I mean Louis Theroux has interviewed literal nazis and Westboro baptists, and I feel that my understanding of the world and humans is better for having watched those interviews.
It really depends on what the creator is trying to acieve by having the guest.
I second this view. If the interviewer maintains a critical approach to their analysis of the interviewees responses, I see no reason to discontinue watching. However, having a guest who is consistently an unreliable source of information and taking their views at face value screams red flags to me.
Kind of like assessing a new relationship, if your prospective partner becomes someone completely different around friends with opposing views, run. They aren’t an objective source, they are a mirror with a megaphone.
Louis talks about this exact issue on his Hot Ones interview.
I'm guessing they think the guest has a better analysis than the media and isn't endorsed by corporate backing.
Sounds like you feel they're just uncritically supporting the views of people you find questionable?
If that's the case, I can see why you might get tired of watching something like that, and I can also see why it would make you wary of the host's judgement.
Yes. I'm also worried they're getting fed dogwhistles or right-wing talking points from these people. Danny Haiphong used to be a journalist for Black Agenda Report which is very very left/socialist, and now he's having alt-right content creators on. Although, to be fair, he was a correspondent with Jimmy Dore, so he was already questionable.
Nobody is going to come and take your nads from you if you watch a video that contains a person you don't like.
Exactly. The whole attitude of 'this person doesn't agree with my worldview so I'm going to boycott the channel' is so immature.
There's a big difference between "this person doesn't agree with my worldview" and "this person is spouting crazy nonsense and the host isn't even questioning it," which gives the nonsense a sheen of legitimacy.
Ok, can you tell me why it matters if the host gives the nonsense a sheen of legitimacy?
The earth is flat.
If no one contradicts that statement or downvotes me or anything, someone might later come along and read it and believe it just because no one else disagreed. There are a lot of people who haven't had a great education or don't have critical thinking skills, or are actual children. When people just make claims with no discussion of the merit of those claims, how can the less educated figure out they're not true? After all, if the host invited this hypothetical flat earther to be on their show, there must be something legit about them, right? They don't just invite any rando person off the street onto their show, do they?
Not at all what I was saying, but okay.
You sound like you're really young. I'm not saying that as an insult I'm saying that because who n you get older you'll realize that many people disagree with you and you kinda just got to live with it, but you are also free to support or not support whomever you want. It doesn't matter what others do. It matters what you want to do.
It depends on context. What type of show it is, how the interaction is approached, etc.
Bonus answer: I don't really categorize channels that way but if I notice one has some really bad takes or inaccuracies I'm less likely to value their work.
As others have said, it depends a lot on the reason for having that guest on. But there are a lot of 'leftists' with questionable analytical skills and/or questionable ideas and/or questionable associates. You don't need to boycott them for one bad decision, or even a series of bad decisions, but you do need to decide what is worth your time.
If you disagree with platforming certain people in any context, don't give those videos any views. If they do it a lot, maybe give up on them altogether. And have a think about their other ideas/guests/associates that might have clued you in earlier if you'd picked up on it. Or the trajectory that got them where they are. There are plenty of 'leftists' who have ended up in a bad place without necessarily having been a shithead to start with.
I like to be open minded and also sometimes/rarely listen to people I don't necessarily agree with. But more often than not I get reminded why I don't like those 'questionable' people. They either repeat their usual few talking points or try to sell some 'simple truths' or push their agenda. Once that gets boring, doesn't entertain me any more, I switch to something else. There is enough content out there. Maybe a few times I've learned about a new (to me) perspective on things, or new facts or a study that I wasn't aware of. Other times I knew the facts and if the host doesn't call them out on lies and misinformation, I'm done.
I don't think I primarily make the decision based on where on the right/left spectrum someone is, but what they have to say. And I want to learn something from content I watch or be entertained. If it's misinformation they spread or they're annoying to listen to, there is nothing to gain for me.
What I like in this setting is a proper debate about facts. I like to watch those. But the host has to be good at it. They have to be prepared, know the facts and studies and call the guests out if they don't tell the truth.
if the host doesn't call them out on lies and misinformation, I'm done.
That's a very important factor.
It depends, is the host just mirroring the guest or do they engage in meaningful debates?
You can have someone like Joe Rogan who will have Bernie Sanders and agree with him, and another episode he will bring some idiot and make jokes about shooting homeless people... These people aren't worth following. But if you have someone who remains critical and engages in actual thoughts instead of sharing their 3 functioning braincells with their guests, that's a good thing.
You are describing Real Time with Bill Maher. People continue to watch his show. At least, I think you are, because I'm not sure what a "questionable guest" even is.
I've never watched Real Time with Bill Maher. I was thinking more along the lines of if Democracy Now had Andrew Tate on to talk about the dangers of human trafficking. Questionable as in they are a covid denier or anti-trans views.
It would be a problem if he was brought on to talk about COVID being a hoax. It's not really a problem if he's talking about something entirely different and not problematic
On The Convo Couch, they brought on a guy that's a covid misinformation pusher, but they brought him on to talk about the Palestinian genocide and the lies Israel is saying. Danny Haiphong has brought on an alt-right channel/magazine called The Duran to talk about Russia, and also Israel.
I think an important factor is how the host treats the misinformation. If they push back on it, you know they aren't inviting those people due to agreement.
Real time with Bill Maher has people of all sorts of perspectives on but he usually actively debates against positions he disagrees with.
There's lots of valid criticism of the guy but he at least tries to his ability to present a fair argument.
If you don't feel like misinformation is being called out on that site then it may be questionable. Don't shy away from a content creator just for having questionable guests. Turn them off because you don't like how they handle those guests.
To my knowledge, on The Convo Couch, they treated the guest with respect and as an informed source on the topic.
Know your enemy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~