Jon Stewart Defends Joe Rogan: “Who Gets To Decide” What’s Misinformation? “The Sands Can Shift”
“In the Iraq War, I was on the side of what you would think on the mainstream is misinformation.”
Jon Stewart has gone out on a limb for Joe Rogan and challenged the entire left’s hottest new favorite weapon: the “misinformation” mallet with which they beat anyone willing to allow it into simpering submission and self-imposed silence.
Jon Stewart is coming to the defense of fellow podcaster Joe Rogan over the uproar surrounding “misinformation” about vaccines that has prompted calls for Spotify to sever ties with its $100 million star.
Stewart, the former star of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” who is now hosting his own gabfest on Apple’s streaming service, said Thursday that “canceling” Rogan would be akin to banning Stewart from television for his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003.
“The New York Times, right, was a giant purveyor of misinformation, and disinformation,” Stewart said of the newspaper’s editorial support for the Iraq war.
“And that’s as vaunted a media organization as you can find, but there was no accountability for them.”
The Times and other mainstream news organizations were criticized for unquestioningly reporting the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that those efforts justified the US invasion.
. . . . Stewart said Thursday that while he was “very vocal” in opposing the Iraq war in 2003, he was in the minority.
“Couldn’t I have gone down and fallen down this — if Viacom or Comedy Central had wanted to censor me — or had wanted to take me off the — look, I’m not owed a platform. Nobody is,” he said.
Stewart then added: “But my point is, these are shifting sands, and I think I get concerned with, well, who gets to decide?”
Fox News has more on Stewart’s comments regarding his own experience questioning the premise for the Iraq war:
“I think I get concerned with who gets to decide what … In the Iraq War, I was on the side of what you would think on the mainstream is misinformation. I was promoting what they would call misinformation,” Stewart said. “But it turned out to be right years later and the establishment media was wrong. And not only were they wrong, in some respects, you could make the case that they enabled a war that killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and never paid a price for it and never had accountability. And just having an ombudsman print a retraction to me isn’t accountability.”
. . . . “So it’s very easy to attack Rogan … and I’m not saying that that’s not your right and that there aren’t things there to talk about, but what I’m saying is let’s be careful because the sands can shift,” Stewart added.
"These are shifting sands." Jon Stewart makes such an excellent point here on Joe Rogan flap, one of the most important. "Who gets to decide" what's considered "misinformation."
(Full clip: https://t.co/jsgy2T7PFv) via @mediaite @leia_idliby pic.twitter.com/pHiuAGxDrA
— Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) February 10, 2022
Here’s the full version (watch it just to point and laugh at the Harvard “misinformation expert” who is just as clueless and clownish as you’d expect from someone who sees herself as an “expert” in “misinformation and “disinformation”):
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Stewart seems to be missing the point. The pretext for attacking Joe Rogan is just that. No one really cares what specific “crimes” he may have committed. All they care about is that he’s not on the side they define as the good guys.
They want to destroy him because he doesn’t do what he’s told.
It’s also a bit like Parler; they were growing fast and becoming a powerhouse to challenge leftstream social media, so they had to be deplatformed. Rogan gets a far larger audience than any single leftist media outlet, heck than most of them combined. Random YouTubers get bigger audiences than CNN at any given hour. It’s got to be humiliating that these billion dollar corporations are being run circles around by some ransom sitting on his laptop (not that Rogan doesn’t have the bells and whistles, but a lot of these YouTube/Spotify/Rumble powerhouses are literally just sitting at a laptop at home and raking in more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined).
The left has always wanted to be and imagined themselves to be the very best of the best, the ones to rule over and control everyone from cradle to grave, and that is why they never understood why leftist talk radio failed, why their media outlets are failing. Why people are rejecting their vaunted view of these self-satisfied wannabe tyrants.
They don’t understand that you can’t force people to like you or to believe you (or to believe in you); you have to bring that to the table. They have nothing but petty tyranny and busybody crybullying. No one wants to hear that crap, so they tune into the Rogan or Stewart or whatever rando they dig. So now these other options must be shut down; surely, then, goes the insanity of the progressive elite, we’ll be number one and everyone will listen. Yeah, no. Ten kinds of no. Rogan fans aren’t watching CNN even if there is no Rogan. Heck, they’d rather watch paint dry on a humid day. And will, if that’s all the left leaves them as an option.
“Heck, they’d rather watch paint dry on a humid day. And will, if that’s all the left leaves them as an option.”
That, or go out for a Kabob.
/sorry, Fuzzy. I couldn’t pass it up!
