Mmm I’m interested on your reasons for saying that as I think the opposite. He lets the interviewed to talk freely and requests explanations when bullshit claims are made. He never attempts to conduct the interview to follow his way of thinking. It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind. The show feels like the classic easy going guy from the gym having a innocent conversation with someone who knows about some area.
Overall, I think he is a great interviewer and the only thing I could complain is that sometimes he might brings some wacky people, but hell, I have enjoyed a lot of those too.
I used to think this, but the more popular JRE has become, the more and more I believe it less. The program is deliberately sold as being "neutral" - hence its popularity. Rogan's ideology is "question everything" and "consider everything" no matter how crazy it is. That's the problem - it's slowly turning into a conspiracy theorist field day and an anti-science field day. And it's not facilitating critical thinkers, it's facilitating anarchy.
Anyone who makes a living in media has some sort of agenda - which is to make money. This is why you'll never have an unbiased source in news. It's just literally impossible because at some level, money is involved. JRE is proof you can never truly provide an objective 3rd party viewpoint on news and current topics.
As an example, I've watched the JRE episode on Alex Jones. It's surprisingly well done for how much a wack job Jones is. Rogan does a great job of dismantling Jones's hyperbole and gets him to be, essentially, genuine. While fascinating to watch, it's setting an odd precedent - no matter how much of a wack job you might be, you can always end up on a show with millions of subscribers. If Jones wasn't given a megaphone, he'd just be some village idiot that everyone would ignore.
If Rogan was more objective, less controversial and bring on less interesting guests, he'd essentially be boring. He's the modern day Howard Stern, where people tune in to see "what will JRE's guests say next!".
I award your claim with 4 pinocchios.
Rogan has a long history of false vaccine claims on his show, presented both by him and his guests:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi...
He'll surely challenge a guest when he thinks they're wrong, it's his own mistruths and the ones he ignores that are at issue here.
The Duke rape case completely blew up Rollingstones credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.
So what you're saying is that one act of disingenuous credibility should forever taint a publisher? Say...like Joe Rogan?
And Rollingstone has multiple examples of either exaggerating stories or making them up out of whole cloth.
Ok so then maybe don't make statements like this:
> blew up credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.
There is “misinformation”, saying something untrue, then there is straight up spreading lies you know are untrue (Duke rape case), trying to cover it up when exposed and doing it multiple times.
I think the 2nd can permanently destroy credibility.
You can see him using motivated reasoning to defend the talking point he was trying to advance -- a talking point that itself has an obvious agenda behind it.
Militant extremists, climate change deniers, COVID misinformation, antivaxxers, etc. And he's generally credulous. He had Jordan Peterson in doing climate change denial just the other day.
This misinformation has material negative impact on all our lives. He's like Paltrow's Goop but for men.
And while we have freedom of speech, we also acknowledge as a society that some lies are too dangerous to allow -- that's why fraud, perjury, slander, filing a false report, false advertising, etc. are all illegal. It's just that reality itself can't sue for defamation.
Oh, wait wait wait, no, those people are actually right, it's the ones saying it _is_ happening who are wrong-thinking. Got it. Let me check my notes again; it's the global warming that is definitely happening and cannot be denied, and the great replacement that is definitely not happening and must be denied (or alternatively you can acknowledge it but say it's actually a great thing).
Do you see where I'm getting at? We must debate all those things in a healthy democracy. We can debate whether Russia or the US is right regarding the Ukraine. We can debate immigration. We can debate vaccines. We can debate whether or not it's true that Saddam actually has WMDs and whether it's wise to invade Iraq. We can debate whether or not smoking causes cancer. We can debate whether or not there is actually a risk with asbestos. We should debate all this stuff.
In case my point is not clear in a sarcastic form let me be more explicit: history has shown that we have been wrong about so many things in so many fields (medical, diplomacy, etc.) over the years. And conventional wisdom about certain things can completely flip over time. Thus we should never exclude debate and skepticism.
Can you give a specific example of a material negative impact that Joe Rogan's show has had on your life?
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-pet...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rolling-stone-cov...
Rolling Stone - the publication that ran fake rape accusations?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
And you want to talk about dumb as a rock and cite that shit hole rag?
Could replace Joe with either of the Weinsteins as well.
That’s what they do. Same with Jordan Peterson.
For the record, I am coming from the perspective of having listened to very few episodes, but enjoying what I heard.
That is not factually objective.
Hell in "So I Married an Axe Murderer" Mike Myers even does a bit about how his mother reads batshit crazy conspiracy theories and refers to them as "news". Fringe batshit crazy conspiracy theories have always been out there and have always been a space where the far left overlaps with the far right[1].
The problem is that now we have an entire class of politican, forming an increasingly powerful faction in global politics, whose pitch is based on misinformation and it's reinforced by a media network that is increasingly divorced from any sort of regulation or oversight, has the veneer of "news" and the trust that goes with it, but which is just a bunch of sociopaths in equal measures crazy, greedy and stupid, amplifying each other into authenticity.
Social media has enabled this, it would have been impossible to do otherwise.
Yes the writers of Nexus Magazine could publish something and sell it in the newsagent alongside Time Magazine and National Geographic, but what Social Media does is the equivalent of running Nexus Magazine articles inside Time Magazine, or worse it just lets a whole bunch of people who can imitate rational, educated thought create content that too many people fail to differentiate from actual scholarly or journalistic work.
The politicians lend credibility to the shitposters, and the shitposters do the same back. Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Tim Pool, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Ted Cruz, Judge Janine, Laura Ingraham, Peta Credlin, Rowan Dean, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, George Christiansen, Paul Murray, Rita Pahani, Miranda Devine, Adam Creighton, you name, it, they're all the fucking same, all over the world (I've only cited US and Australia because that's what I'm most familiar with but these same cutouts appear throughout global media and politics).
None of them are "telling it like it is", they're just a bunch of big greedy stinking fucking liars, or they're too dumb or too crazy to know that what they're saying is wildly inaccurate.
The unifying thread of this dangerous and insidious political movement is libertarianism, which has pitched itself as anti-authoritarian but which is ultimately the most authoritarian form of government imagineable (essentially feudalism) because "liberty" and "freedom from regulation" mean very, very different things when you're super rich than they do when you're super poor.
The rebellion against "regulation" has turned into a rebellion against "authority" which has in turn lead to a rebellion against ALL expertise, to the point where football players think they should be able to debunk scientists.
[1] https://gen.medium.com/nazi-hippies-when-the-new-age-and-far...
Joe Rogan is a hilariously bad entertainer and an even worse podcast host, but how could this have gone any other way? If Spotify caved, everyone would have gotten the worst of both worlds: people who don't care would have a diminished Spotify experience while every other artist gets a piece of the virtue-signalling pie, and disenfranchised podcast hosts would just go back to RSS and keep distributing their content to the exact same people.