Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast this week, and the result was an explosion of news, hashtags, trending topics, and viral clips.

They talked about the Wuhan lab leak theory, a topic on which Dr. Gupta was already previously groundbreaking among media.

They talked about Dr. Anthony Fauci and "gain of function" research.

But the really big moment came when Rogan confronted Dr. Gupta over the drug Ivermectin, which Rogan took for Covid, and CNN describing him as having taken "horse dewormer" or a "livestock drug."

“CNN is saying I’m taking horse dewormer. They must know that’s a lie," Rogan said at the time. He told Dr. Gupta that CNN has been "lying" about him.

"Why would they lie and say that’s horse dewormer? I can afford people medicine, motherf***er. This is ridiculous. It’s just a lie," he said. "Don’t you think that a lie like that is dangerous on a news network?"

Gupta said that "They shouldn’t have said that," and when asked why CNN would say it, Gupta told Rogan "I don't know."

Clips were played and more discussion was had, and it was just an excellent example of two people coming from different backgrounds and arenas hashing something out.

Joe Rogan bringing this up and talking directly to Dr. Gupta about it was good for everyone, including his listeners who got to hear a lot of information and perspective they could have missed otherwise. And Dr. Gupta having the gumption and good sense to go into "the lion's den" so to speak was an outstanding example of genuine media outreach.

It was a win for everyone, and for the idea of a pluralistic society where opposing views are discussed and debated, not canceled or hidden away. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is often recognized and remembered as a symbol for progressive change, but the late Supreme Court justice’s opinion of kneeling during the national anthem was socially conservative.

According to Katie Couric in her new memoir, she eliminated some of Ginsburg’s quotes regarding the national anthem during a 2016 interview, to “protect” the Supreme Court justice. While she protected Ginsburg in 2016, Couric decided to publish the controversial comments in her memoir more than five years after the interview. 

In 2016, Couric omitted Ginsburg’s claim that not standing for the anthem depicts a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life … Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from … as they became older, they realize that this was youthful folly. And that’s why education is important,” Ginsburg told Couric. “I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

In her book, Couric states Ginsburg, who was 83 at the time, was “elderly and probably didn’t fully understand the question.” While Ginsburg was in her 80s, she was still able-minded enough to serve as a Supreme Court justice for an additional four years after being asked the question Couric claims she may not have understood.

Couric managed to tick off both the left and the right, for somewhat different reasons.

It's bad enough to hide part of an interview because the answer did not meet your expectations or might result in a negative political consequence. But to then reverse it and share the answer later at book-selling time doubly undermines your credibility.

An all-around fail on Couric's part as a journalist, and as a high profile representative of journalism.