Stewart is right about freedom of speech, but what goes right over his head is that HE is one of the people responsible for the fascist left – and it’s media and schools – gaining power in our country.
Same with Bill Mahr.
Too little, too late, Mr. Stewart.
Don’t turn away allies of convenience, even those who are only with us on a single issue. We should always seek to move the ball forward. That said, we don’t have to begin to trust them until they demonstrate they are worthy of trust.
Yep. This doesn’t give me “newfound respect” for Stewart who I’ve always disliked but we should welcome anything that may serve to penetrate thick liberal skulls.
“You just want to be on the side thats winnin” Dylan
Nonsense what they care about is the fact that the views he has are wrong, and the platform he has means that people might listen and choose something that medically speaking isn’t a good idea. Its called responsibility. Merely asserting the motive without a basis is pretty dishonest.
Your theory then would apply to other sources or purveyors of ‘misinformation’, particularly medical advice. Some of that has been spread by traditional media. Can you point to similar levels of effort to shut down or label these sources as well by the same people? Is there an equivalent sauce for the goose and the gander? Who, what, when, where?
If you can’t then it becomes clear that this isn’t about misinformation but about Rogan’s willingness to present ideas outside the orthodoxy of ‘approved’ information.
Firstly you are going to have to be specific what misinformation has been missed?
Second you’ve committed the whatabboutism fallacy, you are deflecting. If media haven’t been perfect on calling out every instance or indeed purveyed misinformation that’s irrelevant to the point. The point being peddling medical advise that’s wrong is a bad thing, particularly when it’s known to be false and you have no qualifications what so ever on the subject.
Third you are asserting intent which you don’t really have the information to assert.
I would point out that Rogans position isn’t just unorthodox it’s complete and utter crap. There is no evidential or theoretical basis for his position
The views of the likes of Dr. Malone don’t become “complete and utter crap” just because Rogan gives such people a platform, or because they convince Rogan to believe what they say – or at least to find what they have to say sufficiently reasonable that it shouldn’t be discounted out-of-hand and without a proper hearing. Which is what you seem to be doing. If Rogan allows it, promotes it, or believes it, no matter the source, it becomes complete and utter crap merely because of Rogan’s involvement.
Having a favorite scientific speaker isn’t how science works. No one cares what Dr Malone says what people care about is what he can prove. He hasn’t done that at all with respect to the vaccine etc.
No one is saying that because Rogan says it then it must be wrong. That’s not the position at all. The position is this: We KNOW because of the data that he is wrong therefore the position he has adopted makes no sense and he shouldn’t say it. Its not like he is presenting a paper that refutes the data all he has done is parrot his guests on the subject – he hasn’t researched it.
Let me ask you this – if someone told you Santa was real, you’d say no right. Your experience and knowledge tells you he isn’t real. IF that person then insisted he was real you still wouldn’t waste time on them unless they could prove it. The problem with Rogan for the purposes of this analogy is that he chose to say Santa is real and people listen to him that’s the problem.
These are the three creeps, straight out of Hollywood, of course:
The fascist enablers are Ben, Brett, and Jordan Meisales. All of them have worked in media and have expertise in understanding and manipulating Media. The most important thing for us is that Brett was a social media manager for Ellen Degeneres, and is an expert editor.
This is a pattern with the left:
Aw, shucks, Alfalfa!
“They want to destroy him because he doesn’t do what he’s told.”
Yep. And that is all that the marxists are. We must all remember, give the filthy left in this country no quater.
Give them nothing, They created this hellscape that we currently live in, and they must be made to pay for their crimes, We will know when we are on the correct path when there is not one marxist left in power anywhere.
Its a false analogy. Media reporting what the government claimed and at the time not knowing its false vs someone peddling something which we know is complete crap.
Govt makes a lot claims that have proven to be less than truthful. Not simply wrong as an honest mistake in interpretation of data but deliberately skewing data sets or suppression of counterfactual data to arrive at the desired ‘approved’ conclusions. See climate models.
You are going to have to a lot better than that. If your example is climate models then that’s demonstrably false. That’s given that climate models have been independently verified numerous times and by contemporaneous data, and by numerous organisations world wide. I’m not even sure what you mean by suppressing data or counterfactuals. That hasn’t happened, because there isn’t really any scientific disagreement on the subject.
I’m not really sure how your point even relates to the point I’ve made either. Saying something that’s latter shown to be untrue is quite different from saying something that is known to be untrue.
Climate models have been “independently verified”? Which models and by whom? AFAIK, every group of climate researchers make their own models, having no trust or faith the the models created by other groups. Certainly any group of researchers who “verified” the models of others would, at the same time, be condemning their own models as at least “less accurate”, if not flat-out wrong.
