Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by newby on Monday January 31, 2022 @10:21AM
(#30148854)
> BIG conflict of interest… if someone goes on his show stating something like “brushing actually destroys your teeth, you should take X supplement which I developed and read my book” he gets money and viewers interested in this “no brushing” thing. If the conclusion is that you should brush and use toothpaste he doesn’t have a podcast.
This seems to be equally valid for basically any media (using brush and toothpaste is not news). Would you say that all media is in BIG conflict of interest? Or how is Joe Rogan fundamentally different?
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m...
by elondaits on Monday January 31, 2022 @03:08PM
(#30153530)
It's different because that's the niche he's focusing on. He's not the only one... Oprah? (to a less sensationalistic extent), Gwyneth Paltrow? Malcom Gladwell also had huge success with books that cherry-pick scientific publications to "prove" things that go against conventional notions in various fields.
We know that traditional media has analogous biases towards celebrity scandals, and towards FUD and polarization in politics, and that bottom feeder broadcasters with no ethics thrive on those.
... He does it with lifestyle / well-being specifically, inviting people that peddle diets, supplements, etc.
He’s in the industry of going against “mainstream [ie scientific] knowledge”… which provides him and endless stream of salesmen who cherry picked scientific papers that support their schtick… and a lot of interested listeners who get an excuse for everything they don’t feel like doing (“oh, this guy on Rogan said brushing destroys your teeth, so I guess I’m better off leaving them alone”)