CNN’s @brianstelter: People trusting Joe Rogan over “newsrooms like CNN” are “a problem that’s much bigger than Spotify” pic.twitter.com/3RnifScIzk
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 1, 2022
Background: "CNN praises Dr. Sanjay Gupta for interview with Joe Rogan, buries viral moments/Gupta admitted his CNN colleagues should not have referred to Rogan's COVID treatment as 'horse dewormer'" (NY Post, October 15, 2021). That's something I blogged at the time, here: "In trying to present Sanjay Gupta as a science-is-real hero for talking to Joe Rogan for 3 hours, CNN laid the groundwork for fact-checkers to draw attention to all the most damaging omissions."
ADDED: Writing this post and searching my own archive for Sanjay Gupta, I turned up a post from January 7, 2009, when President-Elect Obama was considering Gupta for the position of Surgeon General. There was debate at the time about the way Gupta had treated the filmmaker Michael Moore about his movie "Sicko."
The NYT columnist Paul Krugman had written that "Gupta specifically claimed that Moore 'fudged his facts,' when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong."
Krugman observed: "Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right."
And isn't that a bit like Joe Rogan? He's an an outsider, uncouth, and he'll get smeared as unreliable even when he actually gets it right. Meanwhile, his mainstream media antagonists are counting on their appearing glossily professional. As I said back in 2009: "Gupta is couth, an expert at projecting competence, expertise, and level-headedness."
But I defended Gupta at the time:
Gupta was immediately called to account, and he stepped up to it. And what of Moore? Is he accountable? Moore may have not been wrong on this occasion, but he's been wrong in the past about plenty of things, and his entire filmmaking style is based on a strong point of view — that is, bias — that involves distortion and emotive exaggeration. Does Moore make corrections and apologize? His method involves going doggedly forward toward his predetermined goals — like government-managed health care or opposition to the war or gun control. So it's quite sensible... to be skeptical when Moore speaks.
At the same time, we listen to Moore — some of us — because he's got an artistic style that is often lively and funny and thought-provoking. He's chosen his uncouth, rebel style, and he uses his style every bit as successfully as Gupta uses his. Moore has scarcely been ostracized for his outsider manner. He's very popular. Some people hate him, but he's choosing to antagonize those people — it's part of his the polemical style that has made him rich and famous. So don't cry for Michael Moore, give Sanjay Gupta the credit he deserves, and don't swallow anything whole, whether it's served up by rebel filmmakers or sophisticated doctors.
That's what I said 12 years ago, and I'm reprinting it now because we're still talking about Gupta and, more importantly, I think the comparison of Joe Rogan to Michael Moore could be helpful.
By the way, Michael Moore has a podcast:
Posts
31 comments:
maybe (Just Maybe) the solution to maintaining trust, is Not to lie so much
just an idea
Donald Trump broke CNN.
"People trusting Joe Rogan over “newsrooms like CNN” are “a problem that’s much bigger than Spotify”
Yep. But CNN thinks we are the problem, not them. Which is why nobody watches CNN. The deserve the ridicule. Mark Dice and Greg Gutfeld's mocking of that fat fuck Stelter is the perfect response.
It deserves to be mentioned that, in addition to the contrast between slick professional CNN and uncouth unkept Michael Moore, Moore makes no pretense to unbiased reporting of just the facts with no shading. You know he's biased going in because he makes no claim to be even-handed.
The fundamental problem isn't that CNN or Michael Moore are biased, the problem is that not only will CNN not admit bias, they keep claiming they are unbiased enough to determine when other people's statements are mis- or disinformation. While Rogan shades into claims of being unbiased (the just-asking-questions formulation) he comes much closer to actually exemplifying a non-biased approach that just wants to be interesting and entertaining.
CNN has an adult pundit who publicly said that a teenage kid had "a punchable face" relative to a story they got very, very wrong.
Joe Rogan isn’t asking anyone to trust him, he’s having conversations with people and trusting listeners to be discerning. At the same time, he will question what his guests say, as when he and staff checked on Jordan Peterson’s assertion that 7 million children annually die from indoor particulate air pollution. (Not accurate).
So if Michael Moore is all about labor, that means he's a Republican now, right? Or was it all a pretense that he cared about working people... LOL, we all know the answer.
After Russiagate CNN has no standing to call anyone out for providing misinformation.
Krugman observed: "Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right." And isn't that a bit like Joe Rogan?
Why yes, yes it is. Though I doubt you'll ever hear Krugman say it considering Moore is a reliable lefty while Rogan is merely an honest lefty. And therefore inconvenient to the cause.
BTW, did Moore lose a lot of weight? Or did he use his eHarmony photo for his podcast?
his entire filmmaking style is based on a strong point of view — that is, bias — that involves distortion and emotive exaggeration.
Oh, yeah, that’s totally what differentiates Moore from CNN.
Please stop referencing Paul Krugman and granting him authority status -- he's always confident but often wrong.
2017: Trump's election spelled doom for the economy
https://news.yahoo.com/paul-krugman-always-wrong-never-173530058.html
Globalization is roundly good:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-was-paul-krugman-so-wrong/
Many older topcis:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/17/is-paul-krugman-the-worlds-wrongest-economist-997142/
What's a CNN?? From what I understand, it is a news station that is underwater in ratings. It used to be the station FOR news, now it is the station of FAKE NEWS. People hate getting lied to over and over and over again.
I know it's juvenile but I can't not think of Gwen Paltrow's Goop whenever Dr. Goopta's name is mentioned.