What you say is utter nonsense. Climate models are made based on current data. They are not “verified” by “contemporaneous data.” That doesn’t even make sense. We don’t need models to tell us what it’s like now. And the IPCC report always disclaims models saying they should not be used to predict the future! Not one model of 10, 20, or 40 years ago accurately predicted what our current conditions would be like. Not one. Wall St is not under water. The arctic isn’t ice-free (not even during summer). Greenland’s ice sheet hasn’t “collapsed” (a meaning-free term). Entire island nations in the Pacific have not been submerged. The wheat belt is not moving north. Polar bears aren’t threatened by loss of habitat (they’re doing just fine according to the world’s leading polar bear researcher, but she’s not a climate scientist, so what does she know, right?). I could go on, but you’re not listening.
First of all their are multiple models produced by various independent researchers over the course of decades. Second these models have been assessed by other independent researchers and critiqued as part of the scientific process. Third the inputs to the models to make them more accurate include areas of specific research like for example how clouds are formed which itself has been peer reviewed and will be subject to being updated based on the latest and best science. In the case of climate change the variables for climate modelling are pretty well understood. Fourth having competing models doesn’t invalid your own model that’s just a dumb thing to say. There are numerous reasons why a model might be different – it might have made a different methodology or had slightly different assumptions about future emissions. As it currently stands climate science has thousands of scientists with many specialisms contributing to it over many decades.
Yep some of the models are decades old now and the current temperatures have been predicted https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize
To be clear the models are very good at predicting temperature, with respect to conditions thats a slightly separate question. I would however point out with respect to models that actually they have turned out to be conservative in there predictions as noted in the article.
Oh my days you do realise that the models project quite a long way in the future, and that they have often make predictions based on multiple scenarios right? Let take your examples –
wall st – yes it could go underwater based on some of the scenarios because the sea level is rising, the rise is being measured. Its something we actually know right now! Its a pretty basic prediction to say well if the sea level is rising x then ground level y will no longer be above sea level.
Greenlands ice sheets – https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1109352. The article demonstrates a consistent trend in ice loss. With respect to collapse all that means is that if the temperature rises beyond a certain point then the ice clearly wont come back. That’s pretty basic.
Island nations submerged. Its a prediction based on sea levels rising – straw manning the position does you no credit.
The wheat belt – well this is a new one to me. Looking it up briefly im led to understand that the production has already shifted to some extent northwards. Thats reflected in the productivity loss in the southerly states and an increase in the northly ones.
Polar bears: Sorry your going to have to back up what you say. Loss of habitat wont lead to issues for polar bears?
“but you’re not listening” Really, on what basis do you make that comment, you’ve responded once to my comment. That’s a pretty ridiculous thing to say!
It seems to me your entire position is a giant strawman of every climate change tidbit you can think of. Maybe do the research and understand the position first before commenting
“media parrots what government says”
That’s actually quite a complicated question – the media is a diverse thing. You’d need to specify which parts. For example if you said Fox news coverage of GOP/Trump then id absolutely agree. Their are however plenty of media outlets that are more critical and have journalistic integrity.
Again your second para is pretty vague. If you are referring to Trumps government then id agree – he did after all downplay the virus, acted slow, was rubbish at implementing testing, failed to implement any effective measures, fed into conspiracy theories and was generally dumb. If you are referring to the Biden administration that’s more nuanced. The vaccine role out was pretty rapid but they have been hampered by court decisions on mandates. I’m not really sure what measures they could have taken in addition to what they have done? Perhaps you could illustrate that for me – what policies would have been better for covid?
I don’t find your critique particularly good because practically all medical expertise is in support of the government position on vaccine efficacy, mask efficacy etc. And the data backs it up. Vaccines have saved countless live. Sensible measures like masks and social distancing have helped. To be honest the mainstream media have spent a fair bit of time pointing out issues with the non mainstream perspective and to some extent the hypocrisy of Fox news. I mean for example if you want to see Gutfeld live you’ll need to demonstrate you’ve had the vaccine.
Two problems with your analysis are immediately evident.
First, media parrots what government says, instead of questioning, and finding facts that either support or run counter to the government narrative. They behave as if there is no alternative to the government narrative at all. The government is always correct.
Second, government has gotten pretty much nothing correct about COVID (for instance), yet after others have have exposed government errors, media continues to parrot government pronouncements concerning COVID without question.
This behavior is demonstrative of media’s abdication of their responsibilities as “journalists” who are supposed to search for the “truth.” They have ceased to do so, and now serve as shills for the government/corporate complex.