I've watched a few episodes.

- He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5% that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC. Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices.

- If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared. They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of this - he is good at getting the bits they personally find important).

- Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't annoyed with him.

- Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real), just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's emergent behavior on camera).

To add to that:

- No gotcha questions. On TV, the interviewee might be on for 5 minutes and the interviewer asks a bunch of preloaded questions, especially "gotcha" questions if there's a political divide. Rogan never tries to undermine his guests.

- The conversations usually last as long as they need to. His show sometimes go over 3 hours if it's necessary. I don't ever listen for 3 hours and feel like I've wasted my time.

- Joe is clearly good at making his guests feel comfortable, which brings out a different side of people that you might not see in a traditional setting. How is anyone supposed to be uptight around a pot smoking, MMA fighting comedian who asks you if you've used DMT?

TV/Radio is slave to the show clock and ads, where-as Rogan isn't. I don't think I've seen ads because I use ad block, but if there are, they just stop the show for a minute or so. TV producers and anchors have to plan around all that and it interrupts your attention and affects how they deliver. Pretty much everyone on TV is trained this way and used to this. Rogan would be bad if he had TV's format and ads. To say nothing of being on YouTube and being able to ignore FCC regulations compared to TV/Radio. The format is just so much nicer. Colbert doesn't even get 2 hours and he is massively successful.

It is a similar trick Hello! Magazine uses. Allow guests to be themselves and in a positive light, with no scary surprise. The guests open up and share more about themselves and what they are up to.

How is being a welcoming host a trick?

It's like saying serving good food and making your guest feel at home is a trick for a successful diner.

Hello! don't roast people so they get A list people open their homes and hearts. Hence they are a safe place for people of celebrity significance to be shown in.

In British English 'trick' can mean many things. You can do a trick on a skateboard but the usage I have is

a clever or particular way of doing something.

"the trick is to put one ski forward and kneel"

I hope that clarifies the British English usage. Elsewhere 'trick' probably means deception but in British English there are other uses, e.g. the trick to explaining something is to cite Wikipedia.

Compare 'knack'? A positive skill but simple at heart. "There is a knack to it."

I understand knack not to mean a learned skill but instead a natural aptitude. For example, a knack for humor, figuring out mechanical things, putting people at ease, debugging code, etc.

A lot of people mistakenly thing that Joe is not very smart because he asks "dumb questions". I think it's the exact opposite, he leads his guests with well chosen questions that he probably already knows the answer to, but the guest can surely elaborate on from deep experience.

When I see mainstream media interview people that are expert in topics I'm well versed in, the questions are cringe worthy at best.

For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual perspective of their guests be front and centre.

> For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual perspective of their guests be front and centre.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I had high hopes for Fridman's podcast after the JRE revered him as a sort of young, genius, intellectual version of JRE. He's highly respected among JRE online communities, I think because he presents himself the way most JRE listeners expect a generic smart person to sound. Yet every time I listen to him, I'm left scratching my head.

It feels like he's working hard to copy-and-paste the JRE format, but like many other imitators it exposes why Rogan is so popular in the first place: Rogan is a expert conversationalist who makes both the guest and listener feel at ease, like the listener is part of the conversation. His charisma isn't entirely obvious until you start comparing him to imitators.

I'm still hopeful that Lex Fridman's podcast will get more enjoyable over time as he relaxes a bit and masters the art of the podcast. He's been able to get some high profile guests on his show, so the potential is there.

It's strange, there are some interviews where he seems to reach a much better rapport with his guest. These tend to be guests who are also in the computer science and software domain. I think his biggest hinderance is his reliance on his notes and his apparent fear of looking dumb or unprepared. I get it, I'd probably do the same thing if I were interviewing the same calibre of people but I think he just needs to relax a bit and look for common ground with his guests. Maybe there's too much fear of missing the opportunity to ask certain questions of these high profile people but it's a bit of a turn off. Rogan seems to get this right, maybe even going too far sometimes by not being afraid to just shoot the shit and talk about random incongruous interests. It shows you a side of his guests that you would never get to see elsewhere and it's a lot more humanizing than just question-answer style interviewing.

