Ah "misinformation". (Which seems to be far-left speak for "has a different opinion and I'd rather censor them than argue with them".) Rogan is a comedian and has never claimed any special expertise. If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?
> At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.
But it's NOT masquerading as journalism. That's Rogan's excuse, whether you accept it or not: He's just a bro having conversations with interesting people.
But why? Joe Rogan doesn’t publish news. The podcast is in the form of a conversation between two people. He does talk about current events, just as everybody else does when they have a conversation.
He doesn’t make any claim that is show is anything more than two people chatting. If anyone is using JRE as a trusted news source, then they are an idiot. You can’t stop people from being idiots, nor should we attempt to childproof the entire world on their behalf.
I’ve never listened to the show and don’t know enough to have an opinion on him. But if you employ a fact-checker they have to be checking both sides. Otherwise it’s biased;
people will misremember things even in good faith. And it seems that Rogan was wrong about some claims about the wildfires in Oregon — he admitted it on Twitter, but where was the fact-checker in that case?
Well, it wasn't really an example at all as he's petty open about how silly he was to believe it, but ok.
Rogan invites anyone on who he finds interesting. Yes, he has a proclivity to want to believe things that are a bit out there, but he challenges a lot of those "wackos" as well. He also brings on many field experts just to hear what they have to say.
I think you're wrong about Joe fishing for clicks. He's been doing this a long time now and his format hasn't really changes. He's not purporting to be an expert of any kind (hell, he doesn't even claim to be intelligent) and he's an intellectually open person.
His show is not a platform for guests who won't offend your sensibilities, and he has no obligation to censor for you. If you don't like what a guest is saying then great; make up your own mind. He's not trying to convince you.
What were the exact things that Rogan or his guests said that were misinformation? I don't watch him, but the excerpts I watched from the Robert Malone interview weren't misinformation. The guy even seemed to be pro-vax.
If Rogan had reviewed and assessed the claims and any support before hand, checking how they stand up to scrutiny, and only then conducted the interview then this would all be a non issue.
That way he’d call out garbage facts like his guests recently have had instead of making them seem legitimate by giving them equal coverage to real facts and he’s also be able to highlight a Galileo should those facts line up.
>Yes, that one. Rogan never really corrects himself. He starts pushing back on the data source and then they just transition on to something else. I did see that later on Twitter he did seemingly admit to being fact checked. And blames it on it being a long form show where the topics aren't disclosed up front.
Ya that's fair. He does seem surprised when they fact-checked the data during the conversation.
>In those cases why do you submit a thesis, rather than simply stating, "I don't really know the facts here"? That's what reasonable people do all the time. Rather he is counting on you to not know the facts or be able to fact check him in real time. He just steam rolls you.
I don't think that's fair. They fact check real-time constantly. There is a guy in the room who's job it is to fact check real time. They would start a conversation then discuss aspects of it, and the person would look up what they are discussing and show the results. This fact checker was the person who brought up refuting evidence to the myocarditis claim.
His show reminds me of the old Dick Cavett or Phil Donahue type long form shows, except it's 3 hours long. A conversational show like that is different from a show where you have a set agenda with strict talking points you don't deviate from, like a newscast would have.
Also to be fair, he has a lot of people on who are professionals in their relevant fields. One of the guys the media is currently lambasting as a covid "misinformationalist" is an MD that helped create the technology used by the covid vaccine.
>With Trump in particular I felt that the "mainstream" media largely gave him a pass on most of his speeches unless they were nationally televised. Some of his worst comments were stump speeches that never were aired nationally, but could be found on YouTube and other sites. I think he was much worse than most America believes.
It seems to me the news blew things he said out of proportion that they didn't need to. As someone who looked at some of the source material, what the news said he said and what he actually said didn't match up. It definitely hurt their credibility, IMO. Perhaps they ignored the more egregious things you are mentioning in stump speeches, which seems like an odd tactic.
Rogan is intellectually curious and he's not afraid to have conversations with people who have unpopular opinions, even opinions with which he disagrees. His interviewing style is a great example of "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." I have heard several times when someone explains something to Joe and he replies "I think that's all bullshit" and then proceeds to explain why he thinks that person's view/opinion is wrong. People (and the mainstream media, for that matter) are far too sensitive these days to hearing anyone say anything that disagrees with their worldview. It's easier, albeit intellectually lazy, to say "That's misinformation: BAN IT!" than to have an intelligent discussion, understand what someone else is saying, counter them with logic and more information, and end in a state where everyone is more informed on all sides of an issue.
But that won't translate into ratings so don't hold your breath waiting for it.
> If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?
It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible.
Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.
They google things up and Rogan call people on BS when they contradict themselves, but they are not always right and they fall for some BS themselves.
reply