Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hello die hard GLoP listeners (see what we did there?). Our previous live Zoom GLoP was such a smashing success that by popular (or unpopular) demand, we’re doing it again. Please join us this Sunday, April 26th at 6PM ET/5PM CT/3PM PT for another visual romp through pop culture, politics, liquor, and tobacco products. We may have a special guest or two, some cameo appearances, and maybe even take a few questions from the audience. There’s only one catch: you must be a Ricochet member, a member of The Dispatch or a Commentary subscriber to watch this show live. So join today and be part of the fun and we’ll see you on Sunday. Literally.
Subscribe to GLoP Culture in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Will there be a video recording available?
I get that it’s 5:00 somewhere, but 3:00pm Pacific? That’s a bit early for a nightcap. But I’ll look forward to “sharing” a drink several hours later if you get it posted by then…
For members, yes.
This one is not a Night Owl and it’s a school night, hence the earlier start time (and we got some complaints about the last one going too late on the east coast).
A what?
When did Rob Long’s avatar steal Conan O’Brien’s hair?
Oh good! I missed the last one. I’m a member of both ricochet and dispatch … should I subscribe to commentary as well? Anyone have thoughts?
Really??
In my opinion …yes….sub scribe to Commentary….it is excellent!!!!
Since it’s a Sunday afternoon, I’ll assume they’ll be recapping the NFL draft on the show…..
I enjoyed the last one but I think the three of them doing a draft recap would be a pretty short segment.
I used to subscribe to Commentary, for myself and for my two brothers.
But then I caught Christine Rosen quoting Trump way out of context to make him look bad.
I wrote a letter to Commentary, contrasting what Trump had actually said with what Rosen had written.
In response, I got an email from John Podhoretz, absurdly justifying what Rosen had done. It was a variant of the “fake but accurate” defense: using his immense telepathic powers, JPod knew Trump was insincere when he said the part Rosen had left out, so it was OK to ignore Trump’s exact words.
Anyway, I waited several months to see if Commentary would publish, not even a correction, but some acknowledgement that the quote was disputed. But they did not.
So I canceled my subscription — it was multi-year, so I got back a nice chunk of change — and let my brothers’ subscriptions lapse. I can no longer trust Commentary to be a truthful source of information.
P.S.: I posted the story on Ricochet a while back.
If I pixellate my face and alter my voice digitally, does that defeat the whole point of using Zoom?
In situations like that, I think it should be possible to cancel retroactively.
Frankly, I’m less concerned about something like that (I also get defensive when called on the carpet, especially in an angry way) than whether the overall publication is enjoyable to read. I’m as capable as anyone on deciding if I think a quote was taken out of context. But I have listened frequently to the Commentary Podcast and it tends to be, how do they put it? Crushingly morose. Plus Noah can be a real pill. But podcasts are free—I don’t want to spend money on something I won’t want to read half the time because it depresses me.
The problem there is not having the time or the capacity – or maybe even the interest – to double-check everything in some publication to make sure it’s accurate. And if you’re going to do that, you don’t need the publication anyway, really.
We need to be able to rely on publications to… publish… accurately. One time finding out they didn’t, because it’s something we happen to have independent knowledge of, can be enough to throw the entire publication into doubt, and not just for the present/future. What else might they have… lied about… in the past, that you just didn’t realize because you didn’t have independent knowledge of everything they claimed in the past?
And once again, if you DID have independent knowledge of everything they published, you wouldn’t need to read them to start with.
I missed the last one because I didn’t know about it until I listened to the podcast afterwards. How do we get the details for joining the meeting this time? I’m a member here (obviously) as well as at The Dispatch. Would be a fun experience to sit in on the live recording.
All publications make mistakes. Even hard news publications don’t publish retractions on every beef brought to their attention. But Commentary is an opinion journal. I don’t read those kinds of things to learn facts—I read them to learn different perspectives and, if I disagree, have the fun of making a counter-argument, either to myself or online.
If someone doesn’t like Commentary’s politics or writing style or overall mood or obsessions with a particular topic or political figure … well, those are criticisms I can understand. But personally, I think it’s nitpicky to make a big deal over a single disagreement about contextual interpretation.
There are variations of context too. If Trump says like “Am I saying that the economy should be shut down for years? No.” and someone in Commentary acts like Trump only said “The economy should be shut down for years” that’s a problem. There’s already The Bulwark etc for stuff like that, if people want it.
Nevermind. I saw the email this afternoon saying details to follow on Sunday. Cool beans.
Alas, I won’t be able to attend again. Saturday night is one of my work nights, my shift begins at 6:15 and I am deemed essential.
I am a subscriber to all three although I could really use a couple more hours in the day to read everything. There’s a lot that I miss. That’s offset by all the stuff I wouldn’t have wanted to miss.
@merrijane — Commentary took an entirely reasonable statement Trump made, truncated it, and then used the partial quite as evidence of Trump’s megalomania. Details are here:
http://ricochet.com/514166/archives/commentary-quotes-trump-out-of-context/
I expect liberal publications to behave this way; in fact, I’m guessing that Rosen got the partial quote from a liberal source and didn’t realize it had already been truncated to mislead. My problem is JPod’s Zinn-like refusal to even half-acknowledge the truth.
Which is why a supposedly serious journalist is supposed to be fact-checking these things, not relying on readers to do their work FOR them.
The show is on Sunday night 4/26.
Yay! I can make it!
So, as a subscriber to Ricochet, will there be a link available later at air time to click and view the GLoP 2 show? Thanks in advance for your help.
Look at the top of the member feed: http://ricochet.com/751083/zoom-glop-ii-glop-harder/
Best unintentional laugh line so far:
As a paying Ricochet member, I hope we don’t get embargoed again, like happened the last time, in favor of Commentary and Dispatch members.
And, opinions/analysis based on “facts” that aren’t true, are worse than useless.