaks havoc on their sex lives of frogs and turns 1 in 10 tadpoles into the opposite gender. "The chinese are making human/monkey hybrids". Turns out, they have successfully implanted human dna into primate embyos. Usually what the established media represents as ridiculous, isnt so ridiculous in the first place. They just refuse to cover and why is that?
I still think Dr Donovan is missing Jon's key point. She says these platforms are not built by librarians, or professional stewards of information, so we need to ask more of them in forwarding the truth. But we don't always _know_ the truth immediately. The closest we can get to the truth usually emerges through debate between people offering different interpretations of events. And for that to happen, we need to allow people to say things which will probably be wrong.
It should be quite clear that we cannot trust any institution to "stem the flow" of misinformation. Because supposedly authoritative institutions are frequently wrong too.
Well said
I sincerely read the bot spam at the top of this reply list as implying, "Only fans over 18 could possibly handle debate between people offering different interpretations", and now I'm laughing my ass off.
I think she's biased in one direction and feels that the consumer is an idiot and needs to be protected. It's why she misses that point.
Nor did she have any meaningful explanation as to why some institutions arent held accountable like New York Times and Washington Post who have caused worse damage from misinformation than anything on a podcast.
Completely agree with Jay's point about engagement, very well put. It takes privilege to not have to engage!
Jon, YOU'RE BREAKING THE INTERNET, by making editorial corrections.
Good job, thanks for stepping up and doing the right thing. It will never take off or become a trend, but thank's for trying.
Just stop. Nothing breaks the internet, reality or anything else people say is/gets broken.
I think my favorite part of these interviews is Jon using his webcam like my Dad does, looking into the camera confused and slouched over 😂
😂😂😂😂
where are you supposed to look? i am also old...
As a middle-aged dad myself, I probably do exactly the same thing too and will now be over analysing the performance of my future zoom calls! 🤣
@@listianocrowe I’m a middle aged mom- we remember Jon from the Daily Show! It’s really good to see him on this podcast. I missed him!
@@JamieNixx oh, amen to that! I watched the daily show the day he announced his departure and it was like losing a loved one! I have so much respect for him even if I don't always agree with him ❤️
This clearly isn't about policing misinformation, this is about intuitional misinformation hegemony.
Correct!
It’s about controlling the narrative… even if the narrative is a lie
I used your quote in my post.
This "Dr" is the one being decisive and is using this platform to promote her agenda. These people make me sick and will not win in the end. This comment from Ian Hates Guitars says it best.
"This clearly isn't about policing misinformation, this is about intuitional misinformation hegemony."
he·gem·o·ny
/həˈjemənē,ˈhejəˌmōnē/
noun
leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.
That is just gobbledygook. Intuitional?
@@seansmith3058 - I believe that is just a simple misspelling. You surely understand what he intended to say.
Who else would pay to watch Jon sit down and have a conversation with Rogan?
I remember when Jon was on... I think it was Cross Fire.
The show was expecting Jon to be his normal funny self, and he did start off with some humor, but was talking about the news show's responsibility for reporting truth.
Jon held their feet to the fire.
...and it was out of pure frustration Jon got serious and said something along the lines that people shouldn't have to come to his show - which is a comedy show, to find the truth.
“I’m not going to be your monkey”
He literally ended crossfire with that interview!
it was a moment i won't forget and Jon is my man since. good to have him back. we all knew in side he couldn't leave. he just needed a pit stop to get some love, new oil, tires changed.....water
I see Rogan being VASTLY readier and quicker to second-guess and correct himself than, say, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NYTimes, WaPo, or any of our political "leaders" or mega-billionaires. What gets me is the hypocrisy, the double standards.
My nephew has opinions similar to that, but I believe that it is partly a vanity. By saying that sources outside the mainstream media are more valid and visited by the more intelligent, the person elevates their own opinions above those of others.
@@georgelayton6641 name 3 cnn corrections you have ever seen on foreign policy? And I’ll take your point seriously
@@josephkelleher1401 You can take my point however you like.
@@georgelayton6641 haha fair enough but you can’t do it can you
@@georgelayton6641 how about 5 retractions ever on any subjects? Or you saying that it’s reasonable to think that the msm never make mistakes I’d imagine you don’t think that’s the case
She never dealt with Jon’s point that he was accused of ‘misinformation’ and it turned out he was right. She basically would have been okay with him having been silenced it seems.
was Jon right though? There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you not count chemical weapons as mass destructive?
She never got to finish a thought because jon kept interrupting her
I feel like the conversation was so immediately redirected that I couldn't get a full grasp on her opinion there.
@@TheNashvilleJason as an Iraqi war vet and a former intel community member.. plz stfu until you know what you’re talking about. Sorry, but that ones close to the chest
@@TheNashvilleJason I love when RINOS still believe in WMD’s. RINO’s and NEO Libs are the worst people when it comes to misinformation.
Thank you, Jon, for this great example of how to calmly and directly address the misinformation coming out of Harvard. Very enlightening. Thank you.
right? I could barely listen to her. She's being used to control the internet and she doesn't even realize it. "truth"...like she knows what it is? Saying people came to the internet for Perez? Remember Aaron Swartz, the dream of the internet was free access to information. All information, not just what they want us to hear.
I couldn't really help but almost throw up as this lady tried to defend censorship.
Hey Jon! SO HAPPY to find your podcasts on RUclips! I'm a LONG TIME fan.
It is refreshing to once again get your perspectives on modern life.
😷STAY😷SAFE😷 👁
"an information laundering system" is a phenomenal formulation. Anyway, this entire topic needs to be a staple of "the problem with," for all our sakes. I think the discussion of media, free speech, corporate vs government vs social controls on discourse, and accountability for putting untruths and lies into the world, is where Jon Stewart shines above all - his own experience (and the instincts and understanding that made him successful to begin with) is worth an academic Ph.D and then some, so this conversation isn't just one expert explaining things to an interviewer, but a real dialog between experts with their own insight to share and develop. And Jon's is a perspective we have needed more than ever.
i would sooner call this one expert explaining things to an academic.
Truly, he could not have characterized the NYT more clearly.
Yea, I had noticed that when Jon said that, she made some notes. you can tell thats going into a lecture soon haha.
@@jonmoore1614 she was likely taking notes about how to explain to him that the media landscape is much different today then it was 20 years ago. She didn't get to make that point because he was constantly cutting her off and interrupting her, or it was edited out
When she stated that "Controversy is his brand.", it became obvious to me that this lady doesn't know the first thing about Rogan or his podcast. Expert my ass.
