How Charlamagne tha God, Joe Rogan, and the “just asking questions” crowd turned misinformation into a business model—and why the rest of us can’t afford to play along.
One of the many problems with media these days is that influencers like Charlamagne are given equal footing with journalists like Roland Martin even though they operate with entirely different standards. Influencers prioritize being perceived as right, being the winners of every argument. That's why you have people like Joe Rogan clowning like court jesters when a known expert won't come on his show and 'debate' nonsense. It's why fragile men like Charlamagne don't engage in self-reflection and fact finding when called out - and god forbid admit they got the wrong end of the stick - but instead start throwing insults and personal attacks. I watched Roland Martin's response to Charlamagne, and I'm glad he chose not to respond in kind but took the opportunity to talk about why truth matters more than personalities. I'm not at all surprised Martin chose to go that road. I wish Charlamagne would take a lesson from him.
I dislike down to my bone marrow the chorus of "the Democrats suck" as if that is the answer and never say, as you pointed out, what comes next. I still stew (aka. rant) about this a little when they basically say Harris wasn't authentic or she wasn't change. Well, they got change alright! They and we got Trump. And they almost say, she is why we now have Trump and his goons. I want to ask what does authentic mean? What's the plan?
I really find you thoughts and insights helpful. I like how you put it: "Truth isn't an accessory; it's oxygen." The more truth, the better we breath. The better we breath, the better we can think. Friends often say to me, "Hey, take a breath."😔 Thanks again for all you do. I look forward to all your articles, Professor. Good job! and take care.
You nailed exactly what I think when I hear the lazy tropes that Kamala 'wasn't authentic or she wasn't change.' It almost always comes from people who didn't and wouldn't support her in the place. But the idea that Donald Trump with his fake hair, fake tan, and fake populism is 'real' or represents 'change' is ludicrous.
"A journalist’s only obligation is to the truth. Not to ratings, not to donors, not to whatever demographic the algorithm thinks is under-served. The truth isn’t Democrat or Republican—it’s just the truth."
Truth in theory. In today's 'money and influence are everything' environment, it's hard to be a real journalist. If you report proven, and provable, facts people will turn away. They've gotten addicted to junk for the mind and want that zing that comes with it. And the media corporate leaders are only thinking of money and survival. There's an upcoming interview with a recent widow and the CBS news exec that proves that.
When empirical evidence is overridden by people wanting to peddle nonsense, and the general public accepts it, then we're on a steep road to decline. That's what the right wing 'news' (ahem) sources give people, along with wackadoodles who want to market fairy tales and blatant BS.
Thank you for this essay. I'm not sure how many people are swayed by the opinions of a Bill Maher, Stephen A. Smith, or any of the other know-it-alls that you cite. But it is frustrating that their opinions are often treated like expertise. Just as it is frustrating when a Bill Gates or Elon Musk offer up their opinions on...well, on anything, and it's treated like were listening to a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Or Yoda. And why? Just because they're rich and successful? I just want journalists to challenge any one of these people by asking them about their background, their research, or what their level of expertise is when they spout off on any particular subject. Or better yet, don't interview them at all.
This is wise to say: "He’s become part of the “I’m just asking questions” crowd, the pseudo-intellectual Avengers made up of Charlamagne, Joe Rogan, Stephen A. Smith, Andrew Schulz, Bill Maher and other twits—the hot-take crew that believes objectivity means trashing Democrats twice before breakfast."
You are correct. I was very upset with those Democrats that catered. In fact I will remember it in 28 when my Senator who catered is up for reelection, he won’t get my vote.
Yes. This has been a devilish development in culture at large. Every discussion has become a variation of a Stones v Beatles bar argument, and those are trash to begin with. There is no winning.
I was reading about John Adams and within a couple years of winning the revolution, he and Jefferson were at loggerheads, Washington was sick of Jefferson and Hamilton feuding, and the press was offering some scurrilous ways to get readership up--the precursor to "yellow journalism." Adams knew even then that "faction" or political parties might be the death of the Republic. And now it is so easy to fall back on platitudes, play partisanship, and think one knows what one really doesn't know. Thus, I think that Maher often goes off half-cocked, and I tend to give little credibility to those who feel that "Dems are weak and feckless and need to be tarred and feathered"; typically it comes across as Monday morning quarterbacking.
