undefined | Better HN

0 pointschubot1y ago0 comments

I don't actually see a problem with that ...

He is uncritical, yes. But he doesn't deny being uncritical.

It's a useful "service" to get people with diametrically opposite viewpoints to talk freely, and he does that well

The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

Contradictions aren't inherently bad, either ... "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", etc.

0 comments

simiones1y ago

Staying their and listening to people make false claims over and over again without challenging them on any of the lies or grandstanding is not a service to anyone. At the very least, no one should be looking at a Lex Friedman interview hoping to hear the truth of any kind.

adastra221y ago

It's a false dichotomy. Terry Gross does a great job of getting her subjects to talk freely, while still asking hard questions.

spacechild11y ago

> The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

What if the guest lies or omits crucial facts? How is the audience supposed to know that? Fact checking is the very basis of responsible journalism.

chubotOP1y ago

What if I go to a dinner party and someone lies or omits crucial facts?

I guess take it for what it is -- it's a conversation recorded on YouTube ... maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

(I'd also say that 95% of journalism you see on TV is not much different than a conversation recorded on YouTube, i.e. they don't do fact checking themselves.)

spacechild11y ago

The dinner party isn't broadcast to millions of people. With a great audience comes great responsibility. "Just let people talk" doesn't cut it. Of course, there is also lots of bad journalism in traditional media.

> maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

Daishiman1y ago

It's not useful if you don't push back on people who have agendas and who are willing to lie their teeth off to promote whatever grift they're pushing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointschubot1y ago0 comments

I don't actually see a problem with that ...

He is uncritical, yes. But he doesn't deny being uncritical.

It's a useful "service" to get people with diametrically opposite viewpoints to talk freely, and he does that well

The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

Contradictions aren't inherently bad, either ... "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", etc.

0 comments

simiones1y ago

adastra221y ago

It's a false dichotomy. Terry Gross does a great job of getting her subjects to talk freely, while still asking hard questions.

spacechild11y ago

> The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.

What if the guest lies or omits crucial facts? How is the audience supposed to know that? Fact checking is the very basis of responsible journalism.

chubotOP1y ago

What if I go to a dinner party and someone lies or omits crucial facts?

I guess take it for what it is -- it's a conversation recorded on YouTube ... maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

(I'd also say that 95% of journalism you see on TV is not much different than a conversation recorded on YouTube, i.e. they don't do fact checking themselves.)

spacechild11y ago

> maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)

Daishiman1y ago

It's not useful if you don't push back on people who have agendas and who are willing to lie their teeth off to promote whatever grift they're pushing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse