He is uncritical, yes. But he doesn't deny being uncritical.
It's a useful "service" to get people with diametrically opposite viewpoints to talk freely, and he does that well
The interviewer doesn't need to impose their world view on the guest, or the audience -- it's OK to let the audience make up their own minds.
Contradictions aren't inherently bad, either ... "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", etc.
What if the guest lies or omits crucial facts? How is the audience supposed to know that? Fact checking is the very basis of responsible journalism.
I guess take it for what it is -- it's a conversation recorded on YouTube ... maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)
(I'd also say that 95% of journalism you see on TV is not much different than a conversation recorded on YouTube, i.e. they don't do fact checking themselves.)
> maybe don't be fooled by the suit and the mics. Anyone can buy those, there is no certification AFAIK :-)
:)
Isn't that his whole schtick? Letting people voice their different opinions? Yes his questions are soft. And yes, I'd love to see Netanyahu and Harari debate - can you make that happen?
It's quite a sad indicator of the state of knowledge in the world where Fridman is considered the more "intellectual" of pop podcasters when the most popular podcasts are crap like Rogan, Shawn Ryan, Candace Owens, and Call Her Daddy.
Because Fridman will literally have a guest with platform A, like Netanyahu, and agree on 95% of his controversial points with little pushback. And then immediately after have on Yuval Harari, with the opposite opinion on those controversial points... and agree with 95% again with little pushback. Fridman softballs and is almost useless except as a megaphone. You'd rather have him cut out and have Netanyahu and Harari debate on their own merits.