alt Hacker NewsYou said heavily processed and barely-reported
If you want to say Fridman's content is "barely-reported", i.e. he barely does journalism, then I won't really argue.
But the interviews are NOT heavily processed, and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.)
So ironically, it kinda balances out. Being credulous attracts guests who talk almost as if they are off the record
Replies
Someone "interviewing" a pundit by letting them speak for 3 hours contributes very little to our understanding of reality. We might understand a bit more about the pundit's opinions, which can be entertaining, and could theoretically be valuable, but rarely is.
Someone actually looking for facts about reality would be far more useful and valuable to society. Not that we reward that sort of thing.
> ...and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.)
Im sorry but what evidence do you have to support such a claim?
I'm not making a value judgement. There are analysts and opinion writers I enjoy reading and get a lot of value from. But hosting a podcast interview with someone is basically the opposite of shoe-leather reporting. I guess if you did "stitch incoming" every couple minutes and cut to Fridman calling someone else to have conversations with other sources about whatever claim his primary guest just made, you'd be getting closer.
My point is: some of the prevailing take on HN about journalism probably comes from the fact that we tend to pay much more attention to the Fridmans and much less to shoe-leather reporters.
That's all!
Much later: a funny thing I could point out here is that the same thing I'm saying about Fridman also applies to Ezra Klein, Thompson's "Abundance" co-author --- I like Klein a lot!