The Future of the Republican Party

Will you check out some of them now that you have been reminded of this thread?

Why not just add them your podcast library now so that way you’ll be reminded? After giving them a couple listens if you don’t find them informative then you can remove them with a click of a button.

whenever I hear dismissals of "mainstream media", besides reminding me of 15 year old punk rockers calling each other posers, I think of how Dan Rather after a 50 year career bowed out over a burned interview that wasn't directly his doing. THe corpse of that career wasn't even cold before everyone from Fox to Alex Jones to Joe Rogan decided to claim themselves as "alternative" to the "narrative". Portraying themselves as rebelling against a monolithic establishment rather than seeking to overthrow it for their own profits.

It's also worth remembering that many of the so-called MSM outlets have viewer numbers lower than the likes of Joe Rogan. And Rogan, like the outlets traditionally called MSM, has a multi-billion dollar company behind him.

This is why they have been in attack mode going after Rogan, they’re losing the narrative.

The fact that he's anti-vax doesn't have anything to do with why people dislike Rogan, then?

Is he anti-vax or is that a narrative pushed by the MSM?

Rogan's stuff can't be referred to as a narrative as he's not narrating, just vomiting his brain out.

Telling people that they don't need to get the COVID-19 vaccine is pretty much anti-vax, even if he advocates for other vaccines at times.

perhaps... but is giving it to the likes of him and the others really a better option? (also, what the fuck does that really mean anyways? "controlling the narrative" is kind of overly dramatic for "yes, there's a clear bias that nobody is trying to hide" vs "they're telling you what to think! think like us instead!"

the old guard MSM had a couple of things going for it. One, we knew who had how much influence over the content and two, the journalists were accountable to some degree.

these new guys sneered at the concept before even going live.

The thing is these podcasts give a person a chance to have a long conversation that you’re not going to get from cable news. I just watched Lex Friedman interview Bjorn Lonborg and Andrew Revkin about climate change and what we should do about it. Now @Diacanu just flat out dismissed Lonborg and declared him debunked. How does he know he was debunked, he didn’t even listen to what the guy had to say? I don’t even know how you debunk a guy who’s just stating his opinion.

He’s not arguing against the IPCC report. He just thinks that the news media uses sensationalism to scare people into thinking climate change is a a doomsday scenario and it isn’t. He argues that it’s a problem, but it’s a problem we can deal with through innovation. How is that controversial? But if you put him on CNN or MSNBC, he’ll get maybe a couple of minutes to explain his position and probably have the talking heads yelling at him about how he’s a climate denier or something like that. That’s not journalism.

Lex Friedman may not be a journalist, but he asks important questions and challenges their world view. That sounds a lot closer to journalism than what we see on cable news.

ETA: Oh and by the way, that's going to get me to listen and pay attention and think about my own views more than some liberal on cable news.

How exactly?
We're solar paneling, and LED lightbulb-ing, and recycling as fast as we fucking can, and it isn't barely denting what industrial polluters can keep churning out.
Are we supposed to build the deflector dish from the Enterprise-D and zap the atmosphere with that?

Fourth generation nuclear was one thing he brought up. Another thing he brought up was was one of the scientists who worked on the human genome project wants to use algae to create oil that would give us net zero emissions and we can basically go on with interrupting the economy too much. I believe he also brought up incentives to move towards EVs. He thinks that recycling plastics are basically pointless, we should just recycle glass, paper and cans.

He also says that maybe we need to restructure zoning laws because the reason we see more damage when hurricanes hit is because more and more people live in places that are susceptible to hurricane damage. When we see that on television it makes it look like hurricanes are more intense than they actually are and that gets more ratings/clicks when it's really just stupid people building houses in stupid places without the reinforcement needed to mitigate the damage because those reinforcements are expensive.

18 of the 20 largest fires in California history have been in the past nineteen years. Should we not be putting land where the fires are so that people stop thinking fires are more intense?

Yes, we possibly can solve climate change through innovation.

The problem is no-one DOES IT because they figure "meh, when it gets bad enough we'll solve it with innovation"

It's bad enough NOW.

We need to be freaking out NOW.

Hence the "scaremongering" is actually "telling the cold hard fucking truth" and twats like FF are still going "meh, we'll figure it out tomorrow".

You are literally the guys saying "well, we'll invent some form of planetary deflector shield if an asteroid comes" when the asteroid has been DMing your mother pictures of its dick for the last few weeks.

The proper term is ganglion.

But can he tell a preganglionic fiber from a postganglionic nerve?

If you live on the Gulf Coast or the Eastern seaboard, you're at risk of damage from hurricanes. Hell, I live, quite literally, less than 50 miles from the geographic center of TN and my place took damage from the remnants of Katrina. No shit. For the first time ever, my state was placed under a Tropical Storm Warning because of Katrina.

Yeah, sure, the damage wasn't serious, it just ripped up part of the roofing of my deck and it didn't even meet the $500 deductible of my insurance policy, but it happened because of a hurricane. Something that we know is going to happen more often due to global warming. By his logic, folks should have to clear out of most of the eastern US, since they can get damaged by hurricanes. Where should they go? Who is going to buy the property that they leave behind so that they can afford to move somewhere else?

Yeah, that was a good episode of Fear Factor when he made the contestants eat his brain vomit. Sounds like his podcast is pretty much an extension of that.

ripping this off...

Biden on Trump having dinner with Nazis.

https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1596601233585889280?s=46&t=tnvuwvM_70x4Orj_3I5e3g

"You don't want to hear what I think"

Later...

"Sam, I'm going to need my shield back for a bit".

but they aren't conversations... he provides a pulpit and pretends its a conversation. Who's on it and how Lex Friedman does his show isn't really in play here, or what Diacanu thinks of any of it... I'll go out on a limb though that it was a) actually conversational rather than Rogan's active listening/enabling questioning style and b) as you suggest, the interviewees are actually competent in their field, respected by their peers (unlike a certain "clinical psychologist).

Blaming regular news for not devoting an entire show to the guy hardly discredits it. Nobody is expecting anything other than that, so what you suggest a MSM anchor would do is baseless speculation unless you've got a few examples showing such as common enough to be noteworthy.

Nope.. that is editorializing. "Challenging their world view" in this condition translates to "we let some guy talk with minimal, if any challenges for 30 minutes to present his opinions as fact".

I miss Phil Donahue's format.
He'd have on Klanners, and skinheads, and Satanists, and he'd let them spout their bullshit unfiltered for a bit, then he'd let the audience and callers have at them.
And Donahue attracted a smart audience, not Jerry Springer meatheads, so the audience and callers on his show were like..well, Wordforge.

He had Ayn Rand on, and the first question out of an audience member was "no, seriously though, are you a cult? ".

Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory.They're all blood, you see.

Near the end of his show, though, Donahue was pandering to the stupid flake demographic. I can remember my step-brother tuning into some episode in the late '80s seeing that Phil had another flake on, looking at me and sighing, "You remember when he used to have Senators on?"

It’s a pretty straightforward question.

You have reached The Boy's answering service. @Bill Carson also known as federal fuckup cannot respond to your question because of:

1. he is presently pouting and punishing you by ignoring you.
2. His subway manager has demanded he work a special shift
3. It is past his bedtime and his mom has turned off the wifi
4. he is watching the joe rogan podcast so he can find the answer to your question.

please choose whichever option makes you feel like you have done this a thousand times before with the same results.

HTH and HAND