He doesn't tell the interviewee they're full of shit, but he does ask pointed questions and won't agree if he doesn't agree.
See his interview with Candace Owens where she tells him he doesn't believe in climate change, he doesn't destroy her, but asks questions that make her look very intellectually lazy.
It feels like people in this thread are confusing "that's interesting" with agreement. Which isn't particularly intellectual on their own part.
He doesn't! He's a smart guy, for sure, he has some pretty interesting ideas - but as for the interview, it was done just because he's famous. He's stating his opinions. If you treat them as anything more, then it's not exactly his fault.
I think people overestimate the value of interviews. It's just individuals talking, not a compressed textbook!
Yes, he's opinionated. But he regularly interviews people who disagree with him and does a good job at both asking them hard questions and helping them explain their own view. And when he does agree with them, I think he does a decent job at playing devil's advocate and challenging their position.
> twisting himself into pseudo-impartiality doesn't make someone interesting.
TBH my impression is that his interviews come off as a couple of college guys smoking joints and talking about the meaning of life. I never got the appeal. Yes, he does get some really great guests, but I wonder why some of these people would agree to these interviews?
I think that's his "thing", promoting his own viewpoints through selection of guests and asking them certain questions. I don't mind that though.
What I mind is that he himself is (apparently) quite gullible. In his ig video he promised to "balance" opinions. So, what is the balance between facts and utter bullshit?
From having listened to him doing interviews I would say it is exactly what makes him an awful interviewer, he never pushes back and accepts at face value statements from non experts on scientific topics.
But then again this is pretty representative of our current public discourse and why people like Kennedy get traction, while making statements that can directly lead to very large numbers of deaths and perfectly preventable outcomes.
He agrees with whatever the guest says, no matter how stupid whatever the guest said is. This makes the interviews unbearably boring to me. The interviewer should challenge the guest, so we can learn something from the interview.
I listen to a lot of his interviews, actually. A lot more of the talking is done by him than you're implying, and the questions he asks occasionally derail really interesting tangents a guest is on in favor of really dull, extremely generic questions you could get from anywhere. The Lenat interview, for example, was full of him doing it.
He's not perfect. Though I find it pleasant that he has a mostly neutral point of view as that's when you can get the most information out of a discussion. I think in many traditional media formats, the opposite is the case, which is what we're used to. Like for e.g. Charlie Rose, or any of the biased media outlets today. One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing. He's not completely robotic, or neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. But, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
> Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
If anything, that is wonderful. Having multiple opinions put forward without context is a great way to engage critical thinking skills. The audience then has to decide what they 'feel' is correct. If the people with the facts can't sway the audience with said fact, then they should go back and figure out why that is. That will help them in the future and make the facts all the stronger.
I listen occasionally. I generally find his conversations interesting, and sometimes even enlightening. But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. That it's a tacit endorsement.
Really? That's fascinating, if anything I usually think he's not rigid enough and too easily goes along with guest claims (the Oliver Stone episode stands out for not pushing back).
Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in?
You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side"
Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?
> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned,
Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not.
I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is far from all the time.
Joe also has a habit of ignoring the guest at times and carrying on down his own little conversation alley, usually when he got too stoned - which ruins the conversation IMO
Why does he? He's not a journalist, he's a talking head. He'll challenge statements he can't get behind, but this is an opinion/entertainment show, and he's not throwing up slogans that read "fair and balanced" at every opportunity.
His list of guests is amazing and he sometimes has interesting lines of inquiry, but too often he very clearly has his own axe to grind which can get quite annoying.
The endless "I am so very humble" spiel also gets tiresome, especially when punctuated by claims like "all journalists are trash (except those with a unique scientific curiosity, like me, of course)".
> But at some point it occurred, "Shouldn't at some point, if we're listening to all this that, we stop being a dumb guy who doesn't know anything and actually have opinion / challenge some of these things with some facts / solid ideas?"
Not if that's the format of the show, and the show is wildly successful.
Also: what's an example of a really good interview show where the interviewer only brings on people they agree with, or else brings on people they disagree with in order to tell them they're wrong? That sounds like a debate show rather than an interview, and it doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Reminds me of those political interview shows on TV where the host cuts the guest off to yell at them.
An example I've noticed: A guest will have essentially addressed a question Lex has planned for later in the interview, but Lex still asks it without any sort of modification/acknowledgment of what the guest has already said, leading to a lot of repetitive talk.
He also basically ignores statements that conflict with his view.
See his interview with Candace Owens where she tells him he doesn't believe in climate change, he doesn't destroy her, but asks questions that make her look very intellectually lazy.
It feels like people in this thread are confusing "that's interesting" with agreement. Which isn't particularly intellectual on their own part.
reply