Best West Virginia joke I've heard: How do we know that the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia? Because if it was invented anywhere else, it would be called the teethbrush! Thank you, and I'm sorry...
Yet another example of fake news from this guy: claiming that Reason has 500 articles on decriminalization. If this schmuck had taken 30 seconds to search "decriminalization" on the Reason website, he would have found 828 results.
Jeremy Irons was so freaking good in that. I still listen to that version of “when Johnny comes marching home.” Also, that blonde chick who likes knives was smoking. Also my favorite of the series, hands down.
The thing that I found most grating about Colbert's dumb bit was how he picked and chose items from the WSJ article, the most egregious to me being about how the DoE said their position/finding/whatever you want to call it was held with 'low confidence', and that four other government agencies still hold the position that a zoonotic origin is most likely, without stating that those other government agencies also hold positions of 'low confidence'. He unintentionally though pointed out the absurdity of the bureaucratic structure of the federal government. The Department of Energy was enacted in 1977 to manage the various labs performing research on all things nuclear, including the nuclear weapons program. As with all dumb bureaucracies, because they did 'lab stuff', they wound up managing a bunch of things within the federal government that you may not necessarily associate with energy. But hey, the hyenas out in the audience seem to enjoy the carrion he was peddling.
The Department of Energy was founded to make the US self sufficient in its consumption of energy and given tremendous leeway in how it could encompass those goals. Until the 1970s energy, regardless of form, was cheap and abundant and you already had the Atomic Energy Commission (replaced in '74 with the NRC) to oversee all things nuclear. The entire point of the DoE was to assist in policy and influence the direction of high risk research and development that the private sector might be averse to funding. It would absorb many nuclear projects, true, but it also incorporated close to if not every energy related program supported by the federal government. It has always been multifaceted and robust, I think your criticism is a bit misplaced. Think of it like the Homeland Security for energy where all projects can communicate and coordinate with other another in order to prevent redundancy and repetition as well encourage the adoption of best effort practices when any program finds success. Any organization of significance is going to necessarily have bureaucracy or else they run the risk of becoming increasingly inefficient and inchoate in their operation.
Bureaucracy isn't shorthand for evil or incompetence, it is simply the natural result of scale.
Meh, I re-read my screed, and it's clunky. I do think that it would probably be a worthwhile exercise by the federal government to at least consider a reorganization of various departments, when you have things called a 'Department of Energy' that oversees so much more than energy, and something called the 'Internal Revenue Service' also overseeing adherence to health care spending.
Yeah, the conservatism in my neo-con convictions is deeply rooted in small government even if for the most part its a vague and squishy sentiment. My primary concern is having free and open societies and I largely feel content in allowing individuals to run those societies as they wish -even when that means badly.
A lot of what the DoE does makes sense. They have a lot of expertise when it comes to atomic science so why create another department to, say, dismantle nuclear weapons. You are dealing with a lot of the same issues, such as safe handling, containment protocols, disposal procedures, and they would have be consulted anyway, and you can avoid the ramp up and organizational issues, and the staffing and vetting is already there for the most part. . .It makes perfect sense. I could make a similar argument for environmental concerns.. . . But each of these are fractal divisions though, and how often can you do this until the modified structure becomes, as you said, something absurd. It also allows for things like malicious compliance because so much of the system is patchwork than it can only operate well when other aspects of the system's regulations are ignored. It doesn't take long until it becomes a Gordian Knot of poorly implemented policy.
Anyway, sorry man, I didn't mean to jump your shit. The original post just seemed perilously close to a gubmint bad thing so I reflexively felt the need to waterboard the sentiment into something more nuanced.
Take this with a grain of salt but what I’ve hear from some long time DeSantis supporters down here in Florida is he purposely had the Dominion lawyer on the defamation panel to bait the Trump people into outrage because the more they talk 2020 the more unhinged and unpopular they come across. I don’t know if it’s true but I love a good troll
I’ve reviewed the technical material available about Covid-19 origins and it’s not a hard call - it came from a lab leak. I can’t understand how any trained scientist in molecular biology could conclude otherwise. So the disagreement is largely political obfuscation. (I have an MD/PhD and work in biotech).
