There's a vast gulf between "Rogan should be more careful about bringing on and platforming people especially if he's going to support or validate what they say" and "Joe Rogan shouldn't be allowed to do his podcast."
Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
I don't think the argument is that Rogan or such guests shouldn't have any way to express themselves. Rather that carelessly platforming any contrarían in a lazy attempt at balance is harmful.
The posturing in this argument is silly. The other person thinks joe Rogan is being irresponsible and should change. That’s not a violation of your freedom.
Should we then respect Joe Rogan’s right to host and give platform to controversial (or even reprehensible) guests if he chooses to do so? Does that reflect poorly on his moral character or not necessarily?
Also, is there value for society in surfacing reprehensible ideas?
I used to listen to Rogan quite a bit until I realised what his format was, if he has reasonable guests on he'll find something to challenge them over (great), if he has 'controversial' guests on he'll let them mostly talk unchallenged. I used to think that was because he was easily redirected by bullshit artists, but after the anti-vaccine/ivermectin reporting I think it's more likely he just agrees with them and wants them to have a bigger platform
Again I'm not arguing he should be censored or that any differences in opinion should be excised from the public domain. But giving people equal platforms lends them equal credibility to laypeople and the general public, which is why I think a good faith effort to interview controversial subjects would include a lot of disclaimers/warnings/replies from experts which Rogan makes no attempt to do
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.
I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers.
Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop).
He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.
fReeDoM oF sPeeCh is so ridiculous but 10x in this situation. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, this has to do with not backing a platform that is ok with misinformation. Rogan isn't a guy that wants all sides heard, he's just trying to get even more rich than he currently is. He knows his audience and he caters to them no matter the ethical cost.
Neil Young doesn't want to be associated with it. This is as much about freedom of speech as Fox News cutting off people who go off agenda.
I think if you're going to provide people a platform to spread their ideas, you have a responsibility to challenge what you believe to bad ideas, publicly (but also give the person the space to respond to your challenge). Allowing people greater reach in spreading bad ideas, unchecked, is irresponsible.
As the person running the show, that responsibility increases as your audience increases.
I still have yet to check out Rogan's show, but if he's just providing nutjobs a platform to spread lies and misinformation, without Rogan giving enough context, that's incredibly irresponsible of him.
Joe is first and foremost an entertainer, just like Neil Young. People should be able to make up their own minds about what they listen to. Joe Rogan has said controversial things that aren't true, but so has Neil Young. Neither side should be trying to force the other to not be heard. That's how we end up in an echo chamber. Allowing both sides to speak gives people the option to form opinions on their own, and hopefully that pushes them to investigate the actual truth (let's not pretend that either Joe or Neil are scientists and take their word at face value).
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. I don't know what your point is. Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?
Im really (negatively) surprised by an artist who is straight up against freedom of speech even if he disagrees with the content.
We're in this weird place where we label anything we disagree with as disinformation. I'm a big fan of Joe Rogan's podcast, but not Joe himself. He brings in interesting and different people and allows them to share their thoughts and experiences without interruption you see on TV or much setup, or most importantly, censorship.
You can disagree with what his guests are saying, or his views, but it's really dangerous to push for deplatforming him or his guests simply because you disagree with their views.
Rogan doesn't think either of those things, and really never the latter. It seems like you're basing all this on some outdated 2nd-hand source rather than actually listening to his podcast. And yes he's also fluid on views but stable on his values, like most people. That's how you can have hours of conversation instead of devolving into a heated debate, and maybe even share some knowledge by the end.
The more you claim to be the one to take seriously, the less serious anyone will want to take you. Especially if you do it in a negative fashion blocking others rather than putting out your own message. There's far more to influence, trust, and authenticity than claiming you're right or deducing everything to some rational puzzle, and perhaps that's the biggest lesson of all.
Not a big fan of Rogan but he isn't spreading misinformation, he's speaking his mind, voicing his opinion. There was a time only a few years ago when this was a time honored concept called Freedom of Speech.
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. What's your solution? Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?
joe rogan says awful things, and contributed to a lot of misinformation about a wide range of topics including neo nazi protests/transgender people/vaccines/pandemic... the list goes on and on. In general he gives a platform to a lot of people that say offensive/harmful/incorrect things and he does not challenge their actions or words but encourages it.
That is an argument with some merit, but I don’t believe it applies here. Rogan brings on many polarizing guests, they happen to be mostly conservative. It’s not like he’s bringing on only moderates from all branches of politics
Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
reply