I have opinions that differ in general from those often expressed on this podcast. I do my best to seek out opinions that differ from my own. While this podcast has been helpful at times with that, it has become clear that the opinion coverage here puts on such complete blinders to inconvenient facts and opposing arguments that it does not serve as good-faith or effective opinion coverage.
I specifically am absolutely stunned that in the latest podcast about the ceasefire in Iran, which the episode summary expressly says is meant to cover the President’s open and direct threat of a whole civilization dying at the United States’ hands, that there is no discussion of that threat.
There were two mentions of that threat aside from the introduction. Both mentions were offhanded asides, tossed out quickly without further comment, to make bigger points about the president’s strategy and projection of strength in this war. One of the mentions was glib and indicated some amusement at the comment— as if this is just a “wacky” comment by the President.
Regardless of whether this comment by the President was solely meant to facilitate negotiations or strategic pressure on Iran, or simple empty “bluster”, it should be—and is, on an increasingly bipartisan basis—immediately obvious that it is patently unacceptable for any world leader in charge of a military to make such an unacceptable, unprecedented threat of a war crime in direct connection with war plans.
I urge this podcast’s hosts to directly prompt their guests with at least one question per episode that deals with the full set of facts (including those that support an opposing point of view), or ask about the opposing point of view itself. If the question was at least asked, the guests could articulate their opinion and attempt to persuade the listener on why they think their opinion is right. If the podcast host cannot at least prompt his guests to answer a direct question about a country and military leader’s threat of wiping out an entire civilization, this podcast cannot seriously pretend it is providing good-faith measured opinion coverage about any issue.
To be sure, there is rampant bias of this nature in left and right media coverage, and opinion coverage is meant to persuade, not necessarily inform. But more is expected from storied news and opinion institutions like the Wall Street Journal, whose listeners and readers are seeking more thoughtful, discerning coverage of issues.