Exactly My thoughts
She’s a paid shill. Probably by pfizer. Definitely a dem think tank or two
What? Have you listened to Joe Rogan? He often has guests on who wouldn’t be given airtime in mainstream media because of their controversial perspectives. It’s not a bad thing necessarily because he wants the show to be interesting but it can be dangerous if he doesn’t come to those interviews prepared.
@@Zingy16 Yes, I have. I would guess I have heard between one and two hundred podcasts. He talks to people he finds interesting. That doesn't necessarily mean he endorses the views of every one of his guests. I think he has posted over fifteen hundred podcasts. I don't think his motive in doing the podcast is, or ever has been to generate clicks or controversy. He has stated his motives often enough. Let him tell you himself, and you judge whether you believe him or not. That's my take on this witch hunt anyways. BTW I'm triple vaxed and believe in science, not conspiracies.
It is now though. It use to be just shooting the shit with people and free form chats.
Great show, thanks to all, fascinating. Special thanks to Dr. Joan Donovan for her invaluable insights.
Jon's last question about engaging: I think you're doing it, Jon. This segment isn't the only good example. When you have an uninformed take, you invite someone to come tell you what you got wrong and right. When the episode is over, the conversation doesn't end. You don't bury the "I was wrong" at the end of page 43, you have a whole segment on it. Keep that up and you'll do great at what you're trying to do.
Always try to recognize what topics (vaccines, racists, etc.) are being pushed to keep us fighting a culture war when we should be fighting a class war.
Shhh. The realities of classism that overrule all other -isms doesn't sell, per the demands of business gods who don't want to lose power.
Wait, I mean, mind your privilege.
agreed. But I have heard many times from people on the right that the big banks are communists with a plot to overthrow the world! wow
its really hard to start a convo on class war when people are so brainwashed
@@poncedeoly469 I love listening to people like you. So completely unaware of how brainwashed you are. "People on the right" is literally what the original comment was referring to. You're literally living up to the point that was being made. Haha
@NotSure So what are you saying? The bankers are communist?
I listen to Joe Rogan because of his conversation. If I wanted to listen to editorial news I would.
That's one of several reasons that calls to 'cancel ' him are either mistaken or nefarious. He's a shock jock that is monetizing controversy. The problem is that when his controversy-seeking becomes dangerous, no one takes any responsibility/is held accountable. There needs to be limits to free speech for the right to have any meaning. Where that limit is, how it's enforced, and by whom should be central to this discussion.
@@markromine5103 I don't see it as seeking controversy so much, he's just having an unrestricted conversation with his guests. Good luck seeing conversations like that on good morning America or the like. Some people hear words or topics they don't like and they have to censure things, others just turn the channel
What I like about Joe Rogan is the open discussion. I don’t always agree but I do like the conversation.
Joe is honest and respectful and he’s having DISCUSSIONS. Not biased arguments or one sided “interviews “ which is quite rare these days.
Would love a “Jon & Joe” podcast.
@@jez76 He's a kiss-ass without depth or critical thought. Appeals to quite a few people out there.
True. He tends to let his guest talk and doesn't really offer an opinion
@@jez76pretty sure there was one a few years ago
It’s so interesting to me that so many people heard so much more of a hard stance and strong opinions than and actual conversation.
The problem is that the biggest peddlers of misinformation are the ones deciding what's true and what's false information.
The Great Impostor(s)
Like Shapiro, Rogan , Fox and Tucker.
by definition, that's the reason it's called mis/dis-information. it's a lie passed off as the truth, and whether it's NY Times passing along unverified, and as it turned out non-factual, stories, just because it got them more of an audience among us cabbage-heads, or Fox News, Infowars, etc, deliberately stating the opposite of the truth in order to exploit that portion of the populace who are predisposed to believing their bs, it's all about certain people and/or entities (governments in some cases) controlling the narrative and deciding truth or falsity based on profitability and political advantage, not science/reality, and getting everyone else to go along with it like it's the Voice of God. it's exactly what China does, for example, and it's literally Orwellian. and sadly a lot of well-meaning and otherwise decent cabbage heads fall into lockstep with it unquestioningly.
@@StratsRUs Rogan doesn't fit with those other 3 by a longshot. I would add CNN in the list along with Fox (and Tucker, but he is a part of Fox, sooo)
@@unholydiver1095 He really doesn't. And the state of things can be judged by the FACT that anyone can listen to Joe and judge how much of a problem his conversations are. Anyone who believes the bought-and-paid-for disinformation attack* on him is contributing to the problem they claim to want to resolve.
*- Also a fact. It was professionally done by Patriot Takes (ruclips.net/channel/UCeB8oHit3JE-8xINC1egKrA ),
and funded by MeidasTouch, a Dem super-PAC
(www.meidastouch.com/).
MISINFORMATION WARNING: They _claim_ to be truth tellers. They are not. They are tribal political all the way.
Jon was completely correct here. Massive credit to him for standing his ground, and defending the idea of engagement so thoughtfully. Thank you Jon, you represent the majority of people in this conversation
Ha ha he is an old man who has lost touch with reality.
29:15 "Platform the people who are being harmed by this stuff, platform the people who don't have voices in the debate..." YES! Thank you!
“I’m genuinely more concerned about the algorithm than the individual.” Mic drop, Jon FTW, as always
I would argue that Joe Rogan does often correct himself, any time he is convinced that he was wrong. Obviously there are some times he will remain convinced that he was right. But we have to allow space for people to hold differing views on complex topics.
Nah, clearly it's better to silence "individuals and small groups" like the doc said, specifically when it's inconvenient for the advertising narrative.
No Joe isnt neutral when it comes to the vaccines. He is pushing a narrative and becomes defensive when someone corrects him.
@@daveruda care to elaborate how he did what you claim? Even the controversy "anti Vax" doctor like Dr. Malone that Rogan had on were themselves vaccinated and telling people who are vulnerable to get vaccinated... If the anti vaccine guest is still telling most people to get vaccinated, that's not exactly pushing an agenda. When Rogan himself was going to get vaccinated or he was telling his friends or family to get vaccinated, that doesn't seem anti Vax to me personally.
Having questions about medicine seems normal pre 2020. I'm a casual Rogan watcher and before the media drama I never even thought he was anti vaccine for a second.
