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.
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.