7 ms·

I'll take a stab. I'm not a "fan," but I do like to listen to him from time to time. He's ... - Open to nearly any idea. - (almost) Never talks down to the au

I'll take a stab. I'm not a "fan," but I do like to listen to him from time to time. He's ... - Open to nearly any idea. - (almost) Never talks down to the audience or his guest. Although the motivations are almost certainly different, this is a bit reminiscent of David Letterman always playing a bit of a fool. It's generally endearing to most people. - Generally friendly and congenial. In a world full of Joe Rogans, you wouldn't have very many good interviews. He's not adversarial, he's often not prone to, nor equipped to meaningfully disagree with a guest, and he's open to multiple, mutually contradictory opinions. But, the adversarial interview has gained in popularity for so long that it's become the norm. In this environment, he's a breath of fresh air. There really is a place for hearing someone lay out their views in a long, methodical way without being badgered every few minutes by an interviewer looking for a sound bite.

bane 7y ago
> open to nearly any idea The classic example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJ0AB12h1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJ0AB12h1I
raxxorrax 7y ago
I think your criticism is valid, but to me it is still often more informative than comparable interviews in the press. I think the "classic adversarial interview" how you call it often lacks genuine criticism. The framing has become so predictable, that you don't even have to read much. And interviewers talking down to the audience is especially annoying if you get the impression that they miss the larger picture, or even worse, you know more about the topic. I think he is popular because standard news media interviews have become that bad.
- everdrive 7y ago
  I mostly agree with you, I just want to offer that a great critical interview is possible, and it meaningfully differs from an adversarial interview. (Sam Harris has some great critical interviews that are not adversarial, for example.) Further, adversarial interviews can be good, too. It's just that so many of them are lazy, terrible, and sanctimonious nowadays.
ebiester 7y ago
He reminds me of a modern day Art Bell, but for a different audience.
- tosser0001 7y ago
  With a bit of Larry King in terms of the unchallenging interview style. Larry King was able to get a lot of guests because of his softball questions.
acjohnson55 7y ago
I listen occasionally. I generally find his conversations interesting, and sometimes even enlightening. But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. That it's a tacit endorsement.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That’s why he does best with a lot of scientists and not so good with people who are trying to sell something.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. This is a philosophical position: do you see the interview as a way to learn or understand how someone else thinks on specific topics, or do you want to use the interview as a club to tell them why they are wrong (and virtue signal to your audience how right you are). I find it much worse for a biased, or uninformed interviewer challenging a guest on every point they make (usually by relying on slogans, talking-points or simply a strawman of their position) - making the entire conversation an exercise in frustration for the interviewee and the listener. >There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. Bullshit according to whom? Joe Rogan had Bernie Sanders on recently, I can tell you right now, a good half of what Bernie was saying was pure bullshit. I'm pretty sure Bernie supporters would disagree with that.
  - ramblerman 7y ago
    Indeed. As someone outside of the US I actually moved to be a bit more skeptical of some of Bernie’s ideas thanks to the podcast. Something ironically the adversarial 1min sound bytes hadn’t achieved
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >Something ironically the adversarial 1min sound bytes hadn’t achieved My take on this is that some journalists just parrot the talking points of the party or some faction from the political party they are affiliated with. So when they interview Bernie, they will pepper Bernie with questions that, for example, the Warren or Biden campaigns provided them with. And those questions will always be leading questions of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife".
zimbatm 7y ago
The best part about the interviewing style of Joe Rogan is that the guests are feeling welcome and free to say what they think. Joe has his own opinion and both are free to be wrong, and stupid. This combined with the long format is a great way to discover guests and how they really are. Traditional media is all about opinions and to tell you what you think. Quick! Put this idea in this box! If you think this then you must be that. There is not enough room for people to be wrong or explore alternative ideas. There is such angst, as if the society was so fragile that one badly categorized idea would make all the society crumble. Quick, it has to be correct on the spot before it spreads further! The irony is that the article recognized that but then couldn't help himself to condescend to the public and Joe Rogan at the end. It gave a pretty good description of the Joe Rogan experience and then failed at replicating it.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  “There is such angst, as if the society was so fragile that one badly categorized idea would make all the society crumble. Quick, it has to be correct on the spot before it spreads further!” Nicely put.
- zrobotics 7y ago
  Choice quote: "a good point coming out of the wrong mouth doesn’t count for squat" While I'm no fan of Alex Jones, the tone of the article towards the end saddened me. The article seemed like it was approaching a genuinely insightful conclusion, but veered at the end in a somewhat jarring contradiction of the conclusion the first half was approaching.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    Biased Journalism not taken far enough. Either be explicit about your bias or don't. In between feels gross.
  - s3r3nity 7y ago
