When someone has a large platform, voice, or power to reach millions, what’s their responsibility to society for giving a platform to bad ideas and bad people? Should a good intentioned member of the political left go onto Fox News? These questions are connected, and I believe the answer to them is the same: There is no right or wrong answer, it’s personal preference.
Often times someone like Joe Rogan will have a right-wing guest on their show, CNN will air a segment with a Republican, or an extremely popular politician like Bernie Sanders will go onto Fox News. In all three examples, there are plenty of people on the left who are mad those people for giving legitimacy, views and ratings to the “bad” (for a lack of better term) people or platforms. They criticize Rogan for having Candace Owens on his show, CNN is criticized for airing a segment with Lindsay Graham, or Bernie is criticized for helping the destructive and infotainment Fox be legitimized as actual news.
I completely understand the criticisms my fellow left members will feel in all these cases, and I sympathize to a small degree. But, I think that these three things happening are all for the best, another example of the lesser of two evils. They are not wrong, but neither am I. It’s personal preference.
I believe that sunlight is often times the best disinfectant. If someone like Candace Owens, Lindsay Graham and Fox News have the attention of millions of people in the country, then speaking with them doesn’t “help” them, but you can actually benefit “from” them. Despite how hard it is for us on the left to comprehend this concept, millions of people do give these three people/organizations legitimacy. This has already happened. They already believe in these people, us talking to them does nothing to elevate further.
However, given the platform and conversation, the ridiculous ideas that Owens, Graham or Fox News push, can be debunked right to their face and can go viral just as well as their bad ideas can within their own audiences. This is the responsibility I think one has, if one is going to engage in these conversations. If you go on their shows and nod along, then I think platforming them is destructive and bad. But if you push back, criticize or destroy the ideas being made, that makes it worthwhile.
Dave Rubin’s style is the “nodding along” style, where people can say outlandish things and he doesn’t push back at all. This video here covers it extremely well:
On the flip side of this, when Joe Rogan had Dave Rubin on his show, when Dave said ridiculous things, Joe Rogan pushed back on him extremely well, completely debunking his anti-regulation nonsense. Rogan disliked Rubin’s performance enough that he has never had him back on his show.
This is the type of push back that I think is required if you’re going to have someone on your show with bad ideas or a grift.
That said, for full disclosure, Rogan is not perfect on this, and it is something he misses from time to time. I think overall he does a good job, but there are examples like when he had an overt racist on his show, he completely failed to push back on bullshit racist genetics talk, until he himself received push back, then he “corrected” the guest post-conversation. This is absolutely the risk we take by having these types of ideas and people on, and we (Rogan) have to do a better job at calling bullshit.
Correcting the record afterwards isn’t ideal, but I think it’s practical and realistic considering how hard it’d be to perfectly push back on each guest 100% of the time. In my own political conversations I’ve had, I’ve seen how impossible is to counter and contradict every dumb point being made through the flow of a conversation. A follow up correction does the job, as many standard “journalists” would do, if not done in the moment. I’m content with this, because push back (or silence) isn’t only about the actual live event, but afterward as well.
(Note: I am writing up a full blog just on Joe Rogan alone as I find him to be a fascinating topic and will dive deeper into his Pros and Cons.)
During the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Bernie Sanders went on Fox News to push his agenda. Supporters like me support this decision. My belief is that whether or not we find Fox News to be legitimate, millions of people already do, which is why it’s the most popular network television news channel. (Ironically, Fox themselves argued in court that they are not news, but entertainment and opinion.) When trying to build coalitions and become President, I think it’s important to reach as much of the country as possible.
Bernie’s discussion on Fox News was extremely popular even with a Fox News crowd and received standing ovations! He does a great job by framing the discussion by saying “I reject the idea that…” and ends with “…these ideas are not radical” which is wonderful pushback. Millions saw these ideas become more common and less scary. Will it impact the large majority of those who are “too far gone”? No, but it could help on the margins, which absolutely matters.
Elizabeth Warren, one of his progressive rivals from the primaries, had the opposite opinion. She said that she doesn’t want to go on Fox News because they’re a “hate for profit” organization. She is not wrong. It’s her choice to not go on Fox, and I supported her choice, despite disagreeing with it. At the end of the day, neither Bernie nor Elizabeth is morally right or wrong, but I have my own preference, and so did they.
That’s why platform or not platforming comes down to preference, not moral righteousness. Disagree with an individual’s choice or strategy to participate or not, but I do not think their morals or values should be questioned because they have a different personal preference.
In our political discourse in 2021, this moral righteousness is in abundance. It’s viewed less as a personal preference and more that someone is actually doing harm because they’re doing something you disagree with. That concept needs to end.
Capacity Boost 