The NPR woman says FOX News isn't mainstream because "they tell lies" and then also later said she had a lot of respect for some of the journalists at FOX News (I think she said the late night specifically). Just a deeply stupid person.
Fox is the boater equivalent of CNN or MSNBC, mainstream trash for conservative voices, the fuck does this person know?
Don't call them "mainstream" media. They're not mainstream. Call them "corporate" media, because that's exactly what they are.
I don't see it. Virgil seemed like a deeply anxious person. I don't really get that vibe from Andrew. I think a rightwing grift trajectory makes a lot more sense. It's not like he's some principled leftist.
I think it all depends on how he takes to being 'cancelled'.
AFAIK the allegations against Virgil never went anywhere and nobody was actually able to confirm them or follow up with the accuser and I think he was just sick of being in the public eye
Could be wrong on the allegations but I certainly never came across an update
i won't divine the guy's manners or anything it's just that's where the money will be :shrug-outta-hecks: and he's already talked to so many right wingers in the 'biz'
business relationship with right wingers and sv allegations, hostility to corporate liberal media
If libs can excuse the gross abuses of Bonnell and Kochinski because they're "on their team" they'll excuse Callaghan.
idk his own subreddit looks like its taken it seriously, doesn't look like he has much of a cult of parasocial weirdos to spend hours defending & sanitizing him
saw he made a vid w/ brace, so i'd say that's pretty doubtful
his movie was just baby-brain unprincipled populism & he even interviewed brace in it. who is a weirdo anyway not someone who makes you leftist by association
i'm not asserting that the dude is a leftist, i just an skeptical that brace would hang with a far right grifter (though that may be giving brace too much credit).
i've only seen an interview with chet hanks, and an interview of key west papas (ft. brace). it seems to me andrew's brand is just interviewing goofs and letting them be goofy. but, by all means, if you're the NPR woman and think that interviewing one of the most independently popular right wing dipshits is "platforming" him, you do you.
callaghan just had a bunch of sv allegations come out. i think its likely after his business gets hit he'll pivot, because the right wing loves 'cancelled' and vile people & will throw money at him
okay i googled searched him and there are many allegations. ya, a rightwing turn is possible.
I'm guessing he just disappears, gets a warehouse job or whatever.
That post by the woman he assaulted was heavy. Don't think I can stomach watching his shit after that.
same. probably getting rid of my ch 5 tshirt now. thing fit great and was comfy too. fucking andrew.
hope those girls can find solitude, closure, comfort, whatever they need
NPR trying to shame him for interviewing :alex-oopsie: is some liberalism, but I don't care much about abuser Andrew anyway.
The interviewer made a stupid argument but imo if we want to censor Alex Jones (which we obviously should), then that includes "gonzo journalism" interviews where they lift weights and eat BBQ.
Some interviews that Andrew did with right-wing weirdos were okay, maybe a less serious version of Louis Theroux. Just ask simple open ended questions and let them expose themselves.
But the style does not work at all with someone who already has an established public image and good rhetoric. At this point you're just offering him a free platform.
In a hypothetical world where the dictatorship of the proletariat has control of the media, maybe, but we don't live in that world.
I don't think I understand. Is it not fair to criticize an independent journalist for platforming an insane fascist?
Saying he's "platforming" Alex Jones is incredibly silly when Jones is more famous than him. It also implies that he or anyone else somehow gets to decide if he has a "platform" or not. That's not how it works, which means your only choice is in whether or how you engage with Jones and his views. That's not just true of Alex Jones, it's true of many of the problematic figures where this debate over "platforming" them has come up. It's dumb.
Tbh I was really not a fan of the way he handled Alex Jones in general. Haven't seen the doc, basing this on the vid he put out. Letting some chud that can barely string a sentence together tell on themselves for two minutes uninterrupted is one thing, but Alex Jones is a grifter and knows exactly what he's doing. Letting him just say shit for an extended period of time with no pushback or editing doesn't work.
And also now I'm hearing about the abuse allegations from this thread. Extremely disappointing, I feel so awful for the victims, especially since this is going to be exhausting for them to get themselves taken seriously.
100%, I said about the same when that clip came out a few months ago where Jones just spoke over him, took over the space and just made this Walter Sobchak psycho rant. Like you can tell interesting and important stories by interviewing pieces of shit (Louis Theroux has a good history of this) but if you can't control the interview and just put out the footage anyways to clout chase then at a certain point you're just aiding and abetting.
There is truth in the NPR interviewer's question even though she asked it in a way that makes her sound like a pearl-clutching lib, which in all fairness she probably is.
I watched the HBO documentary he just did and he was definitely both sides-ing the protests around Trump which made me turn it off. I don't think every person at a protest will be coherent about their ideology. But the way it was set up made me think they were just editing out ppl that made sense. Idk if all the allegations are true, fuck that guy.
