The New Rules of Podcasting Are Making Our Debates—and Us—Dumber

1. 84

   tsmogposted 38 hours ago

   Sit back with that afternoon cup of camomile tea, ice tea, soda, or even a beer. Forget about the this and that of the 'Trump Effect' and take a break while pondering the evolution of obtaining news and, well, news itself today.
   
   This is a copy/paste from the newsletter from the Free Press. I inserted the hyperlinks used in the article. Take a peek. I right click the link and open in a different window.
   
   ********************
   
   The New Rules of Podcasting Are Making Our Debates—and Us—Dumber by Konstantin Kisin of the Free Press (Apr 17, 2025)
   I celebrated the rise of new media. What could go wrong with 'democratizing information'? As it turns out, quite a lot. Witness the Douglas Murray and Dave Smith debate.
   
   ********************
   
   Prepare for the unprecedented: I am about to admit I was wrong.
   
   For years, I have celebrated the rise of new media and its impact on our ability to seek truth, challenge false narratives peddled by legacy institutions, and transform the way we conduct our public debate. The rationale behind my thought process seemed solid. After all, “The medium is the message.”
   
   The reason I thought our conversations about politics, culture, and entertainment had become so fake was the rapidly shrinking soundbite and a media elite more interested in winning than learning. Journalism, academia, and politics merged into a monoculture, whose consensus rested primarily on the vigorous inhalation of gases emanating from their own backsides, into which they had firmly inserted their heads.
   
   “I don’t know anyone who voted for Trump” was their mantra. Far from being a confession of ignorance and a lack of perspective, this phrase was uttered with pride at dinner parties to signal membership of the elite class. The response from this contingent to the sequential dismantling of their core assumptions about the way the world works was an attempt to use credentialism to make reality go away: “Experts think vaccinating newborns against Covid is essential. Now pipe down, mask up, and follow The Science™!”
   
   In decades past, absent the ability to make their voices heard, the proles would have had to grumble away about Big Pharma in obscurity as people (mostly hippie lefties) had been doing for ages. But, thanks to the technological revolution—which reduced the cost of running a major broadcasting channel from millions of dollars to the price of a smartphone—the era of gatekeeping was well and truly over.
   
   The discredited mainstream media continued to peddle lie after lie in an attempt to keep its political opponents from governing and being reelected, but it then faced a powerful counterweight. Elon Musk ended the regime of censorship and enforcement bias in the digital public square of Twitter, declaring “You are the media now” as major podcasts and YouTube shows secured audiences most mainstream media outlets can now only dream of. By the time of last year’s presidential election in the U.S. the rise of new media had become undeniable, with many rightly calling it the “podcast election.”
   
   Curious, open-minded, inquisitive podcasters, unrestrained by the need to comply with corporate media message discipline and social media censorship, were finally able to speak freely, seek the truth, and debate controversial ideas in good faith in front of grateful audiences of millions. So far, so wonderful. After all, what could go wrong with “democratizing information”?
   
   Well, as it turns out, quite a lot.
   
   Just as the assumptions of the elite class were proved wrong by the actions of their fellow citizens during the era of Trump, Brexit, and Covid-19, the assumptions some of us held about the future of the media are now crumbling before our very eyes.
   
   With politics becoming the primary form of entertainment in Western society, more of us now get our news and opinions from entertainers rather than serious commentators and, just as importantly, we often struggle to tell the difference between the two. Having transitioned from a career in comedy to my current role as a writer, interviewer, and political commentator, I can hardly complain about the meshing of culture, politics, and entertainment. And I am not complaining; I am merely pointing out that the incentive structures and thought patterns we typically associate with the entertainment business are not the same as those we expect to see in journalism or academia.
   
   This difference was perfectly illustrated in the recent debate between journalist and author Douglas Murray and comedian and podcaster Dave Smith on The Joe Rogan Experience, the world’s biggest podcast...
   
   [The debate, which was on Joe Rogan, was very enlightening opening doors of how our society, all of it from age 18 through ???, are changing while I pondered if I was. hmmm . . .]
   
   The rest of the article is hidden behind a paywall where subscribers can continue. Oops. But, the above should give the essence of what the point is in today's world of information.
   
   Take a quick peek at who uses podcasts by age
   Usage of podcasts as a news source in the United States from 2021 to 2024, by age group published by Statista
   https://www.statista.com/statistics/112 … eneration/
   
   Do you listen to Podcasts of any kind?
   Are you a fan of one in particular?
   Did you listen to the debate recommended?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kyler J Falkposted 13 hours agoin reply to this

      -Do you listen to Podcasts of any kind?
      