I think Fridman is very smart, but he needs to prepare for his interviews a bit better and/or edit them.

Too often he can't quite put the question he wants to ask into words, and if he prepared slightly better it would improve the podcast a lot.

I have a similar gripe with Eric Weinstein's podcast mentioned in TFA.

I've quite enjoyed the episodes I've listened to, however they can be difficult to parse at times - somewhat defeating the oft-mentioned benefit of listening to a podcast while performing other activities.

He is obviously very intelligent, but often uses language and analogies that appear to be aimed more at showing off this intelligence than engaging the guest or audience. It distracts from the point he or his guest is attempting to make, which is frustrating.

In the Sean Caroll episodes, he clearly exaggerates his level of confusion in the face of quantum physics.

He’s definitely smarter than he lets on, but there are lots of funny moments where he clearly has no idea what the guest is talking about.

Elon Musk: We need some kind of like, mind-viral immunity. So that’s, that’s a bit concerning.

Joe Rogan: Mind-viral immunity. Meaning that once something like Neuralink gets established, the real concern is that it’s something, that, I mean you said it’s Bluetooth, right?

I think the "wide spectrum" part is really important. I'm on the far left by American standards and Rogan still has a lot of interviews that interest me even though I think he's more traditionally associated with conservative-ish or libertarian-ish views.

Joe Rogan has self-claimed liberal views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ctTmQn8w7A

He's kind of all over the place, which is why I think he appeals to a lot of people (myself included). It's hard to put him in a box.

I hate the fact that Americans say “liberal” when they mean “left-wing”, or vice versa.

Classical liberalism / neoliberalism are not left-wing ideologies. They are, at best, centre-right if the Overton window is set to Western standards.

Edit: I love being downvoted because I care about the meaning of words. I clearly stepped on some American nerves. Thanks HN.

people probably don't like this nitpick because the core meaning of "liberal" is relative, just like "left" and "right". "liberal"/"conservative" may have a different connotation than "left"/"right" depending on context, but they have roughly the same meaning. you always need to know (at least implicitly) what position is being compared against to know what "liberal" means.

But that's exactly what I'm arguing against! The core meaning of liberal is not relative, it's a pretty well defined ideology (with multiple strands, to be sure, but still).

The whole reason you think the meaning depends on the context is because you have been mislead to believe that liberal == left-wing, or something approaching that.

This is completely and utterly false, hence my "nitpick". Changing the meaning of these words causes the exact type of confusion you seem to be suffering from!

Left-wing is a term with a very loose definition, and depending on the Overton window, "liberal" places somewhere on the left/right axis. "Liberal", however, does have a well-defined meaning, since it refers to a specific ideology, unlike "the left".

TLRD: "liberal" is not a direction on an axis, rather it's a point on an already existing axis, the left/right one.

I'm being downvoted too lol, politics on HN are so ridiculous.

Classical liberalism is basically the opposite of liberalism as it is mostly understood in the West today.

Interestingly, you see this most in Australia, where the Centre/Right party is called the Liberal Party.

But it hasn't been used like that since the 1970s really, except in the "Liberal Democracy" sense. I think that has actually caused a lot of issues where the US right says they don't support Liberal Democracy, whereas - generally speaking, with the exception of the authoritarian arm - they mostly do.

The meaning of words change over time. Always have and always will.

do you not remember when all of cancel police on twitter got mad at Bernie for accepting Rogan's endorsement in the primary? he can call himself whatever he wants that doesn't mean it's true.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-r...

"Rogan, a libertarian-leaning broadcaster with a public persona in the mold of Howard Stern"

He has intriguing diverse guests and let them do most of the speaking, for an extended period of time.

It's refreshing.

There are plenty of people I would never have listened to otherwise, because they are outside my bubble or just because they would represent something against my view of the world.

But because I also saw people I view as interesting or people I already knew from somewhere else, and because they have the time and space to elaborate, I gave the others a chance.

