I'm not actually a listener, I might watch a clip from a guest I'm interested in once in a great while. But I've never listened to an entire episode. I don't like the lack of structure in his interviews, and I don't have 2-4 hours to listen to unstructured rambling, with the occasional useful tangent.
I think you mistook my comment as saying "Joe Rogan podcast is great and everyone should listen." I was only saying that it is a source of "opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere," and that he has obtained a remarkable amount of working class listeners.
Podcasts such as his aren't really about his opinion, rather the opinions of his guests and the conversation that follows. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan but have enjoyed a few of his shows.
I disagree. I've watched most of them and have learned a lot over the years, both from the high-profile experts sharing their knowledge on topics I would never otherwise think about to the BS conversations with friends.
Rogan is also not an interviewer and explicitly does not approach the podcast as an interview (outside of special guests). The free uninterrupted conversation is what gets the best out of people.
I listen to some of Rogan's podcasts (usually not comedians or MMA commentary) because of the long conversation format. For me, it's more about who Rogan is talking to rather than being interested in listening to Rogan talk.
Whether it's POTUS candidates (Bernie, Yang, Gabbard), intellectuals (Dr. Cornell West, Eric Weinstein), interesting individuals (musicians, nutritionists, etc.), or the more 'controversial' guests you get to hear a 'real' conversation and understand more about the person he's talking to.
You can't get away with canned soundbites in this format, so I think it leads to less propaganda and BS and more considerate dialogue and thinking.
Whether Joe Rogan is the best person to host these conversations is negated by the fact that he's one of the only people doing this. To that end, I support him 100%.
I had heard about him a few times and I avoided listening to it for the same reason, the show lengths were a complete non-starter.
But I decided to give it a try and for the topics/guests that I found interesting the show lengths seem actually necessary to dive into the depth and breadth of topics that are covered.
I personally only listen to the episodes where I have an interest in the topics or the guests themselves i.e. the intellectuals, nutritionists, incredible athletes, and scientists.
In this way I use the podcast as more of a medium to experience the guests rather than listening for Rogan himself (although I do appreciate his generally progressive views and genuine intellectual curiosity).
Even if I tried I can't imagine devoting 3+ hours to a comedian or MMA fighter talking about whatever.
I think the author touches on this in the article, the audiences of the podcast are quite diverse and many are only interested in a subset of the content. The diversity and neutrality of Rogan allows it to act as a neutral medium to be exposed to an in-depth view of a variety of topics and people that you would not have the opportunity to experience otherwise.
"I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan".
Maybe you should start there. It pays to learn to empathise with and try to understand other people. You don't have to like someone else, but its not that hard to see why people do listen to his podcast. You don't have to be that dismissive of other people.
I have never listened to a single episode of Joe Rogan. I still don’t understand why would someone waste their time listening to someone who is not an authority on anything and doesn’t add any value to the audience. There are literally thousands of better podcasts and audiobooks that enhances your knowledge 10x on many subjects.
I'm willing to take the downvotes on this topic, since anything related to Joe Rogan is controversial but I support the existence of shows like his.
People have trouble understanding why his show is popular and what his role in it is. He's not a news anchor, a public radio host, or a broadcaster attempting to communicate information to the public. He's an approximately regular guy having long form conversations with interesting people.
In conversations people are often wrong and people often say BS things and get called out for it. And Joe Rogan says BS things and gets called out for it. That's not shocking or a gotcha about his show. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
People tune in because they get to sit in on interesting conversations that usually don't have a particular "I came on here to say" agenda. And when the reverse is the case, those episodes are heavily panned and usually those guests are not invited back.
Enjoying this type of media means putting up with plenty of BS from any given side on any given day, and doing one's own research.
If somebody isn't willing to do their own research and is instead prepared to believe anything Joe Rogan or his guests say at face value, then that's a problem for them far larger than anything they might encounter on his podcast.
Exactly. I have zero issues with that, and the fact that Joe Rogan is aware of it helps a ton.
I like listening to all the various guests he invites, like doctors or even professional archers. I like hearing them talk about their stuff deep enough where I, as a person who knows not much at all about their specialty topics, can learn something. But it would become not that interesting to me if every single guest of his would dive so deep, I would not be able to understand anything without reading a tons of pre-req material.
It is a really difficult thing to balance, between going too in-depth and being too surface-level. And, I feel like, that's why Joe is so popular, as he nails it very well.
For the topics that I want to dive very deep into, I can just listen to specialized podcasts on those topics. But as a general "seeing tons of cool stuff and learning about basics of really diverse topics I would never see otherwise", Joe's podcast is great. Plus, Joe manages to open up people, to the point where they get really candid and, for the lack of a better word in my mind, human. Even the people who hold very opposing views to those of Joe's.
I regularly listen to podcasts from people I don't agree with, some across the political aisle. It helps me to understand why other people think as they do, and sometimes I might even adjust my position on some topic.
Rogan has a solid podcast. He's interesting, has interesting guests, and brings to light lots of salient points (and a little humor).
wow. so you admit that you are dismissing his podcast without actually listening to it.
> but it would be hard to convince me that "makes you smarter" is anywhere near Joe Rogan's resume
do me a favor, as one human to another, listen to just 1 of his podcasts before judging him. Its not even about him, its about the guests that he has on.
