This is not remotely the same.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Bongino
- Thread starter wadio
- Start date
Of course it's the same. In fact it's WORSE with big tech. There's a difference between saying "I don't want to produce a particular product, but I'll make anything else you want" and saying "I don't want you on my platform at all! Go away!" And it's further worse because the lawmakers and policymakers are bought and paid for by big tech.
But that's not what they're saying. They set the rules in advance. All users agree to abide by the rules. And then a handful decide to break the rules. The users knew what the rules were when they signed up. Once again, big tech is not in the free speech business. Giving people a free platform to do improper and illegal things is not good for business. So the tech companies are within their rights to throw people off.
So far, the courts have agreed.
I agree, I think tweets like that one will get him permanently booted (unless he was bringing YT a lot of money).
And although I don't favor public figures using such speech on public forums, we have entered a new age where street language is accepted in public discourse, depending on whether the public figure is a person that one agrees with. I don't like the use of it by politicians and other public figures, but it's the reality anymore.
Just 3 and 1/2 years ago we had a congressperson say "we're going to impeach the m***********" during a public rally, and she was applauded for it.
I find it a bit puzzling that programmers in the talk format overlook this stuff. I mean, yes, they're not saying it on the air, but they promote their social media on the air. Jesse Kelly's Twitter feed is practically a call for civil war, and he's still programmed on terrestrial radio. It'd be counter to my conscience to allow either of these insurrectionists on my stations, but I suppose they find a way to justify it.
That's the part of this that is a disconnect for me. A lot of these talk show hosts, such as Bongino, have been kicked off various social platforms, but none of them have been kicked off radio.
Can you be specific about the "rules" you're referring to? Is expressing an opinion breaking the rules?
It depends on the platform, but they've set rules regarding "covid misinformation." Here's a link to the YouTube rules that Bongino broke:
Medical misinformation policy - YouTube Help
Note: YouTube reviews all its Community Guidelines as a normal course of business. In our 2023 blog p
support.google.com
There's a difference between expressing an opinion and medical facts. Now it's possible to have an opinion about those facts, such as a host saying he takes issue with the facts. But then when a non-doctor radio host says his opinion is now fact, that's when it becomes a misinformation issue. Meanwhile, Congress is pressuring big tech to do more about policing misinformation on their sites. So it's becoming more than just rules at a web site.
Did Bongino say he was stating a fact? I'm not sure, just asking. If you can find a quote, please provide it.
I still think it's important for consumers of social media to understand the difference between expert advice and the opinion of a talk show host. Maybe schools should teach that. Otherwise it's left up to a handful of gatekeepers, in which case our society is in trouble.
If you go to page 8 of this thread there are a series of posts with links to articles on the subject, starting with this one:
YouTube suspends and demonetises Dan Bongino’s account over Covid misinformation
The right-wing host has frequently tangled with media platforms about Covid and other content issues
www.independent.co.uk
From what I see, he was disputing the value of masks. Then he became indignant.
It's up to the gatekeepers because it's their property. You want to go in their store? You play by their rules. It's basic common sense. You don't argue with McDonalds because they don't sell tacos. We know who the experts and authorities are. There's a group who doesn't like authorities or experts. That's the problem. They want ultimate freedom.
I can't get to page 8 without a subscription. But in any case, you're missing my point.
That's absolutely correct but it's not what I was talking about. It was this quote:
If Bongino clearly said he was "stating a fact," that's one thing. Otherwise it's his opinion. Statements tend to become "fact" in people's minds if they are repeated often enough. If people believe he said he was "stating a fact" because that's what they've read in a bunch of online posts, that's another matter.
YouTube has the right to suspend anyone they want. Personally I think the more people they suspend the better. That will eventually drive more people to other platforms which will result in more diversity platforms and diversity of thought.
I gave you a link in my previous post. There is no subscription needed for my links.
Here is a quote from that link:
As I said, Bongino was disputing the value of masks. Who is he to dispute the value of masks? He only presents his side, not that of the experts who recommend masks for people in close areas. So that's why it appears that he's presenting his opinion as fact. If he presented all sides fairly, it would be different. This is a radio show and he has access to other people. But that's not how he works. It's all one-sided. That presentation doesn't fit the rules as stated. And then he became indignant when someone from YouTube challenges him. That isn't the way to handle a situation if you're trying to be fair.
Maybe. Bongino's platform is filled with people who agree with him. The only way to get diversity of thought is to view multiple sites, which most people don't do.