I am very familiar with this paper, which is flawed at several levels. Biggest methodological issue is that this is a purely observational study and the statistics are based on correlation and clustering. Because of this, such studies are “hypothesis forming” as opposed to “hypothesis testing” and subject to all sorts of hidden confounders. Such as the fact that one of the virus labs was two blocks from the wet market. Data around the first patients has been suppressed, and this data would have been the most important and least susceptible to confounders. Another issue is that only environmental samples were found in the market. No infected animals were ever found. With very high confidence, the vector for Covid-19 is a species of bat that does not live near Wuhan and was never sold in the market. Where can you find such bats in Wuhan? At labs studying viruses. The presence of “Covid-19 susceptible animal species” being found in the market is not terribly important, other than possibly being a secondary reservoir (there is no evidence of this either.) The authors of this paper did not provide their results in the context of other conflicting information. Pretty clear the investigators went into this wanting to prove their hypothesis, not rigorously test it. It’s really sad that this got published, especially in Science.
You missed the biggest flaw: they presume that the confirmed cases they know of were the only confirmed cases at the time. We know that the CCP was suppressing information about the novel illness throughout December, even arresting doctors who tried to spread the alarm. I believe Scott Gottlieb's book mentions that for some time, doctors were not allowed to diagnose the new disease in patients who didn't have a connection to the market (allowing the government to pretend it was a limited, contained outbreak.) The data is garbage, and so is any conclusion scientists attempt to draw from it. It is amazing how naive they are about Beijing.
If missing data was random, that would not affect the statistics. But it’s not - October/November data was selectively suppressed by the Chinese. How could such a paper get published? Western
virologists developed the methods and transferred the technology to China. And then funded the research into labs that had known problems with safety. Stupidity.
And at the end, they finally point out the obvious:
"We also lack direct evidence of an intermediate animal infected with a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor virus either at the Huanan market or at a location connected to its supply chain..."
Again, I want to stress that I don't have a dog in this fight. I lean towards natural zoonotic origin but with low confidence, and I am *very* anti-CCP so if anything, my biases run in the lab leak direction. But it seems like your critiques, while all valid, are reasons to put lower confidence in zoonotic origin, rather than to conclude the opposite.
From what I have seen, the lab leak theory is based primarily off of the *lack* of hard evidence for a natural origin (plus sketchy CCP behavior), rather than hard evidence for a lab accident. And to be fair, that's exactly what you would expect if the virus originated in a lab and there was a cover up! I can completely understand why someone might lean more towards the lab leak theory for that reason. But I personally haven't seen nearly enough circumstantial evidence for me to say that it's not even a hard call. If I applied the same evidentiary standards to other questions, I think I would be led astray more often than not.
Maybe I'm wrong and there is hard evidence for a lab leak out there. If you know of a good summary of the book you mentioned below I'd love to read it (being honest, probably not going to read the whole book -- I'm just backed up on my reading list).
I'm with you; I haven't seen enough evidence either way. As a non-expert, both coincidences are extremely striking: an early locus of cases at a wet market, which is exactly where you would expect a zoonotic virus to appear, and the outbreak beginning in the same city as a coronavirus research center with poor safety controls, which is exactly where you would expect a lab leak to begin. Any evidence is muddied by the fact that the CCP was actively suppressing information about the outbreak from the very beginning in December 2019, and that *both* possibilities are extremely embarrassing to the CCP - which is why they have at times promotedinsane conspiracy theories like a lab leak at Fort Detrick introduced to Wuhan by American soldiers, or the European frozen fish theory.
I don't think the actual answer here really matters in any practical sense. We need stricter controls on virus research (regardless of whether a specific technique meets the NIH/NIAID's narrow definition of "gain of function research") and China needs to eradicate traditional Chinese medicine and associated food practices.
The real scandal here is the coverup, and mainstream scientists' complicity (due to a combination of naivete and self-interest) in playing down the cover up. Even if a scientist truly believes that the evidence points to a zoonotic origin, it is scientific malpractice to not even mention the fact that the data is affected by China's interference. I am not saying that the coverup is evidence of the crime: China was embarrassed by the outbreak regardless of its origin, and they would have behaved the same whether it was a zoonotic outbreak or a lab leak or (most likely, in my view) if they had no fucking clue what was happening and were in panic mode. But I would be much more likely to be convinced if a scientist said, "Yes, much of the early data is affected by China's attempt to suppress information about the novel disease outbreak. However, in light of all data that was eventually made public, a preponderance of the evidence suggests a natural evidence."
