If he hosted some kind of a salon with competing views where he never took a stance and just let the conversation unfold that might be the case, but he regularly injects himself and varying degrees of "information" into the conversation to color and steer it. Each guest is in a vacuum where for their time on his show where they're more or less unchallenged and unfettered by reality.
To be clear I don't think his show should be censored, but I think his fans need to be a bit more honest with themselves and others. He makes people feel safe to settle in and listen to bullshit, believe the bullshit, and then say "it's just entertainment, this isn't where I get my opinions - by the way let me fill you in on all my obviously Rogan informed opinions."
Sure, when something requires clarification because it seems inconsistent with his understanding or what's common knowledge. Even an impartial moderator would do that. It still remains the case that his instinct is to let the guests talk, because he invited them there to learn more about them.
That said, Rogan certainly states his own opinions sometimes too, more so and more forcefully on certain topics that he's discussed many times and so he has developed more certainty. I used to watch more of his podcasts a few years ago, and he was much more open and less certain on some topics. Recently he's expressed more certainty on those topics because he's had so many discussions on them that his certainty is higher.
I would certainly welcome more guests with opposing views, but a lot of those people wouldn't go on his podcast simply because he "gives a platform" to their opponents.
You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular.
> Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines.
Rogan has stated openly many times that his guiding ethos is literally to have people on that he finds interesting or wants to learn more about. I've seen nothing to really contradict this. This likely just intersects with controversial and/or popular in some or many cases, but it's disingenuous to then claim that this was the motive all along.