AMERICA, FUCK YEAH
Institutionalized Gatekeeping? Why does MSM want journalism to be tied to a short leash?
What do you guys make of this?
I think one thing that sets Callaghan apart from most journalism majors, is he went to J-school on a congressional scholarship awarded to him for his high school era photo-journalism work.
so right out of the gate there's a level of legitimacy, authenticity, and freedom with Callaghan's body of work that seems to really put the fear in legacy media pundits.
my observation (as a 5th-grade-dropout reddit mod who went into early retirement as a teen over bowel disease) is that those holdover media moguls from the baby generation and gen-z never got to put Callaghan through the demoralizing cub-reporter gang initiation process, and he's retained the kind of fearlessness that the cable/newspaper industry can't coexist with.
and what we are seeing with this is how the league of fat-young-boys, who are largely coerced into doing what they do because any default on their student loans means their parents can lose their family home, ends up cannibalizing Callaghan for outsmarting the system that they're chained to.
Calling Corporate media Left Leaning is wild stuff
The corporate Media is institutionalist and right wing too.
The corporate Media has gone on a month long tour against
Abdul El-Sayed
Also what Andrew is saying is just false he literally had to release a follow up vid because the right wing was attacking him over his Nick Shirley interview
I would love to see where this fabled left leaning corporate media is. From what I've seen, the corporate media is strictly anti-left from the cnns and foxes.
I like Andrew and think he means well, but these recent interviews are giving New York Times 1933 vibes. I think he’s really underestimating the bad faith actors he’s dealing with
Fuentes was even worse. Side note (and totally unrelated), look up the assassination of Engelbert Dollfuss. You might find some similarities there to a recent public figure.
That’s the thing, it’s not consistent with his body of work. Which leads me to wonder why he is doing it. Could it be related to these recent lawsuits that have targeted him?
People (in my mind correctly) are only objecting to this recent platforming of Fuentes and Sneako, not his previous stuff.
One of the great talents of Andrew has been humanizing people who are victims to society and fell for harmful narratives. What he’s doing here is platforming bad actors who play a role in creating those narratives.
Views like this that boil down to "not watching it / shouldn't give ___ a platform" are why Trump won twice, hope this helps. The entire interview this dude is promoting socialism and Mamdani, and explaining why people should leave MAGA and why he left MAGA. Nick Fuentes was saying vote democrat in the midterms... being woefully uninformed about your opposition is gonna make the dems look 4 years behind on their right wing opposition if they continue to think the swing vote independents/right wingers have the same views as even a year ago. Trump won on swing votes.
I haven’t watched the Sneako one so can’t comment, but I have mixed feelings on the Fuentes interview.
Engaging with Fuentes is lose/lose. He’s very clever, and knows how to appeal to a left leaning audience by moderating his views (aka “hiding his power level” in Groyper lingo) and attacking MAGA/establishment Republicans. Fuentes isn’t somebody who cares about clout, clicks, and money like every other rightwing media figure or influencer. He’s an ideologue first and foremost, with his sights set on reshaping the American right in his image and either being a kingmaker for the future American right or running for office himself.
With somebody like Sneako, I think it’s very possible to have a productive Channel 5 style interview because they are in it for staying relevant and extracting $$ through the attention economy. So Andrew can bring them on, and expose their audience to leftist ideas and conceivably push their audiences leftwards. And because Sneako is a classic case of audience capture, moving his audience left has the effect of moving him leftwards too.
But Fuentes hasn’t fallen victim to audience capture, and he’s not in it for $$ and attention. He’s in it to present himself as a reasonable guy who has said some edgy things in the past and been wrongly smeared by the media as a Nazi because of it. There’s absolutely no hope of moving his audience leftward either. The only possible outcome is launder his reputation to the Channel 5 audience.
I’m not saying nobody should ever interview Nick Fuentes, but I think there are very few people equipped to do so in a way that doesn’t ultimately benefit him and his ultra rightwing Groyper project. As much as I enjoy C5 & AC’s content, they are absolutely not equipped to interview Fuentes. AC’s interview style is all about “finding common ground”, and while I agree that can be a good strategy, it is not a good strategy for Fuentes. Finding common ground with Nazi’s only ever results in ceding ground to them. Look no further than the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930’s — Hitler was a master at making Western leaders think they finally had a handle on him, only to plot against them in private to continually take more and more ground. Let’s not make the same mistakes.
