8 ms·

I keep seeing Joe Rogan's name on Reddit and sometimes on HN. Why does he seem to strike a chord with the demographic that hang out on Reddit and HN? Why is his

I keep seeing Joe Rogan's name on Reddit and sometimes on HN. Why does he seem to strike a chord with the demographic that hang out on Reddit and HN? Why is his podcast good? Is he really a good moderator? Does he provide good insights to the listeners about people he interviews or topics he discuss in his podcast?

tw04 6y ago
In my brief viewing he pretends to be unbiased. Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic. Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. Joe Rogan: "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-says-misunderstood-alex-jones-was-right-/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-s... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8
- lagadu 6y ago
  Everything is worthy of discussion and everyone's opinion is valuable no matter how much I may dislike them/disagree with them. I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society. Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong. edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.
  - tw04 6y ago
    Everyone's opinion is NOT valuable. That thinking is exactly why 5G towers are being burned down. The media - Joe Rogan included - has decided that your OPINIONS carry the same weight as scientific FACT and "let the listeners decide". That'll absolutely attract viewers from all walks of life - and it's a disservice to all of them.
    - lagadu 6y ago
      I get what you're saying but letting the people decide what policy to follow is what a democracy is all about: if enough idiots in a sovereign nation decide to go "fuck 5g" then that's exactly what that nation should do. Do I think it's stupid and wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be allowed to choose that? Yes.
      - tw04 6y ago
        So you're suggesting we let people be misinformed? Where do you draw the line? Do we let our teachers teach the earth is both flat and round and "let the students decide"? The earth is the center of the universe and just a part of the milky way? The holocaust happened and didn't happen? You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...
        whatthesmack 6y ago
        Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.
        tw04 6y ago
        The fact you’d advocate putting someone on tv to tell the world that 5g towers cause covid—19 and give them the same courtesy as a scientist explaining factual information about the world around us tells me you’re either delusional or upset that the media “gatekeeps” fascists and racists. Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.
  - rtp 6y ago
    Just because you think the state should allow any discussion and any opinion, doesn't mean you need to think its content is worthy or valuable. Do you think nazism should get as much exposure as something you like? Creationism? Flat-earthism? Any fringe idea with five believers?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Creationism is not a fringe idea! I think that illustrates the major flaw of your mindset. If you screen off entire categories of ideas as not worth thinking about, you're going to get a systematically incorrect view of the world.
      - rtp 6y ago
        Why would screening off entire categories of ideas lead to a systematically incorrect view of the world? Or why would entertaining those ideas lead to a less incorrect view of the world?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It stops you from noticing what other people believe and why, which stops you from understanding them even if you ultimately believe they're wrong.
        tw04 6y ago
        Which pressures them into either keeping it to themselves or being pressured by society to change their beliefs. The “respect everyone’s opinion” is how we got Charlottesville. Tolerance can and should have limits.
      - myko 6y ago
        > Creationism is not a fringe idea! When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. I downvoted because of this comment: > Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic. By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"? > "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic. Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you? I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.
  - shaidi 6y ago
    How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it? Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion. That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made. Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...
    - mistermann 6y ago
- mythrwy 6y ago
  He sometimes has "toxic" lefty guests also though. I don't see his showing being biased. If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones. It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.
  - donarb 6y ago
    It took you a half hour to realize that Jones was nutty?
  - tw04 6y ago
    >Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil. What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.
aidenn0 6y ago
I only recently discovered him, and the biggest thing I noticed is that he lets his guests talk. Probably because he's not constrained to a particular amount of time, but I find gems in his interviews of people that I don't from the same people interviewed elsewhere
threeseed 6y ago
Reddit and HN skew to young, white males. And Joe has been quite savvy at tailoring both his content and his image for them.
- naasking 6y ago
  > And Joe has been quite savvy at tailoring both his content and his image for them. Way to make it sound nefarious. There's no greedy or malicious intent behind this, no script that these interviews follow to appeal to advertisers or viewers the way most media is carefully cultivated with surveys, talking points and focus groups to most effectively deliver a partisan message. These interviews give about as raw and unfiltered access to the guests as you can get, to let the experts talk about their subject, and that's Rogan's intent. Rogan himself isn't a carefully crafted media personality, but pretty genuine, flaws and all. If that's what you mean by "tailoring", I'd say we could all use a little more media like that. The only kind of "tailoring" that appears to happen is Rogan sometimes listens to feedback on the kind of questions and discussions some listeners want to see.
