The Media Industry

[Garmel]

From Fox News but I agree one of the biggest stories and the media is silent about Durham’s finding.

Since Durham’s bombshell report dropped, media pundits on the left have gone largely quiet. Publications like the Washington Post and The New York Times have failed to commission any coverage of the latest allegations as of Monday, nor has CNN.

Yep. One of the reasons why I hate debating libs is because they rarely have the complete picture on any subject because of their media sources. Their media lies to them and if they're not directly lying they're usually lying by omission.

 

[Monahorns]

I saw tweets about that. Sounds like the Clintons did their own Watergate on Trump. Unfortunately, I am not hopeful anyone will be held accountable.

 

[OUBubba]

They're going to get Clinton... LOL.

The right is nothing more than Kramerica...and with Darren's help, we'll get that chicken!

 

[Mr. Deez]

Judge grants a directed verdict for the Times in the Sara Palin defamation case. Link.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Judge grants a directed verdict for the Times in the Sara Palin defamation case. Link.

I read that. Help me understand the judge "tossing" the case because the plaintiff didn't demonstrate intentional malice but letting the jury finish their deliberation?

I know they've said they expect the case to go to appeal but why is the judge staking their claim so early?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Third, nobody believes that stated reasons for his cancellation are the real reasons. It all feels very trumped up and contrived, which is why they're trying one new thing after the other. I don't mean that the facts are wrong. He has given a platform to antivaxers and did use the n-word, but they aren't the real reasons. The real reasons are that (1) he's bigger and more influential than the "cancellers" and their **** doesn't work without an informational monopoly and (2) he gives a platform to people the mainstream media detests and it's much more than just the antivaxers. It's Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, Sam Harris and other figures associated with the Right. (Of course, Weiss and Harris are actually liberals, but they don't hate freedom of speech and inquiry and don't like antisemitism, so they're associated with the Right.)

First, I hate the claim of "cancellation" or "deplatforming". He's been publicly offered $100M by Rumble so how much of a risk is he to being cancelled or not have a platform to spout his opinions?

You are correct that Rogan has become a lightning rod for liberals in part because his audience (10M+ listeners a month) but also his content. He's a slightly more rational version of Alex Jones. He's not as outwardly controversial but is well versed in the Tucker Carlson "I'm just asking questions" to give validity to the crazier sides of the internet. Heck, he's Alex Jones all the way down to hocking no name medicinal products on his show. He brings on guests like Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson and others and gives credibility to their ideas because he doesn't challenge them. In fact, he rarely challenges any of his guests which is why those guests go on his show. They get access to 10M+ listeners to spout their ideas without an intellectual rigor being applied. The fact that he has a history misogynies and racial words on his show simply gave the "woke" crowd ammunition to punish Spotify. I don't think they'll lose many customers but there is a greater risk that they'll lose employees. That's why the CEO has now addressed the controversy at least twice directly to his employees. If Rogan is seen as antithetical to the core values of the employees, then Spotify has real problems.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I read that. Help me understand the judge "tossing" the case because the plaintiff didn't demonstrate intentional malice but letting the jury finish their deliberation?

I know they've said they expect the case to go to appeal but why is the judge staking their claim so early?

I'm open to correction from @NJlonghorn who knows federal practice better than I do. However, I suspect that if he previously declined to toss the case but is now tossing it, he thinks it's a close call. He may be allowing the jury to issue a verdict out of his own curiosity and perhaps just to inform the appellate court.

Here's another possibility. Suppose Palin appeals the judge's granting of a directed verdict. Well, if the jury ultimately returned a defense verdict, then what's the harm if the judge improperly granting a directed verdict?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm open to correction from @NJlonghorn who knows federal practice better than I do. However, I suspect that if he previously declined to toss the case but is now tossing it, he thinks it's a close call. He may be allowing the jury to issue a verdict out of his own curiosity and perhaps just to inform the appellate court.