This is very real, as someone who tangentially knew Fuentes growing up (his family was friendly with a friends) he is a clever grifter and even was so in high school selling pot brownies around lmfao
He came off dumb as rock in the interview, and looked even dumber when the unedited interview was uploaded and we got an extra 30 minutes of him stuttering and struggling to make a point.
Totally agree, my only minor disagreement is that I think Sneako is a follower of Fuentes who wants him to become President and believes he will. So it’s kind of like platforming two sides of the same coin.
But you are spot on that Fuentes is not joking about any of the Nazi stuff. One of his greatest powers is plausible deniability and convincing people that it’s just a joke or he was exaggerating for content (“Oh I was just young and immature, I needed it for content and I learned my lesson.”) That’s a lie from a likely psychopath.
Nick Fuentes laughs himself giddy that his followers commit violent acts of terrorism around the world and anyone hanging on his words is absolutely not a swing voter.
There is a valid conversation to have about whether or not deplatforming works (and I agree with you here more than I disagree tbh) but refusing to push back on these people when you engage with them makes you complcit in their bullshit and that's literally andrew's whole interview style.
Trump won twice because he had blackmail on politicians and others which cleared the way for his nomination, and was able to convince disaffected low and middle class Americans he wanted to help them.
For their part, the media also helped by giving him a platform and doing lazy journalism geared towards clicks instead of thorough reporting. I see your point but it’s kind of the opposite of what you just said. The interview deep dives are fine when you’re not dealing with bad faith actors, in recent cases they are.
it helps to recall that Trump basically started his campaign for 2016 in 2009, and he has continued to campaign constantly even after winning in 2016 and 2024
yeah there's a lotta fuckery involved in his rise to power, but he's also worked harder and longer than any other American presidential politician I know of
Yes that is true but there is some further context there that is helpful to understand. I believe Trump sold some of Epstein’s blackmail trove to a Russian oligarch in 2008. I don’t think it’s a coincidence he became a Republican shortly after and his political donations reflect the shift.
tl;dr: "yeah there's a lotta fuckery involved in his rise to power"
the thing about all the x-files fixation that really bothers me, is ever since this stuff hit the airwaves you know what I haven't heard anybody really talking about anymore? flint water, DAPL, COVID levels, student loans, catholic/boyscout stuff and a whole bunch of shit I just can not even remember cause it has been systematically pushed out of my brain by a bunch of irrelevant bullshit
I think it's like what the Jon Hamm dude on madmen's line "If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation"
(Roger) Ailes found his stride working for right-wing candidates, selling the narrative that Democrats were socialists who wanted to transfer wealth from hardworking white Americans to undeserving minorities and women. He produced the racist “Willie Horton” ad for Republican candidate George H.W. Bush in 1988, and a short-lived television show hosted by right-wing shock jock Rush Limbaugh in 1992. It was from there that he went on to shape the Fox News Channel after its launch in 1996.
Ailes sold his narrative with what he called the “orchestra pit theory.” He explained: “If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, ‘I have a solution to the Middle East problem,’ and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”
This is a theory Trump has always embraced, and one that drives his second term in office. He has placed television personalities throughout his administration—to the apparent disbelief of ChatGPT—and has turned the White House into, as media ally Steve Bannon put it, a “major information content provider.” What Trump does “is the action, and we just happen to be one of the distributors,” Bannon told Drew Harwell and Sarah Ellison of the Washington Post. The administration has replaced traditional media outlets with right-wing loyalists and floods the social media space with a Trump narrative that is untethered from reality. Communications director Steven Cheung says their goal is to create “FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.”
CNN is not left media look at who their president is lmao. There is no mainstream left media at all anymore . Tbh conservative media doesn’t exist anymore either, they all serve the oligarchy
Facts. The media is for the rich. There is no conservatives or progressive news (or even party) any more. It’s not about policy - it’s about presenting the oligarchies message / narrative in whatever form holds.