  - ganstyles 6y ago
    The comment your replying to as written doesn't imply any nefarious intent. And you go on to talk knowing my to Joe Rogans state of mind, which you cannot know. This is a weird comment; it sounds almost shilling for some reason.
    - LMYahooTFY 6y ago
      I'd disagree. Claiming "Rogan has been quite savvy in tailoring content" for a specific audience is clearly implying intent. The distinction is between deliberate tailoring for some ulterior motive we could speculate about, or that Rogan's content is genuine expression of his interests to whatever degree that's possible.
      - ganstyles 6y ago
        It implies intent to tailor something for an audience. Every business in existence (hyperbole) tailors something for their audience. What it doesn't imply is nefarious intent. We can definitely speculate on whether there was nefarious intent, but the comment along the lines of tailoring something for a specific audience doesn't imply any intent in the tailoring, nefarious or otherwise.
kristofferR 6y ago
This is a great summary of his persona and podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my-joe-rogan-experience/594802/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my...
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
He has intriguing diverse guests and let them do most of the speaking, for an extended period of time. It's refreshing. There are plenty of people I would never have listened to otherwise, because they are outside my bubble or just because they would represent something against my view of the world. But because I also saw people I view as interesting or people I already knew from somewhere else, and because they have the time and space to elaborate, I gave the others a chance. This allowed me to be exposed to new topics, points of views, etc, in a relaxing and human format. Just like regular media, it's full of bullshit. But I'm full of it too. It does, however, feel way more genuine than regular media.
- RandomTisk 6y ago
  In any sane world, you wouldn't be getting downvoted, but here we are. One side wants heavy censorship and modern day book burnings, one doesn't. Joe doesn't, so he's evil to the left of today. It's a little bit unreal, but then again one might have seen it coming..
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    This comment is an example of why complaints about downvotes are discouraged in the HN guidelines. The comment is not downvoted now. Given a bit of time, substantive comments that get early downvotes generally get restorative upvotes and end up back in the black, so to speak.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
martythemaniak 6y ago
I don't listen to him, but he is basically the essence modern masculinity. Reddit and HN skew very heavily on the male side, so it's not surprising he's this popular. I personally think of him as King of the Bros and think it's kind of sad that he's become the model man, but it is what it is.
- iagovar 6y ago
  What makes it sad?
  - pohl 6y ago
    What’s not sad about mediocrity being held up as a model? Someone once asked “Is Joe the smartest dumb person or the dumbest smart person?” That question captures him so well.
    - kjakm 6y ago
      Mediocrity? He's just licensed his podcast for three years for over $100m. He's a very successful comedian. He's one of the most well known personalities in the MMA world. If that's what you judge as mediocre I'd love to know what you judge as successful.
      - pohl 6y ago
        But that’s also sad, that the amount of a signed contract is what makes someone worth emulating today. Beyond sad: it’s tragic. The world is full of all kinds of people who happen to make money. That shouldn’t make them all models.
        iagovar 6y ago
        There's plenty of people way smarter than him, making way more money and making the world objectively a worse place. I don't really see much substance in this sadness point. If some people out there has Rogan as role model I honestly, comparing him with most media figures, I can't be bothered. He has a format that people enjoys, and he's not trying to make people swallow any narrative. That's good in my book.
sho_hn 6y ago
I've watched a few episodes. - He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5% that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC. Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices. - If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared. They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of this - he is good at getting the bits they personally find important). - Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't annoyed with him. - Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real), just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's emergent behavior on camera).
- julesqs 6y ago
  I think the "wide spectrum" part is really important. I'm on the far left by American standards and Rogan still has a lot of interviews that interest me even though I think he's more traditionally associated with conservative-ish or libertarian-ish views.
  - 6y ago
datalus 6y ago
You visit the sites as well, since you're seeing his content directed your way... maybe you're also his demographic or view content that is related?
2019-nCoV 6y ago
