The main value JRE has is in its guests.

The host is a broken record increasingly with an agenda who flies an "I'm a moron" disclaimer in the same breath as speaking authoritatively on whatever controversial fire he wishes to give more oxygen to.

At least nowadays most the interesting guests go on other podcasts when they're making the rounds, so JRE's unique value has greatly diminished.

> The host is a broken record increasingly with an agenda who flies an "I'm a moron" disclaimer

This is the same trick Jon Stewart used on The Daily Show to great effect. “I’m just a comedian” indeed. People just happened to like his takes.

There's a big difference between "I'm a comedian, I'm just poking fun at the truth" and "I'm a moron, I can't reliably interpret truth from fiction".

Not sure why you care what I say, I’m just an HN commenter!

I trust you so much more than I would ever trust Bill O'Reilly.

I think I half agree with you. A lot of Jon's segments were just straight up mean -- well beyond playful mockery which made him hard to watch sometimes and he got away with it because of the comedian label. Where I disagree is that he was always open about his politics and knew that his show was "serious takes with light hearted delivery" and made it a point to not talk about topics from a position of ignorance. When you hear him talk off-camera it's clear that he really cares about getting it right and saying something intelligible through the jokes.

When I listen to Joe it's different, I'm not saying he couldn't run with the bit of "I don't know nuthin' about nuthin'" and come from a place of empathy and curiosity which would be cool. But what it is in practice is "I'm a moron and you shouldn't listen to what I think I don't know what I'm talking about buttttt and then speaks authoritatively on some politically charged topic he's supposedly ignorant of."

Jon Stewart also is arguably the spiritual originator of assaulting the "Fake News" media, though I don't think he ever used those specific words.

Jon Stewart is responsible for an entire generation of millenials thinking that pointing out political hypocrisy was enough.

Is that right? My peers were largely rabid fans of his daily show, but that's gen X. I thought millenials were a bit young for that.

It works because it's true. The joke's on the audience that takes seriously what someone with a comedian background says after "I'm a comedian, but..."

Totally. The irony of this is lost on so many.

> When I heard of JRE many years ago, I said to myself, "do I care to hear the endless opinions of the former host of Fear Factor? Nope." And that was that, never even decided to give it a try with so much other potential content available.

And the time commitment. I have a friend who's a big fan and kept pushing me to listen, but I just plain don't have the time to listen to a meandering 3 hour podcast, even if I was interested.

I have no data to back this up, but I think few people who listen to long podcasts sit down and pay attention solely to them for the entire duration. Personally I listen when I’m doing chores or commuting, and I constantly stop and pick it back up at a later time.

So how deeply informed by experts do you gauge that you are if the majority of what you read or hear is short-form? Do you think there's a cost to that that I guess you've decuded or defaulted to being an acceptable level?

>> ...but I just plain don't have the time to listen to a meandering 3 hour podcast, even if I was interested.

> So how deeply informed by experts do you gauge that you are if the majority of what you read or hear is short-form?

Huh? You're jumping to conclusions and, frankly, saying foolish things. In addition to just plain being wrong, there's literally no way you could validly infer anything about "the majority of what [I] read or hear" from what I wrote.

You seemed to miss my point.

Do you believe that you learn more by hearing/watching, or reading less?

You seemed to say you don't have time for long-form content? Did I misunderstand what you originally said?

> You seemed to say you don't have time for long-form content? Did I misunderstand what you originally said?

That's not what I said, and you did misunderstand. What I did say is that I didn't have time for a "meandering 3 hour podcast," specifically referring to Rogan's.

Joe Rogan's meandering 3 hour podcast is clearly not the universe of "long-form content."

Gotcha. Well, could there not be benefit you're missing out on, of getting a better understanding of someone to see how they hold themselves while speaking on different topics?

For example, Jordan Peterson is very sharp and articulate on certain topics - but then I notice on certain topics where he hasn't had 15-20+ years of deep analysis/study on, his less polished views show, and is where he gets most of his flak, say on Bitcoin or climate change I personally find value in seeing this broad, meandering view of someone - it in part helps me understanding him as a role model better, likewise observing the growth/personal evolution process further.

