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