Authenticity. Deep conversation on interesting topics rooted in genuine curiosity. The long form is a rarity.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  Yes if I had to sum it up in one word "authenticity" would be it. It seems like he truly doesn't care what other people think of him. If he thinks something, he'll say it (but not in an arrogant way like Trump). If the "mainstream media" doesn't approve of a guest on his show, doesn't bother him, he's still willing to hear them out - and more importantly will call them out on their bullshit. He doesn't even pretend to give in to the identity politics bullshit that for whatever reason I can not comprehend has taken over the public narrative. This is not something you see on mainstream media, where everyone is carefully crafting their words and hedging every statement to ensure they offend as little people as possible, ultimately saying little of interest and disillusioning the public because everyday people feel that no one in power is a real human being who understands them. When someone will just bluntly say the obvious that for whatever reason the establishment won't, it's refreshing. In addition, he is radically open-minded in a way that's very rare from these kinds of hosts, and people in general. Most people are very rigidly set in their ideologies, which leads to many people sounding like carbon copies of one another (boring). Rogan will consider any idea no matter how outlandish. And he is very curious and asks insightful questions, while knowing when to shut up and let the guest speak (helps that the interviews last 1.5-3 hours). Also as a comedian, he's significantly more entertaining than your average dry newscaster. I'm not glorifying Rogan here, just trying to articulate why I enjoy his show, despite the fact that I don't really listen to many other podcasts. He certainly is not perfect and has his weaknesses - for example when discussing technical topics he doesn't dive as deep as I'd like (eg. Elon Musk, John Carmack, Neil DeGrasse Tyson). But overall, he does a great job of bringing interesting guests and getting interesting conversations out of him, so it's not surprising to me that he's so successful.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Exactly. People are starved for authenticity and truth, and the freedom to both express and enjoy it.
criddell 6y ago
He strikes a chord with a lot of people simply because he puts out so many shows. I think it would be hard to look at his list of guests from the past few months and not find anything that interests you.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>Why is his podcast good? High profile guests, long form content. Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal". If I'm settling into some work and don't want to listen to music, I can put on Rogan and know I've got 3 hours of filler. You can pay attention only to the parts you want to and not be concerned you're missing anything important. After hundreds of hours, part of what makes it special is continuity and familiarity.
- xnyan 6y ago
  >Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal". I don't really like Rogan personally but this behavior is intentional and quite smart in my opinion. Rogan (and his team) preps quite a bit, the vibe he is going for is an everyman who does not know anymore about the situation than you do. This is not reality. The idea is that this style makes the listener not feel stupid or embarrassed to learn about the viewpoints of the interviewee. He's among the most listened to interviewers in the world, so I guess it works.
  - petercooper 6y ago
    A BBC reviewer [1] of his podcast picked up on this as well and called him the "Bruce Springsteen of chat" and said: "His listeners get him, like him; maybe even want to be him. He's not a show-pony, or a light-entertainment phoney: he's the all-American do it yourself modern man, tough but intelligent." [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago
  >he doesn't even read the books of his guests Does he lie when he claims he has? I've heard him discuss books with guests on many occasions, though I'm sure he hasn't read everyone's books given the number of guests he has now.
- 6y ago
archsurface 6y ago
Other responses say why people do listen to him; I don't listen to him because I don't like long podcasts. His are way too long for me.
mathie25 6y ago
I find that Joe Rogan can be sometimes hit or miss, but for the most part, he has some interesting guests, the conversation with his guests are "natural" and does not seems forced, and I find that he knows how to ask good questions
me_me_me 6y ago
He is a good listener, that is something I lookout for when listening to his shows. He can teach you a lot about how to listen and talk to people who you disagree with. He has a lot of humility, he admits when he is wrong or if he doesn't know something. But also he is not shying away from calling BS when he hears it. I would divide his show into 3 categories: - his comic fiends - a casual convos with a bit insight into comedians world + tons of shit talking - MMA + hunting guests/talks - random invitational guest - literally random - he would talk to dem/rep candidate, dieting, book writers etc. anything that is interesting. also he has fight companion shows for mma fights. I listen primary to invite guest shows, occasionally to others but those get bit repetitive.
- pharke 6y ago
  There are a few more categories in there 4) conspiracy theory guests that he wants to get more information out of or find out if they're full of shit 5) subject matter experts on topics that he's interested in, and more recently 6) the ones that feel like they're looking for the Rogan Bump and have probably been told to "go on Rogan" by their publicists, I have mixed feelings about this group since it's good to see them react to Rogan's interview style but it also feels like he sometimes softballs them out of deference or maybe just general politeness.
tomhoward 6y ago
He just has a very natural talent for appealing to a vast range of interests/tastes/preferences in the audience. I once heard him half-jokingly say he's at the intersect between the meat-heads and the pot-heads. I.e., those into MMA, bodybuilding, cars, hunting (a giant audience) and those into psychedelics, new-age philosophy, yoga, nature (also a giant audience). And there's a lot in between those categories (people into more mainstream science/astronomy, entertainment, business, politics, health etc). I probably only listen to 1 out of 10 or 15 of his episodes, but that still has me listening to him for an hour or two every week or two, and so I still feel more familiar with him than most other media/public figures these days.