Here's another possibility. Suppose Palin appeals the judge's granting of a directed verdict. Well, if the jury ultimately returned a defense verdict, then what's the harm if the judge improperly granting a directed verdict?

So, if the jury sides for the defense and the judge tosses the case, reinforcing the verdict it's like a double whammy for the Plaintiff when it goes to appeal? Of course, if the jury sides with Palin it will only add to the intrigue of the judge throwing out the case.

 

[OUBubba]

I'm open to correction from @NJlonghorn who knows federal practice better than I do. However, I suspect that if he previously declined to toss the case but is now tossing it, he thinks it's a close call. He may be allowing the jury to issue a verdict out of his own curiosity and perhaps just to inform the appellate court.

Here's another possibility. Suppose Palin appeals the judge's granting of a directed verdict. Well, if the jury ultimately returned a defense verdict, then what's the harm if the judge improperly granting a directed verdict?

But wouldn't his action have a prejudicial impact on the jury? At least Palin's attorney's could argue that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But wouldn't his action have a prejudicial impact on the jury? At least Palin's attorney's could argue that.

Presumably the jury doesn't know he tossed it.

 

[OUBubba]

First, I hate the claim of "cancellation" or "deplatforming". He's been publicly offered $100M by Rumble so how much of a risk is he to being cancelled or not have a platform to spout his opinions?

You are correct that Rogan has become a lightning rod for liberals in part because his audience (10M+ listeners a month) but also his content. He's a slightly more rational version of Alex Jones. He's not as outwardly controversial but is well versed in the Tucker Carlson "I'm just asking questions" to give validity to the crazier sides of the internet. Heck, he's Alex Jones all the way down to hocking no name medicinal products on his show. He brings on guests like Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson and others and gives credibility to their ideas because he doesn't challenge them. In fact, he rarely challenges any of his guests which is why those guests go on his show. They get access to 10M+ listeners to spout their ideas without an intellectual rigor being applied. The fact that he has a history misogynies and racial words on his show simply gave the "woke" crowd ammunition to punish Spotify. I don't think they'll lose many customers but there is a greater risk that they'll lose employees. That's why the CEO has now addressed the controversy at least twice directly to his employees. If Rogan is seen as antithetical to the core values of the employees, then Spotify has real problems.

I'm not cancelling my spotify premium membership over it. The woke people I listen to are more critical of spotify's response than of Joe Rogan's. They feel like Spotify has a duty to fact check content that it has purchased and released. That content has a higher standard required than content that spotify allows on its platform and pays an agreed upon price based upon listenership. They get pushback from their publishers on facts discussed in their podcast and they feel like it is reasonable to require rogan to fact check. I mean this loose association with the facts leads to Aaron Rodgers saying "I consulted a good friend of mine, Joe Rogan, and I've been doing a lot of the stuff he recommended in his podcast,"...

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm not cancelling my spotify premium membership over it. The woke people I listen to are more critical of spotify's response than of Joe Rogan's. They feel like Spotify has a duty to fact check content that it has purchased and released. That content has a higher standard required than content that spotify allows on its platform and pays an agreed upon price based upon listenership. They get pushback from their publishers on facts discussed in their podcast and they feel like it is reasonable to require rogan to fact check. I mean this loose association with the facts leads to Aaron Rodgers saying "I consulted a good friend of mine, Joe Rogan, and I've been doing a lot of the stuff he recommended in his podcast,"...

Listened to a debate this weekend that outlined whether Spotify is a "Platform" or a "Content Provider". Essentially, is Spotify closer to Twitter/Youtube in that is supplies the platform or does it own the content thus have another level of responsibility. Most convincingly, they paid $100M for the content so they seem to be a "content provider".

 

[Mr. Deez]

So, if the jury sides for the defense and the judge tosses the case, reinforcing the verdict it's like a double whammy for the Plaintiff when it goes to appeal?