    Came here to comment on this EXACT quote. The idea that you have to not only be the "right" mouth (whatever the hell that means) but also _prove_ that you're the "right" mouth are the exact type of thought crime / virtue signaling principles that I think Rogan and his audience rallies against. The author even further cements their bias when writing about how Rogan constantly talks about his left-wing views, but that his "actions" somehow point him to being more right-wing (though the author only points to things Rogan has _said_, but I digress) - as if Joe needs to do more to prove he's a left-wing ally (aka "virtue signaling") and the occasional right wing guest makes him worthy for "re-education" to make sure he becomes the "right mouth" for the right points.
FussyZeus 7y ago
It's strange, as someone who primarily consumed/consumes American media, I almost never see the "adversarial" interviews you discuss. I know they're commonplace on the BBC, but reporting in the States is largely a matter of someone having a guest on the air to push whatever they're pushing with little if any token resistance to anything. I wish my media was more adversarial, especially in politics since so many politicians go on TV and spout complete nonsense with no challenge whatsoever by the people who really ought to know it's nonsense.
- tryitnow 7y ago
  You're 100% correct. Joe Rogan's popularity has nothing to do with the fact that he's not adversarial. I was shocked to read that too, American interviewers are laughably tame, no one is ever held to account for egregious ideas or behaviors. And yes, most of the tough interviewers I've seen have been on the BBC (see Ben Shapiro's interview where he literally ran away or Boris Johnson's interview where he display an utter lack of understanding of trade law despite posturing as an expert.)
- writepub 7y ago
  American media picks sides. Most lean left, a few lean right. When a guest with opposing views does decide to come on, you'll see a lot more challenge than the usual friendlies. It has gotten so bad that the Democratic party regularly shames and rallies against even appearing on a non-friendly. Take Warren's refusal to go on Fox News [1], or Pete Buttigieg's refusal to go on Dave Rubin [2]. I hold Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in high regard, for going on Fox News and Joe Rogan, and explaining their opinions to an audience & network with opposing ones [1]: https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/20/elizabeth-warren-fox-news-town-hall-steve-almond https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/20/elizabeth-warren... [2]: https://www.thewrap.com/dave-rubin-on-the-outrage-mob-pete-buttigieg-interview/ https://www.thewrap.com/dave-rubin-on-the-outrage-mob-pete-b...
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    While it's important to take on the arguments from the other side, the reason many Democrats refuse to go on Fox News has little to do with them being conservative leaning, and far more to do with their general laid back attitude to reporting the truth. So much of what is presented on Fox as "news" is anything but, they'll take twitter threads from unverified accounts and spin entire stories from them, and that's not even going into the problematic ones like when they draw attention to and pay lip-service to outright nonsense like the Qanon conspiracies. They're still head and shoulders above people like Alex Jones but they're just a setup and punchline relative to news as of late. I'm all for hearing the opposing sides but when all they seemingly have is petty name-calling, Whataboutism, or insane conspiracy theories, I'm just not interested.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dharmon 7y ago
> - (almost) Never talks down to the audience or his guest. I occasionally listen if he has a guest I am interested in. When talking to James Hetfield (Metallica), they got to talking about bees (Hetfield keeps bees). After about 10 or 15 min, Hetfield says something like, "Sorry, I could talk about this stuff forever. Your listeners don't want to hear me talk about bees." And Rogan says, "No, they'll listen. This shit is interesting." For my part this is what makes him worth listening to. He just tries to find what his guest is interested in and passionate about and lets them go off on it. Its refreshing vs more "Do you still talk to Jason Newstead? What about Dave Mustaine?" type interviews that Hetfield always gets.
- reading-at-work 7y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I learned so much from that interview, that literally no other interviewer would ever talk to James about. Besides beekeeping, they also talked about hunting and other outdoorsy stuff that I had no idea James did. That's what makes Rogan's show interesting to me.
- drenvuk 7y ago
  Not sure if this is helpful here's the metallica bees bit. https://youtu.be/5O6QPTawR14?t=16m https://youtu.be/5O6QPTawR14?t=16m
- krowfromthewall 7y ago
  Another thing is that there is virtually no time limit on the podcast interview. Sometimes they even go upto 3-4 hours long if need be. So, you don't feel like the interviewer is just trying to wrap up things. We get to listen to guests in more detail and guests also get the time to explain more complex things if need be (especially with Scientists and Mathematicians like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sir Roger Penrose)
eden_hazard 7y ago
The guy is pretty honest and open. I remember when he was commentator for the Khabib vs McGregor fight, all the other guys were saying McGregor was holding back and trying to preserve energy when he went into fetal position and Joe Rogan was like "nah, he's getting his ass beat."
bakuninsbart 7y ago
> There really is a place for hearing someone lay out their views in a long, methodical way without being badgered every few minutes by an interviewer looking for a sound bite. If you like that kind of style, Tilo Jung might be an interesting watch. He's doing quite long (45m-2hour) interviews. His style is not adversial, but he certainly asks tough questions. The interviews are uncut, and he gives his guests a long time to answer each question. Most of his content is in german, but here is a playlist of his English content: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuQE_zb4awhXlktpo-3t4uMiDLodKBELB https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuQE_zb4awhXlktpo-3t4...