This allowed me to be exposed to new topics, points of views, etc, in a relaxing and human format.

Just like regular media, it's full of bullshit. But I'm full of it too.

It does, however, feel way more genuine than regular media.

This comment is an example of why complaints about downvotes are discouraged in the HN guidelines.

The comment is not downvoted now.

Given a bit of time, substantive comments that get early downvotes generally get restorative upvotes and end up back in the black, so to speak.

I only recently discovered him, and the biggest thing I noticed is that he lets his guests talk. Probably because he's not constrained to a particular amount of time, but I find gems in his interviews of people that I don't from the same people interviewed elsewhere

>Why is his podcast good?

High profile guests, long form content. Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal".

If I'm settling into some work and don't want to listen to music, I can put on Rogan and know I've got 3 hours of filler. You can pay attention only to the parts you want to and not be concerned you're missing anything important. After hundreds of hours, part of what makes it special is continuity and familiarity.

>Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal".

I don't really like Rogan personally but this behavior is intentional and quite smart in my opinion. Rogan (and his team) preps quite a bit, the vibe he is going for is an everyman who does not know anymore about the situation than you do. This is not reality. The idea is that this style makes the listener not feel stupid or embarrassed to learn about the viewpoints of the interviewee. He's among the most listened to interviewers in the world, so I guess it works.

A BBC reviewer [1] of his podcast picked up on this as well and called him the "Bruce Springsteen of chat" and said:

"His listeners get him, like him; maybe even want to be him. He's not a show-pony, or a light-entertainment phoney: he's the all-American do it yourself modern man, tough but intelligent."

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804

> he doesn't even read the books of his guests

In a 3 hour interview format, I don't think he really needs to. The interview itself is a similar medium, and by not already knowing all of the details, it probably makes it easier to genuinely bring along listeners from zero information to a full picture.

>he doesn't even read the books of his guests

Does he lie when he claims he has? I've heard him discuss books with guests on many occasions, though I'm sure he hasn't read everyone's books given the number of guests he has now.

I think its a combination of a lot of things:

1) He is a good listener, that asks questions that non journalists would ask. Listen to Ezra Klein interview the same guest and you see the exact opposite type of interview. Klein comes off as more "intelligent" and more "informed", his questions are more journalist in nature, and he has usually read the book (opposite of Rogan). I like both Rogan and Klein, but I get the Rogan appeal, and I think Klein interviews can come off annoying sometimes (the 10th "That's a great question Ezra" is trite)

2) He is not a political partisan. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not "toeing the dem/rep line" (or is it towing). A lot of people in here are saying he is alt-right, which is a joke, he is not at all.

3) He has great guests for all walks of life

4) He comes off as a normal guy (but clearly is actually in the top 1% at this point)

5) He is a comedian, and does not care about political correctness and gives two shits about cancel culture

He just has a very natural talent for appealing to a vast range of interests/tastes/preferences in the audience.

I once heard him half-jokingly say he's at the intersect between the meat-heads and the pot-heads. I.e., those into MMA, bodybuilding, cars, hunting (a giant audience) and those into psychedelics, new-age philosophy, yoga, nature (also a giant audience). And there's a lot in between those categories (people into more mainstream science/astronomy, entertainment, business, politics, health etc).

I probably only listen to 1 out of 10 or 15 of his episodes, but that still has me listening to him for an hour or two every week or two, and so I still feel more familiar with him than most other media/public figures these days.

Personally, for me it's because he gets big names on his shows and, much like on Stern, they like to open up, and unlike other hosts of other shows in different media, Joe is not trying to outshine them either intentionally or with annoying idiosyncrasies.

Take Jimmy Fallon for example. Can't watch 1 minute of that guy without wanting to smash my TV. His incessant laughing, at everything the guest says whether it really is funny or not is insufferable.

I don't know if Jimmy is fake laughing or not, but the net result, is that the show's flow is constantly interrupted by that cackle. Also, Jimmy is kind of a sycophant. Afraid to disagree or challenge and opinion. It makes for a boring show.