Say what you want about Moore, but he saw the how and why of President Trump before any mainstream politicians or media types.
Once you begin understand and accept CNN is running PSYOPS for the Democrats, things make much more sense...
The people who are misinformed are the people who listen to bureaucrats like Tony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, and Vivek Murthy, instead of real scientists like Dr. Robert Malone.
Well...two questions and neither really addresses the post, but more side comments to the post.
1) When Michael Moore gets seriously ill, and that is a 'when' not an 'if' because he's a walking comorbidity, Will he choose to be taken care of at a fine medical center here in the US or go to one of those fabulous national healthcare countries like England or France? Or better yet, maybe his dream state of Cuba? I think we all know the answer.
2) At what point does CNN cease to exist? If any other network had their ratings, for as long as they have (with a few high blips when Trump bombshells were a daily event) would they even still be operating? Who or what is keeping this network alive? They are like a patient on life support, with machines doing the breathing and blood circulation for them. Brian Stelter will be the last one told that they are done and they'll ask him to please turn off the lights on his way out. He'll be crying as he does so. So the question is: If Brian Stelter is the last one to turn out the lights at CNN, will anybody hear him?
We will be forced to obey the Hack-D press?
Yep - that's where all of this is going.
I think Stelter referred to CNN as a "real newsroom."
Hoo Boy.
That's a good one.
At what point does CNN cease to exist? If any other network had their ratings, for as long as they have (with a few high blips when Trump bombshells were a daily event) would they even still be operating? Who or what is keeping this network alive
CNN is part of a larger media conglomerate that has other networks with (very) lucrative sports contracts and other popular, profitable networks that can subsidize a CNN indefinitely…
I suspect some at Warner Media care about CNNs ratings but not because of revenue. CNN’s raison d’etre is for influence, not profits. Shits like Zucker and whoever replaced him see it as a higher calling…
Also keep in mind while CNNs prime time viewer ratings are abysmal compared to Fox and others, a couple of things..
1- CNNs internet home page leads in eyeballs.
2- CNNs captures more viewers than are explained by their Nielsen ratings. CNN clips embedded and shared on Twitter have many more multiple views than live views on cable and streaming...
When you sound like the bad guy in Casablanca, you might want to stop and think
Major Strasser: Victor Lazlo published the foulest lies in the Prague newspapers until the very day we march in it. Even after that he continued to print scandal sheets in the cellar.
Howard: "Say what you want about Moore, but he saw the how and why of President Trump before any mainstream politicians or media types."
No, he didnt.
Moore was like every other lefty in his initial "analysis" of Trump...right up until all the blue collar dems Moore spoke with shoved it thru his pro-Castro/Cuba cranium that they were all voting for Trump and Moore could no longer pretend not to hear what he was hearing.
Thats all it was. Not some prescient and insightful breakdown of grassroots movement.
It was after the fact recognition of a wave after the wave was beginning to crest...which still put Moore light years ahead of the combined dem/GOPe/NeverTrump/Conservative Inc-grifters.
Down goes Zucker!
"Relationship" with "colleague."
CNN is a dead letter.
I was looking at the image and noticed the "Prince Harry and Meghan" crawl even before realizing it was CNN.
And thought: how silly, unserious. Why should I give a sh't about anything from this source?
Really. They have a trivial audience, of people too stupid and/or ignorant to even realize how badly they are being misinformed and lied to. I mean, Eason Jordan TOLD us, directly, that was their model, back in 2003, and had been for more than a decade already by then.
I was looking at the image and noticed the "Prince Harry and Meghan" crawl even before realizing it was CNN.
And thought: how silly, unserious. Why should I give a sh't about anything from this source?
Really. They have a trivial audience, of people too stupid and/or ignorant to even realize how badly they are being misinformed and lied to. I mean, Eason Jordan TOLD us, directly, that was their model, back in 2003, and had been for more than a decade already by then.
Zucker's out for having an inappropriate relationship with a co-worker. It was supposedly uncovered during the Cuomo investigation. I don't believe it. I suspect that corporate America has finally figured out; "Get Woke, Go Broke". At any rate, I'm betting that Stelter is sweating bullets right now.
Wasn't it Edward R Murrow who started the radio and television persona of the "omniscient newsman" many decades ago? The guy who graced the unwashed masses with "information" about the world? Every "anchorman" thereafter has aspired to that "wise" persona, from Walter Cronkite through Dan Rather to Anderson Cooper and Brian Stelter, etc etc etc.
These poseurs are just fit to be tied their audience of acolytes is so much smaller than that of a bald-headed, tattooed, muscle-bound comedian who just likes to sit around and talk smack or better with people he finds interesting.
Imagine. Real conversation and real ideas. What a concept.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
Zucker's out for having an inappropriate relationship with a co-worker. It was supposedly uncovered during the Cuomo investigation. I don't believe it. I suspect that corporate America has finally figured out; "Get Woke, Go Broke". At any rate, I'm betting that Stelter is sweating bullets right now.
Oh it is true.
But there needs to be some detail added.
Gollust used to work for the Cuomos and used her position at CNN to defend them.
She started out somewhere in CNN.
She fucked her way to #2 VP of something or something.
CNN is so screwed right now.
We both agree CNN should be ratfucked. H/T Don Segretti
Temujin said...
2) At what point does CNN cease to exist? If any other network had their ratings, for as long as they have (with a few high blips when Trump bombshells were a daily event) would they even still be operating? Who or what is keeping this network alive?
____________________
I’ve read that CNN is very big overseas. The foreign profits support the entire operation.
Post a Comment