[the6thwonder]

> Are from professional journalists who do weeks of prep

What you are referring to is called branding and this particular form appeals to your sensibilities.

All the top media outlets try to use a similar brand. Ultimately you are consuming a second hand synthesis woven into popular narratives, not anything more true.

[tootie]

What an odd take. Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist? That Joe Rogan is the same thing as James Risen? Admittedly plenty of people call themselves professional journalists that are frauds like all the folks at FOX or OAN who have been caught dead to rights lying to pander to their audiences. Or Rogan's guests like RFK and Alex Jones who only come on his show to promote their personal interests push their own utterly deceitful agendas.

But there are a great many serious people who take pride in speaking the truth and exposing reality that people don't want to hear. It's beyond cynical to think that every single one of them is fake.

[the6thwonder]

> Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist

Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority.

> frauds like all the folks at FOX

You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there.

> every single one of them is fake.

It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it.

Can journalists provide valuable information? Certainly. But they have their own systematic and personal biased. In particular, they are an extremely tight knit community performing for their peers.

Joe's podcast is obviously goofy as can be. But I actually prefer being explicit about your biases, instead of faux objectivity.