Then you got other hosts like Kimmel and/or Colbert who are trying to be super political which is obnoxious.

Then you've got people like James Corden who are, again, not comfortable shutting up but need, instead, need the center of attention along with the guest and instead of having real conversations, they need to do segments that are essentially games like the carpool karaoke.

I know it's different formats but it's an example how certain hosts drown out the guest whether intentionally or not.

The appeal of Joe's podcast is in the conversations and the minutiae of those conversations, and even when the guest, isn't necessarily interesting at first, if they converse long enough they're bound to go into an interesting topic.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with Joe's politics or other opinions but I always enjoy his podcasts mainly cause he's a good conduit for his guests to open up and start waxing about whatever they normally wouldn't on other shows.

Also, let's not forget, Joey Diaz. So many classic moments with Joey and Joe.

This is a great summary of his persona and podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my...

-He was one of the early entries in the era of the podcast.

-He is pro-pot-smoking, drug-taking, conspiracy talk, and generally being open-minded about everything, sometimes to his detriment. Especially early on he was very curious about a wide range of things, but as he has aged and bought into his own press I think he's become a bit less openminded.

-His podcast format is basically a couple of friends shooting the shit, often while stoned or drunk, but his "friends" are typically smart interesting experts in a particular subject matter. When that is the case he will usually let them do most of the talking.

-Due to the above format, Rogan rarely questions or challenges his quests in a manner that might make them look bad or feel uncomfortable/defensive. Though if what they are saying goes against his own internal beliefs or views, no matter how ill-informed, he will push back aggressively. In general, he's not very knowledgable or well-read outside of Twitter/YT/etc which helps the conversation flow.

-At the same time due to his success and the power of his show most of his guests will bend over backward to not question anything he asserts as fact or make him look dumb/misinformed. They all want to be invited on again as its massive for their career/product they are selling/etc. This helps make the conversations interesting but also light and fluffy to be easily consumed.

-He appeals to an overly male skeptic type audience that is fascinated by the fringe across news, information, media, science, history etc.

-He cranks out a ton of content with lots of different guests which is really the key to his success. Rogan has been wealthy and successful since the 1990s and has a unique and interesting lifestyle that affords him the ability to do his show exactly how he wants, invite any guest he wants, and do it often. So whether you are into MMA, hunting, scientists, tech CEO's, alt-right political figures, comedians, conspiracy wonks, etc...there is a sub-genre of content available for you to binge.

I don't listen to him, but he is basically the essence modern masculinity. Reddit and HN skew very heavily on the male side, so it's not surprising he's this popular.

I personally think of him as King of the Bros and think it's kind of sad that he's become the model man, but it is what it is.

I won’t disagree with Joe being sort of “bro-like”, but I will disagree with him being the “model man”. I occasionally watch his show and have several friends who do, and none of us would say we aspire to be like Joe Rogan. Like many have said here, it’s simply the fact that sometimes he has good guests on (many physicists, biologists, tech people) and he actually lets them talk, which is a refreshing change from the shocking-soundbite driven news media that had been dominant for so long. Respecting this aspect of his show is completely different from viewing Joe as some sort of role model.

Lots, if not all, of those people are available by themselves though and usually in much better form. To use a famous example, watching Musk's talk on Neuralink, or the orignal MCT/ITS talk was fascinating, but watching him "smoke" weed or pronounce the name of his kid is pretty boring.

> Lots, if not all, of those people are available by themselves though and usually in much better form.

For anyone that enjoys the medical / health guests on Rogan's podcast, I'd recommend "The Peter Attia Drive" podcast. (Not to be confused with Peter Attia's appearance on Rogan's podcast).

Many of the same guests are on both, but on Attia's, they are speaking to an MD and start at a way higher level.

It's a great fit for my 100/200 college level basic understanding of biology and chemistry, it usually starts from there and goes up. There's quite a bit I don't follow exactly because of that, but I certainly prefer that than a dumbed down version of everything.

99.9% of people listening to JRE have no idea what the ‘original MCG/ITS talk’ is. Rogan’s usefulness is that he is often the first exposure to a person or idea.

