[HN Gopher] Hunter S. Thompson Interview on Gonzo Journalism (19...
___________________________________________________________________
Hunter S. Thompson Interview on Gonzo Journalism (1975) [video]
Author : raptorraver
Score : 64 points
Date : 2021-10-02 15:43 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| fidesomnes wrote:
| Hunter's whole schtick is "Nixon did/said/something I don't like"
| is the work of a word hack and not a wordsmith.
| kreeben wrote:
| Maybe I'm being nostalgic, but I don't see this type of open
| discussions in media today, where on the one hand you'll have a
| reputable, mainstream journalist and on the other you'll have
| someone who thinks so far out the box that you'll have to invent
| a new word before classifying them and what they produce, even
| though they come from different parts of the what-have-you
| spectrum, is pure intellectual brilliance that's bliss to
| consume.
|
| I miss that aspect of the past. Maybe I shouldn't but I do.
| itisit wrote:
| Salisbury's clearly well-informed and knows how to ask a
| question without probing or catering to Thompson. Thompson is
| home at ease in his snow-covered Aspen hamlet. They're both
| journalists/writers with a mutual respect for one another and
| the craft. And the medium in that era was often there to
| capture a record of the proceedings, not to generate a product
| of it. It's not a lost art per se, but having all the great
| interview ingredients from what's on display in this video sure
| seem to be rare.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Hasn't it just moved to podcasts? You are right though, the
| traditional media just deals in half truths and artificially
| modifying information to suit whatever will make people click.
|
| "Orange juice (whatever) causes/cures cancer" or "some person
| said controversial thing" or "aggressive interviewer with an
| axe to grind" and actually when you go to the original sources
| in context this is very rarely justified or true. I actually
| think the lack of sourcing of things is horrendous when full
| versions of quoted interviews are usually available to be
| linked. And then there is the disingenuousness of the people
| who are attempting to appear in the media, they will literally
| say anything.
|
| I'm really not sure where we are when I trust most of the
| podcasts I listen to to tell me more accurate information than
| the BBC or CNN or Fox or The Times etc. but here we are.
| tomarr wrote:
| >>traditional media just deals in half truths and
| artificially modifying information
|
| You know, this also could be a definition for Gonzo
| journalism which by its nature is 'truth inspired'.
| alfl wrote:
| Perhaps Gonzo has been industrialized: "when the going gets
| weird, the weird turn pro."
| henvic wrote:
| Unfortunately, most of traditional media is both really
| intertwined with government actors, and mostly interested
| in matters of politics, instead of sciences, technology,
| and more meaningful and informative things.
|
| News is, unfortunately, mostly propaganda and de facto
| marketing & public relations of government officials
| instead of about interesting topics you can learn from.
| wombat-man wrote:
| I mean, I guess? Just as an example NYT has entire
| sections about science, technology, art, travel. They're
| pretty mainstream.
|
| There's a lot of noise out there but there's still good
| journalism happening.
| kreeben wrote:
| >> traditional media just deals in half truths
|
| >> I trust most of the podcasts I listen to
|
| But so does pod casters, even Joe "Vitamin D" Rogan does it.
| Half-truths sell magazines.
|
| It seems we've created a society where being "right" and
| pointing fingers are highly lucrative ways of conducting
| ourselves. It seems we have forgotten the ways of the past
| where even the most unalike could find consensus around basic
| matters and have fruitful discussions around your point of
| view as well as mine, because we knew, we're both far from
| being 100% "right".
|
| The arrogance of the human race, it makes me so sad.
| clord wrote:
| > consensus around basic matters
|
| But the thing is Joe (and others) will have the
| conversations you're describing- it's not forgotten. Part
| of having a good conversation is being comfortable with
| being wrong. He's explicit about being a joke comedian
| sports commentator, and can sympathetically talk with
| anyone. Conversations with ground rules of truth are those
| that tend to be dry and pre-processed. The listener can
| think too and figure out what makes sense. Part of what
| makes gonzo fun, too.
