[rtkwe]

There's clearly a decent number of people who listen to Jones all day on his own channel who don't make that realization so it's a fair assumption that there are people who won't come to the correct conclusion about Jones who hadn't been exposed to him before he went on Rogan's podcast.

It's not even strictly about filtering information it's about appropriately presenting the information, giving both sides of an argument equal time and legitimacy is how we've gotten such high levels of climate change denial in the US. News networks, afraid of being seen as taking a side by framing the denial side appropriately as the scientifically unsupported side, would just present two people each arguing their own sides with equal weight given to both the denial and the pro side which gives the appearance there's equal evidence supporting both points where really there split is pretty much all vs a few every specific studies that only support denial in a vacuum.

[mistermann]

Are you suggesting that both sides of the climate change debate get equal time in the media?

[rtkwe]

Pretty much, used to be every climate change story would have the 3 person panel setup with the host, a climate change denier and a climate scientist with the question of "is climate change a real threat."

[mistermann]

I regularly see climate change stories, on TV, print, and the internet, and I can't recall any time in the last several years where any time/space, let alone an equal amount, was provided for dissenting opinions. At best, they might include mention of a strawman example of an opposing argument.

Perhaps you and I are consuming different news sources - do you have any recent examples demonstrating this equal allocation to both sides?