I love John Oliver's show, but it absoltely occurs to me that he sometimes cherry picks stuff
This is a great point. Love the show. Super entertaining.
But a few years ago John did a segment on an industry that had a relatively sketchy reputation that I was very familiar with... and it was complete BS. It was so one sided, sensationalized and it felt like propaganda to me. This really opened my eyes to how this style of journalism being treated as news is scary.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
Exactly - this whole new world of removal based on disagreement is an unbelievable dangerous arena.... People who agree with censorship from corporations (twitter, facebook etc) and people such as Neil Young and even Stern really need to revaluate things.... Stern was censored back in the 90s because of the things he's done on air - he fought it.... We are big on the me too movement here right? Well, how many times has Stern degraded woman and still does so? Should he be censored?
The rabbit hole of censorship is something that essentially is never ending.
Neil Young is so off base here and so are the people who agree with him stance.
If I were Eddie Vedder, would you like me any better? - Local H
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
If I were Eddie Vedder, would you like me any better? - Local H
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
Howard is not telling people to take bleach.
and who is saying that? Has Rogan said that? Do you have the link?
If I were Eddie Vedder, would you like me any better? - Local H
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
Howard is not telling people to take bleach.
and who is saying that? Has Rogan said that? Do you have the link?
It's just an example. Howard is not putting into people's minds that the vaccine is bad.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
Howard is not telling people to take bleach.
and who is saying that? Has Rogan said that? Do you have the link?
It's just an example. Howard is not putting into people's minds that the vaccine is bad.
Sounds like you might be spreading some misinfo. Better not let Uncle Neil find out.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
Did you get a chance to see Neil's 2nd statement from yesterday?
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
Ok, yeah, I see what you're saying
I think so many folks operate on outrage today as their neutral. So it's comforting when media outlets confirm it. Awful codependency cycle.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
Did you get a chance to see Neil's 2nd statement from yesterday?
Yes. He didn't ask for Spotify to pull Rogan's podcast in that one either. He thanked his label and hoped that any other likeminded artists might join him in removing their music as well. Nothing about restricting free speech or censorship in it at all.
But that doesn't stop folks from manufacturing that take out of thin air.
The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
Ok, yeah, I see what you're saying
I think so many folks operate on outrage today as their neutral. So it's comforting when media outlets confirm it. Awful codependency cycle.
Disclaimer: careerlong journalist/editor here.
100%. News outlets are relying on emotional manipulation to get people engaged (and watching their ads, so they can get paid). Then the people demand it and it’s a cycle like you said. It’s very sad. I’m sorry your profession has moved in this direction.
DC '03 - Reading '04 - Philly '05 - Camden 1 '06 - DC '06 - E. Rutherford '06 - The Vic '07 - Lollapalooza '07 - DC '08 - EV DC 1 & 2 '08 (Met Ed!!) - EV Baltimore 1 & 2 '09 - EV NYC 1 '11 (Met Ed!) - Hartford '13 - GCF '15 - MSG 2 '16 - TOTD MSG '16 - Boston 1 & 2 '18 - SHN '21 - EV NYC 1 & 2 '22 - MSG '22
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
Howard is not telling people to take bleach.
and who is saying that? Has Rogan said that? Do you have the link?
It's just an example. Howard is not putting into people's minds that the vaccine is bad.
Sounds like you might be spreading some misinfo. Better not let Uncle Neil find out.
Conspiracies about GMOs and conspiracies about a deadly disease are very different. If Neil is as irrelevant as some here say he is and Rogan is as relevant as his listenership would indicate, then we all should agree that Neil’s lunacy about the former is far less dangerous than Rogan’s lunacy about the latter.
Neil’s move is less about being “bigger” than Rogan and more about not wanting to be associated with a platform that features Rogan. Why is that a hard thing to tolerate?
Post edited by vant0037 on
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2023-08-31 Wrigley 2 2023-09-15 Fenway 1
Comments
But a few years ago John did a segment on an industry that had a relatively sketchy reputation that I was very familiar with... and it was complete BS. It was so one sided, sensationalized and it felt like propaganda to me. This really opened my eyes to how this style of journalism being treated as news is scary.
The rabbit hole of censorship is something that essentially is never ending.
Neil Young is so off base here and so are the people who agree with him stance.
But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why?
So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"
Where is Pearl Jam at?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.
Sounds like you might be spreading some misinfo. Better not let Uncle Neil find out.
A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.
Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.
Montreal 98, 00, 03, 05, 11
Toronto 03, 06, 11
Ottawa 05, 11
Quebec 05; Saratoga 00; Boston 04; Toledo 04
Albany 06; Honolulu 06; Hartford 08
Costa Rica 11
London (Ont.), Hartford 13
Quebec, Fenway 1 + 2 16; London 18
EV Montreal (2), Berkeley II, Albany, Boston, London (UK)
Disclaimer: careerlong journalist/editor here.
But that doesn't stop folks from manufacturing that take out of thin air.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2023-08-31 Wrigley 2
2023-09-15 Fenway 1
https://twitter.com/alexpattyy/status/1486108847412588553?s=21