I can tell you that this is not a close call within the scientific community, at least those that have no stake in this debate. Unfortunately, we have lost our confidence in credentials and institutions the past few years because even science has become politicized. It’s my belief that western scientists contributed to the pandemic as much as the Chinese. I’m confident that i could easily convince you that it is very likely and with high confidence that this was an unintentional lab leak. But you would have to have a good background in statistics. And I don’t blame you to question my conclusions. Lots of people with my same credentials have not been objective.
"this is not a close call within the scientific community"
is a pretty strong claim. I'm honestly curious what evidence this statement is based on? The scientific community is obviously quite broad - what field(s) are you referring to? Are you basing this on anecdotal experience, surveys, public statements...? I consider myself reasonably well informed on these types of issues, and I get news from a decent variety of sources, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that most people in the relevant fields think that "this is not a close call". But maybe I'm not as well informed as I think.
Ryan - how can i possibly explain all this in such a forum? My own analysis used Bayesian methodology to update probabilities on each set of data as it was updated. Did you read viral? If you’d like to discuss after reading that book, happy to have a zoom meeting.
I have a decent background in statistics, so if you're up for it, go for it.
And while I have you, something else that came to mind. The correlation between early cases and the wet market still has to be explained in the lab leak scenario. What would your explanation be? That the correlation is real but due to some sort of super spreader event after an initial infection at the lab? That the correlation is artificial and only appears because the CCP suppressed information on early cases *except* those at the wet market in an attempt to throw people off the trail? Or that the wet market cases were fabricated wholesale? Something else?
It’s all over the place (including from scientists on twitter.) if you have a bit of genetics background, the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19
Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. Alina Chan, a co-author, is an excellent scientist.
I just listened to her and Matt Ridley discuss the book on Sam Harris' podcast. They made what seemed like a pretty compelling case, although what low-hanging fruit. An idiot could tell you that the virology center where they studied genetic manipulation of coronaviruses that was irresponsibly located in the middle of a megalopolis and that the Chinese government wouldn't allow an objective analysis of following the outbreak is astronomically more probable a candidate than a wet market. One of the more disappointing realizations I took away from listening to that interview was that a few years later, their book seems to be meeting significant suppression efforts and the scientists who chose to honor their political appointments at the expense of scientific principles have never had to explain the rationales for their choices. This seems like an anti-scientific step down the path to being inexcusably ill-prepared to handle the next pandemic.
Matt, I’m still waiting for an apology about all the “let’s beat the shit out of Gordo” stuff. I didn’t write that email.
There can only be one true Gordo within the Fifdom, and it’s me.
I was impersonated, humiliated, and infuriated. I want revenge—plus an apology, Matt. This was black propaganda a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Don’t believe the faux-Gordo people. Or should I call him, Gordaux The Bastard?
Make it right, Matt.
p.s. this is in reference to the last Second Sunday broadcast. My name was sullied, my identity stolen, and Matt threatened violence upon me.
p.s.s. Moynihan, I’m sure we could get that wonderful woman a ticket to the show. Just create a go-fund-me campaign, then squeeze us for cash. I pledge $50.
Maybe the Reason misinformation designation has to do with that story they ran about El Chapo's son where they failed to call him out for being a nepo baby. He totally is. Doesn't even have a real cartel nickname.
I feel like I've never heard the hosts talk so little... Interesting discussion, I have never really thought about the internal/office politics at Fox and this provided some interesting insight.
Indeed, it was quite reminiscent of the Remnant (especially since Chris & Jonah have very similar voices). Not mad, it’s just different. CS had a lot to get out, I get it. I’d love for him to come back & have a more freewheeling conversation with the boys.