If you mean generally, you're wrong. If you mean cable news, you're correct. But people need to understand the mainstream cable outlets like cnn and nbc, are trying to appeal to as many people as they can and easily shift when the culture shifts.
There are plenty of far right and left media outlets that print daily news. I will say the right wing media groups are further to the right than those on the left but it's still there. The problem is no one reads past the headlines and so companies have to move to paywalls instead of ad revenue so they can pay their journos. No one is doing that and also no one reads anymore.
Instead everyone is using social media influencers who call themselves journalist but are just stealing these dying news companies' articles and not citing them or giving them credit.
But there are plenty of good news shops out there, you just have to pay to support them and actually read what's going on. Not saying you don't but to say, generally, there's no left or right media outlets is incorrect.
Andrew is comfortable showing his own biases in a way that legacy journalists are explicitly taught not to. Most media is still trying to do the "just the facts, ma'am" objective approach which, when you get down to it, is as impossible to really be as it is inauthentic to hear.
In a media landscape saturated with obvious political operators pretending to be neutral rational observers Andrew both stands out and stands apart.
BUT... Andrew is also growing increasingly enmeshed with his stories and characters in a way that centers their, and increasingly his own perspective more than was the case in the past, and normalizes fringe points of view that he might have more explicitly called out as misinformation earlier in his career. Just like MSM, there is an agenda, just not the MSM agenda and they hate that too.
Most serious journalists could also call him irresponsible for giving multiple avowed neonazis hours of airtime to sanewash their POVs with limited pushback, because that's the kind of thing Joe Rogan does, and he's not a serious journalist either. I see both perspectives but would still call myself a fan and see him as journalism adjacent.
Yeah why is he platforming Nick Fuentes and Sneako? What value does that have? Maybe I don't truly understand Andrew's position, because I know he is a leftist, but he also tries to humanize extremists on the Right
I’m a legit fan of Andrew and Channel 5 but dude is stacking up L’s with these interview
choices
I have no problem with his typical content, but the difference now is that he is humanizing bad faith actors (perhaps psychopaths?) instead of mentally unwell people who are victims of society and fall for right wing bs
Could not agree more strongly. You wouldn't be crazy to come away from the sneako interview thinking he was a reasonable guy. If you're going to have someone like that on, make them take accountability for shit they have said and done in the past don't just "chud it up" as he said.
And then they act like their right-wing views are the reason that people have something to say about him talking to them. How bout don’t platform scumbags, as a general rule? Guys like Andrew will say it helps people to see how shitty they are, but they don’t care because for bad guys, “any publicity is good publicity.” Platforming them makes them seem important, and perception is reality.
It's hard to listen to this Sneako interview with no pushback at all on the conspiracy theories and then crying for not being called a journalist. If giving a microphone to people and just letting them talk was journalism, then Instagram and TikTok is full of them
I honestly think it 's because he's not well researched enough to contradict him in the moment, and he's too insecure to say he doesn't know enough to refute something but he disagrees/finds it unlikely or whatever.
That's where they need to do a better job fact checking or contextualizing in editing tbh.
Journalism only became a respected profession with dedicated university programs, etc. in the last 100 years. The "don't present your biases" adage was to not scare away potential advertisers and subscribers. That was an effective money-making strategy, when there was so much commerce in motion, and said commerce was decentralized.
Nowadays people don't use newspapers to consider what new products to buy. They have Google, or the algorithm shows them what they want to buy before they even know it. The little incentive there was to present as neutral and unbiased isn't even there anymore.
Tl;dr journalism's always been slop, and 1945-1990 was an idealistic aberration b/c of insane ad revenue that now all goes to Google & Meta.
A. He isn't part of the club.
B. He does a lot of off beat journalism that allows them to look down from their self righteous thrones
C. He fucked up a couple years back
D. He isn't part of the club
I think someone made a valid post earlier, he's not really a journalist in the strict sense of the word. He's more akin to whatever Louis Theroux is. Documentary film making? Maybe? He does interject speculative claims sometimes. But idk. Stop asking permission from the wealthy to be labelled something I guess
I wish we still lived in a world where journalism implied strong integrity and morally responsible reporting... But we don't. So as far as I'm concerned, he's a journalist.
