Good point.
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
You know what an average is right? By the very rule of averages, none of us (singular) are average.
Don't worry dLockers, we all know how special you are.
The sentiment is fine, but the end result ends up being far from fine.
It's all well and good letting people spout dangerous nonsense in the name of free speech and saying we should let people make their own minds up. The problem is in reality it becomes a big problem, because too many people get fooled by it and end up making decisions that harm the wider community.
This is happening with measles, a small but growing number of people have stopped following official advice from doctors, instead subscribing to lies on social media. As a result a very nasty disease which was almost eradicated, is now making a comeback.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-and-unnecessary-return-of-measles-in-the-us/
If people cannot be trusted to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong then should we blacklist referendums too. How about general elections as well?
Maybe we should just be more like North Korea, allowing state sponsored media only.
Maybe we should just be more like North Korea, allowing state sponsored media only.
Well that's just being extreme and over the top, nobody wants to have every last scintilla of choice taken away from them, nobody is suggesting that.
However, I think we need to be a bit more careful about people who are going on shows like Joe Rogan (who have millions and millions of viewers) to talk dangerous, inaccurate false and misleading nonsense. Without any opposing viewpoint or opponent to challenge them, especially on the subjects of vaccinations, in the middle of a global pandemic that's killed millions of people.
What did he say you found dangerous?
This.
The host of the show should have a responsibility to perform due diligence on the person they’re interviewing, to ensure they’re not completely full of ****.
If they can’t do that - then get someone else who can, a good start would be somebody independent who can verify what the guest is saying, uncover any conflict of interest and make sure they’re not just making things up for cash and shock value.
How does the host choose that independent person? What makes them independent but the guest not?
If you have the resources that Joe Rogan has, I’m pretty sure it would be quite straightforward to find an independent specialist who can do the required background research. Newspapers have done things like this for years - hired private investigators before running controversial stories, to make sure they don’t get bitten later.
How? On what basis are they "independent" what do you even mean by that? That they adhere to mainstream views?
His whole show is about bringing on people with different views etc..
Well, if I was the host of a show and I was going to have somebody come on and say that vaccines are bad and harm children.
I’d seek out a qualified virologist or expert in vaccines (somebody who’s recognised in the field) to check the persons claims out, before they appeared on my show.
They’d be independent in the sense that they wouldn’t be in any way affiliated with the person they’d be checking up on.
Check the person's claims out with the view to doing what exactly? Do you expect Rogan to then get into a debate with them for example?
Why should he believe the other expert over say the expert he's inviting on if they're both "independent" relative to each other?
The independent expert appointed to do the checks, might uncover strong, peer-reviewed evidence that the guest wishing to appear is making false claims.
The expert he's bringing on might refer to peer-reviewed evidence too... How does the expert he's not bringing on know what claims are going to be made during the course of the 1-hour interview?
Typically with the context of Joe Rogan interviews that doesn’t happen does it.
Nah, he quite often has academics on his show IIRC (granted I've not watched/listened to a whole episode, I've seen bits of some interesting ones on youtube though), lots of what they're saying will be based on peer-reviewed research, sure they might not drop specific citations.
IIRC one of the two controversial guys from this recent story is a Cardiologist is the editor of a medical journal and has over a thousand publications.
"peer-reviewed" research isn't necessarily a magic solution given that plenty of cranks could well be reliant on it too. This guy seems to be a crank but he's got control over a journal.