graeme 6y ago
The top answers are good at explaining why he is popular in general. As for why he’a mentioned here: he has the number 1 podcast in the world. So, it’s natural to see him mentioned. His audience also skews male (~70%), and so do the audiences of reddit and HN. So you would expect to see a fair bit of mentions. Finally, he interviews people from many walks of life, so you can expect an episode to be relevant to a variety of conversations. So I don’t think he necessarily has an outsized share of the HN/reddit demographic. He’s just damned popular, and easy to mention.
bamboozled 6y ago
Why don't you just watch / listen and find out ?
racl101 6y ago
Personally, for me it's because he gets big names on his shows and, much like on Stern, they like to open up, and unlike other hosts of other shows in different media, Joe is not trying to outshine them either intentionally or with annoying idiosyncrasies. Take Jimmy Fallon for example. Can't watch 1 minute of that guy without wanting to smash my TV. His incessant laughing, at everything the guest says whether it really is funny or not is insufferable. I don't know if Jimmy is fake laughing or not, but the net result, is that the show's flow is constantly interrupted by that cackle. Also, Jimmy is kind of a sycophant. Afraid to disagree or challenge and opinion. It makes for a boring show. Then you got other hosts like Kimmel and/or Colbert who are trying to be super political which is obnoxious. Then you've got people like James Corden who are, again, not comfortable shutting up but need, instead, need the center of attention along with the guest and instead of having real conversations, they need to do segments that are essentially games like the carpool karaoke. I know it's different formats but it's an example how certain hosts drown out the guest whether intentionally or not. The appeal of Joe's podcast is in the conversations and the minutiae of those conversations, and even when the guest, isn't necessarily interesting at first, if they converse long enough they're bound to go into an interesting topic. Also, I don't necessarily agree with Joe's politics or other opinions but I always enjoy his podcasts mainly cause he's a good conduit for his guests to open up and start waxing about whatever they normally wouldn't on other shows. Also, let's not forget, Joey Diaz. So many classic moments with Joey and Joe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 6y ago
Only listened to one Joe Rogan episode: with John Carmack. He doesn't know shit about the field but he did wonderfully inviting him. Don't know if it's his editing or questioning or JC himself but it was great.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  There's no editing
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I've only heard the audio and didn't realize. Wow! He's great then. A superlative interviewer.
petercooper 6y ago
This BBC review (consider JR is basically unknown in the UK) of his show helped me get a feel for this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
misiti3780 6y ago
I think its a combination of a lot of things: 1) He is a good listener, that asks questions that non journalists would ask. Listen to Ezra Klein interview the same guest and you see the exact opposite type of interview. Klein comes off as more "intelligent" and more "informed", his questions are more journalist in nature, and he has usually read the book (opposite of Rogan). I like both Rogan and Klein, but I get the Rogan appeal, and I think Klein interviews can come off annoying sometimes (the 10th "That's a great question Ezra" is trite) 2) He is not a political partisan. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not "toeing the dem/rep line" (or is it towing). A lot of people in here are saying he is alt-right, which is a joke, he is not at all. 3) He has great guests for all walks of life 4) He comes off as a normal guy (but clearly is actually in the top 1% at this point) 5) He is a comedian, and does not care about political correctness and gives two shits about cancel culture
scottlocklin 6y ago
He's Oprah for dudes.
chrledntsurf 6y ago
-He was one of the early entries in the era of the podcast. -He is pro-pot-smoking, drug-taking, conspiracy talk, and generally being open-minded about everything, sometimes to his detriment. Especially early on he was very curious about a wide range of things, but as he has aged and bought into his own press I think he's become a bit less openminded. -His podcast format is basically a couple of friends shooting the shit, often while stoned or drunk, but his "friends" are typically smart interesting experts in a particular subject matter. When that is the case he will usually let them do most of the talking. -Due to the above format, Rogan rarely questions or challenges his quests in a manner that might make them look bad or feel uncomfortable/defensive. Though if what they are saying goes against his own internal beliefs or views, no matter how ill-informed, he will push back aggressively. In general, he's not very knowledgable or well-read outside of Twitter/YT/etc which helps the conversation flow. -At the same time due to his success and the power of his show most of his guests will bend over backward to not question anything he asserts as fact or make him look dumb/misinformed. They all want to be invited on again as its massive for their career/product they are selling/etc. This helps make the conversations interesting but also light and fluffy to be easily consumed. -He appeals to an overly male skeptic type audience that is fascinated by the fringe across news, information, media, science, history etc. -He cranks out a ton of content with lots of different guests which is really the key to his success. Rogan has been wealthy and successful since the 1990s and has a unique and interesting lifestyle that affords him the ability to do his show exactly how he wants, invite any guest he wants, and do it often. So whether you are into MMA, hunting, scientists, tech CEO's, alt-right political figures, comedians, conspiracy wonks, etc...there is a sub-genre of content available for you to binge.

