This one gave me pause. Jon dive into the problem of freedom and how it is use as an argument. He tackle the spread of misinformation on social media and how it fuel lies into facts. The scariest part is the guests. They saw their country fall into madness, and overnight, freedom was gone. I dont think people will change their mind over this episode, and it will be tagged as Left liberals propaganda... but for me, it really show what is at stakes if we dont drasticly take mesures to fight missinformations and the angle we have toward freedom. Great episode.
The Problem with Jon Stewart (TV Series)
The Problem with Freedom (2021)
User Reviews
Review this title3 Reviews
Outstanding
thedivinewoman17 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Saying it as it is with humor and insight. This programme also has guests who are telling us the reality of things. While people salivate over Greta Thunberg and show disappointment that she didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize we got to hear from and about one of the two deserved winners.
We need more shows like this. Jon Stewart and his writers manage to actually make this show non partisan while still showing which side are the ones causing the problems.
America is losing it's freedom, it's on a slippery slope to becoming a country ruled by dictatorial Christian Republicans who spread lies and misinformation via social media, but, it's arrogance in telling the rest of the world how great and free and fair it is is masking the reality of voter suppresion and when people realise it then it'll be too late, so thank Hitchens for people like Jon Stewart who doesn't pander to the 'Greatest Country In The World' crapola, like his friend, Stephen Colbert, loves to do.
I look forward to the next episode.
We need more shows like this. Jon Stewart and his writers manage to actually make this show non partisan while still showing which side are the ones causing the problems.
America is losing it's freedom, it's on a slippery slope to becoming a country ruled by dictatorial Christian Republicans who spread lies and misinformation via social media, but, it's arrogance in telling the rest of the world how great and free and fair it is is masking the reality of voter suppresion and when people realise it then it'll be too late, so thank Hitchens for people like Jon Stewart who doesn't pander to the 'Greatest Country In The World' crapola, like his friend, Stephen Colbert, loves to do.
I look forward to the next episode.
Disappointing...
mozillameister21 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Huge fan of Jon Stewart. Many of my initial political discovery and mistrust of the media is entirely due to his show pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. The first episode I thought was a very good dive into a real problem that I don't think a lot of Americans really knew much about.
This episode...? It was fairly banal and I don't think it deconstructs the argument away from the obvious bias and polarization (I also think the entire debate is a slippery slope but that's another issue).
'Misinformation' has become a propagandized term, and essentially asking for more controls without looking into how it's abused is almost criminal.
Do people throw insane theories online and people fall for them? Sure, that's not new. Flat earthers have been a thing for many years.
However, what is been deemed as 'misinformation' today has become truth in several months due to suppression of experts and even scientific data. Which is especially true when it comes to masking (eg: unsafe o2 levels for extended periods of time masking, especially under any strenuous activity) and vaccines (safety data is still undergoing, challenging data for children).
Tl;dr: this is a very complex topic with nuance...with none of the nuance from one side brought to the table.
Which violates the very essence of the debate: 'freedom requires collective action'. How do you know if the collective action is good for the individual? Many horrible atrocities were done for the collective. The premise of the argument (and yes especially as one Jew to another) is not only banal but ignores historical precedents.
This episode...? It was fairly banal and I don't think it deconstructs the argument away from the obvious bias and polarization (I also think the entire debate is a slippery slope but that's another issue).
'Misinformation' has become a propagandized term, and essentially asking for more controls without looking into how it's abused is almost criminal.
Do people throw insane theories online and people fall for them? Sure, that's not new. Flat earthers have been a thing for many years.
However, what is been deemed as 'misinformation' today has become truth in several months due to suppression of experts and even scientific data. Which is especially true when it comes to masking (eg: unsafe o2 levels for extended periods of time masking, especially under any strenuous activity) and vaccines (safety data is still undergoing, challenging data for children).
Tl;dr: this is a very complex topic with nuance...with none of the nuance from one side brought to the table.
Which violates the very essence of the debate: 'freedom requires collective action'. How do you know if the collective action is good for the individual? Many horrible atrocities were done for the collective. The premise of the argument (and yes especially as one Jew to another) is not only banal but ignores historical precedents.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