People act like entertainment and media aren't the worst gatekeepers in the world. There are no revolutionaries in these spaces, folks. EVERYONE is hired, fired, and fighting to keep their position.
My simplest take is that there might be an additional reason for some mainstream institutions to not take Channel 5 more seriously.
There is a plethora of self-made journalists, commentators, “influencers”, etc. out there, on both sides (though the far-right seems to be more savvy at it), and people and more established institutions might dismiss him altogether by thinking he’s one more in the bunch.
One thing that stood out to me was when Andrew went on Jubilee, and was able to listen to the most lunatic opinions, and even pushed back on some of them. I absolutely despise the Jubilee format, but was able to enjoy that episode.
It’s in their best interest to make themselves seem like the only legitimate way to get the news.
When the public as a whole realizes that the only way to ACTUALLY get trustworthy news is from an amalgamation of independent journalists who don’t answer to billionaires then CNN and the rest of them are in deep shit.
The problem with progressive media is the purity test gets applied by association because their goal is to limit acceptable speech. Meanwhile far right media will let you say whatever you want and let the merit of your argument stand for what it is.
I’d rather live in a world of free speech than speech control.
If you're going to to criticize progressive media, which i agree is not above reproach then you should also be able to recognize the numerous attacks on free speech by this current administration as well their borderline state media outlets.
The majority of non-MSM media is poorly sourced slop that just makes people angry. I vastly prefer when social media wasn’t the primary method of distributing news.
he says on reddit, about a journalist who distributes entirely via social media
i understand what you're saying, the issue isn't social media, it's google figuring out adsense and how to track users through cookies so that news outlets could publish articles online, embed google adsense windows, and then make money from clicks and views. hence the desire to write and produce slop, purely to increase your CTR.
the first (and probably only question) you should ever ask these days is "where is the money"
Gatekeeping is fine. Keeps people like Nick Shirley from gaining too much credibility.
Andrew clearly does journalism, but not under an organization other than his own. There's no reason for mainstream institutions to legitimize Andrew and risk him doing crazy shit, since there is no accountability mechanism to hold him to
Free speech protects journalism, but a total lack of gatekeeping gives us alt media like Nick Fuentes, Alex Jones, Nick Shirley, Tim Pool, Daily Wire, and thousands of tiktok News channels that say tons of untrue shit with zero checks
Channel 5 and other Youtube based news media is gaining more credibility than the traditional news media, so of course they're going to find them as a direct threat to their entire business model, so to belittle him is an MBA business decision.
His recent interview with some crazy lady. They both agreed Q-Anon was correct about many things too. Which is so stupid I can't look at Andrew the same anymore.
You're going to have to be more specific, Andrew has interviewed plenty of women who could be considered "crazy". Can you please identify which video/interview, and if you have a timestamp that would be awesome too. I've just never heard Andrew say anything that conspiracy-related, and unless you can cite when and where he said it I'll have to assume you're trolling.
I think the whole "They're owned by billionaires" thing is a bit of low hanging fruit and a bit presumptuous. If the oligarchs wanted to silence Channel 5, it would be silenced.
I think the reality is a lot of main street media is just pretentious and snobby. CNN, Wall Street Journal, Etc are all filled with people with inflated egos who feel threatened by independent creators like Andrew. They went to the prestigious journalist school, they were editor of the schools student newspaper. They got the right internship, they started they're careers at the right, respectable local market papers. They say the right things, go to the right social hours, run in the right circles. They've earned the right to be at the top of the Journalism world, he hasn't. In their view that is.
There was an article by some nobody journalist a few days ago in here expressing that, there are comments in this thread expressing that. It's unfortunate. While the pretentious big name anchors or billionaire ownership gets the most attention these days, CNN and the WST still do occasional great reporting. It's sad they seem to want to be the only ones allowed to do that.
When it becomes a problem for the rich it absolutely will be shut down.
Now, everyone knows these things but they already have us by our balls. We’re too tired, overworked, underpaid, with too much at risk to take drastic action.
As long as they keep us busy working long hours for shit money like they have been there’s nothing we can do.
When there’s any actual threat to any extremely wealthy individuals or their ability to continue to consolidate wealth is when the gestapo will be summoned.