Some of the drama also came from previous concerns like "what if two doses doesn't really stop transmission?" or "how do we know it wasn't leaked from a lab." Some of the past controversial claims have actually become wildly accepted. This is why we need to be careful with censorship. People need to be able to go against the orthodoxy, because sometimes the orthodoxy is wrong. People need to critically think for themselves and the last thing we should censor are artists or conversations.
It's not uncommon for Joe to be very loud and persistent about something, accept a correction if he's convinced he was wrong, then avoid bring it up and if a future guest holds his original view he won't challange or attempt the same correction he got.
@@daveruda Joe is pro vaccines. There is loads of videos of him saying that
He just doesn't want the RNA vaccine but a traditional one like novax
He originally got in trouble for saying " 21 year olds if healthy should not get it if they don't feel it. "
For the record, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard CNN or Fox or MSNBC issue a correction or retraction.
But I HAVE seen Joe error check himself in real time. Controversy is NOT a brand for Joe; moreover, he’s not an ideologue. Regular watchers of Joe know that in their bones. I trust Joe far more that this woman or the large corporate media outlets.
I’ll leave it at that. ~oh wait, love you John and thanks for sticking up for Joe. Much respect 💪🏼
Impressive show. A learning experience from the light side of heavy. Illuminate the inner workings and bad parts of this thing we have unleashed on ourselves, but from a discerning distance out of reach of the splatter.
YOU ROCK JON!!! great to see you back doing stuff in full-swing again; your pov on the world is singular & insightful!
And now that he's not required to be funny he can be serious and still make us laugh.
I’ve missed this man. Thank u Jon for coming back to the fight. There a lot to b done n we need your voice.
Im glad John pushed back about the news inability to post retractions or have accountability (like the weapons of mass destruction but there are many and more recent examples.) How can someone that spent the last 10 years studying the internet be SO out of touch? Oh theyre from Harvard...right.
I agree, Jon point allows us to see that accountability in the media hasn’t been consistent and has at times had far far worse consequences, such as over 100,000 dead Iraqis. And I can see the focus on holding Joe Rogan accountable has a deep blind spot. I also think that the context of a 2-man podcast probably means most of us listeners take what is being said as not authoritative. Meaning I don’t expect the same rigorous standards from the JRE that the NYTimes claims to hold.
With that all said, the personal attack ain’t winning anyone over. Moreover, we don’t know if she wasn’t aware of the greater context of misinformation. Notice how she stated definitions for misinfo and disinfo. This was a signal she intended to speak and think precisely. The thing about speaking precisely is that sometimes awareness of other or greater contexts gets assumed. But for a listener that can be hard or impossible to determine.
Ding ding ding. Harvard speaking. I’m listening but judging with prejudice. I’ll admit it
@@jlodge9281 I'll be honest, I'm not from Harvard, but when I hear someone use phrases like "How can someone be so out of touch, oh they're from Harvard" makes me judge with prejudice, too. It gives me a clear indication that the person writing it most likely has a problem with any source of high education, which is how you get to the point of "Well, 1000 doctors said pouring bleach in my butthole won't cure Covid, but this one ignorant dude swears it works, the 1000 doctors are totally out of touch, but I've drunk a beer with this guy, and he wouldn't steer me wrong"
@@isaacshaeffer I agree with you. NYT disinformation is more harmful. Because just as you have said, we expect more from them as they project themselves to be a well researched, investigative organization with large number of people. So they carry more weight.
This focus on Rogan is public's recency bias plus the establishment trying to be the only controller of the narrative. People can be forgiven for following the pull of recency bias but a Harvard professor of misinformation should have atleast mentioned the worse purveyors of misinfo, if not spend more focus on them.
That last sentence was everything i was questioning lol
This is why I refuse to be on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media. They refuse to take responsibility for the chaos they promote.
So refreshing to hear so many intelligent voices discussing important issues. Wonderful!
We just need a return to critical thinking. Don't read one NYT article and assume it's gospel without considering an alternative view. The same goes for a guest on Joe Rogan. Just have a healthy skepticism. Denouncing (and smearing) any view that doesn't conform to some accepted orthodoxy as 'misinformation' is bonkers.
This is the only real solution. Rather than having some institution "stem the flow" of misinformation. We need to foster a culture where people don't believe everything they hear on the internet. And retain humility about how much they know in general.
@@iAmTheSquidThing completely agree, that said, we need to make sure that when we help foster such a skeptical culture, that we also don't push it into blind skepticism. We need to make sure that we don't push people further into their own bubbles with calling anything that doesn't follow their own internal narratives "fake news", because that just shuts down engagement.
What the hell happened to common sense?? Is this woman going to come into my workplace and tell us our opinions are misinformation??? Just because its online doesn't make it true. Jesus Christ this world sucks.
How about start acknowledging that alot of those "conspiracies" ended up being accurate in reality - and go from there.
And that mass sensr shp isn't helping anything, or anyone make educated decisions
Remember when there were journalists with integrity who reported facts? Now we have a bunch of tools pushing the agendas of giant corporations through misinformation and call it news.
What’s problematic is that we get to choose between someone who might spread misinformation and people which we know for sure they’re in the business of spreading disinformation and they’re duplicitous
Hey…. Birds aren’t real 🦢
I mean, we take it as far as the presidency.
Verifying information is not difficult. Be a grown up and stop making excuses for yourself. If the mainstream news says, “ivermectin has not shown efficacy in treating Covid,” and then you see the exact same statement on Merck’s website, guess what? That’s your truth.
Mainstream news organizations have one vested interest: keep people watching. Same as Rogan. Same as Jones and Pool and every other alternative media outlet. They all want the same thing. But what’s more likely? That the entire medical industry, including every regulatory board in every developed country, are all conspiring to lie about Covid and ivermectin, including the company who MAKES ivermectin? Or are the small handful of rogue doctors and alternative media outlets simply wrong?
Anti-establishment bias is a hell of a drug, I guess.
@@holymolythejabroni9040 Solid reply, I applaud you. Summed it up perfectly. Here, have an old airplane for your troubles ---,O,---
@@holymolythejabroni9040 Verifying information, from a scientific viewpoint, can be quite difficult, actually. It requires many rigorous studies with extremely large sample sizes. With ivermectin, to be frank, there hasn’t been enough data to form a conclusion. I hypothesize it isn’t very effective, but there isn’t really enough data to verify if that is true or not.