While I don’t agree with all of his ideas, Joe Rogan himself doesn’t either. He’s changed his mind openly on many topics. I admire that. He’ll invite a guest he knows he’ll disagree with (e.g. Andrew Yang on Basic Income) and genuinely try to understand how they got there, without hammering on his own convictions. After three hours he walks away with a more nuanced take on the topic, and will openly admit to that. Where else do you see this these days.
Again, I don’t like all of his opinions, but from his podcast I also learn that I don’t have to, and actually, that that’s the way forward. People being able to talk to eachother even if there are profound disagreements.
He’s also not afraid to ask “stupid questions”, so that all questions get asked. Which is great because presumably not all listeners are expert in all things, either, and hearing it from a-z makes all the podcasts accessible.
> never listened to a single episode
Then maybe that’s why you don’t understand why people would listen. I only listen to Rogan occasionally but he’s a decent interviewer and does long (3-4 hour) interviews. Many guests are mainstream personalities like Neil deGrasse Tyson but he also invites people the mainstream shuns.
I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, I've only followed him in the news whenever he pops up or in some short clips that get milled around social media. So my opinion of him might be misinformed, but I've only ever gotten the impression that Rogan only ever really cares about selling a "neutral" but enticing experience. The focus isn't serious discussions or prodding the arguments of his guests, it's just about him playing the "dumb but curious everyman" as a stand in for the audience letting whoever has the most appealing mantra freely speak their mind. I think this identity as someone who just listen and doesn't question is genuine to him, but it also makes a great selling point as "politically neutral" or "both sides" speak.
Some of these ideas are genuinely worthwhile, but when those same thoughts are given even equal weight to the ravings of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro - I don't see how anyone who is looking for intellectual rigor can derive value from consuming his podcast. If that's a good or bad thing is a value judgment someone has to make personally.
I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast because it is unique in the current world of media.
The host is a comedian and a MMA commentator, yet he talks to people from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, scientists to musicians and instagram celebrities. He doesn’t have any strong political agenda or affiliating with certain groups. He’s a regular dude just curious about other people’s life and views, and really gave his quests enough room to express themselves. This is important to many of us, that we want a platform where we can see the real, the human side of the guests, letting them explain themselves, rather than just snippets of soundbites clipped with different intentions by different groups, or 2-minute quick debates that’s often confusing than informative. That’s what makes the show more trustworthy to some people than some big networks.
There are warts that I frown upon as well. I disagree with some of this diets and views on intravenous supplements and stem cell treatment. And I never listen to his shows about aliens. But I have come to acceptance that aren’t and will not be a perfect show. The balance between informative and entertainment and eye-opening is quite a compromise. I think an educated person should treat the platform as a source of information, rather than THE source of information.
I guess what I really appreciate about the show is that people with vastly different views can still chat, drink and have a good time. For example, as someone outside US, I nevered had a good impression of Bernie Sanders until I watched the show seeing him talk and reason. I never imagined Richard Dawkins’s response about consuming weed and mushroom. I have learned a lot from Joe about being an interviewer on how to get along with people you don’t fully agree with, especially on how to handles some of his consipiracy-loaded friend. Many of the TV interviews are too “heated” and “confrontational” for my liking. Sometimes I just enjoy listening to some silly and relaxing conversations. Bullshit from the guests can be distinguished without the interviewer actually calling them out on the show.
In the age of chaos and cancelling, I really appreciate such a platform. I hope the deal with Spotify will not direct the show to a narrower road. As his popularity rises and being closer to the political war zone, I wish him and the show good luck.
If podcasts were solely promotions of speakers, no one would listen.
Mike Tyson or Bernie Sanders or any other guest on Joe Rogan's podcast doesn't need further promotion.
If you're a guest on Joe Rogan's podcast you already are a celebrity.
To state the obvious: people listen to Joe Rogan podcast because they are interested in what the guests have to say about things they are experts in and Joe Rogan is a good interviewer who asks good questions and lets the quests talk.
Not to mention that interviews with people are just a subset of podcasts.
Joe Rogan? Was interested, now no longer. Using Joe Rogan to describe a podcast cheapens your pitch. Unless your saying the podcast is trying to have incredibly broad appeal without much consideration to intelligent thought or the impacts of what they are putting out to the world except in order to increase their own viewership numbers.
I like Joe Rogan for the very reason most here seem to criticize him - that he just has conversations with people without pushing an agenda. I learned so much about candidates this year just from listening to a few conversations. He doesn't try to 'gotcha', bring up something they did 5 years ago, etc. There are no shortage of people who do that, and to be honest, he probably wouldn't land the guests he does if he was one of them. In some ways, it feels like uneducated ol me(in the topics being discussed) just having a conversation with someone about something they are interested in.
I’ve always felt that in a strong episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, you don’t actually experience too much of Joe Rogan. If you’re going to do a long form interview show, part of being a gracious host is to be open to what the guest has to say. And frankly, I’d much rather that people adopt Joe Rogan’s humble attitude of “I don’t know” than cop an overconfident attitude because they think they know everything. If you want to listen to some opinionated loudmouth like that, you’re in luck because they all have their own podcasts.
I think you mistook my comment as saying "Joe Rogan podcast is great and everyone should listen." I was only saying that it is a source of "opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere," and that he has obtained a remarkable amount of working class listeners.
reply