I recently sat down with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks to discuss my most controversial views about Islam, the war on terror, and related topics. It was, of necessity, a defensive performance on my part—more like a deposition than an ordinary conversation. Ischedule. Although it was a friendly exchange, there were times when Cenk appeared to be trying very hard to miss my point. Rather than rebut my actual views (or accept them), he often focused on how a misunderstanding of what I was saying could lead to bad outcomes—as though this were an argument against my views themselves. However, he did provide a forum in which we could have an unusually full discussion about difficult issues. I hope viewers find it useful.
On 21-3-1970 Cenk Uygur was born in Istanbul, Turkey. He made his 5 million dollar fortune with The Young Turks, MSNBC Live & Wolf-PAC. The tv-personality & lawyer is married to Wendy Lang, his starsign is Aries and he is now 51 years of age. Cenk Uygur was born in Istambul and his family emigrated to New Jersey when he was 8 years old. The latest tweets from @AnaKasparian.
Having now watched the full exchange, I feel the need to expand on a couple of points:
Journalistic Ethics
The passage of journalism into its digital future is proving more than a little perilous. We seem to be circling a vortex, at the bottom of which lies the perennial problem of money: How can writers, editors, and publishers get paid for their work? I can’t help but feel that a reliance on advertising is encouraging the worst instincts in everyone involved. There is comedy to be found here, of course. I recently came across an article accusing me of “sexism” that was paid for by ads promising access to “Sexy Asian Brides.” However, the results of any system of bad incentives are rarely amusing. We must find some way to correct course.
I began my conversation with Cenk by complaining about how he had treated me on his show in the previous weeks. I think his unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between valid criticism and misrepresentation was a missed opportunity (for him). He seems to believe that allowing a target of defamation to give his or her side of the story provides the necessary balance. He also detects an ethical symmetry where none exists: If writer X has been spreading malicious lies about writer Y, and Y accurately describes X as “a liar,” that does not give each party an equivalent grievance against the other. Cenk seems to view most claims of misrepresentation as a he-said-she-said stalemate that is, in principle, impossible to resolve.
This is a growing problem in journalism. In my conversation with Cenk, I briefly discussed Salon’s unethical treatment of me, but I’ve had many other encounters with journalists and editors that should trouble readers.
For instance, I recently discussed an incident in which Glenn Greenwald forwarded a tweet describing me as “genocidal fascist maniac” (Reza Aslan did the same). Feeling that these attacks had gone on long enough, I decided to call John Cook, the editor in chief at the Intercept.
Here is a snippet of our conversation:
Me: My criticism of Islam is not racist.
Cook: It is racist.
Me: John, Islam is not a race. You can’t convert to a race. And my criticism of Islam applies to white converts just as much as it does to Arabs or anyone else born in a Muslim country. In fact, it applies to converts more because they weren’t brainwashed into the faith from birth.
Cook: So all Arabs are brainwashed?
Filmora activation. Me: What?
Cook: You just said “Arabs are brainwashed.” That’s racist.
Me: I was just making a point about the difference between having an ideology drummed into you from birth and converting to it as an adult who may have had the benefit of an Oxford education! These are different cases. And I am less judgmental of the former.
The conversation continued like this for 40 minutes. I felt like I was talking to a robot programmed to run a reason-destroying, political-correctness routine until the end of the world. It was, in fact, the most maddening encounter I’ve had with another human being in decades. I actually hung up on the man. (I haven’t done that since high school.)
I have no idea what Cook’s background is, but this is not a person who should be guiding journalism into its digital future. The only ethical defense he could give me for Greenwald’s retweeting defamatory nonsense about me (again, calling me a “genocidal fascist maniac”) was that “everyone knows that retweets don’t equal endorsements”—as if this were some high principle of journalistic ethics. Of course, in this case it was an endorsement. Greenwald has repeatedly described me as a dangerous bigot in print and on social media—and reaffirming this negative impression of me was the whole point of his passing this tweet along to his 420,000 followers.