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Conversations with ground rules of truth are those
| that tend to be dry and pre-processed._
|
| Focusing too much on truth turns your conversations into
| legalese. People will be more focused on not being wrong
| than communicating useful information and ideas.
|
| Conversation happens in half-truths. You can't expect
| anyone to know all the ins and outs of everything they
| discuss - even scientists in their field of expertise.
| These half-truths are usually unintentional.
|
| The media has the problem of half-truths while seeming
| credible. In the modern media a news reporter reports on
| a protest and describes it as "mostly peaceful" while in
| the background you can see buildings on fire. This is an
| intentional half-truth, but it's branded with the media
| organization's credibility.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| There is a huge correlation between people low in Vitamin D
| and bad COVID-19 outcomes, correlation != causation, sure.
| It's usually too late to expect giving vitamin D at the
| point of hospitalisation to expect it to help. I'm for most
| people taking vitamin d regularly for all sorts of reasons.
| I'd be much more circumspect about Ivermectin but the
| studies are being done now to see if it can help, to say it
| absolutely won't work is unknown. I think promoting it is
| pretty bad personally and I don't take my medical advice
| from Joe Rogan. Medcram is pretty informative though.
| kreeben wrote:
| >> huge correlation between people low in Vitamin D and
| bad COVID-19 outcomes
|
| >> correlation != causation
|
| Thank you for that perfect explanation of "what is half-
| truth".
| anonymouswacker wrote:
| Thanks for illustrating that you "half-understoood" the
| argument.
| kreeben wrote:
| Which part _did_ I understand and what part did I not,
| according to you?
| anonymouswacker wrote:
| Sorry, I'm sometimes snarky in the mornings. Giving the
| OP the benefit of the doubt, I presume they meant that
| correlation does not always equal causation, but that
| there is a middle ground of the "unknown" rather than
| just the inverse of a logical, mathematical statement. If
| you see a pattern from enough correlations, then you
| might let go of some of your own hubris. It's not black
| and white, and so on.
| kreeben wrote:
| I'm sorry you feel I've been too binary and full of
| hubris. I'll take that to heart. Cheers!
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Well I'm not here to defend Joe Rogan but I think most
| people should be taking Vitamin D. Listen to the stuff
| medcram have put out on this, it's really informative and
| science based and doesn't make outlandish claims.
| criticaltinker wrote:
| _" That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around
| America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a
| thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait
| for all the people who took him seriously... All those
| pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace
| and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and
| failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the
| central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a
| generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never
| understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture:
| the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force
| - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."_
|
| Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of my all time favorite
| movies. It's a disorienting and psychedelic plot filled with
| subtle yet striking insights into human nature. I highly
| recommend giving it a watch if you're looking for a taste of
| Hunter S Thompson's legacy.
| jds375 wrote:
| Not sure why the downvotes. Perhaps it's due to referring to
| Fear and Loathing as a movie instead of the book it's based on.
| The movie is actually a good representation of the book and
| almost all of the dialog is taken word-for-word
| pimeys wrote:
| I've been trying to think for a while, why the downvotes, and
| one thing definitely comes to my mind: For many people, the
| idea of Hunter S. Thompson is this drug-fueled lunatic acted
| by Johnny Depp. That this is all he is; leaving behind the
| amazing amount of writing about American society and
| politics.
|
| Las Vegas is a tiny book. It's a great book, a story about
| excess and the American dream. And the movie is the dialog
| word-for-word, but it adds nothing to the legacy of Hunter S.
| Thompson. It's Depp getting famous by riding the fame of
| Hunter. And it is generally thought as a movie about taking
| drugs and doing crazy things. And, I might be wrong here, but
| this is how I see it after many of my schoolmates watched it
| and were quoting the scenes.
|
| And I like the movie. I love his writing. And I think Terry
| Gilliam was the right director to do this movie. I still kind
| of want to reject this idea of this movie to be the first
| thing people think when they talk about Hunter. He was so
| much more.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >It's Depp getting famous by riding the fame of Hunter.
|
| Depp was already more famous than Thompson when the movie
| was made, not that that counts for much.
| pimeys wrote:
| It's funny to think how he also destroyed it all by
| following his hero's footsteps, isn't it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-03 23:01 UTC)