bane 7y ago

> open to nearly any idea The classic example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJ0AB12h1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPJ0AB12h1I

raxxorrax 7y ago

I think your criticism is valid, but to me it is still often more informative than comparable interviews in the press. I think the "classic adversarial interview" how you call it often lacks genuine criticism. The framing has become so predictable, that you don't even have to read much. And interviewers talking down to the audience is especially annoying if you get the impression that they miss the larger picture, or even worse, you know more about the topic. I think he is popular because standard news media interviews have become that bad.

everdrive 7y ago
I mostly agree with you, I just want to offer that a great critical interview is possible, and it meaningfully differs from an adversarial interview. (Sam Harris has some great critical interviews that are not adversarial, for example.) Further, adversarial interviews can be good, too. It's just that so many of them are lazy, terrible, and sanctimonious nowadays.

ebiester 7y ago

He reminds me of a modern day Art Bell, but for a different audience.

tosser0001 7y ago
With a bit of Larry King in terms of the unchallenging interview style. Larry King was able to get a lot of guests because of his softball questions.

acjohnson55 7y ago

I listen occasionally. I generally find his conversations interesting, and sometimes even enlightening. But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. That it's a tacit endorsement.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
That’s why he does best with a lot of scientists and not so good with people who are trying to sell something.
macspoofing 7y ago
>But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. This is a philosophical position: do you see the interview as a way to learn or understand how someone else thinks on specific topics, or do you want to use the interview as a club to tell them why they are wrong (and virtue signal to your audience how right you are). I find it much worse for a biased, or uninformed interviewer challenging a guest on every point they make (usually by relying on slogans, talking-points or simply a strawman of their position) - making the entire conversation an exercise in frustration for the interviewee and the listener. >There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. Bullshit according to whom? Joe Rogan had Bernie Sanders on recently, I can tell you right now, a good half of what Bernie was saying was pure bullshit. I'm pretty sure Bernie supporters would disagree with that.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  Indeed. As someone outside of the US I actually moved to be a bit more skeptical of some of Bernie’s ideas thanks to the podcast. Something ironically the adversarial 1min sound bytes hadn’t achieved
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Something ironically the adversarial 1min sound bytes hadn’t achieved My take on this is that some journalists just parrot the talking points of the party or some faction from the political party they are affiliated with. So when they interview Bernie, they will pepper Bernie with questions that, for example, the Warren or Biden campaigns provided them with. And those questions will always be leading questions of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife".

zimbatm 7y ago

The best part about the interviewing style of Joe Rogan is that the guests are feeling welcome and free to say what they think. Joe has his own opinion and both are free to be wrong, and stupid. This combined with the long format is a great way to discover guests and how they really are. Traditional media is all about opinions and to tell you what you think. Quick! Put this idea in this box! If you think this then you must be that. There is not enough room for people to be wrong or explore alternative ideas. There is such angst, as if the society was so fragile that one badly categorized idea would make all the society crumble. Quick, it has to be correct on the spot before it spreads further! The irony is that the article recognized that but then couldn't help himself to condescend to the public and Joe Rogan at the end. It gave a pretty good description of the Joe Rogan experience and then failed at replicating it.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
“There is such angst, as if the society was so fragile that one badly categorized idea would make all the society crumble. Quick, it has to be correct on the spot before it spreads further!” Nicely put.
zrobotics 7y ago
Choice quote: "a good point coming out of the wrong mouth doesn’t count for squat" While I'm no fan of Alex Jones, the tone of the article towards the end saddened me. The article seemed like it was approaching a genuinely insightful conclusion, but veered at the end in a somewhat jarring contradiction of the conclusion the first half was approaching.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  Biased Journalism not taken far enough. Either be explicit about your bias or don't. In between feels gross.
- s3r3nity 7y ago
  Came here to comment on this EXACT quote. The idea that you have to not only be the "right" mouth (whatever the hell that means) but also _prove_ that you're the "right" mouth are the exact type of thought crime / virtue signaling principles that I think Rogan and his audience rallies against. The author even further cements their bias when writing about how Rogan constantly talks about his left-wing views, but that his "actions" somehow point him to being more right-wing (though the author only points to things Rogan has _said_, but I digress) - as if Joe needs to do more to prove he's a left-wing ally (aka "virtue signaling") and the occasional right wing guest makes him worthy for "re-education" to make sure he becomes the "right mouth" for the right points.