Young Turks Youtube
What makes Cook’s precarious hold on journalistic integrity so ominous is that he, Greenwald, and colleagues have been given $250 million in funding from Pierre Omidyar. This is a fantastic sum of money—indeed, it is the same amount that Jeff Bezos recently paid for the Washington Post. It is difficult to see how this bodes well for the future of journalism.
It is also important to observe how social media is facilitating this race to the bottom. For instance, one of my critics on Twitter recently misrepresented my views about the distinction between what is “natural” and what is “good.” When discussing this difference, I often say things like “There is nothing more natural than rape: orangutans do it; dolphins do it; and people do it.” But the next words out of my mouth are always something like, “But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for certain species. Rape is one of the most immoral behaviors there is.” Perhaps you can guess how this person summarized my views about rape for his 10,000 followers: In a series of tweets he represented me as someone who sees no moral problem with rape at all, because it is a perfectly “natural,” biological imperative.
When I complained about this on Twitter, here is what Murtaza Hussain, Greenwald’s colleague at the Intercept, tweeted: “You’re going to have to come to grips w/ the fact that no ones misinterpreting you—you just have monstrous views.” Needless to say, Hussain has written multiple articles attacking me as a racist, warmonger, and “Islamophobe.”
Here is the most charitable interpretation I can make of this behavior: People like Greenwald and Hussain are so sure that they are on the right side of important issues that, when they see someone whom they imagine to be on the wrong side, they feel justified in distorting his views in an effort to destroy his credibility. This is an all-too-human impulse, of course, but it is extraordinarily destructive behavior in “journalists.”
Correcting an Error of My Own
Given how maliciously he has misrepresented me (and how much I have complained about it), it is very unfortunate that I seem to have spoken misleadingly about Greenwald’s attitude toward collateral damage at the end of my conversation with Cenk.
I did not mean to suggest that Greenwald is insensitive to the reality of collateral damage. I meant to say that in his vilification of me for my discussion of torture, he has ignored that my argument is based on my own concern for collateral damage. Given his penchant for defamation and his disinclination to follow careful arguments, he has helped make it nearly impossible to discuss these issues in a public forum. But my point did not come across at all well, and I seemed to suggest either that Greenwald is, like many people, unaware of how horrible collateral damage is or that he does not care about it. Anyone familiar with Greenwald’s work will know that either charge is ludicrous. (If anything, he is too sensitive to collateral damage, and this clouds his thinking about U.S. foreign policy, jihadism, and related matters.)
Not long ago, a young comedian was offered a position with The Young Turks.
The comedian, Dave Rubin, had moved into politics with an (at best) unremarkable show on SiriusXM, and was now looking to do political news/commentary full time.
It wasn't long before Rubin was filling in as host of the main TYT show, The Young Turks, and for a while he was a staple on the network -- you could tune in to nearly any show, and you were bound to hear some of his commentary.
But things quickly changed. Rubin unceremoniously disappeared from the show (aside from a quick announcement by Cenk Uygur, founder of The Young Turks), and his name became as unspeakable as Voldemort's among TYT on-air talent.
Soon after leaving, Rubin did a 180 (maybe more like 150) and began railing at what he calls the 'regressive left' (although he still insists he's part of the left) and associating himself with people like alt-right author Milo Yiannopoulos.
At the same time, a war of words began to escalate on Twitter between Rubin and Cenk Uygur.
Dave Rubin vs. The Young Turks: What Happened?
Rubin claims that one of the main reasons he left The Young Turks was that he didn't agree with their views on Islam.
Uygur and The Young Turks, although not 'pro' any religion, tend to argue that Islam isn't inherently more dangerous than other religions.
This view is in opposition to another view espoused by well-known atheist Sam Harris.