> watching him "smoke" weed or pronounce the name of his kid is pretty boring.

Agreed, but those were not the only things Musk did in each of those episodes and they contained a lot of content (that didn't involve just smoking weed) that was probably interesting to people outside of the HN crowd who wouldn't watch Musks's actual Neuralink presentation or the original MCT/ITS talk.

The thing I always think about Joe Rogan and his podcast is that there will always be a huge audience for a talkative meathead, but Joe is about the best possible version of a popular meathead we could ask for.

What makes it sad?

What’s not sad about mediocrity being held up as a model? Someone once asked “Is Joe the smartest dumb person or the dumbest smart person?” That question captures him so well.

Mediocrity? He's just licensed his podcast for three years for over $100m. He's a very successful comedian. He's one of the most well known personalities in the MMA world. If that's what you judge as mediocre I'd love to know what you judge as successful.

But that’s also sad, that the amount of a signed contract is what makes someone worth emulating today. Beyond sad: it’s tragic. The world is full of all kinds of people who happen to make money. That shouldn’t make them all models.

There's plenty of people way smarter than him, making way more money and making the world objectively a worse place. I don't really see much substance in this sadness point.

If some people out there has Rogan as role model I honestly, comparing him with most media figures, I can't be bothered.

He has a format that people enjoys, and he's not trying to make people swallow any narrative. That's good in my book.

Joe Rogan is successful across multiple domains. He's the UFC's main color commentator, a successful TV personality, a successful touring comedian, a state champion in martial arts, has a podcast worth $100 million etc. etc.

The top answers are good at explaining why he is popular in general. As for why he’a mentioned here: he has the number 1 podcast in the world. So, it’s natural to see him mentioned. His audience also skews male (~70%), and so do the audiences of reddit and HN.

So you would expect to see a fair bit of mentions. Finally, he interviews people from many walks of life, so you can expect an episode to be relevant to a variety of conversations.

So I don’t think he necessarily has an outsized share of the HN/reddit demographic. He’s just damned popular, and easy to mention.

He is a good listener, that is something I lookout for when listening to his shows. He can teach you a lot about how to listen and talk to people who you disagree with.

He has a lot of humility, he admits when he is wrong or if he doesn't know something. But also he is not shying away from calling BS when he hears it.

I would divide his show into 3 categories: - his comic fiends - a casual convos with a bit insight into comedians world + tons of shit talking - MMA + hunting guests/talks - random invitational guest - literally random - he would talk to dem/rep candidate, dieting, book writers etc. anything that is interesting.

also he has fight companion shows for mma fights.

I listen primary to invite guest shows, occasionally to others but those get bit repetitive.

There are a few more categories in there 4) conspiracy theory guests that he wants to get more information out of or find out if they're full of shit 5) subject matter experts on topics that he's interested in, and more recently 6) the ones that feel like they're looking for the Rogan Bump and have probably been told to "go on Rogan" by their publicists, I have mixed feelings about this group since it's good to see them react to Rogan's interview style but it also feels like he sometimes softballs them out of deference or maybe just general politeness.

Only listened to one Joe Rogan episode: with John Carmack. He doesn't know shit about the field but he did wonderfully inviting him. Don't know if it's his editing or questioning or JC himself but it was great.

There's no editing

I've only heard the audio and didn't realize. Wow! He's great then. A superlative interviewer.

He strikes a chord with a lot of people simply because he puts out so many shows. I think it would be hard to look at his list of guests from the past few months and not find anything that interests you.

He's Oprah for dudes.

You visit the sites as well, since you're seeing his content directed your way... maybe you're also his demographic or view content that is related?

This BBC review (consider JR is basically unknown in the UK) of his show helped me get a feel for this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804

I find that Joe Rogan can be sometimes hit or miss, but for the most part, he has some interesting guests, the conversation with his guests are "natural" and does not seems forced, and I find that he knows how to ask good questions

Why don't you just watch / listen and find out ?

