How could that possibly work for a podcast? Interview each guest and basically script out the conversation? Or maybe do the interview then heavily edited it?

And who decides what’s appropriately “vetted”? I assume the Covid “lab leak” theory would have been verboten last year but apparently ok now?

I haven’t listened to Rogan in a long time but he basically invites people on and asks questions. He doesn’t give the “Rogan Stamp of Approval” to everything said.

The criticisms seem to be a basic form of “stop talking about things I don’t like”.

Those are all good questions that I don't have the answer to.

I know I didn't make the original claim, I just took issue with the initial reply as I felt like it was removing nuance from the discussion. My reply didn't really add much and I probably shouldn't have made it, so I'll try to add something to the discussion below:

For me, I think, it comes down to whether or not something is presented as an opinion or as fact/truth. There's far too many opinion pieces presented as news these days and a lot of people have trouble processing that.

A headline or claim like "China manufactured this virus as a bio weapon to attack the united states!" at the beginning of a pandemic when no one has any information yet is bad.

Discussing whether or not it could have been a lab leak and whether or not it was manufactured is a different thing, and whether it was or was not an attack are acceptable topics, though, I think.

How you actually enforce this I have no idea and I know it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of "who watches the watchers."

What bullshit and lies are you referring to? If you don’t like his podcast don’t listen to it, others love it. If you only want approved mainstream views it’s strange to impose them on a podcast for someone who believes in aliens, you can watch mainstream news for that.

I'm not speaking about Rogan or anyone in particular. I'm only commenting on "vetting" not meaning "I only want to hear what I want to hear."

Vetted by whom?