It would be what was on the laptop and what he has been doing for and with his son. For example there was “10 for the big guy” thing. And then there is Joe lying about interacting with his sons associates. And then there is why they were all paying his son so much but not getting the influence they were obviously buying. And then Joe getting the prosecutor that was investigating the company his son was getting money from. And a bunch more. There are all kinds of podcasts that will lay it all out and list it if you are actually wanting to know.
The main problem is they should have an extensive investigation like trump had with russia. At best Joe would have a series of conflicts of interest, but they would need to look into all the things.
They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?
For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.
I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.
Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.
There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.
I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.
I found them misleading just by using basic logic and listening to podcasts that instantly were able to refute the corporate media sources.
The issue with corporate media is that they are directly funded and owned by people with agendas that are not their own. Podcasts can be great, but then also biased, for example anything Ben Shapiro says about Israel is probably wrong.
Podcasts are good because they are typically long form and will literally read the story and then point out what is wrong and who is lying. And after a while you can get tell if the podcaster ever lies to you, and you know their bias.
I’m not sure if you’re using “basic logic” to debunk news sources, or if you’re just rejecting them based on what you already believe. Usually news sources are not “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal.” Most of the time, background knowledge is necessary to fully understand a situation - this is why reporters include interviews. I’m not sure why I would want to take anything Ben Shapiro says at all seriously - his claim to fame is confusing college kids by speaking fast. If you actually listen to what he says, there’s essentially nothing of substance.
I’m curious how you determine which podcasts to listen to. If you are conservative/right leaning, do you listen to podcasts that challenge your views? If you’re willing to explore NPR has excellent content which tends to run fairly neutral, although I imagine you consider it left leaning.
You’re saying there is evidence that Biden was involved, correct? Could you provide an example/source?
It would be what was on the laptop and what he has been doing for and with his son. For example there was “10 for the big guy” thing. And then there is Joe lying about interacting with his sons associates. And then there is why they were all paying his son so much but not getting the influence they were obviously buying. And then Joe getting the prosecutor that was investigating the company his son was getting money from. And a bunch more. There are all kinds of podcasts that will lay it all out and list it if you are actually wanting to know.
The main problem is they should have an extensive investigation like trump had with russia. At best Joe would have a series of conflicts of interest, but they would need to look into all the things.
So mainstream news sources aren’t trustworthy, but random podcasts are?
They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?
For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.
I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.
I can literally point to three stories this week by the corporate media that were false or misleading off the top of my head.
Why do you keep trusting them when they just report things without thinking or maybe worse, dont report stories because they harm a narative?
Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.
There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.
I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.
I found them misleading just by using basic logic and listening to podcasts that instantly were able to refute the corporate media sources.
The issue with corporate media is that they are directly funded and owned by people with agendas that are not their own. Podcasts can be great, but then also biased, for example anything Ben Shapiro says about Israel is probably wrong.
Podcasts are good because they are typically long form and will literally read the story and then point out what is wrong and who is lying. And after a while you can get tell if the podcaster ever lies to you, and you know their bias.
I’m not sure if you’re using “basic logic” to debunk news sources, or if you’re just rejecting them based on what you already believe. Usually news sources are not “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal.” Most of the time, background knowledge is necessary to fully understand a situation - this is why reporters include interviews. I’m not sure why I would want to take anything Ben Shapiro says at all seriously - his claim to fame is confusing college kids by speaking fast. If you actually listen to what he says, there’s essentially nothing of substance.
I’m curious how you determine which podcasts to listen to. If you are conservative/right leaning, do you listen to podcasts that challenge your views? If you’re willing to explore NPR has excellent content which tends to run fairly neutral, although I imagine you consider it left leaning.