I'd like to push back a bit on the claim that what's broken news is a problem of demand rather than supply. I think both factors are at play. There is absolutely a segment of the population that demands partisan "news" and opinion, and cable has been more than eager to meet that demand. But I think there is also a large segment of the population, maybe even a plurality, that wants more objective (or at least aspirationally objective) news, and more nuanced opinion. TFC and the larger Substack universe (and other outlets like it) are evidence of that. But there are no cable outlets even trying to meet that demand. Isn't that a supply-side issue?
Yeah, and he actually goes in that direction during the CSPAN interview, talking in terms of the persuadable independent voter (who also happens to be the least partisan/ideologically tethered). I ask him specifically about Substack & podcasts & such as well. Moynihan has long made the point that the cable nets & big newspapers are just totally choosing not to understand the appeal of Joe Rogan types, and what that says about a potential new large audience out there. All the better for us!
I bought a McRib last fall because I wasn’t sure if I’d had one. I didn’t, and still don’t, understand the obsession. Things are different in WV, I guess.
Appreciate the commentary on COVID.
As far as FNC personnel, Hannity was incredibly nice when I worked a radio promotion with him. Same for Alan Colmes.
I've never had the McDonald's version, but when I was a college student, the dining hall served up a version that, compared to their normal fare, wasn't too bad. It was basically a hot dog slathered in barbecue sauce. I think the grinder their supplier used wasn't quite up to snuff, so I would on occasion have to pull a ligament out of my teeth.
Best West Virginia joke I've heard: How do we know that the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia? Because if it was invented anywhere else, it would be called the teethbrush! Thank you, and I'm sorry...
I’m stealing that deer hunting aphorism
If you’ve stolen from me, you’ve stolen at least twice.
Glad you had Chris on. He’s a gem.
Christ, stop spreading fake news. Die Hard 3 is with a vengeance, 2 is die harder. Do better.
It was a test. You passed.
Yet another example of fake news from this guy: claiming that Reason has 500 articles on decriminalization. If this schmuck had taken 30 seconds to search "decriminalization" on the Reason website, he would have found 828 results.
What an amateur!
Die Hard 3 was my favorite one in the series and one of the first R-rated movies I saw in the theater.
Jeremy Irons was so freaking good in that. I still listen to that version of “when Johnny comes marching home.” Also, that blonde chick who likes knives was smoking. Also my favorite of the series, hands down.
The thing that I found most grating about Colbert's dumb bit was how he picked and chose items from the WSJ article, the most egregious to me being about how the DoE said their position/finding/whatever you want to call it was held with 'low confidence', and that four other government agencies still hold the position that a zoonotic origin is most likely, without stating that those other government agencies also hold positions of 'low confidence'. He unintentionally though pointed out the absurdity of the bureaucratic structure of the federal government. The Department of Energy was enacted in 1977 to manage the various labs performing research on all things nuclear, including the nuclear weapons program. As with all dumb bureaucracies, because they did 'lab stuff', they wound up managing a bunch of things within the federal government that you may not necessarily associate with energy. But hey, the hyenas out in the audience seem to enjoy the carrion he was peddling.
Colbert and Kimmel are just court jesters for King Biden.
The Department of Energy was founded to make the US self sufficient in its consumption of energy and given tremendous leeway in how it could encompass those goals. Until the 1970s energy, regardless of form, was cheap and abundant and you already had the Atomic Energy Commission (replaced in '74 with the NRC) to oversee all things nuclear. The entire point of the DoE was to assist in policy and influence the direction of high risk research and development that the private sector might be averse to funding. It would absorb many nuclear projects, true, but it also incorporated close to if not every energy related program supported by the federal government. It has always been multifaceted and robust, I think your criticism is a bit misplaced. Think of it like the Homeland Security for energy where all projects can communicate and coordinate with other another in order to prevent redundancy and repetition as well encourage the adoption of best effort practices when any program finds success. Any organization of significance is going to necessarily have bureaucracy or else they run the risk of becoming increasingly inefficient and inchoate in their operation.
Bureaucracy isn't shorthand for evil or incompetence, it is simply the natural result of scale.
It was more a criticism of Colbert for dismissing the 'Department of Energy' based strictly on its name.
Reading comprehension is hard, sorry
Meh, I re-read my screed, and it's clunky. I do think that it would probably be a worthwhile exercise by the federal government to at least consider a reorganization of various departments, when you have things called a 'Department of Energy' that oversees so much more than energy, and something called the 'Internal Revenue Service' also overseeing adherence to health care spending.