tw04 6y ago

In my brief viewing he pretends to be unbiased. Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic. Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. Joe Rogan: "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-says-misunderstood-alex-jones-was-right-/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/14/joe-rogan-s... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5qbaxYhbL8

lagadu 6y ago
Everything is worthy of discussion and everyone's opinion is valuable no matter how much I may dislike them/disagree with them. I feel like this because the alternative is having a gatekeeper who tells everyone whose opinion is worth spreading and whose should be silenced and I prefer living in a non-totalitarian society. Unless I'm that gatekeeper of course: I'm down for subjugating society to my personal preference of what's right and wrong. edit: I may think that Alex Jones is an idiot but I still want him to be able to get as much exposure as someone I like.
- tw04 6y ago
  Everyone's opinion is NOT valuable. That thinking is exactly why 5G towers are being burned down. The media - Joe Rogan included - has decided that your OPINIONS carry the same weight as scientific FACT and "let the listeners decide". That'll absolutely attract viewers from all walks of life - and it's a disservice to all of them.
  - lagadu 6y ago
    I get what you're saying but letting the people decide what policy to follow is what a democracy is all about: if enough idiots in a sovereign nation decide to go "fuck 5g" then that's exactly what that nation should do. Do I think it's stupid and wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be allowed to choose that? Yes.
    - tw04 6y ago
      So you're suggesting we let people be misinformed? Where do you draw the line? Do we let our teachers teach the earth is both flat and round and "let the students decide"? The earth is the center of the universe and just a part of the milky way? The holocaust happened and didn't happen? You can't possibly expect people to make rational decisions about science they don't understand. And letting people straight up LIE and expect the common man to spend hours researching a topic they probably don't even understand to figure out they're being lied to is RIDICULOUS. There's a reason why we have ethics in journalism...
      - whatthesmack 6y ago
        Who/what decides who is “misinformed”. Again, there needs to be a gatekeeper if you go that direction, and that direction leads to exactly what the mainstream media of today is.
        tw04 6y ago
        The fact you’d advocate putting someone on tv to tell the world that 5g towers cause covid—19 and give them the same courtesy as a scientist explaining factual information about the world around us tells me you’re either delusional or upset that the media “gatekeeps” fascists and racists. Who decides what’s misinformed? Science, the same thing that allows you to post on HN.
- rtp 6y ago
  Just because you think the state should allow any discussion and any opinion, doesn't mean you need to think its content is worthy or valuable. Do you think nazism should get as much exposure as something you like? Creationism? Flat-earthism? Any fringe idea with five believers?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Creationism is not a fringe idea! I think that illustrates the major flaw of your mindset. If you screen off entire categories of ideas as not worth thinking about, you're going to get a systematically incorrect view of the world.
    - rtp 6y ago
      Why would screening off entire categories of ideas lead to a systematically incorrect view of the world? Or why would entertaining those ideas lead to a less incorrect view of the world?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It stops you from noticing what other people believe and why, which stops you from understanding them even if you ultimately believe they're wrong.
        tw04 6y ago
        Which pressures them into either keeping it to themselves or being pressured by society to change their beliefs. The “respect everyone’s opinion” is how we got Charlottesville. Tolerance can and should have limits.
    - myko 6y ago
      > Creationism is not a fringe idea! When people discuss creationism they're usually talking about Young Earth Creationism which is absolutely a fringe idea
mistermann 6y ago
> Downvoting because you like Joe Rogan? Fitting there's no actual RESPONSE, because what I posted is accurate. I downvoted because of this comment: > Unfortunately that generally consists of bringing on nut jobs like Alex Jones and pretending their fabricated claims are just as worthy of discussion as actual subject matter experts bringing facts and logic. By what process did you arrive at this conclusion (which I assume is a personal opinion, even though it is presented in the form of a fact)? In a system as complex as global human society, where we have almost no understanding (or even knowledge of the existence) of some of the most important sub-processes contained within, how do you believe that you have individually arrived at the objectively correct ("what I posted is accurate") assessment of what "is" "worthy of discussion"? > "Alex Jones is just misunderstood" - the guy who ran with the Sandy Hook conspiracy and was likely a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide. Joe Rogan's "unbiased" approach is toxic. Do you actually think that Alex Jones' comprehensive worldview is fully understood, both by yourself and others? What data have you used to arrive at your conclusion? The the single "fact" that he "ran with" the Sandy Hook conspiracy and "was likely" a major contributing factor in one of the parents committing suicide? Surely you wouldn't form a confident conclusion on an infinitely complex subject (the understanding of someone's comprehensive worldview) based on one individual data point, would you? I don't pose these questions in a rhetorical manner by the way - I would genuinely like to hear an "actual RESPONSE", if you are willing to provide one.
- shaidi 6y ago
  How do I know an apple will fall to the floor when I drop it? Surely, I don't need to understand the infinitely complex workings of the entire universe to form a confident conclusion. That's not how any decisions regarding our "global human society" is made. Even science (we can debate (and epistemologists do) whether this is truly the case or not; there is no complete theory of knowledge) does not present itself as having absolute facts, but I think we can mostly agree that scientific knowledge has a more accurate representation of of the correlation between "chem trails" and the sexual orientation of frogs that Alex Jones does...
  - mistermann 6y ago
mythrwy 6y ago
He sometimes has "toxic" lefty guests also though. I don't see his showing being biased. If anything listening to Alex Jones for half an hour made me realize how nutty Jones is. Because I never would have searched out Jones on my own. Nor am I interested in what Vox has to say about Jones. It's a good thing to hear other points of view without frothing at the mouth and demanding they are shut up. It's also a good thing to separate the point of view from the person. Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. This point seems to be lost in much of modern discourse.
- donarb 6y ago
  It took you a half hour to realize that Jones was nutty?
- tw04 6y ago
  >Because you disagree doesn't mean the person is evil and should be stricken from the book of life. Because I disagree? Of course not, disagreement doesn't make someone evil. What makes him evil is running around claiming the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre were lying about their children dying as a conspiracy theory to take people's guns away. I can't think of a more spineless, thoughtless, ridiculous thing to do than attack people who just lost their children. He parroted that shit again and again for money. "Disagreement" has nothing to do with the stain on society that is Alex Jones being an evil person.