The judge hasn't filed the ruling yet, and I've thought about it more. What I suspect will happen is that if the jury finds for the Times, the judge will simply render judgment on the verdict. I don't see any reason not to. If the jury finds for Palin, then he'll grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Either way, she'll have the ability to appeal, which may or may not do her any good.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The judge hasn't filed the ruling yet, and I've thought about it more. What I suspect will happen is that if the jury finds for the Times, the judge will simply render judgment on the verdict. I don't see any reason not to. If the jury finds for Palin, then he'll grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Either way, she'll have the ability to appeal, which may or may not do her any good.

The goal isn't to beat the NYT though, right? It's to get to SCOTUS where they hope to change settled libel law. I've read that Peter Thiel is funding the Palin lawsuit.

 

[utahorn]

But wouldn't his action have a prejudicial impact on the jury? At least Palin's attorney's could argue that.

Holy cow. I'm agreeing with OUBubba. The times are a changin'.

Presumably the jury doesn't know he tossed it.

The key here is "Presumably". Do you want to go into court and Presume what the jury thinks or knows? You can't do either.

 

[theiioftx]

Holy cow. I'm agreeing with OUBubba. The times are a changin'.



The key here is "Presumably". Do you want to go into court and Presume what the jury thinks or knows? You can't do either.

That’s why everyone here likes Bubba. He is left leaning but usually puts forth solid democrat thoughts. I rarely agree with him, often spar with him- but I’m glad he is here. Damnit! I want a Sooner liberal around? Excuse me while I go take a shower.

 

[Horn6721]

It must just be a coincidence that one of the largest stakeholders in Moderna is also one of the largest stakeholders in Spotify
Baillie Gifford and co holds 46 million shares of Moderna and 22 million shares of Spotify.
I am sure those facts played no part in Spotify's actions regarding Rogan.

 

[OUBubba]

That’s why everyone here likes Bubba. He is left leaning but usually puts forth solid democrat thoughts. I rarely agree with him, often spar with him- but I’m glad he is here. Damnit! I want a Sooner liberal around? Excuse me while I go take a shower.

Boomer!!!

 

[Mr. Deez]

The key here is "Presumably". Do you want to go into court and Presume what the jury thinks or knows? You can't do either.

Well, unless the judge tells them he's going to disregard their verdict (which would be highly inappropriate), I'm not sure how they would know. They are in a deliberations room. If they go home before a verdict is reached and watch the news, then they might hear about it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The goal isn't to beat the NYT though, right? It's to get to SCOTUS where they hope to change settled libel law. I've read that Peter Thiel is funding the Palin lawsuit.

That's the goal of some on the right (and quietly some on the left), myself included. I haven't heard Palin say that, but I wasn't aware that Thiel was funding her case. I'm not too shocked. Probably not many lawyers would have taken her case on a contingent fee.

From a facts standpoint, it's not a bad case to use except for the fact that it involves someone as polarizing as Palin.

 

[iatrogenic]

He brings on guests like Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson and others and gives credibility to their ideas because he doesn't challenge them.

Maybe you should challenge Jordan Peterson. You seem intellectually prepared to deal with him.

 

[OUBubba]

Listened to a debate this weekend that outlined whether Spotify is a "Platform" or a "Content Provider". Essentially, is Spotify closer to Twitter/Youtube in that is supplies the platform or does it own the content thus have another level of responsibility. Most convincingly, they paid $100M for the content so they seem to be a "content provider".

I think it depends on their financial relationship to the content. If they allow me to share my bubbaliscious podcast on their platform and then kick me a per click amount retrospectively, I think they're a platform. If they purchase the content of bubbaliscious to share to their subscribers with some level of exclusivity, then maybe they become a publisher. The real question is can they be a publisher with Rogan and be a content platform with bubbaliscious. Or, does purchasing Rogan make them a publisher for all content?