Yeah, the conservatism in my neo-con convictions is deeply rooted in small government even if for the most part its a vague and squishy sentiment. My primary concern is having free and open societies and I largely feel content in allowing individuals to run those societies as they wish -even when that means badly.
A lot of what the DoE does makes sense. They have a lot of expertise when it comes to atomic science so why create another department to, say, dismantle nuclear weapons. You are dealing with a lot of the same issues, such as safe handling, containment protocols, disposal procedures, and they would have be consulted anyway, and you can avoid the ramp up and organizational issues, and the staffing and vetting is already there for the most part. . .It makes perfect sense. I could make a similar argument for environmental concerns.. . . But each of these are fractal divisions though, and how often can you do this until the modified structure becomes, as you said, something absurd. It also allows for things like malicious compliance because so much of the system is patchwork than it can only operate well when other aspects of the system's regulations are ignored. It doesn't take long until it becomes a Gordian Knot of poorly implemented policy.
Anyway, sorry man, I didn't mean to jump your shit. The original post just seemed perilously close to a gubmint bad thing so I reflexively felt the need to waterboard the sentiment into something more nuanced.
Take this with a grain of salt but what I’ve hear from some long time DeSantis supporters down here in Florida is he purposely had the Dominion lawyer on the defamation panel to bait the Trump people into outrage because the more they talk 2020 the more unhinged and unpopular they come across. I don’t know if it’s true but I love a good troll
I’ve reviewed the technical material available about Covid-19 origins and it’s not a hard call - it came from a lab leak. I can’t understand how any trained scientist in molecular biology could conclude otherwise. So the disagreement is largely political obfuscation. (I have an MD/PhD and work in biotech).
Honestly curious what you make of this?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
I am very familiar with this paper, which is flawed at several levels. Biggest methodological issue is that this is a purely observational study and the statistics are based on correlation and clustering. Because of this, such studies are “hypothesis forming” as opposed to “hypothesis testing” and subject to all sorts of hidden confounders. Such as the fact that one of the virus labs was two blocks from the wet market. Data around the first patients has been suppressed, and this data would have been the most important and least susceptible to confounders. Another issue is that only environmental samples were found in the market. No infected animals were ever found. With very high confidence, the vector for Covid-19 is a species of bat that does not live near Wuhan and was never sold in the market. Where can you find such bats in Wuhan? At labs studying viruses. The presence of “Covid-19 susceptible animal species” being found in the market is not terribly important, other than possibly being a secondary reservoir (there is no evidence of this either.) The authors of this paper did not provide their results in the context of other conflicting information. Pretty clear the investigators went into this wanting to prove their hypothesis, not rigorously test it. It’s really sad that this got published, especially in Science.
You missed the biggest flaw: they presume that the confirmed cases they know of were the only confirmed cases at the time. We know that the CCP was suppressing information about the novel illness throughout December, even arresting doctors who tried to spread the alarm. I believe Scott Gottlieb's book mentions that for some time, doctors were not allowed to diagnose the new disease in patients who didn't have a connection to the market (allowing the government to pretend it was a limited, contained outbreak.) The data is garbage, and so is any conclusion scientists attempt to draw from it. It is amazing how naive they are about Beijing.
If missing data was random, that would not affect the statistics. But it’s not - October/November data was selectively suppressed by the Chinese. How could such a paper get published? Western
virologists developed the methods and transferred the technology to China. And then funded the research into labs that had known problems with safety. Stupidity.
And at the end, they finally point out the obvious:
"We also lack direct evidence of an intermediate animal infected with a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor virus either at the Huanan market or at a location connected to its supply chain..."
Again, I want to stress that I don't have a dog in this fight. I lean towards natural zoonotic origin but with low confidence, and I am *very* anti-CCP so if anything, my biases run in the lab leak direction. But it seems like your critiques, while all valid, are reasons to put lower confidence in zoonotic origin, rather than to conclude the opposite.
