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
Science vs. did a good episode on why that episode was dangerous bullshit, and unlike Rogan they cite sources/talk to experts in the field
That's not to say laypeople shouldn't be able to interview potentially controversial subjects, but to my mind preventing a celebrity from using their platform to spread information when they're not doing any good faith investigation as to whether that information is accurate is not equivalent to censorship
Rogan is not a news program and doesn't claim to be one . His thing is conversations with interesting people.H It can be serious scientists, questionable scientists, flat earthers, UFO people, Alex Jones and many others. He lets them talk and it's up to you do with it whatever you want. I personally find it very interesting to listen to political extremists, conspiracy guys, COVID deniers or flat earthers and learn what they are thinking. I don't need or want to be protected from wrong information. Actually it's very important to know where people you are disagreeing with are coming from. It's very unhealthy to only hear what you think is true.
If people want to get protected from wrong information a good start would be advertising. Maybe the woke people at Spotify should start there.
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.
>You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular.
If he hosted some kind of a salon with competing views where he never took a stance and just let the conversation unfold that might be the case, but he regularly injects himself and varying degrees of "information" into the conversation to color and steer it. Each guest is in a vacuum where for their time on his show where they're more or less unchallenged and unfettered by reality.
To be clear I don't think his show should be censored, but I think his fans need to be a bit more honest with themselves and others. He makes people feel safe to settle in and listen to bullshit, believe the bullshit, and then say "it's just entertainment, this isn't where I get my opinions - by the way let me fill you in on all my obviously Rogan informed opinions."
What concerns me about Joe Rogan, and what this article helped solidify, is not necessarily his views, but the power he has as one person.
In my opinion he has taken some problematic view points, but others would agree with him more, and many would say he just plays devil's advocate and likes to talk hypotheticals and dig into interesting topics. I don't think any of this really matters.
The issue is that the views come from one guy, get amplified in some man-cave banter with a few guys paid by him, and then broadcast to an audience "larger than Belgium". This isn't normal. Media companies have layers of editors, they have at least some diversity, a woman will hopefully look at a story or script before it goes out, sometimes even a lawyer might tell them to tone it down a bit. Even celebrities with big followings on social media are likely to have more input on many of their postings than Rogan does on his broadcasts.
A bit of a filter is a good thing for everyone, whether it's trusted friends who can and do tell you when you're wrong, an editor at work, a legal team, whatever. It's also honest. I think Joe Rogan could use a filter.
One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged. What's the risk? you might be smart enough to know better but other's will use Rogan's vouching of X personality to validate their view points "well he was invited to Rogan's show so he must be important and must be listened to! have YOU been featured in Rogan's show?". I'll remind you that a good portion of the population doesn't even think vaccines work and that they do damage, don't think wearing masks help, believe in 'staged false flag' events to the point of bullying victims. The internet has allowed anyone to become a 'soft journalist' but completely ignoring what made journalism work, ethics (depending on the org, of course). See related (specially points 4 & 5): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...
Honestly I expect that as time goes and people wisen up, the more serious and legit a personality is the less likely they will be to accept an invite to that show until it is just bro-ey comedians and controversial personalities that need a steady flow of more supporters so they will say yes to the opportunity to expose their ideas unchallenged. Controversies sell well and Rogan is aware of that, at the end of it he only cares about growing his wealth and not freedom of speech.
BTW, I believe almost no one wants to change the amendments and remove freedom of speech. Those characters will still have the means to communicate their ideas and will be protected by the law, matter fact I myself have donated to ACLU who have defended the KKK in the court of law for the higher purpose of defending freedom of speech and rightly so. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...
I'm assuming fans of Rogan will be happy to read my comment since as Rogan promotes, we should give a platform to anyone or any idea and let people decide by themselves. Or that doesn't apply to his dissenters?
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?
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?
I keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny."
The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2]
W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests?
Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule.
---
[1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace.
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.
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..
These people are more than welcome to setup a blog and write up their views should they wish but there is an astronomical difference between them posting their views on whatever subject they wish and inviting them onto a podcast listened to by tens of millions as if they are some sort of respected expert in the subject.
Also as I said in my original post this is not just aimed at Rogan's podcast but the media in general. Many times I have seen experts in a subject with decades of experience sat next to a random person from MumsNet or some other online community with anecdotes and nothing more. Yet they are sat side by side, given similar air time to communicate their views as if they are in some way 'equals' on the subject which is misrepresentation.
In no way am I saying the non-expert random person should be silenced but they also should not be given such a wide reaching platform due to laziness of the "news" service to find an actual expert to argue the other side.
He’s one of the few “mainstream” talk show hosts who is willing to invite otherwise censored guests and get people with differing opinions/viewpoints. I’m no Rogan fan but the hysteria is mind boggling.
I’m also shocked and saddened that this view of consensus science is being shoved down people’s throats. That is literally the antithesis of science. Appeal to authority has no business standing in the way of questioning and presenting evidence.
The problem is Rogan does legitimize many things for a lot of his listeners. I listened to that one COVID episode making news and it's hard not to think "this guy knows what he's talking about" and I have graduate degrees in epidemiology and microbiology. How is a lay person supposed to critically think about his guests and their views?
My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists.
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.
The article frames this as 'elitist' and implies it's bad, but I think this 'here's a real guy who broadcasts from his garage and tells you the truth the mainstream won't tell you' attitude is harmful, it feeds into a particularly American culture of anti-intellectualism, it's the modern extension of talk radio.
Rogan seems to actively listen when he has people on. A discussion format is what he would like to do. Nothing seems out of sort for this.
He could be completely wrong on something and invite someone with conflicting views and give them a platform for hours. He doesn't trample all over them in the moment like so many others.
I would make the distinction that he is perhaps bad at science, rather than anti-science. He just wants to discuss it, which is the format he prefers to work in.
As for a debate not showing the truth, I'll agree. However, I'll also say that there has been a lot of confindence lost in some authority figures who stated things as fact when they should have been using weaker statements like, "we believe" or "we don't know, but do this just in case". Sure, it could be said it was politicians making these statements, but they were buttressed by fame seeking scientists. (on the topic of covid)
The government and their scientists never admit they were wrong, everything is always stated as fact. Best example of the this is the food pyramid. They just roll out a new one and pretend the previous one never existed.
I don't know where we stand right now with regard to either the food pyramid or covid, except to get the new boosters as they come out on the latter.
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
reply