I listen to Ben each day and have done so for years. So I know from first hand experience that this is not the action of a serious person and he is actively harming his mental health by doing this.
Sadly I can't do that. I have a history of keeping my enemies closer. But I'm also a trained professional. I survived a dozen years of Rush Limbaugh. I'll survive Ben.
As far as I can tell the original source of this is... puck.news, which I have never heard of before, and is apparently some kind of snooty, recently started, New York based ... 'high society' oriented, long form journalism style website that seems to be trying to basically be the New York Times editorial section, but better.
Heres the actual source that claims that Don Lemon said he now watches Ben Shapiro.
Here is the relevant part, buried amidst a gigantic list of basically advertisements for various products with apparently celebrity endorsements for all of them, from, you know, a startup 'journalism' outfit that seemingly no one has ever heard of before.
Since leaving corporate media I cut the cord. I have an extensive, eclectic streaming palate now: Fellow Travelers on Showtime; PBD Podcast (it’s very conservative); The Ben Shapiro Show (I want to hear his take on Israel); Pivot (of course); Piers Morgan Uncensored (very real, authentic conversations you don’t get in corporate media); Pod Save America (obvi); The Daily (every single day); Smartless (the best); The Adam Friedland Show (smart, irreverent, funny; download the Chet Hanks episode for evidence). –Don Lemon, journalist
Ok, so then, within a matter of days, this gets heavily editorialized and ran with by the NYPost, a bunch of local Fox affiliates, and a slew of other right wing grifter/rage generation outlets.
And now here it is on BlueSky, which is basically a twitter knock off clone founded via basically a grifter who is really good at appealing to technically incompetent people (they lied and misrepresented their technical abilities/structure and what makes them stand out in ways that are ludicrous and obvious to those who know tech) and also via focusing on essentially mastering appeals to those easily swayed by inclusive language, and the current mass trend of woke scolding.
Basically, this all stinks to high heaven and seems to be a perfect example of the internet doing the internet thing, starting with a dubious source and then the story grows and morphs to suit the needs of whatever particular audience needs to hear to propogate it further.
Even if there is actual truth to the fundamental claims, I fail to see how a basically centrist journalist who has been in the industry for years and now says he is interested in expanding his media diet ... how does that make him a grifter?
He would be a grifter if he /intentionally and knowingly promoted false stories and misleading narratives, for thr aim of making money/.
If he starts /doing that/ then yes he would be a grifter... but he isnt. He seems to have retired.
I think the “grifter” comment comes from—if this quote is to be believed, which I appreciate your due diligence on—the man turning to the well-worn path of a person of color finding profitability and open arms as a conservative-come-lately.
Again, the whole quote changes the context, because Pod Save America is establishment liberal as it comes, but if he were to go from the consistent state of righteous indignation over conservatism/trumpism on air for CNN to proudly hawking Ben Shapiro’s show, it would’ve suggested his well dried up in the liberal market, so he switched to milking the conservatives for cash.
Again, I don’t think the whole quote (if even that is to be fully believed) lends itself to this, but to just take the worst item in the list and turn it into a blurb about how Don Lemmon “bashes liberal media, praises Ben Shapiro after CNN ousting” is very much an internet news thing to do. It gets clicks. Engagement. Anger. And it’s very much a liberal/conservative thing to do. “My team rules, anyone not falling in line is dead to me” etc.
I agree with you, I get that the story as it has evolved now would place Lemon into that basically 'sold out my principles to make more money' narrative...
...but the problem is that /even if the Lemon quote is real/, it still does not actually, factually back up that narrative!
See this is why I got thrown out from being a copy editor at my University newspaper almost two decades ago now, I actually valued journalistic integrity and the truth over being misleading.
The actual quote is that he is interested in hearing Shapiro's views on a subject.
That, to a former person working in the field of journalism, could very possibly simply indicates he wants to understand Shapiro's presentation style, or his market demo and how they get appealed to.
Without any actual evidence he is planning on like becoming a fucking featured guest on Shapiro's show, or getting his own show under Shapiro's media company or something, I see no way you can be actually valid in claiming Lemon is now on the grifter path.
It plays into the narrative disingenuously.
Which is why its perfect to suspect some bullshit is going on.
If there is /any/ actual evidence Lemon is actually planning on becoming a grifter... you would run with that instead!
At least if you actually cared about not being journalistically irresponsible.
Oi vei, now I am back in that dingy unused classroom arguing with my former editor again, fuck.
Oh I’m fully with you. I was just explaining where the “grifter” labeling was coming from. The true issue, as you pointed out, is journalistic ethics in the splicing of one example of media he is consuming out to splash across a misleading headline. For the sole purpose of exactly what is happening, actually: people sharing the headline to create controversy where there really isn’t any. It’s gross and so, so damaging.
But so is the state of political discourse these days. This is the depth at which all discussion takes place these days. Headline, anger, share, repeat. We are so fucked.