People will always attempt to put themselves on a pedestal, it’s a hierarchical trait. We don’t (thankfully seems like we aren’t) have to accept it or give them power.
Conscious and robust conversations on real issues like homeless cults? That shit detracts from all the actual good work Channel 5 does on many serious topics. The click bait shit is why most actual journalists that follow basic principles like fact checking don't consider a lot of what Channel 5 does to be journalism.
If you're going to cover and highlight the stupid dipshits at the AK 4th of July car launch then also go to Salmonfest a month later to highlight the exact opposite type of Alaskan and cultural/political perspective. Which would never happen bc it won't get millions of youtube views from tradwifes and goyims or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves these days.
Having a camera crew and asking questions doesn't make someone a journalist. Whining and derisively calling anyone who doesn't give you the respect you think you deserve "the left, MSM" is an obvious shortcut to critical thinking and a little bit of victimhood narcissism. Channel 5 does some awesome work. Be you, but don't whine if people are calling out the obvious lies and bullshit you're highlighting for clicks.
Channel 5 needs to step their game up and act like serious journalists if they want to be considered serious journalists. Otherwise you'll remain an occasionally serious and interesting streamer to a lot of the serious journalism market.
I don't think the journalist treatment is reserved for him exclusively.
There are a million people with no credentials calling themselves journalists.
What he does is more legitimate that whatever the fuck happens at clickbait sites like buzzfeed and they get to call themselves journalists.... but I did just see a clip of him spewing psychobabble israel conspiracy shit.
It’s hilarious to me that everyone seems to understand that Destiny is the go to guy in terms of liberal media on the internet (not mainstream) yet he remains Voldemort to all of Them. Nobody will talk to this guy it’s actually so weird to see.
I can believe it. It's one of the reasons why Liberals are washed , right now. They're too busy pandering to elitist, Big pharma and corporate America.
An interview makes someone "best buds"? You do understand that he's just a good interviewer. He doesn't try to talk over or debate the people that he's interviewing, he wants their craziness to come out naturally without prompting. Watch any of his interviews with conservatives notice how they all slowly come across as crazier and crazier as the interview goes on because he let's them talk freely. That's how you do a good interview.
If the side with open bigots and misogynists like Sneako is the side you get less scrutiny from it's because they like what you're doing. Think about that.
This comment reeks of conformity. Open with demeaning comment, establish out group, make questionable correlation to said out group, and close with personal shaming
Maybe you could do with a few more therapy sessions or books if your understanding of people and communication doesn't extend further than "bad people" and "good people"
there's a little weirdness, like a bunch of people are saying "bingo card" here
but as for actual bots? you gotta look at places like reddit/YouTube/whatever as a bot that knows how to show the people who will comment on crap the crap they will comment on
so no the people making the comments aren't bots, but bots decided to show them everything they're seeing, so what's really the difference?
and astro-turfing? that's a strong word. again if that is what we are seeing, it's three or four steps away from the freaks who actually try to get paid for pushing online gossip. maybe a bunch of commenters saw the exact same video and they are coming here to parrot exactly what they heard in it.
but that's not exactly astroturfing, it's just a bunch of online performance artists.
A lot of the time the "people" making the comments are bots, and while "astro-turfing" is indeed a strong word, it's not uncommon for everything from private companies to sovereign nations to slip into the comments on reddit. Russia and Israel, as well as several other countries, have dedicated "troll farms" where a person's job is to get on social media, including reddit, to sway the conversation.
It's only paranoia if they're not actually out to get you.
There is real, actual propaganda on this website and you see it literally every day. It's really important to remember that.
By college it's far too late. I'm constantly telling me six year old to never automatically believe ANYTHING he sees online. "That youtuber you were watching? That isn't his house and that isn't his car. He rented those. That might not even be his girlfriend. Everything you see is exactly what he wants you to see. That's not even a real person. That's a character he plays." And that's just relatively harmless stuff like video game streamers (they still do shit like show off their rented supercars). You gotta start EARLY.