Rubin didn't like how Uygur debated Harris, as he explained to Tablet Magazine in June: 'The way he became the leader of the group just relentlessly lying about Sam, and then to sit there for three hours with the guy and just double down on every lie--it showed just such a flaw in character.'
While on The Young Turks, Rubin sometimes attacked Muslims and pushed a right wing narrative on Israel. But after leaving The Young Turks, he focused many of his attacks on TYT -- as well as the left in general.
While Uygur and TYT remained reticent about the split, Rubin has used many opportunities to attack TYT. Claiming that Uygur attacks 'new athiests' on The Godless Podcast, Rubin said:
What they've done by attacking the 'new atheists' is such profoundly dishonest crap..They're trying to make it sound like atheists are getting together, and atheists secretly are racist..They're attacking atheists because they know we're not beholden to any ideology, so we're actually the most dangerous to their bull--- because we're supposed to call out bull--- because that's what atheism is all about. Spiderman vs the kingpin sega cd rom.
He continued, specifically about Uygur:
I don't take any pleasure in talking about Cenk. I didn't go to work for him or the company for it to end like this..By helping me build Rubin Report; they allowed me to figure out what I'm doing, and I clearly know that now, and I'm appreciative of all that..That said, he's been a genuinely bad actor in this space.
..
The problem is [Uygur] has acted so dishonestly..There's a huge problem now and unfortunately they're part of it..
So Rubin claims that Uygur and The Young Turks are 'dishonest.' In contrast, of course, Rubin claims to be totally honest.
Rubin also spoke about his falling out with TYT on Joe Rogan's podcast:
It really had a lot to do with why I left, because I just could not believe it..There's people that have edited things where Cenk says one thing directly to Sam's face and then days later is saying the complete reverse thing..He's trying to defend Muslim people that he feels are being abused -- there's a lofty goal there somewhere, but if you use the tactics of dishonesty and slander and smearing to get there, it's not good.
Cenk Uygur Tweets
..
When I left..we left on good terms..and then he kept on Twitter -- kept lying about this [the atheism issue]..After months, I was like I can't take this anymore, I've got to do something..and finally one night I laid out like 8 or 10 tweets in a row.
So What's the Truth?
On one hand we have Rubin, who is going out and insisting that he left The Young Turks because he's honest, and TYT is not.
For someone who prides himself on being honest, he changed a lot of his rhetoric after leaving TYT. Suddenly, a large portion of his work involved attacking the 'regressive left.' Also, in describing Uygur's misrepresentations, he appears to be misrepresenting Uygur's viewpoints as well.
On the other hand, many do agree that Uygur misrepresented Sam Harris' positions -- though that is definitely open to interpretation. Also, Rubin clearly left TYT on good terms, so there's no apparent gripe he would have with the organization.
So is Rubin really standing on principle, or is he an opportunist who used TYT to get his show up and running, then left when he thought he could do better? We'll have to see what both parties do going forward to know for sure.
Wanna read more on this? Check these out: WTF Is Going On With The Young Turks? Shocking Sexual Assault Allegations, Firings, And Disappearances..
(more); The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur Hits Former Employee Dave Rubin: 'Paid To' Take Positions (more); The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur Talks Politicon Secrets, Calls Scottie Nell Hughes 'A Circus Performer' (more); Watch The Young Turks Ana Kasparian Make A Fool Of Ann Coulter In Politicon Debate (more).
Dave Rubin Cenk Uygur Twitter
And here are some more related articles: How To Watch Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks Debate at Politicon (more); Cenk Uygur Interviews Joe Manchin on The Young Turks: Check Out His Shocking Responses (more); WTF? Joe Manchin To Appear on The Young Turks -- At His Request (more).
Cenk Uygur Ben Shapiro Twitter
A few more: The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian Trashes Co-Hosts In Post Game (more); Watch: The Young Turks Michael Tracey Says Rep. Maxine Waters 'Shoved' Him: Do You Agree? (more).