Additionally, verifying information from the establishment can be a fickle thing, which Jon brought up in this video. Everybody was saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that was treated as fact by virtually anybody with “merit”. How did that turn out? By a simple counter example, your argument has been proven wrong.
This isn’t to say there is some massive conspiracy with COVID, I must add. But facts and the truth tend to be far more difficult to ascertain than just seeing what people say. This has been demonstrated time and time again in various scientific fields.
Love Joans Donovan plain simple fun and scientific expertise. I love Jon openness to be wrong and boy...do we all need that so much. Thank you for a fascinating and necessary conversation!
Jay is amazing! His analysis really made m think about engagement. Interesting and informative panel, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter how you dress it up the argument always boils down to the same points. Censorship vs free exchange of ideas. And there will always be too many people who think that if they just controlled what people could see, hear, and think that everything would be better. And they're always wrong.
Well put!
I think there is a super important asterisk on the free exchange of ideas though. We’ve seen the damage that free exchange can do when it’s undisputed in the Iraq war or Covid misinformation killings hundreds of thousands, but I think the big difference now is that the internet has made the distribution of ideas effectively instant and impossibly extensive.
What she is moreso recommending is that giving everyone a platform of that scale has been harmful to the world. I would largely agree, whether it’s Covid misinformation, stop the count, genocide in Myanmar, and countless others have either been enacted by a single person or even a handful of bots in the case of Covid misinformation. That power is a privilege, not a right, and it shouldn’t be a right if we aren’t going to hold those responsible accountable for the damage their information does. Given that these mega corporations don’t seem particularly interested in actually monitoring all of their information they send and have the power to prevent legislation of any kind, the best way forward is to make the spreading of ideas more manageable, so that they can actually monitor for really bad misinformation. Obviously a line will have to be drawn as to what misinformation is, which is very difficult, but I do think that the current system isn’t sustainable long term. Astroturfing is far too powerful a tool to not be abused repeatedly like it already has been, and it will only get worse in time.
The very difficult conversation around this though is where is the line drawn between genuine conversation and disingenuous conversation around topics is really difficult. What we know now though is that we are only at the start of this problem. We will see more misinformation, more disinformation, more astroturfing, more distrust, and eventually cultural wars and genocide, which has already happened before.
The problem isn’t the free exchange of ideas, but more so the platform in which information is distributed. That’s why she argued to restrict the platforms, and not the ideas peddled on them. Some of them are fake conversations, but the real ones absolutely need that engagement that Jon brought up.
@@solkvist8668 Very well put!
@@solkvist8668 Your argument seems inconsistent... The problem isn't the free exchange of ideas its the platforms that allow the free exchange of ideas?
And your notion that the difficulty of this dilemma lies in deciding to where to draw the line? The problem is WHO gets to draw the lines!
And Jon was pointing out that the misinformation of the establishment media was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and yet never held accountable, it was not the 'free exchange' as you put it.
The free exchange of ideas has been shockingly possible for over 2 decades now, and things have been going relatively well I'd say. Easily half of the misinformation I have ever seen has come from establishment media, and that includes this pandemic.
@@solkvist8668 Like Tim said, its not free exchange that caused Iraq war. Its the establishment and media. Free exchange means all sorts of ideas existing not just the establishment's ideas. Also you said what is truth and what is fake is a hard problem to figure out. I think its more worse a problem. You are never going to solve that. Who gets to decide what is the truth? The government? Media? NYT? Facebook? A committee hand selected by facebook?
I dont think you can give anyone that power to draw the line.
And the Myanmar genocide is a problem. But that was a problem of amplification, not of platforming. Like Jon said, the algorithm is what needs fixing. It is currently an amoral algorithm that trends towards engagement. Fixing that solves amplification of hate that caused Myanmar problem. A platform doesnt have to amplify hate. Dis-platforming anyone is bad. Free exchange of ideas is the antidote for misinformation. Ofcourse you are gonna have few bad actors using it. But thats the trade-off for staving off a worse environment.
I’ve never seen a correction or retraction on any of the Australian news websites, probably because once the 24hour news cycle is done, the article can rarely be retrieved again.
MSM is mainly opinion at this stage, real journalism is dead.
Edit: is she real about the toilet paper? Here in Aus it was the MSM who were pushing that, not “fringe” people on Facebook…
She is spewing biased narrative - not facts
It was the same in the US. Primarily corporations looking for profit and the news media whipping people into a panic for ratings.
Australian here 🙋♂️ Technically they do but they purposely bury them a few pages in
Re the toilet paper, I don't think she was saying it was only fringe people on FB but instead ballooned to the point of it being all over the news (it was here in America too) because of misinformation and the way it spreads or is picked up. That it's roots were smaller sections on the internet. I'm basing that starring with 19:55.
On your main point, I largely agree. There are major problems with the discrepancy between how many people see the original and not the correction. This has been the case for so long. Huge, front news would be corrected in less than 2×2 square inch.
Edit because YT makes commenting and watching at the same time difficult.
Thanks for all of the hard work Jon!
"A lie can be halfway 'round the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on"
Truth comes out through debates and discussions.
Canceling or banning someone is a totally counterproductive thing in terms of getting the right information.
Okay my issue is this conversation assumes that the end consumer is a mindless idiot and need to be protected....and I can see why she thinks the way she does based upon her..bias. She clearly has a specific world view.
I agree with J, it's really difficult to engage regardless if left, right, what ever...you get attacked, no one wants to listen...I'm assuming that would include this guest.
Just look at these comments. Tons of happy little drones with no problem being told they are as such
She definitely has a bias, there’s very clearly points in here where you can see her authoritarian streak shining through the fluffy language, vs Jon’s pov.
Comments like yours are giving me hope. Jon is clearly keeping an open mind on this discussion whereas she seemed to be making a lot of misinformed assumptions and not really addressing his counter points
I think she is likely coming from the largely a
accurate take which is that most people
a) don’t know how to check sources for accuracy
b) don’t bother doing so because it takes effort
This is not because they are stupid either. It’s human nature to confirm your biases, but the one that we do know is very much a problem is that people who grew up before the internet never had a class on source checking, and frankly even people who grew up in the era of internet (including myself) largely did not get a crash course on this topic, though we certainly got more than our parents or grandparents.
Unless you are going to college in a field of academia or science the importance of sources and their accuracy will largely be missed.