      Yes, I listen to many different podcasts. I specifically prefer podcasts that host political, scientific, and scholarly guests.
      
      -Are you a fan of one in particular?
      
      Joe Rogan and Jordan B. Peterson are my go-tos currently.
      
      -Did you listen to the debate recommended?
      
      I'm about to listen to it after I get done listening to a lore breakdown on the Legio Custodes by Luetin.
      
      -Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
      
      Will return for this once I've listened to the debate in question.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kyler J Falkposted 12 hours agoin reply to this

         I'm currently eighty minutes into this debate they're having, and this is an excellent example of why I skip out on these sorts of guests. They've been arguing a single point for more than fifty minutes minutes now, and neither side has touched upon anything substantial nor tangibly valuable in depth. They keep hurling ham-fisted claims at one another, mostly Douglas Murray, and they've yet to push the progress bar past the starting line.
         
         This is a terrible example of what a good podcast looks/sounds like, and the only thing so far worth discussing about it is how Douglas Murray is criticizing the platforming of fringe, perhaps even extremist/revisionist opinions, while he is also a flavor of his own fringe and what could subjectively be called extremist and revisionist ideas.
         
         To put this concisely and keep to the point of the thread: It is upon the consumer of the information to filter out the swill, because any limitation upon the sources of information goes against freedom of speech. Any limitation would have to be state-sponsored, and just as they look down upon the Nazis we should look down upon and perhaps be revolt-minded toward state-sponsored media.
         
         Until it becomes mainstream conversation, and every man, woman, and child in the USA is aware of it, I'll continue to touch on our homegrown propaganda/revisionism/social engineering. This is an excellent primer for this very topic and this debate was a symptom of the very tactics our government has inspired and continues to inspire:
         
         https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste … ntext=nulr
         
         I beg the question: If the government is permitted to spread false information in the name of national security, even to the point that powerful conglomerates foreign and domestic are permitted to mass-manipulate the American public with no oversight nor accountability using the same methods, then why shouldn't any entity public or private also be permitted to take part in the same tactics?
         
         I'd go as far as even arguing that the same concerns they are addressing in this podcast are better handled by entities outside of the legacy media and state sponsors. At least the many podcasters, streamers, and commentators will actively go out of their way to undermine their own authority. Yet our politicians and news sources will rarely if ever aggressively walk back or undermine their own publicly expressed opinions even if they're completely wrong; more often I see the individuals/entities being replaced by podcasts doubling down on their disgusting, extremist agendas.
         
         In the end we must ask ourselves several questions:
         
         -If the government and wealthy conglomerates are aloud to rewrite history or revise information to serve their agendas, should podcasters/other news sources be allowed to do the same?
         
         -Would we want a department of the government strictly dedicated to information filtration and control?
         
         -How do we reel in fringe/extremist ideals without state control, and would the juice be worth the squeeze anyways?
         
         -Is adopting the same styles/tactics the government and mass media use to manipulate the public acceptable, and should it be legal?
         
         As of yet, there are no limitations on utilizing/adapting propagandizing tactics distributed by the US government. There are no limitations on freedom of speech and this is regularly used to the detriment of western social structure. These broad stroke, generalizing, subjective opinion expressions are a given right here in the United States, and dabbling in the limitation of that is sailing in dangerous waters at best.
         
         Giving a tl;dr opinion for you:
         
         The dumb will remain dumb, intelligent will remain so, and the wise will watch it all from a distance. If you cannot filter useful information for consumption from the extremist/revisionist information, then it is upon you to remove yourself from the discourse entirely, and on others to ignore and even exile anyone who cannot. I fully support modernizing and revolutionizing the first amendment, but what that looks like I do not know because it is so fundamental that any change to it would send waves through all of history.

         replyreport
2. 72

   Kathleen Cochranposted 12 hours ago

   As with any information source, know who you are reading, watching, or listening to. Do they speak only for themselves or do they report to an editor, editorial board, fact-checkers? Do they have a track record of being accurate and unbiased?
   
   Nothing wrong with those who just speak for themselves but understand that is opinion - not credentialed analysis or confirmable documentation.
   
   I freely admit, I have very little experience with podcasts, but you have heightened my interest.

   replyreport