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 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Old Media Vs. New, Who to Trust?
I was editor of my junior high school paper and many of my heroes were journalists. I read All the President’s Men and watched the movie in the theater and thought W & B were the best. I also tried to never miss “60 Minutes.” Because those guys were real journalists. I bought Dan Rather’s The Camera Never Blinks when it came out (in paperback) and devoured it. Over the years, the Sunday night news staple and I parted ways.
When the workplace sitcom, Newsradio, came out a couple of decades later, I also watched it faithfully. It made gentle fun of the news media, suggesting reporters were more concerned with their egos than the truth. A minor player on the show was played by Joe Rogan. He played a character named, well, Joe, the station’s tech guy who thrived on conspiracy theories. Rogan went on to do a reality TV show, Fear Factor, challenging contestants to face dangerous and gross challenges. (Fear Factor ran concurrently for a time with another reality show, The Apprentice.)
Then in 2009, Rogan launched a podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. He interviewed a wide range of guests, letting them tell their stories, as diverse a group as Bernie Sanders and Edward Snowden to Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson. The three-hour-long format allows for long stories and full explanations.
Donald Trump had a choice to make this election season. He could appear in a media institution with a 57-season legacy. The show that I thought, as a teenager, was a paragon of journalistic integrity, which now has a record of deceptive editing to make its partisan points.
Or, he could appear with a former sitcom and reality show player who started his show this century. Instead of editing, this host just lets people talk. Much to the concern of many on the modern left who are afraid of the wrong thoughts getting out in the world.
Trump chose to go with the new media. I think it will prove to be a wise decision.
Published in General
Agree.
Furthermore, …
I think that this interview will serve as a demarcation point. Meaning, for instance, …
By the time the next Presidential election season comes around, I would not be at all surprised if NONE of the primary (let alone general) debates took place on the broadcast/cable channels.
IOW, a “paradigm shift” of “tectonic” significance similar to the one that occurred in 1960 (JFK vs Nixon debate, the first broadcast TV debate).
A new era.
Except technology had nothing to do with that. For the longest time Section 315 of the FCC regulations, aka the “Equal Time Rule,” required that all qualified candidates for a federal office were to be given equal time, even for minor parties. In 1960 Congress passed a waiver for Kennedy-Nixon.
But it went right back into effect until it was finally repealed in 1975, which ushered in the modern era of debates.
And I’ll wager you’re wrong about 2028. Don’t get hung up on the method of transmission. Primary debates are party functions. If Trump wins you’re looking at two fields of 12+. Production costs are still considerable and both will want to team with organizations with deep enough pockets to pull that off.
Of course it did.
People who listened to that debate on radio thought that Nixon won it. People who watched that debate on TV thought that Kennedy did.
To wit (from “How the Kennedy-Nixon debate changed the world of politics“):
“…
When Nixon arrived for the debate, he looked ill, having been recently hospitalized because of a knee injury. The vice president then re-injured his knee as he entered the TV station, and refused to call off the debate.
Nixon also refused to wear stage makeup, when Hewitt offered it. Kennedy had turned down the makeup offer first: He had spent weeks tanning on the campaign trail, but he had his own team do his makeup just before the cameras went live. The result was that Kennedy looked and sounded good on television, while Nixon looked pale and tired, with a five o’clock shadow beard.
The next day, polls showed Kennedy had become the slight favorite in the general election, and he defeated Nixon by one of the narrowest margins in history that November. Before the debate, Nixon led by six percentage points in the national polls.
There were three other debates between Nixon and Kennedy that fall, and a healthier Nixon was judged to have won two of them, with the final debate a draw. However, the last three debates were watched by 20 million fewer people than the September 26th event.