As I have said to others on lemmy, I am /tired/ and think I am just going to make a video game before I die, because I have a lot of relevant experience from tech jobs and hobbies, and more important /I would enjoy making it/.
I have literally no hope at all the world in general will get better for the average person, climate change will fuck us all and /maybe if i am lucky/ in 10 years I can end up in a modest cabin or apartment somewhere in a northern US state or in Canada and /hopefully/ be able to afford food water and electricity as the oceans acidify, farmland dies and has to be newly founded further north, wars intensify, governments fascistify, crime gets worse, and everywhere that is even kind of liveable gets more and more flooded by climate refugees.
He was a news anchor on CNN (American). Iirc he said some things about no body wanting women when they’re old and then wasn’t at CNN anymore. Turns out he watches far right nut job Ben Shapiro
Not surprising. He was/is good friends with Chris Cuomo, brother of the disgraced ex-NY governor. The same guy who abused his powers at CNN to aid his brother, and then was also fired. There's no integrity among them, and Don never appeared all that smart to me. Now we know he was fake on top of everything else.
If someone admits to watching Ben Shapiro it just draws their entire being into question. A gay black man watching a homophobic white supremacist? Don.... Either you're lying or you're really telling on how much you hate yourself.
Everyone is entitled to bad taste. Money and intelligence do not keep someone from making a golden toilet, and they don't keep Don from idolizing idiots.
What's wrong with listening to the opposition? I try to get a taste from the left, right, and everything in the middle, that way I'm informed of things each side leaves out. That seems to be what Don Lemon is doing here.
If you just casually listen to garbage or propaganda like shapiro, some of it you'll retain without retaining the source. Some of his bullshit will land in your brain under "Oh yeah I heard somewhere [complete bullshit]". Especially if it's something that gets repeated a lot.
Also if you're listening uncritically, some of the entry level bullshit might land with you. He might lay blame on some outgroup and you might be like "huh that does make sense". If you don't go and do the work to research his claim to contextualize and possibly debunk it, now you've got right wing nonsense planted in your brain.
That's why you see multiple sides. If what Shapiro is saying doesn't jive with what you've heard on other sources (liberal, neutral, etc), then you'll doubt it.
The main problem is that many people don't look at multiple sources.
They often have more extreme takes of what the mainstream conservatives think, so it's good to be aware of what they're saying. I generally try to avoid opinion pieces like Shapiro and whatnot, but when I do, I try to get a good variety.
That’s why you see multiple sides. If what Shapiro is saying doesn’t jive with what you’ve heard on other sources (liberal, neutral, etc), then you’ll doubt it.
I mean, maybe? How is the hypothetical omni-consumer supposed to suss out which ones are legitimate? Especially when the propaganda is engineered to appeal emotionally.
It's a lot of work to go and unpack something that's deliberately designed to mislead you. That's why I do not recommend casually consuming media like this guy. You're not going to know when he's just lying, and you might not notice the subtle misleads like a chart with a cropped y axis. It's all going to slot into your brain as "Oh yeah I heard [racist quasi-fact] somewhere"
Like if someone says "More blacks are arrested for crimes" that just completely ignores unequal enforcement as a factor. A casual listener isn't going to think about that. Especially not when it's packaged in a slick fast talking youtube video.
Some sources are garbage and shouldn't be consumed without the equivalent of a hazmat suit.
The main problem is that many people don’t look at multiple sources.
The main problems are the right wing is trending hard towards authortiarian fascism, and our capitalist hellscape doesn't do a great job of promoting truth and education. Hot takes get clicks even if they're wrong on numerous metrics. Clicks get money. Money is power. Power is what matters. Being factually correct or having beliefs that promote better outcomes for whatever metrics you care for isn't as important as making money.
It's a lot of work to go and unpack something that's deliberately designed to mislead you
I agree. Unfortunately, it seems like everything is trying to mislead me these days, so the choice is to either combat it or pick which side I'd prefer to mislead me.
Hot takes get clicks
That happens all over the spectrum. The best solution isn't to try to shut out media from one side (then you'll overcorrect to biases from your preferred side), but to look for popular media from a variety of sides so you can start to notice the BS in more places.
That's why I periodically listen to Ben Shapiro, Sam Seder, and other political commentators, to understand what the various sides are saying. I try to avoid clear nonsense like Alex Jones that's just spewing hate, but otherwise try to get a good sample.
If a media source sounds more like one extreme than another, I know to look things up and perhaps find an alternative source. Even major, trusted publications have biases, so it's good to be able to detect that.
Not trying to poop on your ability to tell propaganda from not, but considering liberal news the opposition to Ben Shapiros bs is a one way ticket to it. You've included 3 types of sources that all appeal uniformly to capitalism and left out leftist/socdem/socialist, which is a very "enlightened centrist" thing to do and basically saying your centrism is centered on the right. Your demographic are exactly why people like Tim Pool succeed in messaging and pulling people further right. Usually anyone who uses liberal as the opposing viewpoint to modern conservatism fits cleanly into this box.