Other responses say why people do listen to him; I don't listen to him because I don't like long podcasts. His are way too long for me.

Authenticity. Deep conversation on interesting topics rooted in genuine curiosity. The long form is a rarity.

His type of long form interviews would be simply impossible on traditional television (even though it's a podcast, I always watch on Youtube as do many others). He tapped into an unexplored demand that lives directly in the blindspot of the traditional media.

Edit to add: it's pretty hard to imagine a TV broadcaster would try to tap into this niche, imagine a TV channel that has 3 hour interviews uninterrupted by ads (experience using ad blockers), on a wide variety of topics, no filter, across a wide varity of political views.

it's funny, it'd be easy for TV to do it. There's a lot of empty 24hour news channels out there. Putting a 3 hour interview on at 10pm and running it till 1am and then on repeat at 10am the next day would be a pretty simple way to build out some really intersting content. The only thing you'd need would be discipline to keep the producers from cutting into it. But there's a lot of channels out there. There's a lot of space.

Traditional TV executives would never go for it. Even if they did, the inflexibilty of regular TV schedules would still be inferior to listening when you want. Plus as you mention they would have the discipline to not cut into it.

Yes if I had to sum it up in one word "authenticity" would be it. It seems like he truly doesn't care what other people think of him. If he thinks something, he'll say it (but not in an arrogant way like Trump). If the "mainstream media" doesn't approve of a guest on his show, doesn't bother him, he's still willing to hear them out - and more importantly will call them out on their bullshit. He doesn't even pretend to give in to the identity politics bullshit that for whatever reason I can not comprehend has taken over the public narrative.

This is not something you see on mainstream media, where everyone is carefully crafting their words and hedging every statement to ensure they offend as little people as possible, ultimately saying little of interest and disillusioning the public because everyday people feel that no one in power is a real human being who understands them. When someone will just bluntly say the obvious that for whatever reason the establishment won't, it's refreshing.

In addition, he is radically open-minded in a way that's very rare from these kinds of hosts, and people in general. Most people are very rigidly set in their ideologies, which leads to many people sounding like carbon copies of one another (boring). Rogan will consider any idea no matter how outlandish. And he is very curious and asks insightful questions, while knowing when to shut up and let the guest speak (helps that the interviews last 1.5-3 hours).

Also as a comedian, he's significantly more entertaining than your average dry newscaster.

I'm not glorifying Rogan here, just trying to articulate why I enjoy his show, despite the fact that I don't really listen to many other podcasts. He certainly is not perfect and has his weaknesses - for example when discussing technical topics he doesn't dive as deep as I'd like (eg. Elon Musk, John Carmack, Neil DeGrasse Tyson). But overall, he does a great job of bringing interesting guests and getting interesting conversations out of him, so it's not surprising to me that he's so successful.

Exactly. People are starved for authenticity and truth, and the freedom to both express and enjoy it.

> And Joe has been quite savvy at tailoring both his content and his image for them.

Way to make it sound nefarious. There's no greedy or malicious intent behind this, no script that these interviews follow to appeal to advertisers or viewers the way most media is carefully cultivated with surveys, talking points and focus groups to most effectively deliver a partisan message. These interviews give about as raw and unfiltered access to the guests as you can get, to let the experts talk about their subject, and that's Rogan's intent. Rogan himself isn't a carefully crafted media personality, but pretty genuine, flaws and all. If that's what you mean by "tailoring", I'd say we could all use a little more media like that.

The only kind of "tailoring" that appears to happen is Rogan sometimes listens to feedback on the kind of questions and discussions some listeners want to see.

As I said before Joe Rogan as a concept isn't all that new. There have been many variations of the "raw, honest, uncut" talk show host formula.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it but it's naive to think that they just fall into hundred million dollars deals without being savvy. All of these talk show hosts very much understand their audience and what they do and don't want. And again there is nothing wrong with that.

> And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it but it's naive to think that they just fall into hundred million dollars deals without being savvy.

I never said he wasn't savvy, I said that savviness wasn't directed at "tailoring content" or his "image" in a way that's duplicitous as you were intimating, and that's typical for traditional media.