In the aftermath of the first debate, Nixon’s running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, had a few choice words for the GOP presidential candidate. “That son-of-a-bitch just lost us the election,” Lodge reportedly said. Johnson, who was Kennedy’s running mate, thought his running mate had lost the debate. Lodge saw the debate on TV, while Johnson listened to the debate on the radio. …”
Precisely. But that still has nothing to with the technology of transmission, that’s pure consumption. Many podcasts have a visual component but how they’re consumed – either visually or aurally – is still up the consumer. When you made your argument about 2o28 you specifically said “broadcast/cable channels.” Broadcast v cable v IP streaming is just a method of transmission that has nothing to do with the actual content or how it’s consumed.
The early 2020 Democratic debates featured 20 candidates and had to be held over 2 nights in Detroit. Could Joe Rogan afford to rent the Fox Theatre for two nights, light the joint for television, bring in a production truck and crew? Maybe. Does it make sense for him to do it? Probably not.
What does trust have to do with it? I don’t trust any of them unless they make themselves trustworthy.
Right. I have this thing about unnamed sources. If an unnamed source says X, at it later turns out that ~X is true, and those who used X don’t burn that “source,” then either those who did use that source have no concern about being lied to (which makes them unreliable) or the “source” is a figment of someone’s imagination.
Why not read as wide a selection as possible, and judge for yourself what is true? It helps to try to understand the presenter’s agenda. Neither old nor new is completely trustworthy.
Really the Headline question wasn’t about who was trustworthy for consuming, but who was more trustworthy for presenting a message. Rogan is less filtered, therefore, more trustworthy.
Eh, Trump chose to go appear on a show with the potential to influence his chances. You can bet your boots, if Sixty Minutes had the heft it had in 1996, he would have appeared there.
As an aside, I still have no idea who Joe Rogan is. I remember reading somewhere Spotify paying him Seventy bazillion simoleons for the rights to his 3 hour podcast.
I listen to a lot of podcasts. One hour episodes are about my limit. Even then, I sometimes dial up the speed. The difference between standard and 1.25X is nearly indistinguishable.
Define “alternate media.” Are you talking people who have left the legacy media and struck out on their own? Or are we talking randos on social media?
Remember post-debate how certain members breathlessly asserted that ABC News had colluded with the Harris campaign? “We have an affidavit!” they screamed. “It’s been filed!” (Filed? With whom?) This “news” was gleefully reposted by both Trump and Vance.
This alternative source was an X account called “Black Insurrectionist” (aka, @docnetyoutube). After the ABC News accusation this account caused another stir by claiming that, as a high school teacher, Tim Walz sexually abused a male student. While making those claims, Black Insurrectionist accidentally revealed clues to his identity and he turned out to be a 62-year old white man from upstate New York named Jason G. Palmer.
Palmer has quite the history. Drug addiction, bankruptcies, business fraud and a bill for back taxes with the State of New York that totals almost $7M. Palmer, when questioned about the account by the Associated Press, had all sorts of excuses. First, he knew nothing, then he said he may have owned the account at one time but sold it to a black friend, or maybe he had access to the account because he was doing “research” for this unnamed “black friend.” Bottom line: Black Insurrectionist no longer exists.
For some reason the media hating conspiracy mongers didn’t write up a post for this bit of news.
As for David Sacks, like so many people who show brilliance in the areas where they made their fortunes, he’s completely ignorant of how the rest of the world works. After the post @GPentelie posted, Sacks went on a rant, joined by Mike Shellenberger, about how the government should auction off the networks’ broadcast spectrum.
One, he has a 1990s view of the world and has no idea as to the extent that the FCC has been clawing back spectrum from broadcasters. By July of 2027, 18 years after the transition to digital, a new standard will be implemented, ATSC 3.0. This will create “lighthouse stations,” in which only one station will actually have an active transmitter and all of a market’s stations will piggyback on that single signal. (They’re also creating a situation that would allow a terrorist or even Mother Nature to completely wipeout every broadcaster in a market at once but that’s a different post.)
