Agree 100%. Another case in point that of the ABC interview with RFK Jr. in which the network admitted to leaving out large parts of the interview because they were "disinformation." In other words, a full interview w Mr. Kennedy, currently a democratic challenger to Mr. Biden, is not welcome and will not be given a platform on which to speak. A disgrace for all of us, irrespective of whether or not one likes Mr. Kennedy or not.
The Jordan Peterson interview published by The Sunday Times in January 2021 succeeded in significantly misrepresenting of his words and state of mind. Thanks to his daughter Mikhaila having posted the entire audio recording of the interview on her vlog, we understood he’d been targeted yet again by a mainstream media seemingly determined to derail his worldwide influence.
“ Starting soon, I will only do interviews where the reporter agrees we can record the whole thing and I can put the audio out. More people should ask for this to be a condition of the interview.”
Yes times a thousand.
Any public figure who isn’t already doing this is an idiot.
Or just someone who "trusted" the interviewer perhaps. Maybe we've come to this though. If one trusts a msm interviewer to show journalistic standards or integrity, one IS an idiot.
This is interesting. I have to say that I find "long form defeats profile" to be an oversimplification, though. It's not Rock Paper Scissors. I like the idea of making full interview transcripts available as an addendum to profiles for those who have the time and motivation to dig deeper. But we're drowning unedited podcasts, interviews and conversations these days, and I often find myself wishing many of them had been summarized and contextualized by a skilled writer so I could get the main points and takeaways (a la your recent post on the RFK Jr interview) without having to spend 90 minutes of my life listening to or reading a lot of throat clearing and banal chatter. There's something to be said from getting messages directly from the source, but there's also something to be said for the art form of profiles and all the history, context, and editorializing they can provide.
I know both Clay Travis, and Buck Sexton have recently publicly said the same exact thing on their radio show...they will only do interviews if the entire audio is available to all ✅✅
How do we have time to consume 2 or 3 hours of interviews with all the people and ideas we're interested in. Then again, we can just have ChatGPT summarize them for us, amirite? ;)
Good journalism used to be able to challenge the reader, try to honestly account for various angles of understanding. If journalism still did this, it would be superior to long interviews during which it might not be possible to challenge the ideas put forth. The Holmes piece was just bad journalism. I listened to some of the All In with RFK Jr. I really don’t think he was challenged that much - although there was some push back on nuclear etc
So why then have newspapers at all? Just put everything up on Twitter or Substack. The rich and powerfull are going to hate it as they will lose control of the narrative. Prepare for pushback. See latest post on "Trust the Evidence" (8th May)
So the New York Times publishes a positive article about a convicted fraudster and criminal who must serve a custodial sentence. Have she (and they) no shame? Am I wrong?
The smartest people do not agree to an interview unless their tape is recording along with the interviewer’s tape. It’s much to easy for words to be twisted, misconstrued or taken out of context. A second tape keeps the reporter honest.
As for getting access to the recording by a reporter, Shield laws protect a reporter’s interview edits or deletion from ever being discovered.
Agree 100%. Another case in point that of the ABC interview with RFK Jr. in which the network admitted to leaving out large parts of the interview because they were "disinformation." In other words, a full interview w Mr. Kennedy, currently a democratic challenger to Mr. Biden, is not welcome and will not be given a platform on which to speak. A disgrace for all of us, irrespective of whether or not one likes Mr. Kennedy or not.
Remember folks, MSM is not media. It’s propaganda. Always had been. We just know it now.
The Jordan Peterson interview published by The Sunday Times in January 2021 succeeded in significantly misrepresenting of his words and state of mind. Thanks to his daughter Mikhaila having posted the entire audio recording of the interview on her vlog, we understood he’d been targeted yet again by a mainstream media seemingly determined to derail his worldwide influence.
“ Starting soon, I will only do interviews where the reporter agrees we can record the whole thing and I can put the audio out. More people should ask for this to be a condition of the interview.”
Yes times a thousand.
Any public figure who isn’t already doing this is an idiot.
Or just someone who "trusted" the interviewer perhaps. Maybe we've come to this though. If one trusts a msm interviewer to show journalistic standards or integrity, one IS an idiot.
This is interesting. I have to say that I find "long form defeats profile" to be an oversimplification, though. It's not Rock Paper Scissors. I like the idea of making full interview transcripts available as an addendum to profiles for those who have the time and motivation to dig deeper. But we're drowning unedited podcasts, interviews and conversations these days, and I often find myself wishing many of them had been summarized and contextualized by a skilled writer so I could get the main points and takeaways (a la your recent post on the RFK Jr interview) without having to spend 90 minutes of my life listening to or reading a lot of throat clearing and banal chatter. There's something to be said from getting messages directly from the source, but there's also something to be said for the art form of profiles and all the history, context, and editorializing they can provide.
I know both Clay Travis, and Buck Sexton have recently publicly said the same exact thing on their radio show...they will only do interviews if the entire audio is available to all ✅✅
And run the risk of allowing the unwashed masses to draw their own conclusions?! what an absurd and dangerous proposal...
How do we have time to consume 2 or 3 hours of interviews with all the people and ideas we're interested in. Then again, we can just have ChatGPT summarize them for us, amirite? ;)
Good journalism used to be able to challenge the reader, try to honestly account for various angles of understanding. If journalism still did this, it would be superior to long interviews during which it might not be possible to challenge the ideas put forth. The Holmes piece was just bad journalism. I listened to some of the All In with RFK Jr. I really don’t think he was challenged that much - although there was some push back on nuclear etc
So why then have newspapers at all? Just put everything up on Twitter or Substack. The rich and powerfull are going to hate it as they will lose control of the narrative. Prepare for pushback. See latest post on "Trust the Evidence" (8th May)
Excellent idea!
Love this idea!
So the New York Times publishes a positive article about a convicted fraudster and criminal who must serve a custodial sentence. Have she (and they) no shame? Am I wrong?
The smartest people do not agree to an interview unless their tape is recording along with the interviewer’s tape. It’s much to easy for words to be twisted, misconstrued or taken out of context. A second tape keeps the reporter honest.
As for getting access to the recording by a reporter, Shield laws protect a reporter’s interview edits or deletion from ever being discovered.
I agree but don't know how to make this work in real life with limits of time, which there's never enough of...how to prioritize?
Brilliant. This is the way.