Rightly or wrongly, Rogan believes and does the things he says he believes and does, and he's genuinely interested in his guests and only interviews people who interest him. It just so happens that plenty of people find Rogan personable, the people he interviews interesting. In a world with over 7 billion people and with low barriers to entry, like streaming on YouTube, it's statistically inevitable that a Joe Rogan would appear.

Most companies or individuals with media driven personalities use tailoring to target an audience. It is a marketing tool used by the smallest content producers to the largest ones. I wouldn’t take it as a nefarious comment or dismissive remark. It is simply a tool in the marketing kit.

You see tailoring in the images on Instagram, the word choice on their website, the sound bites or clips chosen on their YouTube pages etc. They consider their target audience all aspects.

> I believe most companies or individuals with media driven personalities use tailoring to target an audience

I agree. I'm saying Rogan isn't one of them, at least not in the traditional sense that you mean. That's part of what makes his podcast compelling.

The comment your replying to as written doesn't imply any nefarious intent. And you go on to talk knowing my to Joe Rogans state of mind, which you cannot know. This is a weird comment; it sounds almost shilling for some reason.

I'd disagree. Claiming "Rogan has been quite savvy in tailoring content" for a specific audience is clearly implying intent.

The distinction is between deliberate tailoring for some ulterior motive we could speculate about, or that Rogan's content is genuine expression of his interests to whatever degree that's possible.

It implies intent to tailor something for an audience. Every business in existence (hyperbole) tailors something for their audience. What it doesn't imply is nefarious intent.

We can definitely speculate on whether there was nefarious intent, but the comment along the lines of tailoring something for a specific audience doesn't imply any intent in the tailoring, nefarious or otherwise.

You're ignoring or missing the broader context:

1. The preceding sentence that I quoted specifically said the target was "young, white males". This already has nefarious undertones given current cultural trends, eg. look up media coverage for anything that targets "white males".

2. The claim that this group is the target, and in fact makes up most of the demographics is always asserted without any evidence. His audience is definitely predominantly male, but where's the evidence they're predominantly white? Once again, given the wider cultural context, this focus on white males has a negative undertone.

3. Finally and most importantly, it's asserting that Rogan is not simply being authentic and genuine, which contradicts Rogan's own words about his podcast. Which means the claim that his content is actually tailored again has very negative implications.

The problem is your response is effectively cherry picked.

Every /person/ in existence tailors something for their audience, and this is now indistinguishable from genuine interest.

In my brief viewing he pretends to be unbiased. Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic.

Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. Joe Rogan: "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-s...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8

Everything is worthy of discussion and everyone's opinion is valuable no matter how much I may dislike them/disagree with them.

I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society.

Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong.

edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.

Everyone's opinion is NOT valuable. That thinking is exactly why 5G towers are being burned down. The media - Joe Rogan included - has decided that your OPINIONS carry the same weight as scientific FACT and "let the listeners decide". That'll absolutely attract viewers from all walks of life - and it's a disservice to all of them.

I get what you're saying but letting the people decide what policy to follow is what a democracy is all about: if enough idiots in a sovereign nation decide to go "fuck 5g" then that's exactly what that nation should do. Do I think it's stupid and wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be allowed to choose that? Yes.

So you're suggesting we let people be misinformed? Where do you draw the line? Do we let our teachers teach the earth is both flat and round and "let the students decide"? The earth is the center of the universe and just a part of the milky way? The holocaust happened and didn't happen?

You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...

Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.

The fact you’d advocate putting someone on tv to tell the world that 5g towers cause covid—19 and give them the same courtesy as a scientist explaining factual information about the world around us tells me you’re either delusional or upset that the media “gatekeeps” fascists and racists.

Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.

Just because you think the state should allow any discussion and any opinion, doesn't mean you need to think its content is worthy or valuable. Do you think nazism should get as much exposure as something you like? Creationism? Flat-earthism? Any fringe idea with five believers?