Again, doesn’t mean people are dumb or wrong, more so that they aren’t equipped with the tools to navigate this information accurately or with caution. The result is that astroturfing works insanely well, misinformation spreads like wildfire, and the anti vax movement grew to be borderline mainstream in the US, partially thanks to this lack of fact checking, but also because of how split media is. Other countries have anti vaxxers, but nowhere near the numbers or density of the US. These countries often have one major distinction: their media is a public entity. They have a standard to uphold, bringing as objective as possible news. It’s often boring, but it’s much more accurate, which is what news should be anyway.
@@solkvist8668 Again, very well put! This is the nuance people don't want to or not capable of understanding.
The nation and the world needs Jon Stewart's voice right now!
You are one of the few people I trust to get opinions on current events
Freedom of Speech is not just about Joe’s right to say what he wants. It is also about our right to hear and listen. Whether the information is right or wrong, no human or group of humans can be trusted with the right to decide beforehand what is correct and who gets to be heard.
🤘😁👍
Okay, but then other people also have the right to say someone is wrong, or just full of shit. We can also say someone is an unreliable source, and therefore should not be taken seriously. If someone wants to say something that is out of the mainstream, or controversial, that's fine, but don't whine when everybody's not happy with it. If you're right, time will prove you so, but stop the Messiah complex. George Carlin and Lenny Bruce were actually imprisoned for what they said. This is not what's happening today. Some people got a little pushback. Perspective, people.
Thank you! I think that is by far the most important statement on this topic. The audacity, and level of patronizing superiority that is shown by people who think they own the truth, and therefore can treat me and others like children and idiots, is beyond condescending. It's hall of fame levels of totalitarianism.
Your premise is faulty: to be able to heard in the cacophony that is today's conversation you must have money to be amplified, to be heard By definition almost all information you hear is selected by monied interests. If you seek out other less "sponsored" information, the algorithms ensure they do become sponsored, incorrect or not.
@@paineoftheworld That's not necessarily true, plenty of people have had their voices heard without money, though, unfortunately money is an issue. But most successful youtubers and podcasters started from almost nothing and made money from there. Ambition and constant communication is important. The last thing we need on the left is to become the people of "if you say something we don't like you are banned for life" (not that I'm saying you're saying that, it's just a problem or potential problem)
The British Medical Journal or BMJ was recently "fact checked" by so-called journalists working fir Facebook and cited as spreading "misinformation." I would appreciate what the Harvord professor (who seems very pro establishment) would say about that.
Social media has had an enormous magnifying effect on peer pressure. It used to be that you could state an unpopular opinion and you'd have few people give you a hard time. Now, if you state an unpopular opinion, you may be subject to the derision of millions. "I don't know where I fall on this issue." (sound of person being beaten) "Yeah, I totally agree with you now...."
Am I the only one who would love to see Jon go on the JRE. That is an episode I would love to see.
I'm so glad they found an expert that has clearly never watched Joe's podcast. Literally just reading off a list of media talking points. Jon at least managed to push back against the pure theory the academic discusses by referencing reality.
I really hope that Jon doesn't try to get too much "expert" advice... it would be sad to see him hijacked by the far left woke.
@@sumerrose88 the thing that he will likely need to learn is that while is two side kicks may be funny, Rogan's side kick is actively googling and fact checking the 'experts' Rogan has on to verify their expertise. It's not something Jon's had to do before, and something many of Joe's detractors seem to forget.
@Ryan Draa Considering that leftists are, to put it kindly, braindead when it comes to either economics or identity politics, anybody with critical thinking skills would run as far away from leftist policies as possible.
I think the spotlight moment for me on this was "would you have talked to Donald Rumsfeld?" "I have a team that wouldn't let me". John and Joe are comedians, not doctors in a university AND THEIR VOICES HAVE VALUE TOO. Just because someone doesn't have a university team vetting their conversation doesn't mean it isn't valid.
She discredits Rogan and offers no evidence as to why. Doesn’t discuss the corrections made by the government or Fauci or media, and labels Rogan false. Take a look in the mirror
The fact that she is a professor at Harvard reveals how far modern universities have fallen.
Joe is a comedian? Is that how he makes his living?
@@chrissmithdoe2100 haha, Rogan is a lot of things. Do you own research.
@@chrismullaney9042 same here. What happened?
It’s scary to think that there is any one group that decides what is “truth”. It’s pretty clear that this lady feels it should be her and her friends who make those decisions.
It’s scary that anyone believes your lies.
This is a great conversation. Thanks for hosting it.
I agree that engagement is more important than fight with misinformation. Filtering any discussion from the platforms actually helps misinformation because people stop trusting the media at all
Two things:
1. She didn't say that we shouldn't engage, just that GATE-KEEPERS (platforms) should help BALANCE access to information (so lies don't go half way around the world before the truth get it's pants on)
2. Rogan does not have a number of Progressives and mainline Professors on TOGETHER with the mis-informers and he isn't knowledgeable enough to counter them himself.
He has TOO MANY listeners to take everything like a "shooting the breeze" activity
@@busylivingnotdying Gate keepers do not work as a solution. Who are we supposed to trust to determine what is true or not without having an agenda of their own? As Jon pointed out, the news has gatekeepers and they make mistakes like WMDs all the time without ever acknowledging their flaws. Because of that people have lost faith in mainstream news and that is a huge part of why Rogan is popular in the first place. Her whole idea is counterproductive.
Rogan constantly pushes back on guests, tries to fact check in real time, and has on guests with opposing views to others. Having two opposing people on at once just creates a mindless argument like talking heads on tv have become. More of his fans see and hear opposing points to what is on his show than any retractions buried in a newspaper.
@@njsoapdish Your (blanket) statement: "Gate keepers do not work as a solution."
Do you have a study that confirms that? Do we know what would be PRINTED in the papers without an editorial department?
Of course it does not fix everything (or even most things), but you start somewhere.
For example:
When a news-influencer on a platform reach a certain size, editorial responsibility could be shared with the platform.
Another idea:
Pass laws that makes journalists less dependent on CAPITAL OWNERS. Because no matter how "objective" journalists are, they don't "talk back" to their owners.
Another idea:
Norway has an Ethical Code of Practice for the Norwegian Press that news organizations can be reported into and "tried" by if they don't behave. it works great!