So true.
One of the many problems with media these days is that influencers like Charlamagne are given equal footing with journalists like Roland Martin even though they operate with entirely different standards. Influencers prioritize being perceived as right, being the winners of every argument. That's why you have people like Joe Rogan clowning like court jesters when a known expert won't come on his show and 'debate' nonsense. It's why fragile men like Charlamagne don't engage in self-reflection and fact finding when called out - and god forbid admit they got the wrong end of the stick - but instead start throwing insults and personal attacks. I watched Roland Martin's response to Charlamagne, and I'm glad he chose not to respond in kind but took the opportunity to talk about why truth matters more than personalities. I'm not at all surprised Martin chose to go that road. I wish Charlamagne would take a lesson from him.
Great thought piece, Kristoffer. Thank you.
I dislike down to my bone marrow the chorus of "the Democrats suck" as if that is the answer and never say, as you pointed out, what comes next. I still stew (aka. rant) about this a little when they basically say Harris wasn't authentic or she wasn't change. Well, they got change alright! They and we got Trump. And they almost say, she is why we now have Trump and his goons. I want to ask what does authentic mean? What's the plan?
I really find you thoughts and insights helpful. I like how you put it: "Truth isn't an accessory; it's oxygen." The more truth, the better we breath. The better we breath, the better we can think. Friends often say to me, "Hey, take a breath."😔 Thanks again for all you do. I look forward to all your articles, Professor. Good job! and take care.
You nailed exactly what I think when I hear the lazy tropes that Kamala 'wasn't authentic or she wasn't change.' It almost always comes from people who didn't and wouldn't support her in the place. But the idea that Donald Trump with his fake hair, fake tan, and fake populism is 'real' or represents 'change' is ludicrous.
"A journalist’s only obligation is to the truth. Not to ratings, not to donors, not to whatever demographic the algorithm thinks is under-served. The truth isn’t Democrat or Republican—it’s just the truth."
Truth in theory. In today's 'money and influence are everything' environment, it's hard to be a real journalist. If you report proven, and provable, facts people will turn away. They've gotten addicted to junk for the mind and want that zing that comes with it. And the media corporate leaders are only thinking of money and survival. There's an upcoming interview with a recent widow and the CBS news exec that proves that.
When empirical evidence is overridden by people wanting to peddle nonsense, and the general public accepts it, then we're on a steep road to decline. That's what the right wing 'news' (ahem) sources give people, along with wackadoodles who want to market fairy tales and blatant BS.
Thanks for writing again, Mr Ealy.
Thank you for this essay. I'm not sure how many people are swayed by the opinions of a Bill Maher, Stephen A. Smith, or any of the other know-it-alls that you cite. But it is frustrating that their opinions are often treated like expertise. Just as it is frustrating when a Bill Gates or Elon Musk offer up their opinions on...well, on anything, and it's treated like were listening to a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Or Yoda. And why? Just because they're rich and successful? I just want journalists to challenge any one of these people by asking them about their background, their research, or what their level of expertise is when they spout off on any particular subject. Or better yet, don't interview them at all.
This is wise to say: "He’s become part of the “I’m just asking questions” crowd, the pseudo-intellectual Avengers made up of Charlamagne, Joe Rogan, Stephen A. Smith, Andrew Schulz, Bill Maher and other twits—the hot-take crew that believes objectivity means trashing Democrats twice before breakfast."
You are correct. I was very upset with those Democrats that catered. In fact I will remember it in 28 when my Senator who catered is up for reelection, he won’t get my vote.
Yes. This has been a devilish development in culture at large. Every discussion has become a variation of a Stones v Beatles bar argument, and those are trash to begin with. There is no winning.
I was reading about John Adams and within a couple years of winning the revolution, he and Jefferson were at loggerheads, Washington was sick of Jefferson and Hamilton feuding, and the press was offering some scurrilous ways to get readership up--the precursor to "yellow journalism." Adams knew even then that "faction" or political parties might be the death of the Republic. And now it is so easy to fall back on platitudes, play partisanship, and think one knows what one really doesn't know. Thus, I think that Maher often goes off half-cocked, and I tend to give little credibility to those who feel that "Dems are weak and feckless and need to be tarred and feathered"; typically it comes across as Monday morning quarterbacking.