Yes, actually. I legitimately think that no viewpoint or idea should be censored no matter how distasteful I may find it to be.

Would I prefer to live in a nazi or communist society? No, but I prefer to live in a society that in theory can, in a worst case scenario, turn into either of those eventually than in one that cannot.

edit: unless we include some sort of utopian society where we're ruled by some perfect AI or where everyone has perfect information access and decision-making of course but that's science fiction.

I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about all ideas getting equal exposure. If you follow that "equal exposure" idea to its conclusion, then what should be taught in "biology" class for example is evolution, protestant creationism, catholic creationism, sunni creationism, shia creationism, scientologic creationism, last thursdayism etc ad nauseam. Now, there isn't much to talk about regarding last thursdayism. But if everything should get equal exposure, then logically you must teach as much about evolution as last thursdayism, which is to say not a lot. So eventually you'd reduce ideas to the minimum viable size of an idea . And then there might be so many ideas that you'll die of old age before you're done being taught all the ideas.

Creationism is not a fringe idea! I think that illustrates the major flaw of your mindset. If you screen off entire categories of ideas as not worth thinking about, you're going to get a systematically incorrect view of the world.

> Creationism is not a fringe idea!

When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea

It is not. Over a third of American adults believe humans were created by God in their present form.

It really depends on how you ask them the question: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-many-c...

> When asked the single-question version, just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.

For example, most of these folks wont say the Earth is 10,000 or 6,500 years old. When asked they'll say the planet is much older.

Why would screening off entire categories of ideas lead to a systematically incorrect view of the world? Or why would entertaining those ideas lead to a less incorrect view of the world?

It stops you from noticing what other people believe and why, which stops you from understanding them even if you ultimately believe they're wrong.

Which pressures them into either keeping it to themselves or being pressured by society to change their beliefs. The “respect everyone’s opinion” is how we got Charlottesville. Tolerance can and should have limits.

He sometimes has "toxic" lefty guests also though. I don't see his showing being biased.

If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones.

It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.

>Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life.

Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil.

What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.

It took you a half hour to realize that Jones was nutty?

> Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate.

I downvoted because of this comment:

> Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic.

By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"?

> "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic.

Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you?

I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.

How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it? Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion. That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made. Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...

> How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it?

You need a model with predictive power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

>> The concept of predictive power, the power of a scientific theory to generate testable(!) predictions, differs from explanatory power and descriptive power (where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained or described by a given theory) in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.

>> A classic example of the predictive power of a theory is the discovery of Neptune as a result of predictions made by mathematicians John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier, based on Newton's theory of gravity.

>> If a theory has no predictive power, it cannot be used for applications.

Considering this, does:

>>> "A MAGA hat is just another way of saying "Mexicans are rapists"

...have predictive power? A useful technique I use to measure the intelligence of a theory is to implement it in the form of a boolean function. Try it out with that statement, just for fun, and see if your opinion on it changes at all.

Or, before we get ahead of ourselves...what does that sentence actually mean? It's purpose and origin are rather obvious (at least to me), but I'm interested in its literal meaning. Since the original author seems to have lost interest in the discussion (despite the prior "Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE..." complaint), perhaps you can decipher the literal meaning for me?

> Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion.

You need to understand the complex workings of whatever system you are working with well enough to produce testable predictions. If you do not have that, then you should not be forming confident conclusions. Very often, "it is not known" is the correct answer, and it wasn't all that long ago that most technical people could manage that stance. But as they say, time marches on.

> That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made.

You are absolutely correct - and observe the result: a scary number of people who work largely in pure logic all day long, are no longer able to differentiate between actual facts and heuristic predictions their subconscious spits out, at least on certain topics. A large percentage of the population is no longer capable of applying logic across diverse domains in a mentally disciplined manner, and they are also unable (and unwilling) to realize this. How did this happen seems like a good question.

> Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts

Science itself doesn't present itself as having absolute facts, but people who believe they are followers of science, or scientific thinkers, regularly speak as if science does have absolute facts, including here on HN on certain topics (generally, anything culture war related).

> but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does

Bravo.