I will try and link its rules in English below (but You-tube often cut hyperlinks)
Warning:
Over confidence in our own "research" is a sure fire way to be misled (me included)
@@njsoapdish Exactly, when she talks about curating information one can't help but notice this isn't a report were talking about. This is an active idea with no absolute knowledge of its truth, there is no right or wrong at this point. To label anything beyond that threshold as misinformation completely misunderstands the nature of the discussion.
@@busylivingnotdying "Do you have a study that confirms that? Do we know what would be PRINTED in the papers without an editorial department?"
I know lots of stuff that ARE prints in the papers that are plainly false or misleading. Obviously, the editorial gatekeepers aren't helping and likely making it worse in many cases because they are extremely biased towards a viewpoint they want to push or promoting ideas that they think benefit them, regardless of the outcome. WMDs, Russiagate, and really any foreign policy story for the last 30 years or so are prime examples, but there are many others.
So who are these gatekeepers supposed to be? Twitter, Facebook, and Google clearly have no interest in what is true or not. All they want to do is keep politicians happy to avoid being regulated.
Example 1: Who will be the editor who steps in when a podcast becomes popular? How do they stay objective? Imagine you performed well at work and were rewarded with a boss you never met before who told you what you could and couldn't do. How would that work well?
Example 2: this sounds a lot like undoing Clinton's 96' communications bill, which removed a lot of regulations on consolidation of media. I was be all for breaking up big tech companies and media organizations to make information less homogenized.
Example 3: Honestly, our court system is so corrupt and political, it's hard to have faith that they could do much good in this realm.
The only solution to bad speech is good speech. We need to talk to each other, gain understand, and find common ground on things. Let's help people instead of constantly playing political games. This whole Rogan thing is blown out of proportions by people with their own agenda. You really think he is the most dangerous voice in society? Nonsense.
Within the last year Rolling Stone put out an article about so people ODing from "horse dewormer" that they couldn't even treat a lineup of gunshot victims ... The problem? The hospital literally had no gun shot victims, the state had not a single hospitalization from ODing of that drug and the original source had their medical license revoked and didn't work at the hospital for years...
This story led to headlines and conversations all over the main stream media, it was a major story in the news cycle for months and is still relevant today. Yet the initial story was made up from whole cloth and many people who covered this story never even issued a correction or an apology.
We had misinformation that lead to the Iraq war and other wars in the past. The fact people are focusing on a comedian and not major news outlets for misinformation is the problem. It wasn't even that long ago when media outlets and politicians stated "just get vaccinated to stop the spread." They claimed we'd get rid of the virus after two doses which I knew was BS from day 1 because the scientific evidence was not actually stating that. There's been plenty of purveyors of misinformation coming from politicians, media outlets and regular people. If the first people you look to censor are the artists, you're probably being manipulated by someone with corporate interests.
And pushing us towards a new war
@@DorkGuitar That's kind of what I was going to say. Disinformation from the war profiteers is not in the past. It is happening right now. The U.S. military machine just slaughtered a bunch of children in Syria. What is the U.S. military DOING in Syria? The U.S. is waging outright war, dirty wars, 'regime change' wars and siege warfare ('sanctions') right now, all over the world. From the controlled media, all we get are lies and more lies, and black holes where information should be, while these WARS are waged in our name, with our tax money.
And that isn't even the half of what is going on: The U.S., in our name, is right now putting the entirety of Europe at risk of nuclear war because our overlords don't like Germany's oil pipeline with Russia.
And all I can say is thank God (and the Pentagon - lol!) for the open-wide internet! Because, despite all the crap you might find there, you can actually find out what's really going on, if you look for it and if you keep your thinking cap on in evaluating sources.
Better a chaos of information that you can sort through than NO information or official DISinformation.
Good points
Jon really knows how to sift through the insults to find true gems of wisdom! This Dr wears two hats. Very impressive!
Joe Rogan does have a large following amongst the people. Disinformation is purposefully done. It all boils down to intent!
2 things.. one.. yes Spotify does need to pay musicians more, BUT that being said there is a difference. Rogan is creating content for Spotify as well as giving them his catalog. It's not like they are just another avenue to get his podcast. It's THEIR content.. so it's worth more to them. Thing 2, it shouldn't be on the platforms to produce an "equal voice" in opposition.. there needs to be someone with that kind of following first, you can't just force it.
"Rogan is creating content for Spotify as well as giving them his catalog."
So you're saying that musicians whose entire catalog is on Spotify wouldn't give them an exclusive deal, like Rogan did, in exchange for a fraction of $100 million? Most musikers would be stoked to just have their next album financed by a deal like that.
@@havable I'm sure they would. The problem is, are musicians going to supply a steady stream of hours of fresh topical content every week? Looking the numbers the top artists get about 80ish million listens a month.. he gets 11mill per episode at 3-4 episodes a week.. so he doubles the top artists.. not saying I agree with the guy on everything.. but it's a business and he just does more for them.
I appreciate that they sifted through the reactionary stuff for constructive criticism, brought on an expert, and had a deeper conversation.
Sure, but that phrase: "having a conversation" is such a PC way of just _hoping_ America's obvious oppositional forces decide to play according to some set of universal rules.
Sorry to say, but they aren't gonna stop being the winners out of some non-existent morality or empathy. It will be, and only has ever been effectively done with blood... and ours have been getting bloodied long enough in a one-sided comp-stomp.
Would have been nice if the expert would have had the mental capacity to be included in the deep conversation with the comedian
I wish someone had asked her to give an example of misinformation spread by Joe that wasn't corrected.
No one has been giving examples. Cause the whole campaign is bullshit.
"Menace to Public Health: 270 experts criticize Spotify over Joe Rogan's podcast. Doctors and scientists express concern over misinformation on Covid - and focus on an episode with virologist Robert Malone" - The Guardian
"Joe Rogan: Four claims from his Spotify podcast fact-checked. Joe Rogan has been criticised for helping spread misinformation on his podcast." BBC News
@Zenon Did you happen to know that most of those “doctors” that signed that petition were not even licensed to practice medicine? Some interesting “misinformation” that was posted there.
@@zenon3021 Scientific disagreement is not misinformation.
Jon, you deserve the platform.... You are open to listen to anyone weather or not you agree. You are a wise person ... I want to see you keep questioning everything. So I can figure out and the world can all think 🤔. Thankyou a fan from the start
Never stop engaging. Or more and more people will be ignorant. We need to all be comfortable to do that even when uncomfortable. Otherwise we are all sitting on a pedestal thinking we are better. We all have our beliefs and they can all be understood, maybe not excepted, but at least you can wear another person's pair of shoes.