This is an interesting discussion that needs to be broken down.
But here’s the thing, the world has changed since 1938 when people began jumping out of windows after hearing “War of the Worlds.” People have a right to assume that what they hear on the radio has been vetted so it should be at least accurate, but I hear some very slanted statements on regular TOH newscasts from the major news outlets, not just from talk show hosts, so things are changing, unfortunately.
Now, on social media Bongino just another voice expressing an opinion. A guy I know personally who has a degree in immunology told me early-on that masks are not effective at stopping tiny viruses. He used the example of trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire. Did I believe him? Not entirely but it gave me something to think about. That’s no different from reading an online post. Anyone who believes that posts on social media are gospel should probably take stock market advice from his dentist! You can’t prevent stupid.
Sure, social media platforms have every right to censor or remove users, but is that a good idea in the long run? I’d rather see some wild conspiracy theory expressed and immediately shot down on a major social media platform than have it linger on the dark web.
When it comes to radio, I'd agree there’s a greater responsibility. But is radio relinquishing that responsibility by broadcasting all those snake-oil commercials? People believe those too.
There are no easy answers.
- What is Bongino’s responsibility on the radio?
- What is his responsibility on social media?
- Do both platforms have the right to remove someone for expressing an opinion?
But here’s the thing, the world has changed since 1938 when people began jumping out of windows after hearing “War of the Worlds.” People have a right to assume that what they hear on the radio has been vetted so it should be at least accurate, but I hear some very slanted statements on regular TOH newscasts from the major news outlets, not just from talk show hosts, so things are changing, unfortunately.
Now, on social media Bongino just another voice expressing an opinion. A guy I know personally who has a degree in immunology told me early-on that masks are not effective at stopping tiny viruses. He used the example of trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire. Did I believe him? Not entirely but it gave me something to think about. That’s no different from reading an online post. Anyone who believes that posts on social media are gospel should probably take stock market advice from his dentist! You can’t prevent stupid.
Sure, social media platforms have every right to censor or remove users, but is that a good idea in the long run? I’d rather see some wild conspiracy theory expressed and immediately shot down on a major social media platform than have it linger on the dark web.
When it comes to radio, I'd agree there’s a greater responsibility. But is radio relinquishing that responsibility by broadcasting all those snake-oil commercials? People believe those too.
There are no easy answers.
You can find "experts" who will tell you whatever you want to hear. That's what a lot of talk show hosts are doing. They find people who have the title of doctor, who quote various studies, but all to promote the view being given by the host. Nobody is there to challenge that view. Seems to me the back and forth discussion on an issue, giving pros & cons, is more interesting radio than everyone promoting a single narrative.
But where is the truth in all of this? In the case of masks, it's not an easy thing. Some masks are better than others. Some protection is better than none. Early on, the supply of masks was not as good as it is now, so two years ago, Fauci and others said masks were not as good as isolation. Which is still true. If you don't want to wear a mask, the easy solution is to stay home. Similar to the best birth control is abstinence. But that's not always practical. So that's where masks come in.
There are actually more rules about those commercials than there are about the content of shows. That's why those commercials begin with those long disclaimers. No such disclaimers required for talk show hosts.
I don't disagree, but that might result in THIS.
But that's not true according to this JOHNS HOPKINS STUDY. Again, there are differences of opinion even among the experts.
If talk show disclaimers were the answer I'd be all for it. WCBM in Baltimore has one that goes something like this, "The views expressed by the hosts on WCBM are not those of our management or advertisers ... BUT SHOULD BE!
If you read the article, it says: "The study was written by economists, not epidemiologists, and was based on a review of 34 other studies published by July 1, 2020."
Economists are not doctors. Johns Hopkins is more than just a medical college.
We know the lockdown was bad for the economy. It first led to contraction, and is now leading to inflation.
But epidemiologists don't compile data ... that's not their job.
Johns Hopkins used the appropriate resource for the study. It's a valid study that conflicts with Dr. Fauci's opinion, so being covered by talk show hosts a good thing, no?
As you correctly pointed out:
Huh? Compiling data is very much part of their job, and is part of any science. They have data, and economists have data.
If you'd like me to post some epidemiological data, I can.
I'm not going to an economist for my surgery, am I? No. A pandemic is a medical problem with economic consequences.
We all know that this pandemic was bad for the economy. No argument. But I'm not going to die to help someone else's bottom line.
So where did the economists get their data? From the epidemiologists would be my guess.
- Status