But, even if you consider it an infomercial, I don't see what the problem is. Don't like what they have to say? Don't watch. Not sure you can trust his guests? Don't watch.
I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs are more valuable to their listeners, and will preferentially watch/listen them instead as a result. You're welcome to disagree if you like.
The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan is a good example of someone who won't let a guest dodge a tough issue - his interview of Erik Prince is a must-see for the benefits of a more confrontational approach, IMO. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught...
So, because you don't like infomercials, Joe Rogan shouldn't do them?
> I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs
I feel I'm smart enough to figure out for myself if someone's claims or beliefs have rougher edges and ramifications. I don't need someone to ask these questions, if they go unaddressed, I make a determination as to why.
For instance "Drink this koolaide and you'll go to heaven." I don't need someone to question that, I'll be sure to question it on my own. Did the person espousing such a belief do enough to substantiate their opinion during the interview or not?
"I'm smart enough to figure out for myself" is sometimes true, but it's also what gets us anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
Joe Rogan can do whatever the fuck he wants, just like I can criticize his choices.
Because at that point it's just an infomercial.