12 minutes in and I realized this is the level of depth I want "on the media" to keep. They still got it! but - - thanks We have to keep our discussions on structure and consequences in/of media
on the media is an NPR show it's one of my favs and breaks down how media works/works on us - podcasts galore - check it
As someone with an undergraduate and master's degree from an Ivy League institution, and whose politics are left, fuck the Kennedy School and their neoliberal, Liberal spin on reality. Props to Jon to coming right in with the case study of the "elite" New York Times and weapons of mass destruction. I'm not a fan of Joe's COVID talk, however I'm equally suspicious of an institution like Harvard's KS that portrays their viewpoint as reality and objective, as Nature, when it too is rife with politics.
Funny, I encounter people at Harvard every other day and they are hellbent in believing they have all the answers to the world's problem - if only they could tell people what to do, what to wear, whom to listen, what to eat, what to read, what to watch - they will be all saved.
Kumar Ankush I’ll bet you really don’t, though
I was wondering why she talked so authoratative of the subject. We are born in a universe which cares not about our existance, we are going to die within 100years, so who has any right to be the singular voice of reason with a sheet of paper by little specs on a thin film encumpasing a spec of dust in the universe.
Lary Mcfart I’m not defending any of her positions when I say this, but in terms of qualifications for serving in a certain role, the ability to communicate would be a good entry level barometer. Like being able to spell authoritative, existence, and encompassing. Jesus, dude.
@@EastSide-qc5oy I hope the standard grameer got you as well. I'm typing on my phone on a comment on a SM channel I don't give a fuck how it comes out because you clearly understood what I was talking about you dolt.
That the best you got?
The important question about misinformation in mainstream media like the NY Times just bounced right off of Donovan. It's really disappointing and rather damning that she had nothing to say about that.
She just ignored that! Like it never happened
She lost all credibility at that point. Probably has several friends working over there she didn’t want to insult
Funny, I wouldn’t think anything would bounce off her…
Your content so good. Why can't news have this same approach? The way information is spun by the extremists means that the way news is represented needs to change.
I trust Jon Stewart. His record proves his integrity. This feels like a CEO telling a manager to go over suicide prevention. He doesn't want to, and he's doing as much as he can right now.
Don't trust anyone, only your own probability judgements.
@@NickKautz "You can't trust anyone..."
ruclips.net/video/VAoxWduuu1o/видео.html
I thought Jon’s “engage” argument was interesting and provoking. It gave me another angle to think of this Spotify mess. Don’t listen to those Twitter outrage trolls, Jon.
How about don't believe Twitter at all? It's filled with bots from both sides who like to amplify the most fringe views and act like it's the standard
It might not have been intentional, but I found Jon's "engage" argument to be awfully similar to encouraging major news outlets to be *more* like Rogan rather than censor him. In other words, engage with opinions that might disagree with your platform and stance while exploring and challenging ideas by promoting discussion through arguments rather than denigrating opposing views and censoring.
@@michaeld2440 You mean... do journalism? Definitely not one of the options for them.
What was it he said. Engage don’t ______. Or something like that
You realize how self-contradictory your comment is, right? (‘Engage but ignore some people.’)
It's pretty easy to detect the Dr.'s own biases in her reluctance to criticize NYT, etc. She also provides a tell in her argument that Rogan doesn't provide equal time to trans advocates, etc. as if they all of these identity focus groups don't have abundant platforms for their views. John hits the nail on the head when he says she is gesturing towards fairness doctrine. And who gets to decide which groups get platforms, the size, and he reach of these platforms? John is onto the more fundamental problem (algorithms).
She is an open book.
Yeah, it was pretty funny for her to claim that a newspaper will print a correction when it comes to misinformation, when in fact it only happens about 30% of the time.
Oh and she made the proclamation of horse dewormers...yeah, I wonder where she's getting her information from? 🤔
This lady oozes with evil. Basically saying it's media manipulation if her people DON'T get to manipulate it.
@@doddsino Exactly, I am pretty sure she never listened to Joe's discussions completely around this very issue of horse dewormers. Jon could have pointed this out, but I guess he wanted to keep this chat on light tone.
But we do need to bring back the fairness doctrine! Since Regan killed it in the 80s, we've seen a steady incline in misinformation and the ability of bad actors to push harmful narratives that led to Jan 6 and the misrepresentation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the media at large.
Thank you Jon! You are spot on! Who decides what is mis or dis information???
Stewart 2024! Please we need you!
For me, it feels like this overflow of information started with the 24hr news cycle... 1hr of news and 23hrs of opinion and conjecture.
Only Jon can simultaneously school somebody and stroke their ego enough for them to not notice.
I believe that's called charm.
This..😂
I sure hope that was what was going on...
I think that kind of take on it is exactly what Jon disagrees with.
The broader point he was making in this saga is that reducing every disagreement to this combative team-like mentality where everything you say is framed in terms of whether you're helping or hurting the person you're talking to and where you're always supposed to hurt the other side or help your side is why our public discourse is totally dysfunctional. In functional and intelligent conversation, you cannot have the sociopathic view that every good point you make is "schooling" the other person and every time you acknowledge something positive about them you're "stroking their ego". It turns out not only can you be nice to people you disagree with, but that that's probably the best way to have the kind of nuanced conversation he's asking for. It also is a great way to disarm the cognitive biases that we all are very susceptible to.
People seem to be all over the nuances of the conversation in the comments below, which is good. But there are a few too many people here who seem to think there is a clear right side in the engagement question (and that if you have your reservations about engaging you are on the wrong side).
If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that it is a complicated issue. And while I might wish the researcher had addressed all of John's concerns, she's under no obligation to allow him to completely set the agenda of the conversation. The additional context she provided was appreciated (whether we should expect certain platforms to become public institutions, the monetisation thing with music vs podcasts, online conversations being divorced from traditional public discourse and the emergence of influencers settings the agenda, etc.).
Also, while I think podcasts (like John's as well as Rogan's) offer a lot of value, they are also part of the new media problem. What I mean is that most podcasts feel like a bunch of people having an unusually thoughtful bar conversation. This is fine, especially if the people in question know what they're talking about, but the part that is weird is where a couple million people listen in (and then start having their own conversations about it). That's when you get a level of engagement that produces all kinds of weird and sometimes harmful effects. To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't have conversations about interesting stuff, but some preparation, editorialising, and rectification (if necessary) seems only reasonable.
