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.
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.
The problem is it's the Joe Rogan Experience a show but people are seeing or hoping it's something intellectual but it's not. On every show the topic is Joe Rogan whether people believe that or not.
I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, but the "doesn't have a conflict of interest" argument doesn't seem correct to me. The point of Joe's podcast is that his biases and motivations are transparent, not that they don't exist. Joe is interested, like many people, in contrarians. It's a heuristic that leads him to interesting conversations, and those kinds of interesting conversations are why the podcast is so popular. Oftentimes people who seem one-dimensional in media coverage are shown to be much more than meets the eye when placed in a long-form non-confrontational setting. There is no guarantee of factualness or good faith in any conversation on the podcast, and in many cases he will bring in verifiably crazy people just to see what they're really like -- these are some of the most popular episodes, by the way.
Joe Rogan is so popular because he let's other people be themselves. Live and let live. He doesn't try to enforce an opinion upon others. He sits back, enjoys himself and explores the depths of his guest by asking interesting and critical questions without giving much judgement.
People love watching the Joe Rogan Experience because they know that they will get to see the true self of the guest on the podcast.
In one moment Joe might say something which makes the audience think that he agrees with his guest's opinion, and in the very next sentence he might throw in something which might challenge the same thing they just said before. He's good at giving people a safe place to just talk freely and that is what people love.
He's done no harm to anyone, he's not using his platform to spread left/right wing views. He has guests from all corners of life and just let's them talk about their lives, experiences and views.
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.
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.
To me it's not about Joe Rogan himself, but his guests. He gets great people on his show and lets them talk, and that's why I like his podcast so much. I don't listen to it because I especially like Joe (although I find him to be a rational human being), but because he has a big variety of interesting guests.
Most of the discussions on his podcasts sound healthy and sane, but sometimes he gets more wild/controversial ones which is always entertaining.
He just doesn't go to the extremes. No clickbait, no outrage, no suspicious promotions, he just feels down to earth which is refreshing in this day and age on the internet. It doesn't mean that he's always right, but he realizes this and doesn't try to push his opinions too hard.
I find that the "haters" that always criticize him are missing the point of the postcast which is to hear the guests, not Joe.
That's not even remotely similar to Joe Rogan though? He has a podcast where he invites a wide variety of guests, and mostly lets them tell their stories without interruption or argument. Sometimes those guests say things people don't like, sometimes Joe himself says things people don't like (eg, alternative medicine for covid), but his controversies are because he's open-minded to a every perspective rather than intentionally shocking.
I've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
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.
Says people who don’t watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people. The former are why I watch the podcast. And I think it’s important because it gives a platform to people are being ignored by the mainstream. Take for example Paul Saladino. Watch that podcast and tell me it’s pseudo science. You can’t because he’s meticulously citing a paper and bringing up that paper to the screen practically every five minutes. And he’s an MD. And he’s been proven right by CAC score. And he’s planning an angiogram which if it comes out clean will be incontrovertible… he was right. It annoys me that people want to shut down joe rogan for harmless speculation he makes. If you think of Galileo and his conflict with the church, he’s very much like a joe rogan guest. Has a controversial but correct scientific insight, clashes with authority and the old dogma. There’s definitely been a handful of people like that. The MAPS guy comes to mind. His vindication was massive and joe rogans contribution to that was probably not insignificant.
People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.
But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.
I don't agree with you guys at all. I like Joe a lot - but I do not always agree with him, nor his guests - but here is why he is one of the best interviewers I have witnessed:
He doesnt talk over his guests - he never pontificates to them, and lets them have their piece...
Additionally - he is actually really well read, and has a great memory and can recall how things he had read in the past relate to the conversations at hand.
You put joe rogan up against literally any television "interviewer" in the history of television, and you will see they are all hacks. Soundbyte driven hacks.
Ill take joe over ANYONE on television today.
Also - there are far too many podcasts, and its great to have very interesting people on his show - where they talk openly about anything for 3 hours.
as opposed to a 1 minute sound byte on complex world affairs where reporters are interviewing reporters about what some other reporter said and then claiming that "experts" "officials" and "sources close to the matter" say... and then every single person on their cast is "Senior correspondent this or that" - with zero creds shown as to why they are senior...
News is FAKE.
At least the interviews on JRE are uncut, there is only ONE other staff member in the room whos only job is to switch cams and look up something if either the guest or joe have doubts about what they are saying.
I find it funny how people can bitch about someone if there is something they dont agree with, as if one must have a 100% ideological map to anything they watch/see/listen to or else its all 100% fake.
It's also quite educational and interesting when he has good guests on. I don't know why people have to judge the entire podcast based on his worst guests when there is simply no other mainstream outlet, or at least one as big as Rogan's, that has nearly as many interesting scientists, philosophers, journalists, etc. on. Yes he also has idiots on. So what? The point is the entire world steps through that studio and people blanket generalize the podcast away whenever he has someone they disagree with on, which is a sad stance to take in my opinion.
I like the JRE podcast a lot, but I come for the guests. Joe Rogan is an entertainer and taking what he says on the podcast as authoritative "news" is poor judgement.
His interviews are not adversarial and he is not judgemental towards his guests. He isn't there to put his guests on the spot. He isn't there to get a juicy soundbite taken out of context. He allows his guests to speak for as long as they want. And his guests appear to enjoy themselves.
These things are all true even if the guest or their ideas are extremely controversial. Maybe Joe Rogan is just smart in a way that's different to the way that you are smart.
Your morally superior attitude of telling others what's correct is exactly what people dislike about other shows. People who "don't need their hand held" can separate the information from the host and think for themselves.
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.
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.
reply