Who Decides What Constitutes Misinformation?

I’m not a regular listener of Joe Rogan. I just can’t spend three hours per day listening to a single podcast. I have listened in the past, but still difficult to get through three hours. Apparently though, my not being a regular listner is not a big deal because I recently heard he has eleven million regular listeners. I only know that because of the recent controversy over what is being called misinformation concerning COVID that’s been on his show.

This ”controversy” began when some has-been, washed-up 60’s ”rocker”, Neil Young, asked Spotify to remove all of his music from their site because they would not remove rogan’s podcasts that he considered misinformation. so Spotify looked at their money-maker, Joe rogan, and then at the music service, which doesn’t generate much revenue if any, at all and said, ”We’ll stick with Joe” or something like that, and proceeded to remove screechy Neil Young from their site. My first reaction to all of this was, and I’m not joking, Neil Young is still alive? And thought little else of it because I don’t think Neil has had anything close to a hit record in nearly half a century. So what, I thought, why is this even an issue anyone would be discussing? Who decides what constitutes misinformation? If it’s an opinion, that’s one thing because people have wrong opinions all the time. What if it’s someone who’s a recognized subject matter expert that happens to disagree with the current narrative?

Could this person be wrong? Well, certainly he or she could be, but so could the current narrative, as we have all discovered the past two years. goalposts have moved so much during that time, by those that would never proffer misinformation, that no one can discover where the goalposts are now, or if they even existed in the first place.

Then Joni Mitchell jumped on the train. Another artist from those broze ages known as the 1969’s. So okay, Spotify removed her music as well. It probably doesn’t hurt the company as much as it does the artists because, well, no residuals from the company for those songs which means at least a small hit to their income.

It seems though that Rogan and Spotify came to an agreement that podcasts of his that might be considered misinformation by some in the public would be labeled that way to satisfy the lemmings. I actually think Rogan was being nice to Spotify because I doubt there was a legal reason he needed to accommodate anyone. Sure, if he’d had some whacko off the street come in then maybe sure, listeners might want to knw that this person is not an expert in anything and what he or she might be spewing is misinformation. But when one of your guests holds nine patents in mRNA, then maybe, just maybe he’s qualified to discuss mRNA vaccines. Maybe. How about another being an eminent cardiologist and, oh by the way, epidemiologist?

Experts that do not tow the line of the government narrative(s) are being accused of being purveyors of misinformation. Of course, those that have joined the ranks of the lemmings are somehow proud of their victory over Rogan. Not much of a victory and in fact, it’s just another example of the tolerant left not allowing dissenting voices. Maybe, if we had listened to real doctors who were treating real patients, instead of researchers at the CDC, NIH, and NIAID, some lives may have been saved and we would have been through this a lot sooner. But no, it’s easier to consolidate power isn’t it even if that power is siloed to the point where no one outside whatever government agency is even able to get information already collected much less offer another narrative that might be worth pursuing.

Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s