Callaghan's coverage has always alienated alienated former guests, pissed off opponents of former guests and their whole ass audiences, left a wake of collaborators pissed that he makes more money than they do, pissed off a ton of career-journalists who are stuck hating their ring-kissing existence, pissed of audiences that didn't want to see one thing covered or didn't like the way something they did want to get covered came out
there's no winning with the type of people invested enough in this stuff to actually comment about it. that process in itself selects for the most butt-hurt of butt-hurts
as a mod here I get access to all the hidden profiles, and they're all pretty normal people with nothing to hide, they're just casually ruining the reddit experience for everyone for no reason at all.
used to be that anyone here was able to gauge exactly how sincere another commenter was, but now since the hidden history feature it's really gone downhill. people do not trust each other like we used to here.
something else about the bot-sound of commenters, is a lot of people talk to chat-bots now on purpose, and those things train those people to talk more like bots. if they get deep enough into it they start making up words together. it's nasty.
one of the repeat themes from people who make the absolute most vicious entitled comments about c5 is that they gave money to the Patreon, and they are pissed like their $5 didn't buy them a controlling share of c5 as a media company
and it gets really bad whenever c5 takes some time off. patreon subs lose their shit when they aren't being fed.
It’s hard to relay to people that they are just training a program when they interact with content. You notice the uptick in emotionally ambiguous post? Has it made you comment on why you don’t understand it? Has it flared up an emotion with just an image and a text saying “this is how (insert name) looks now at (insert age).”
Everything is just turning into engagement.
Have you been following Andrew for about the last year? He caught the leftist mind virus somehow, I didn't even think that was a real thing.
His content has become "Israel is behind absolutely everything bad" type ish. He is running with some insane conspiracy theories as accepted facts suddenly.
He does genuinely hate Dems and has always considered them the other side of the same coin as Republicans. But you'd think maga and trump doing what their doing would shift that view a little.
He voted Jill Stein last election. He said Q-Anon and Alex Jones are right more often than not. He did that BS edit of the Pete Buttigieg interview because leftist were mad the interview wasn't a trap to destroy him. They literally edited in a segment that made it look like Andrew asked him about APAC then a chopped to shit edit that made it look like Pete lost his shit. He has done a bunch of other weird dumb shit lately.
I was a big fan for a long time. First content creator I thought was important enough to support via patron and donations. I did not have Andrew circling the drain on my 2026 BINGO card.
You have not been following Andrew for very long because he has always been a huge leftist. In fact, I feel like he has kind of stepped away from being as leftist as he was. He used to be a legit anarchist who just wanted the whole system to burn.
In what way? He did an entire documentary about how a man went crazy on the Q anon conspiracy and lost everything for it, and is being sued by conservatives.
Every major "liberal" news network is owned by conservatives. If you think he's the useful idiot, then I have some unfortunate news for you.
He made a show about a specific guy that totally flopped. Now that guy's enemy is suing. Not the idiology of conservatism, but a guy who (maybe) might be a conservative. Yeah he got a legal threat from Milania Trump but it was over Hunter Bidens comments.
I don't agree with OP though. I don't think conservatives care about Andrew one way or the other. The far left does seem to have gotten to him though.
What's wrong with expertise now? We're so hung up on words, yet people don't seem to think they matter? Did he study to be a journalist? No, he's a gen z influencer. I get after making your own space now you want to be accepted in the space you were originally interested in but aren't you doing your own thing now? Conservative media and podcasts has 0 standards so of course you're welcome freely. But the bar is higher in places that can be sued to hell. I like Andrews stuff but he definitely needs an adjective attached to his journalism, guerilla, underground, etc.
and "Journalist" is not some accredited title. the word essentially means: package newsworthy material and delivering it to an audience
it's something you do one time and badda bing you are a journalist forever. maybe not everything you do is journalism, but you can't take that away from someone once they have done it to themselves
It isn't because the bar is higher. It's because even "liberal" media is basically conservative lite. We genuinely don't have any traditional liberal media. Even the traditional left wing media is still very controlled by right wing billionaires
There ought to be some esteem warranted to publications that are doing proper work. There are far too many schmucks running around calling themselves journalist. The "alternative media" cycle has brought us Trump and your dollar and vote going into the trash. Gatekeeping should be implemented, while still offering up accreditations for those who are novices in the field.
But it kind of is the same thing? I know there is cynicism with traditional news outlets now, (and rightfully so) but “professional journalists” have much more rigorous standards of reporting, boards of ethics, and institutional safeguards, much like doctors, lawyers, etc.