FussyZeus 7y ago

It's strange, as someone who primarily consumed/consumes American media, I almost never see the "adversarial" interviews you discuss. I know they're commonplace on the BBC, but reporting in the States is largely a matter of someone having a guest on the air to push whatever they're pushing with little if any token resistance to anything. I wish my media was more adversarial, especially in politics since so many politicians go on TV and spout complete nonsense with no challenge whatsoever by the people who really ought to know it's nonsense.

tryitnow 7y ago
You're 100% correct. Joe Rogan's popularity has nothing to do with the fact that he's not adversarial. I was shocked to read that too, American interviewers are laughably tame, no one is ever held to account for egregious ideas or behaviors. And yes, most of the tough interviewers I've seen have been on the BBC (see Ben Shapiro's interview where he literally ran away or Boris Johnson's interview where he display an utter lack of understanding of trade law despite posturing as an expert.)
writepub 7y ago
American media picks sides. Most lean left, a few lean right. When a guest with opposing views does decide to come on, you'll see a lot more challenge than the usual friendlies. It has gotten so bad that the Democratic party regularly shames and rallies against even appearing on a non-friendly. Take Warren's refusal to go on Fox News [1], or Pete Buttigieg's refusal to go on Dave Rubin [2]. I hold Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in high regard, for going on Fox News and Joe Rogan, and explaining their opinions to an audience & network with opposing ones [1]: https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/20/elizabeth-warren-fox-news-town-hall-steve-almond https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/20/elizabeth-warren... [2]: https://www.thewrap.com/dave-rubin-on-the-outrage-mob-pete-buttigieg-interview/ https://www.thewrap.com/dave-rubin-on-the-outrage-mob-pete-b...
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  While it's important to take on the arguments from the other side, the reason many Democrats refuse to go on Fox News has little to do with them being conservative leaning, and far more to do with their general laid back attitude to reporting the truth. So much of what is presented on Fox as "news" is anything but, they'll take twitter threads from unverified accounts and spin entire stories from them, and that's not even going into the problematic ones like when they draw attention to and pay lip-service to outright nonsense like the Qanon conspiracies. They're still head and shoulders above people like Alex Jones but they're just a setup and punchline relative to news as of late. I'm all for hearing the opposing sides but when all they seemingly have is petty name-calling, Whataboutism, or insane conspiracy theories, I'm just not interested.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dharmon 7y ago

> - (almost) Never talks down to the audience or his guest. I occasionally listen if he has a guest I am interested in. When talking to James Hetfield (Metallica), they got to talking about bees (Hetfield keeps bees). After about 10 or 15 min, Hetfield says something like, "Sorry, I could talk about this stuff forever. Your listeners don't want to hear me talk about bees." And Rogan says, "No, they'll listen. This shit is interesting." For my part this is what makes him worth listening to. He just tries to find what his guest is interested in and passionate about and lets them go off on it. Its refreshing vs more "Do you still talk to Jason Newstead? What about Dave Mustaine?" type interviews that Hetfield always gets.

reading-at-work 7y ago
I couldn't agree more. I learned so much from that interview, that literally no other interviewer would ever talk to James about. Besides beekeeping, they also talked about hunting and other outdoorsy stuff that I had no idea James did. That's what makes Rogan's show interesting to me.
drenvuk 7y ago
Not sure if this is helpful here's the metallica bees bit. https://youtu.be/5O6QPTawR14?t=16m https://youtu.be/5O6QPTawR14?t=16m
krowfromthewall 7y ago
Another thing is that there is virtually no time limit on the podcast interview. Sometimes they even go upto 3-4 hours long if need be. So, you don't feel like the interviewer is just trying to wrap up things. We get to listen to guests in more detail and guests also get the time to explain more complex things if need be (especially with Scientists and Mathematicians like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sir Roger Penrose)

eden_hazard 7y ago

The guy is pretty honest and open. I remember when he was commentator for the Khabib vs McGregor fight, all the other guys were saying McGregor was holding back and trying to preserve energy when he went into fetal position and Joe Rogan was like "nah, he's getting his ass beat."

bakuninsbart 7y ago

> There really is a place for hearing someone lay out their views in a long, methodical way without being badgered every few minutes by an interviewer looking for a sound bite. If you like that kind of style, Tilo Jung might be an interesting watch. He's doing quite long (45m-2hour) interviews. His style is not adversial, but he certainly asks tough questions. The interviews are uncut, and he gives his guests a long time to answer each question. Most of his content is in german, but here is a playlist of his English content: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuQE_zb4awhXlktpo-3t4uMiDLodKBELB https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuQE_zb4awhXlktpo-3t4...