So glad too have you back on air🥰
Thank you for defending Joe Rogan. I am not his big fum, I am more of your fan :). I disagree with Joe's guests most of the time, but he himself disagree with them often as well. Still he is the rare case of an honest person in the media space that is looking for the answers.
At 13:50 she makes a point about a podcast with a lot of reach (in this case JRE) is not balanced by a platform with "equal volume" for an opposite opinion. This is a bit troublesome to me for a couple of reasons. First, on cable networks and the news they were never held to the same standard and although 20 years ago did a bit of a better job showing both sides, they have degenerated into picking a side and fighting for it. To hold a podcast accountable to that seems wrong. Add to this that it's a podcast and not the news and it becomes a bit more problematic.
The second is this, if people were really interested in an opposing view they should talk about the topic and build an audience in order to have that opposing view. Should we shut someone up until someone with a different view comes along? Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan have very different views and do podcasts together. It's great to see 2 people disagree and make great points. Joe Rogan also seems to bring on people with a lot of different views and gives them a platform and sounds like he will try to bring on more opposing views closer together.
I'm not sure what people want. Here's someone admitting to making mistakes in the past, apologizing and saying that he will do better when he could have just shut up and continued on as normal. If we can't make mistakes and improve then I think that our society is screwed, especially when you can't make a mistake 5 or 10 or 20 years ago and have the social norms change and then be attacked for something you did 20 years ago when you could be a completely different person now.
We live in very strange times.
This is a very poignant comment. I wholeheartedly agree with u. And unfortunately the most misinformed people are the ones pushing agendas. Rogan's only agenda is to learn which is what we all used to strive for. Now the internet has made everything about a snapshot without context. Just for hits likes and views. It's sad to see younger generations fall for this tactic. I'm sure none had actually listened to a viewpoint different from their own. The ego is being fed so why should they listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. That's why they form groups together that enables their false truths. And media fuels it by keeping us on one extreme side or the other. Basically divide and conquer but on an intellectual level
They want to cancel free speech regardless, but if I were to steel man her argument, I would say the fact that Joe does not host 2 sides literally on the same day is what she regards as not giving both sides of the argument. Which is stupid because Joe just talks to everyone, so he’s typically pretty good about having varied viewpoints on the podcast on balance.
Well the video we’ve just watched could be considered the “other side”.
Jon could easily get a mega hit pod cast on there, and I for one would love to listen to Jon & Joe discussions.
I love both Jon and Joe, not because of which side of the fence they’re at or which way they’re leaning but for the simple fact that they are HONEST guys that speaks their mind and aren’t afraid of making mistakes and have the balls to admit one.
That’s rare, but such a seemingly easy way to success for people in their positions.
Why are we debating how to limit free speech, while not discussing WHO gets to decide?
appreciate Jon digging deeper on this topic
"How do you learn nuance without engagement ? And how do you get understanding without nuance ?" Excellent food for thought ...
I really don't get this point. It seems like increasing engagement these days is synonymous with less nuance.
well probably because your engagement sucks brother. But if you ever want to, sit down with an actual human for hours at a time and just talk to them about stuff. You’ll find stuff you agree with them on and stuff you don’t agree with them on but I guarantee you that after 3-4 hours of good ole human conversation and actually sitting across from them looking them in the eyes as you talk to them then you would get to understand the nuances of someone’s points that you agree with and disagree with!! You should try it sometime my dude!
@@willis936 That depends on if you are engaging honestly or dishonestly. If your engagement is screaming talking points then you are right, you will not find nuance. If your engagement consists of an honest exchange of information that involves active listening then you will definitely find nuance.
@johnny_B_good I don't suppose you see how you are proving my point.
@@michaelroyle3003 So you're saying it's good to disengage when the other party is not being rational or genuine? I agree.
Man I didn't realize I have missed John . Glad he's back to help us all try and guide our way through this shit . All throughout high school in the 2000s I watched the daily show all the time and he was a big part of my formative years and helped to form my political ideology. I'm kind of just realizing this all as I'm typing it but damn he was a great shepherd for my generation into the quagmire that is American politics . Man John, as soon as you left . Shit starts falling apart .
What shit? The problem with underwear? Kooky qanon? Come on
Shit has been falling apart since forever, we just weren't hearing his voice on the matters at hand. If shit wasn't falling apart before he left, then what was he saying for all those years?
Same. I trusted John Stewart when he was on TV.
Yep now we've got Trevor Noah's version which is both dishonest and unfunny....
Oh and him jumping on Rogan for old jokes after Rogan backed him when he was becoming the Daily Show host and people were trying to cancel him for his anti-semitic old jokes
I decided to subscribe to John Stewart I love Joe Rogan and anybody that's claiming misinformation hasn't done the research
Love love love this! You are hitting on the current social nerve.
"Who gets to decide."
This is why places where public discourse takes place shouldn't be privately owned.
Exactly. The BBC, with all its faults, is still the best example of citizen-financed media organization. But we worship at the altar of private enterprise even when there is an amazing amount of evidence that it is not the right form of organization in certain industries - and we're paying the price for it. And that price is going to increase catastrophically.
@@ssubra2000 the BBC is not a good example. Look at their news reports coming out of India. They paint it as if a genocide is underway
Please don't stop making shows ever again. I'm smiling more than I thought I would today. Thank you!!
I’m laughing but also crying. It’s sad to see this idiot just going down the tubes
amazing keep up the good work!
Jon Stewart is our generation's Johnny Carson. Thank you, Jon, looking forward to more of your show and for voting for you in the future.
Carson was an entertainer. Jon far surpasses that . Johnnie Carson pointedly refrained from political commentary, with a few exceptions over the years.I'm a big fan of both, however.
Do you think that is a compliment or insult?
Carson didn't think he was a pundit. He didn't alienate people
John Stewart- how can we be certain that official sources can be correct.
Professor's response- we need to listen to more official sources.
That depends. For vaccines and climate change the evidence and overwhelming support comes from experts all over the world. That is a good indicator
"I don't mind yelling, I just want the truth!" ... Jon, you are awesome!
@22:00 THANK YOU! If you don't engage those you disagree with, then all anyone will ever hear is other people agreeing with them.
It´s nice to see you Jon!!! LETS GO!!!