Two, Sacks callously suggests that the networks should be forced into 100% streaming, completely unaware that 30% of Americans rely on antennas for television service. So, in Sacks’ world, if you don’t have broadband and you can’t afford to subscribe to Hulu/Peacock/Paramount/Netflix/Prime then screw you.
Sacks has no idea to what extent the mix of news, sports and entertainment sustains each effort and makes the other possible. As many so-called independent journalists have discovered, people may pay you for your work once it’s done, but not many will pay you while you’re doing the expensive work of producing the journalism in the first place.
Not 30%. Acording to Nielsen’s latest stats, the share of households that are Over-The-Air only is a little over 13%. And shrinking, due to natural attrition (aging users passing on) and rapidly spreading technology (e.g. Starlink).
Perhaps because even a hundred such hoaxters wouldn’t do anywhere near the damage to our nation that, for instance, the “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Hoax, or the “Good People on Both Sides” Hoax, or the “Drink Bleach” Hoax, or the Covington Kids Hoax, or the Jussie Smolett Hoax, or the Kavanaugh-The-Serial-Rapist Hoax, or … etc., etc., etc., etc., all gleefully promulgated by your beloved legacy media over the years/decades, have done and continue to do.
Guess what? You still have to pay for Starlink. You still have to pay for the streaming services. That’s why they have an enormous churn rate. And what happens when the economy goes into recession? Does an antenna keep charging you? Whatever the stats are today, they can change in a heartbeat.
How about Sandy Hook’s “crisis actors?” Or vaccines create autism? Or “Pizzagate?” How about “the Clinton Body Count?” How about the “birther” hoax? Or the Trump Administration giving White House press access to Rick Wiles, an “alternative news” publisher who claimed the Mossad was behind 9/11 so that the Jews could take over the United States and slaughter millions of Christians? QAnon anyone?
Did any of those cripple Obama’s administration the way the Russia Hoax did Trump’s? Did any of those derail Clinton’s SoS nomination the way the Serial Rapist Hoax almost derailed Kavanaugh’s?
And, finally, …
Rick Wiles who?
Name one policy or initiative that the Meuller investigation crippled.
It may have cost her the White House.
He’s your alternative media. Just like his fellow hoaxers Alex Jones and Jack Posobeic. And if a crackpot like Wiles gets praise from Trump and access to the White House your ignorance of his existence is just my problem? No, it’s your problem.
Actually, I think legacy media has been in the toilet for quite a while but many conservatives are not aware of its demise, as they keep railing against its supposed influence. It’s not quite dead yet, but surveys have been showing for years that few people believe the mainstream media news, even among democrats.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
That figure of 54% of democrats having a Great Deal/Fair Amount of trust can be further divided into just the “Great deal of trust” category, which is the one that really counts. It doesn’t break that down here, but when I’ve seen it in other polls, it was only about 25 0r 30 percent of democrats and about ten percent overall who had a great deal of trust in the media.
Notice the spike in democrats’ trust of the media during the height of the “Russian Collusion Hoax” of 2017-2019, followed by deflating numbers as it all turned out to be rubbish in the aftermath of the Mueller report, and democrats returning to their downward trend in media trust with Biden in office.
Another interesting chart on the Gallup website shows that Americans trust mass media even less than they do government at all levels(!)
I trust them both to lie to me.
I prefer long form podcasts vs the short form interview process on cable and network news.
It forces the person being interviewed to get out of this canned cliches.
One of the best interviews of a politician was done by Adam Carolla
he as Gavin Newsome on his show when he was Lt Gov and asked him very tough questions with follow ups – it is really worth listening to.
Gee. Why would anyone on the Left want to assassinate him?
So, what do you propose? Does that violate Brandenburg? Or do you think that criticizing certain politicians should be exempt from the First Amendment?
nothing – freedom of speech allows you to be a demagogue – hell FJB made a living being one.
LOL. Yeah. Ok.
Keep making excuses for the legacy media.