From what I have seen, the lab leak theory is based primarily off of the *lack* of hard evidence for a natural origin (plus sketchy CCP behavior), rather than hard evidence for a lab accident. And to be fair, that's exactly what you would expect if the virus originated in a lab and there was a cover up! I can completely understand why someone might lean more towards the lab leak theory for that reason. But I personally haven't seen nearly enough circumstantial evidence for me to say that it's not even a hard call. If I applied the same evidentiary standards to other questions, I think I would be led astray more often than not.
Maybe I'm wrong and there is hard evidence for a lab leak out there. If you know of a good summary of the book you mentioned below I'd love to read it (being honest, probably not going to read the whole book -- I'm just backed up on my reading list).
I'm with you; I haven't seen enough evidence either way. As a non-expert, both coincidences are extremely striking: an early locus of cases at a wet market, which is exactly where you would expect a zoonotic virus to appear, and the outbreak beginning in the same city as a coronavirus research center with poor safety controls, which is exactly where you would expect a lab leak to begin. Any evidence is muddied by the fact that the CCP was actively suppressing information about the outbreak from the very beginning in December 2019, and that *both* possibilities are extremely embarrassing to the CCP - which is why they have at times promotedinsane conspiracy theories like a lab leak at Fort Detrick introduced to Wuhan by American soldiers, or the European frozen fish theory.
I don't think the actual answer here really matters in any practical sense. We need stricter controls on virus research (regardless of whether a specific technique meets the NIH/NIAID's narrow definition of "gain of function research") and China needs to eradicate traditional Chinese medicine and associated food practices.
The real scandal here is the coverup, and mainstream scientists' complicity (due to a combination of naivete and self-interest) in playing down the cover up. Even if a scientist truly believes that the evidence points to a zoonotic origin, it is scientific malpractice to not even mention the fact that the data is affected by China's interference. I am not saying that the coverup is evidence of the crime: China was embarrassed by the outbreak regardless of its origin, and they would have behaved the same whether it was a zoonotic outbreak or a lab leak or (most likely, in my view) if they had no fucking clue what was happening and were in panic mode. But I would be much more likely to be convinced if a scientist said, "Yes, much of the early data is affected by China's attempt to suppress information about the novel disease outbreak. However, in light of all data that was eventually made public, a preponderance of the evidence suggests a natural evidence."
I agree with this.
I can tell you that this is not a close call within the scientific community, at least those that have no stake in this debate. Unfortunately, we have lost our confidence in credentials and institutions the past few years because even science has become politicized. It’s my belief that western scientists contributed to the pandemic as much as the Chinese. I’m confident that i could easily convince you that it is very likely and with high confidence that this was an unintentional lab leak. But you would have to have a good background in statistics. And I don’t blame you to question my conclusions. Lots of people with my same credentials have not been objective.
Sorry to keep harping on this, but
"this is not a close call within the scientific community"
is a pretty strong claim. I'm honestly curious what evidence this statement is based on? The scientific community is obviously quite broad - what field(s) are you referring to? Are you basing this on anecdotal experience, surveys, public statements...? I consider myself reasonably well informed on these types of issues, and I get news from a decent variety of sources, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that most people in the relevant fields think that "this is not a close call". But maybe I'm not as well informed as I think.
Ryan - how can i possibly explain all this in such a forum? My own analysis used Bayesian methodology to update probabilities on each set of data as it was updated. Did you read viral? If you’d like to discuss after reading that book, happy to have a zoom meeting.
I have a decent background in statistics, so if you're up for it, go for it.
And while I have you, something else that came to mind. The correlation between early cases and the wet market still has to be explained in the lab leak scenario. What would your explanation be? That the correlation is real but due to some sort of super spreader event after an initial infection at the lab? That the correlation is artificial and only appears because the CCP suppressed information on early cases *except* those at the wet market in an attempt to throw people off the trail? Or that the wet market cases were fabricated wholesale? Something else?
There's no way you can speak with such confidence on that
What exactly are your credentials?
Was it difficult to get access to the data?
It’s all over the place (including from scientists on twitter.) if you have a bit of genetics background, the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19
Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. Alina Chan, a co-author, is an excellent scientist.
