Rogan and The Rock and Stelter, Noem and the Media and Science and Sports

Good science is predicated on the humble admission that we do not know or understand everything so well as we should like. For that matter, good science invariably requires finite, limited creatures share information with one another, and be open to challenging and being challenged on their presentation of the facts and any attendant conclusions derived from the same. So also with athletic competition. Great athletes only become so because they possess the requisite humility to at least admit that they need to train and exercise to become stronger, faster, more agile, more enduring, and more skillful at their game of choice. But we must also appreciate the teleology of the respective arena of human endeavor. The 'telos' or purpose of the thing needs to be understood in order to approach it with any meaningful concentration or hope of success. Lacking humility, we will tell ourselves and others we have arrived and are sufficient for the task without preparation or effort. Consequences will contradict us. Pain is a teacher. And the wiser of us will learn from our misapprehension and be the better for it. But possessing humility is not enough. We need also to think about the purpose of the thing. Why is it worth doing, and why do we want to do it? If it is not worth doing, we ought not to do it. But if it is worth doing, knowing why will help us to commit ourselves to doing it well. Rogan and Stelter There is so much furor now about whether Joe Rogan or CNN are more trustworthy sources for information on COVID or any other thing. And I notice a very distinct contrast between two very different voices. On the one hand, we have Joe Rogan with a humble premise which also encapsulates the teleology of the thing. He talks with interesting people on his podcast to find out what they think about various topics because he wants to hear what they have to say and learn from them. So also, his listeners want the same thing, and that's why they tune in. Rogan for his part seems to be speaking in good faith and sincerely. On the other hand, we have Brian Stelter at CNN insulting the intelligence of both Rogan and his audience while at the same time insinuating that he and the other folks at CNN are smart, and you should listen to them because... They are smart. And let's just leave it at that. Do you really need to know anything else? If you think so, this too is another reason folks like Stelter will berate you. Discerning Motives from Methods We find the tell on the telos as CNN sees it when listening to what Stelter and his colleagues cover and how, as well as what they don't cover and why. But perhaps most interestingly, we can see how they view their role and the role of viewers and the general public discourse in they relate to questioning and challenges from competition. Between the two - Rogan and Stelter - we are all much better off approaching topics like race and sex and gender and sports and science, and everything else really, with the goal of wanting to know the truth so we can make better decisions individually and together. Rogan sets the better example, and serves as a better role model in this regard. Being quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry - or stir up an audience to anger - this is what God's Word calls us to and commands of us. Between the two examples considered, Rogan does a much better job than anyone I've seen on CNN even attempt to do. In fact, I think such would be antithetical to their model and aims.