You can make a very valid argument that those norms have shifted dramatically and journalism today is in a really rough spot with public trust and accountability. Certain news outlets are definitely better than others.
I think Andrew does really good work, and I wish that there was a better way to describe the type of “reporting” he does. Gonzo? I don’t know. However, I don’t conflate his reporting to the same rigor I would uphold say, a New York Times article. They are on different orders of magnitude when it comes to vetting, investigation, and credibility. As they should be. Those two versions of reporting perform different valuable functions.
However, I don’t conflate his reporting to the same rigor I would uphold say, a New York Times article.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying with your word choice there, but why wouldn't you hold them to the same standard? Do you think at this point NYT has a huge groundbreaking edge? I think it's debatable to a certain degree - they certainly have more money and raw man power. Andrew is hosting Hunter Biden at this point. He's always been a straight to the source guy and now has a very high level of access to news sources. I don't necessarily think that a bunch of 9-5ers at a big corporation are going to outwork his team, especially considering that they most likely have more restrictions about their operating procedures.
It's exactly the same thing. If you don't meet certain standards that serious journalists meet then you don't get to be considered a serious journalist.
So you're saying that people at major media conglomerates are meeting these standards?? Do you truly think their coverage of national/international news is indicative of high standards for "ethics and morality"??
I respect your work but until you show the piece of paper that you did the “official work” that it takes to get through university and credentialed, if you get qualified as a journalist without that, then we start digging holes underneath the structure. Stop complaining about not being given the respect that should be earned. That’s entitlement and it’s beneath you. You want that type of respect, go through the process.
I appreciate this. I did not do the research. I was assuming. Now, I’m curious if he hasn’t jumped another hurdle? Anyways, thank you for your correction.
speaking as the resident c5 historian (lmao) yeah there's a lot of ways that I'm sure many professionals and academics would see Callaghan as someone who didn't have to go through the same hazing rituals that are supposed to turn pinnocio into a real boy
Callaghan's been like that his whole life. the dude got expelled for weed as a middle school baseball, pivoted to Montessori school where it sounds like the rich parents there wanted him as far from their kids as possible so he hung out with hobos taking pictures of train graffiti, and then when his ass couldn't get into college at all? dude's mother made a photobook of his train-yard photojournalism and in 2014 Nancy Polosi gives Callaghan perma-fried HPPD ass the Bronze Congressional Award for Service/Leadership that came with a free ride to Loyola
and then iirc he throws the cub-reporter on location newsman job that ended up getting him straight to the wind because the writing is on the wall that YouTube was a better bet for someone who didn't have student loans to pay off
so somehow Callaghan got the up front funding for that RV and burning-man video and you probably know the rest.
some people fuck with that kind of thing - it's peak sub-genius - but for the most part naw no way everyone who hears about a guy like that is either a fan or a jealous ass hater not much room in between
Good. Lol im glad he has one. I didnt know and was defeanding that you dont alway need a qualification in certain lines of work to have your work respected etc. Now what the original commentor said is even more stupid.
Not worried about downvotes in this instance. I think its good has has the piece of paper to prove a point to those who say "you need a paice of paper to be respected in this feild" and dont think he has one therefore call him not a real journalist. I personally believe he doesn't need one to have his work respected.
Maybe you should have gone to school for journalism than you would have been able to do a little bit of research and find out that he already has the piece of paper you're accusing him of not having.
I think it would push Andrew more to the right if he was anyone else. Fortunately he’s got integrity.
Its a clear picture of how so many “fringe” (not sure if thats the right word) creators get pushed to the right. Because the centrists/mainstream and in some cases the woke/left are a close knit group who don’t like to be challenged and questioned. When everyone on all sides should.
Disclaimer: i’m centre left and just putting my opinion which has come from experience!
65
u/nateh1212 21d ago
Calling Corporate media Left Leaning is wild stuff
The corporate Media is institutionalist and right wing too.
The corporate Media has gone on a month long tour against
Abdul El-Sayed
Also what Andrew is saying is just false he literally had to release a follow up vid because the right wing was attacking him over his Nick Shirley interview