Comments by "Master Sonogashira" (@mastersonogashira1796) on "Here’s Why Podcasts Are Ripe for Misinformation" video.

@JuiceSaucee free discussion means people can say whatever they want. That is exactly opposite to credibility
5
well you certainly won’t find that credibility in a podcast
3
People in comment section seem to think podcast doesn’t count as “news”. But is that rly something you can just say? More people believe him than people CNN, so he should be responsible of reviewing what he put on his podcast. Like it or not, Rogen is news
2
@JuiceSaucee there is a concept in law, where a witness can be entirely truthful in the testimony, but it could also be wrong because the witness wrongly remembered the fact. Ofc there should be free discussion, but there should also be an authoritative voice when it comes to basic matters like vaccine
1
@JuiceSaucee idk man, maybe it’s cuz you Americans have such high standards. The rest of the world seems fine with their government making statements, only Americans doubt every statement their own government makes As for Weinstein, do you even know what he studied? Biology is huge field, is it proteomic? Is it genetic? Or evolution? In fact, he is an expert on telomere, which happens to be not immunology or vaccine development. I mean sure he could interpret the studies, I never said he can’t. But if he does so on a podcast, then his statement shouldn’t be taken as an expert’s opinion, but a layman’s thought
1
@JuiceSaucee By your logic, why do we even bother publishing research on academic journal? Or calculate the impact factors for each article? Why don’t we just have the newest cancer research beside the the new Marvel movie review on New York Times? Why don’t we have a vote on which protein our new antiviral treatment should target? The method is everything. An expert’s statement in court or journal weight far more than his statement on some random podcast. So to answer your question, yes, a speech in front of UN council is far more reliable than a random tweet by the same person, objectively speaking. Oh and also, the “basic” i refers to is not something easy to understand, but something so important that we need to be absolutely sure with it. In case you haven’t notice, no journal, or court, or research institute, has backed what Rogen and his guests said. Ofc they have the freedom to say it, but you should see it as nothing but jokes. Edit: what you are describing is just pure information anarchy. There will be no absolute reliability in your world, people just cherry-pick the information they like and call it “reliable”
1
@JuiceSaucee i can’t believe you don’t understand the idea of reliability. I mean, the idea of “don’t cite Wikipedia” should have been drilled into your head since high school. ofc, maybe I’m talking to someone who’s too younger than a high schooler.
1
@Frost-kh9mg perhaps you haven’t been to a debate before, but when someone expose themselves in such vulnerability, do expect to be ridiculed by the opponent. Also, he never address my question. In a world where all medium of information is believed to be equally reliable, who should the public listen to? You can pick your favourite podcast, but are we really to pick our “favourite science” as well?
1
@Stevie-J that quote is about the idea of old habit dies hard. But science is ever-evolving. You should always entertain the idea of different approach, but not with the public. Why would some wholesale manager have any meaningful contribution to a conversation of vaccine development? For the CDC, and scientific community, your so-called “misinformation” was the believed truth at the time, I see nothing wrong with claiming those being the authoritative voice of the time. Edit: ofc you can say they didn’t do their job. Sure, the people made mistake. But that doesn’t devalue the institution. You still won’t find more detailed and accurate study than CDC most of the time On a more personal note, Mark Twain was someone who opposed standardized education. Which turns out, he was gravely mistaken. The era where a man with sharp mind can take on the world is over. Now you need an actual diploma to contribute. If you ask me? This is for the better
1
@JuiceSaucee fact is not what we are talking about here. I have seen you say “fact” many times, but how do you know they are true? What is your prove? Aren’t you turning to authorities in the field, but simply by a less formal channel? What we were talking about is that when two opposing claims exist in different media, and one will be more credible than the other. You can say independent media are more reliable than mainstream, but can you say those experts on Rogen are more reliable than A peer-reviewed study on NCS? At the end of the day, just think, who would cite these “Rogen” podcast? A doctoral student? Or some random person on the internet?
1
@Stevie-J my argument is “podcast in not a platform that provide reliable academic information”. It’s you people who dodge around the topic. So let me restate my question again: in a world where all medium of information are treated equally, how do people without in-depth knowledge of science differentiate validated result and popular opinion? And yes, as far as personal politics go, I believe in elitistism and a social hierarchy. But never have I said that your opinion doesn’t matter, or claimed that mainstream media is unbiased. I am here making a conversation in good-faith with the other guy, whereas you come in with comments without any sustenance. Yet you accuse me of being off-point? Ridiculous
1
@jamesryan4325 the current lack of ability to provide good governance should not be an excuse to disconnect from official channel. If you wish to change the status quo, join the government and fight for what be believe in, that’s the beauty of democracy. As someone from an authoritarian country, I still have a lot of faith in the western system. Perhaps I’m wrong, but before we let blood of river flow in our city all in the name of revolution, I am willing to give the system another chance
1
@Stevie-J it’s fine if people saw Rogen’s podcast as book or commentary, but in reality many of his viewer solely rely on him when it comes to objective information. I’d say Rogen is pretty objective 99% of the time, but sometime his “covering all side” result in him bringing in some truest ridiculous characters with outrageous claim. I think in a more ideal world, news like AP should be doing what Rogen is doing, whereas Rogen is heard for his personality. It’s never a good idea to leave the ability to set the fact to one person, i believe you would agree with me on that
1