I just listened to her and Matt Ridley discuss the book on Sam Harris' podcast. They made what seemed like a pretty compelling case, although what low-hanging fruit. An idiot could tell you that the virology center where they studied genetic manipulation of coronaviruses that was irresponsibly located in the middle of a megalopolis and that the Chinese government wouldn't allow an objective analysis of following the outbreak is astronomically more probable a candidate than a wet market. One of the more disappointing realizations I took away from listening to that interview was that a few years later, their book seems to be meeting significant suppression efforts and the scientists who chose to honor their political appointments at the expense of scientific principles have never had to explain the rationales for their choices. This seems like an anti-scientific step down the path to being inexcusably ill-prepared to handle the next pandemic.
You nailed it.
Listened to that one as well. Eye-opening.
Stirewalt is such a mensch.
Matt, I’m still waiting for an apology about all the “let’s beat the shit out of Gordo” stuff. I didn’t write that email.
There can only be one true Gordo within the Fifdom, and it’s me.
I was impersonated, humiliated, and infuriated. I want revenge—plus an apology, Matt. This was black propaganda a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Don’t believe the faux-Gordo people. Or should I call him, Gordaux The Bastard?
Make it right, Matt.
p.s. this is in reference to the last Second Sunday broadcast. My name was sullied, my identity stolen, and Matt threatened violence upon me.
p.s.s. Moynihan, I’m sure we could get that wonderful woman a ticket to the show. Just create a go-fund-me campaign, then squeeze us for cash. I pledge $50.
There can only be one! ☝️
"Washing your Cheerios."
Maybe the Reason misinformation designation has to do with that story they ran about El Chapo's son where they failed to call him out for being a nepo baby. He totally is. Doesn't even have a real cartel nickname.
I feel like I've never heard the hosts talk so little... Interesting discussion, I have never really thought about the internal/office politics at Fox and this provided some interesting insight.
Indeed, it was quite reminiscent of the Remnant (especially since Chris & Jonah have very similar voices). Not mad, it’s just different. CS had a lot to get out, I get it. I’d love for him to come back & have a more freewheeling conversation with the boys.
I'd like to push back a bit on the claim that what's broken news is a problem of demand rather than supply. I think both factors are at play. There is absolutely a segment of the population that demands partisan "news" and opinion, and cable has been more than eager to meet that demand. But I think there is also a large segment of the population, maybe even a plurality, that wants more objective (or at least aspirationally objective) news, and more nuanced opinion. TFC and the larger Substack universe (and other outlets like it) are evidence of that. But there are no cable outlets even trying to meet that demand. Isn't that a supply-side issue?
Yeah, and he actually goes in that direction during the CSPAN interview, talking in terms of the persuadable independent voter (who also happens to be the least partisan/ideologically tethered). I ask him specifically about Substack & podcasts & such as well. Moynihan has long made the point that the cable nets & big newspapers are just totally choosing not to understand the appeal of Joe Rogan types, and what that says about a potential new large audience out there. All the better for us!
So, what you're saying is the market is ripe for the rise of a TFC media empire?
Self-evident, tbh.
Yes. Very true.
Stirewalt is a great guest, I hope you have him on again.
Also, where is Eli Lake? Bring him back on already.
I bet he shows up as part of “Free Press” soon.
Got a hankerin' for a McRib. Great interview and interviewee, Thanks y'all so much.
Holy Croakano! Thanks for having Stirewalt on and creating an ersatz Dispatch/TFC crossover event.
I bought a McRib last fall because I wasn’t sure if I’d had one. I didn’t, and still don’t, understand the obsession. Things are different in WV, I guess.
Appreciate the commentary on COVID.
As far as FNC personnel, Hannity was incredibly nice when I worked a radio promotion with him. Same for Alan Colmes.
I've never had the McDonald's version, but when I was a college student, the dining hall served up a version that, compared to their normal fare, wasn't too bad. It was basically a hot dog slathered in barbecue sauce. I think the grinder their supplier used wasn't quite up to snuff, so I would on occasion have to pull a ligament out of my teeth.
Yah. I didn’t get what the big deal was. Quarter-pounder-ish. Pork instead of beefish meat.
(I don’t eat Mickey D’s often....but it is Lent, so maybe a Fish Filet might be on tap for Friday night....)
I also don’t get the Szechuan sauce. Or Rick and Morty.