What kind of 3-hour long content do you tolerate and that you don't consider to be meandering? Do you have a few examples you could share?

> Gotcha. Well, could there not be benefit you're missing out on, of getting a better understanding of someone to see how they hold themselves while speaking on different topics?

Of course, but there's nearly 8 billion people in the world, so you have to make choices.

Pretty reductionist. He made himself a success in more than one industry. And you haven’t listened to him. So what qualifies your opinion of him more than his opinion about anything?

I'm a regular listener, but he 'made himself a success in more than one industry' only if you count "TV presenter" and "radio presenter" as different industries. Most of his comedy specials are self-published.

I’m conflicted about him too, but the man tours with Dave Chapelle. He’s inarguably a successful comedian. He was a working MMA trainer. An actor in a sitcom. A TV presenter. The voice of the UFC. Host of one of the most popular podcasts.

He’s open to many criticisms, but dismissing his potential to have valid opinions because he was a TV presenter doesn’t seem like a strong argument. Especially if one is unwilling to listen to at least a few of his shows. I, myself, listened regularly 10 years ago (it was fun and funny) but can’t really stomach him anymore. I do check-in and listen to whole shows though. Clips almost never do his actual positions justice.

Also, we’re told to consult our doctors, etc. His controversial guests had PhDs. So, credentials alone don’t necessarily qualify people.. and that’s in either direction: having them (PhD credentialed guests), or not having them (Joe).

Punching at him for his job(s) is a weak attack.

Don't forget cofounder (that still is a big deal here on HN, right?) of a supplement company (Onnit) that was acquired by Unilever.

He sold out Madison Square gardens in 2021. He’s a very successful comedian.

Why is willful ignorance something to be touted?

Joe, while no genius, is smarter than he gives himself credit for. He’s not touting ignorance, he is being humble and implying that his audience should think for themselves.

And avoiding accountability/culpability for his actions though, right?

Imagine that, you were able to decide not to listen to a show you didn't care for without demanding that it be banned for everyone. You must teach the world these mysteries.

People don't like JRE because what he has to say but because he let's his guests speak. It's an an alternative to mainstream media's endless opinion stories and yelling how to live instead of reporting on things.

I'm not advocating one way nor another for JRE, but talk about judging a book by its cover (parent comment)

That's kind of a misplaced thought since the show isn't a monologue. It's a dialogue hosted by a friendly and intellectually curious person.

It's the guests.

He's like Oprah in her peak: He's disarming, humble, and has a knack for getting even the stiffest guests to open up. And some of the most fascinating guests are people you've never heard of.

If Oprah were _incredibly_ misinformed about the basic way the world works.

Some would say Oprah is. She gained popularity initially hosting a "Jerry Springer" lite type of talk show in the 80s/90s. She's since given platforms to people like Dr Oz who's hawked pseudo-medicine, Marianne Williamson (former presidential candidate) who tries to sell alternative medicine and pseudo-spirituality.

It doesn't have to be a 1 to 1 comparison but there's plenty of people out there that would say along one or more dimensions that Oprah is no better, better, or the same as Rogan.

I don't think that's an accurate take on Rogan. At least to say that he is less informed than Oprah.

I'd bet good money on Oprah at any point in her life beating Joe Rogan at Jeopardy, or a trivia board game. Or a 5k, for that matter.

Based on the 5K observation, you clearly have never once listened to the show, or have any first-hand knowledge of Rogan.

He's extremely physically fit, does massive amounts of cardio, and does backcountry hunting trips with only a backpack.

There is nothing more church ladyish than commenting on a subject based purely on secondhand knowledge.

I'd pay to see that

Probably can't make this kind of show on a national cable network anymore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Deathmatch

So for you the only people worth paying attention to are those who just have just jumped into well paid meaningful jobs and never had to work their way up from the bottom.

Worked at Mcdonalds.. not worth listening to, took a job as a cleaner out of school... don't waste my time. Only people with prestigious employment histories are worth the time of day.

Well he's interviewed Elon Musk and John Carmack. How do you rate yourself in comparison?