 

[AC]

Some like the intellectuals. Some like the name callers. George Will, Charles Kruthammer and Thomas Sowell make an intellectual case for conservatism. Palin, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage... spew insults as fast as they can talk. Colbert, Maher, Stewart, Lewis Black, Samatha Bee ... are entertainers and while they are responsible to get facts right when they are giving facts ... they also have responsibilities as comics to keep it light and draw laughs. Dennis Miller, Jeff Foxworthy, Ted Nugent, Clint Eastwood, entertain from the right. Right wingers like talk radio. Left wingers like late night comics.

Except I really liked Rush Limbaugh and miss him on the radio. There will never be another Rush! But you are right about talk radio and late night comics. Some of these comics are getting really good too, Jon Stewart is really funny. I can appreciate their humor. I have liberal friends. We can still all get along, hopefully the news can get honest with us. The right and left get completely different news, so I blame the media, not people. My mom is pretty liberal now. Not when I grew up though. Media. They lie to both sides, so it's not a right left thing. The media plays dirty. They divide us, keep us uninformed.

 

[bystander]

I'm not cancelling my spotify premium membership over it. The woke people I listen to are more critical of spotify's response than of Joe Rogan's. They feel like Spotify has a duty to fact check content that it has purchased and released. That content has a higher standard required than content that spotify allows on its platform and pays an agreed upon price based upon listenership. They get pushback from their publishers on facts discussed in their podcast and they feel like it is reasonable to require rogan to fact check. I mean this loose association with the facts leads to Aaron Rodgers saying "I consulted a good friend of mine, Joe Rogan, and I've been doing a lot of the stuff he recommended in his podcast,"...

John Stewarts response:

Jon Stewart said musicians like Neil Young pulling their music from Spotify is an 'overreaction' to Joe Rogan and a 'mistake'

He thought Neil over-reacted. That's the kind of balance that is hard to teach; it's a judgment call. But John is not acting like a zealot and I can respect his politics because of it.

 

[mchammer]

How come media stopped reporting this? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[OUBubba]

John Stewarts response:

Jon Stewart said musicians like Neil Young pulling their music from Spotify is an 'overreaction' to Joe Rogan and a 'mistake'

He thought Neil over-reacted. That's the kind of balance that is hard to teach; it's a judgment call. But John is not acting like a zealot and I can respect his politics because of it.

I think in the context of Young being a) filthy rich and b) having survived polio after a large impact on his life makes it a potentially reasonable response.

 

[Seattle Husker]

How come media stopped reporting this? Anyone? Bueller?

I think the Asian Hate Crimes angle has been covered, pretty extensively. It's typically with the "Wuhan Virus" angle but it's a good bet that the Pandemic and corresponding rhetoric have been having some impact on the increase of hate crimes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I think in the context of Young being a) filthy rich and b) having survived polio after a large impact on his life makes it a potentially reasonable response.

I suspect Neil Young wasn't making lots of $$$ on Spotify anyways so it was a cheap principle to stand on. Was it Joni Mitchell that joined him that shared she was going to miss her $3.41 monthly check?

 

[bystander]

I suspect Neil Young wasn't making lots of $$$ on Spotify anyways so it was a cheap principle to stand on. Was it Joni Mitchell that joined him that shared she was going to miss her $3.41 monthly check?

The thing is, I consider both of them to be on Mt Rushmore of musical art. They are singer songwriters who managed great commercial success without compromise. I thought Madonna was a bit in that category if you can believe that but not quite enough to make the chisel.

As for the two others on Mt Rushmore I'd nominate Bob Dylan and Prince...

I was also thinking of David Bowie...

 

[OUBubba]

The thing is, I consider both of them to be on Mt Rushmore of musical art. They are singer songwriters who managed great commercial success without compromise. I thought Madonna was a bit in that category if you can believe that but not quite enough to make the chisel.

As for the two others on Mt Rushmore I'd nominate Bob Dylan and Prince...

I was also thinking of David Bowie...

You're gonna think I'm nuts but that danged Taylor Swift is an amazing writer. More of a poet really. Some of her lyrics are so good. I'm not a huge fan but went down a rabbit hole last week and was impressed.

I think your musical information may be stronger than mine.