Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

JRE versus CNN

Entry 2251, on 2022-12-02 at 17:52:25 (Rating 3, News)

We have some significant problems with our society today . We seem to be becoming more divided, and more driven by ideology and extreme beliefs rather than facts and common sense. There are several reasons for this, but my favourite entity to blame is the mainstream media. By the way, other sources of the problem include schools and universities, but I'm going to concentrate on the media here.

Many people ignore the mainstream media now and source their information from other places. These places include social media and podcasts, and it is common for the established institutions to accuse these sources of being biased and unreliable.

They have a point, because that is true in many cases, but let's do a comparison of the old and new sources see how true that is. I recently saw a tweet on this, which compared the mainstream news source CNN, and the world's most popular podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience (JRE). Note that Rogan's podcast is often a target of ridicule and criticism, but is that fair? Let's have a look at that comparison...

JRE: truth-driven
CNN: narrative-driven

I have listened to a lot of Joe's podcasts, and I don't really get the impression he has much of a fixed attitude on anything. I mean, no one is perfect, but he genuinely listens to his guests and is never obviously biased for or against any of them, no matter what their beliefs are. If anything he isn't skeptical enough towards some of the more outrageous guests he has.

CNN on the other hand are very obviously woke, pro-left (or Democrat in the US), and anti-Trump (and ati other people they see as their enemies, like Elon Musk). They don't even seem to be trying to appear neutral, so the claim they are narrative driven seems fair.

JRE: wants to be proven wrong
CNN: claims to be source of truth

Joe is very open to the ideas his guests present. As I said above, if anything he is too open to new and controversial ideas, which might be a bit lacking in supporting evidence.

But CNN seem to have already decided what they want to hear before their interviews or news items even start. They have been proven wrong multiple times, yet I have not seen any admissions of this. They just ignore the error and continue down the same path.

JRE: platforms different views
CNN: platforms only conforming views

The JRE often features shows with different guests with opposing views. There have been people who are pro and anti vaccine mandates, for example, and people who fully support the standard climate change narrative and others who are skeptical of it.

But you won't find that on most mainstream sources like CNN. Credible people who have opinions contrary to their preferred beliefs just aren't even given the chance to present their ideas. At the very least, opposing ideas are rarely fairly reported, because I don't see them, and have to use "alternative" sources to get some balance.

JRE: advocates for freedom of speech
CNN: advocates for censorship

Unless the discussion becomes extremely unfair, or is heading towards illegal speech, the JRE allows anyone to say anything. When a more outrageous guest, such as Alex Jones, says something which is apparently crazy, Joe has it fact-checked on the spot, and it is both surprising and concerning how often there is at least an element of truth in it.

CNN never, as far as I can see, has guests with controversial opinions, and when they do present the opinions of their political opponents, they always add a comment like "which has been shown to be a lie" or "allegedly", even when that isn't strictly true.

JRE: admits mistakes independent
CNN: hides mistakes

As I said above, Joe realises his guests know a lot more than him, and they are there to present information on the topics they are expert at. He is very self-deprecating, and admits when he knows nothing or gets something wrong.

CNN likes to present themselves as the great purveyors of truth, and admitting errors does not fit into this narrative. Because of this they rarely admit their errors, except when there is a legal obligation to, or the error is extremely obvious.

JRE: independent
CNN: compromised by government and corporate interests

The JRE has no shareholders, managers, or CEOs, it is basically just Joe (and "Young Jamie", of course). Even when he moved the podcast to Spotify, for a massive sum of money, he maintained most of his independence, although Spotify must have some control, and I don't fully approve of the move, although I understand it!

But CNN have a massive hierarchy, a board, and shareholders. I'm sure they claim these have no affect in their work, but surely no one believes that.

JRE: unscripted
CNN: strategically scripted

Joe is actually a really talented interviewer. He can get good information from his guests on even the most complex and esoteric subjects. There is no script, and occasionally things go off track a bit, but that technique often leads to unexpected but interesting material. Also, there is no censorship. We hear everything on podcasts, both good and bad, mundane and extraordinary, controversial and conventional.

Mainstream material is often edited, allegedly for brevity, but also potentially to present parts of an interview which fit the narrative. Also, guests are often required to stick to a particular perspective which fits with the "values" (AKA biases or ideology) of the media company.

JRE: About 11 million listeners per episode
CNN: Less than 1 million viewers at prime time

If anything tells us more about the relative relevance of old an new media it is this. The MSM has made themselves less relevant by producing poor quality, biased, repetitive, irrelevant nonsense. Podcasts present interesting information in an easy to use form, and tend to be far more balanced.

With CNN it's "you snooze, you lose" and "get woke, go broke". But they don't seem to learn from their mistakes (although recent changes indicate they might be just starting to).

And a few final comments: JRE episodes often go for 2, 3, or even 4 or more hours. There is plenty of time to explore the more nuanced aspects of complex subjects. Mainstream media items are usually a few minutes in total, and sometimes even less than that. Also Joe manages to strike a very good balance between informality but still getting real questions answered in a rational way.

And one other final, final comment: I have presented this is a fairly black and white way, but the reality is probably a bit more nuanced. I really believe the underlying truth in what I said here, but there is probably a bit more good in the MSM, and a bit less in the JRE than what I have stated. But this is a blog, and I try to present opinions which make people think, rather than being totally balanced. I don't think I do this to the extent of the MSM, but I feel maybe a tiny bit hypocritical!

In summary, it's OK to listen to mainstream news and commentary sources, but remember you are being deliberately deceived. Not everything they present is wrong, of course, but you won't see or hear the complete story. For that you need to go to alternative media sources, like podcasts.

Comment 1 (7344) by Anonymous on 2022-12-06 at 16:46:49:

Anecdotal at best... surely you can do better.

Comment 2 (7345) by OJB on 2022-12-07 at 23:40:22:

Fair call, although I didn't claim it was anything more than an opinion. I'm not sure how I could make it more objective and based less on opinions and anecdotes.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.