US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
The naïveté is adorable. Nihilism is the only defen(s)ce.

We are never ever going back to decency.

Ever.

Why would we when lies work so much better?

Explain to me to downside of being a scumbag.

I am genuinely sorry that this is how you feel and I hope it doesn't stay that way. Best wishes to you and yours, Foggy.
 
You’re right in terms of one being like an aggressive interview and the other being a chat. But both have their appeal and I would argue we, as the general public, are given greater insight into our public figures more than ever (perhaps that’s why politics in general seems more depressing than ever as no one is living up to much).
It doesn't have to be an aggressive interview, but asking the right questions and follow up questions goes a long way, and that does require research. The best recent example is probably the Prince Andrew interview. Or earlier, the Michael Jackson interview.
 
I think it was more “Joe Rogan” that caught the ire, not “podcast.”

The guy is an uber-bro, who sits around shooting the shit while smoking stogies and alluding to conspiracy theories. Every once in a while, you find a nugget, a good quote, or even some semblance of insight, but rarely.

Thankfully, YouTube clips generally cover the interesting 3 minutes in the 3 hrs of garbage you have to get through to find it…if it exists at all.

I don’t think that’s fair. You should listen to his Brian Cox interviews on there - fascinating insight into astronomy, physics etc - or his interviews with Bernie Sanders (to keep it in the political sphere) or Edward Snowdon. Rogan’s podcast are interesting when his interviewees are interesting. It’s true he invites the occasional nut job like Alex Jones and people on the fringes of society but intelligent people can make their own minds up about those figures and what is being said. I personally find when he has the less famous names on but specialists in their field (I often like the scientists or computer experts he invites on) they are the most insightful interviews. Each to their own I guess.
 
It doesn't have to be an aggressive interview, but asking the right questions and follow up questions goes a long way, and that does require research. The best recent example is probably the Prince Andrew interview. Or earlier, the Michael Jackson interview.

They are what though, once in a decade interviews?! Your normal political weekly show just doesn’t give you anywhere close to as much insight. And - maybe I’m just not watching the right shows - but I find they are often aggressive where politicians are put under the spotlight and counter with pre-prepared answers and you’re left not actually having a clearer answer on anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.