Feel free to provide them. I'm not familiar with which sources are high quality to post them confidently.
Most I've seen are poorly cited opinion pieces, at least on the socialist camp. Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders do a decent job, but that's a very different thing, and usually larger media orgs do a decent job of covering their positions.
Tim Pool
Not a fan. I think I've watched a few videos of his, but I honestly don't see the appeal. Shapiro is at least kind of entertaining, so I occasionally tune in to see what rhetoric the right is using.
Usually anyone who uses liberal as the opposing viewpoint to modern conservatism fits cleanly into this box.
That's a pretty broad brush you have there.
I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian, which means I see myself as the opposite of both conservatives and progressives, at least in terms of authority of government to control peoples' lives.
I think the political compass is useful, and when I take the test, I'm usually about halfway down the bottom half of the chart, and I drift around the middle of the left/right spectrum (most recently, I was a little to the right).
I do periodically listen to socialists, but they usually support aggressive governments, so I rarely agree with much they have to say. I'm okay with libertarian socialism (e.g. Noam Chomsky), but I don't think it's practical and it's certainly not popular. Instead, I promote co-ops, private unions, and similar business structures.
The humanist report on Youtube is a reliable leftist source of news that I've never caught in a lie. As leftists go he's also pretty nonreactionary by including things inconvenient for socialist messaging which I appreciate.Vaush is a more reactionary but still rarely wrong source with nuance that most creators across the board miss. Of these two Humanist report is very hard to critique as anything other than genuine so I'd start there.
Government control and avoiding it is a common call in on the majority report and you may benefit from watching just how quickly those views fall apart with some scrunity from Sam Sedar.
The socdem viewpoint is that there are some government functions that shouldn't be in the hands of private companies because they're too important, such as healthcare, the millitary, and elections.
I don't often find libertarians who disagree that some things should be wholly under regulatory agencies because it's so apparent that corruption in privately owned fields is just as if not more rampant than public and objectively people who want government to fail leading government into the ground by leeching off of it isn't really the proof that government is bad that they think it is. Personally if one side wants to control healthcare the way other nations do and lower cost to patients and taxpayers and the other wants to control the police and repress protests and the right to vote I don't see them as equivalent violators, so libertarians voting republican in every election is a bit unconvincing of their objectivity to me.
Thanks for the recs, I'll check them out! I'm not a fan of Sam Seder, but I'll certainly check the others out.
there are some government functions that shouldn't be in the hands of private companies because they're too important
My view isn't about importance, but whether something can reasonably be competed over. Monopolies should be state run IMO, but pretty much everything else should be privately run.
healthcare
This can actually be competed over, but some parts cannot.
I believe the government should provide emergency care (e.g. ambulances and ER), whereas private orgs can and should provide routine and longer term care. So if you get in a car accident, the government would cover everything until you're stabilized enough to make decisions about longer term care yourself.
military
Agreed, though I'd like to restructure the military to prevent abuse by the commander in chief. I think private groups have a place here, but only with a formal declaration of war and to avoid the draft.
elections
Agreed. I think it's just insane that we're okay with private orgs making voting machines. I'm not saying there was any form of tampering with our elections so far with these machines, but election officials should have full control of the source code and hardware.
I honestly don't like the idea of voting machines anyway, just process paper ballots with counting machines and random human audits so there's at least a clear audit trail.
corruption in privately owned fields is just as if not more rampant than public
Eh, debatable, it's usually a mix of both.
Companies will do whatever they think they can get away with, and that includes getting favors from politicians. The more you mix the public and private sectors, the more corruption you get, as a general rule of thumb. A corrupt company w/o assistance from the government will likely just fail to competition, whereas with assistance it can drive out competition and thrive.
libertarians voting republican in every election is a bit unconvincing of their objectivity to me.
Why would a libertarian vote Republican consistently?
I typically vote Libertarian, unless there's a good reason to vote for a major party. I did just that in 2020 when I voted for Biden, and the last time I voted Republican for President was in 2008 when I voted for McCain (not libertarian, just he seemed reasonable). I didn't vote in 2012 because I just moved to a new state and didn't feel comfortable voting for local offices (and Romney flipping from a reasonable moderate to a conservative in the general didn't inspire me to vote for him, and I didn't know about the Libertarian Party).
My state ballots (I'm in a very red state) are usually about 25% R, 25% D, and 50% L. I'll only support a major party candidate if they're particularly well suited for the role, or if the other candidate is especially dangerous (e.g. Trump).
I used to consider myself Republican, but that's when I thought Republicans actually cared about small government, but that hasn't been true for a very long time, if ever. Democrats certainly don't, so I can't consistently vote for them either.
If they have some sort of reason or logic, sure. Most right-wing talking points are absurd though, and after so many decades of it - no. We’re done here.