aidenn0 6y ago

I only recently discovered him, and the biggest thing I noticed is that he lets his guests talk. Probably because he's not constrained to a particular amount of time, but I find gems in his interviews of people that I don't from the same people interviewed elsewhere

threeseed 6y ago

Reddit and HN skew to young, white males. And Joe has been quite savvy at tailoring both his content and his image for them.

naasking 6y ago
> And Joe has been quite savvy at tailoring both his content and his image for them. Way to make it sound nefarious. There's no greedy or malicious intent behind this, no script that these interviews follow to appeal to advertisers or viewers the way most media is carefully cultivated with surveys, talking points and focus groups to most effectively deliver a partisan message. These interviews give about as raw and unfiltered access to the guests as you can get, to let the experts talk about their subject, and that's Rogan's intent. Rogan himself isn't a carefully crafted media personality, but pretty genuine, flaws and all. If that's what you mean by "tailoring", I'd say we could all use a little more media like that. The only kind of "tailoring" that appears to happen is Rogan sometimes listens to feedback on the kind of questions and discussions some listeners want to see.
- ganstyles 6y ago
  The comment your replying to as written doesn't imply any nefarious intent. And you go on to talk knowing my to Joe Rogans state of mind, which you cannot know. This is a weird comment; it sounds almost shilling for some reason.
  - LMYahooTFY 6y ago
    I'd disagree. Claiming "Rogan has been quite savvy in tailoring content" for a specific audience is clearly implying intent. The distinction is between deliberate tailoring for some ulterior motive we could speculate about, or that Rogan's content is genuine expression of his interests to whatever degree that's possible.
    - ganstyles 6y ago
      It implies intent to tailor something for an audience. Every business in existence (hyperbole) tailors something for their audience. What it doesn't imply is nefarious intent. We can definitely speculate on whether there was nefarious intent, but the comment along the lines of tailoring something for a specific audience doesn't imply any intent in the tailoring, nefarious or otherwise.

kristofferR 6y ago

This is a great summary of his persona and podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my-joe-rogan-experience/594802/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my...

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

He has intriguing diverse guests and let them do most of the speaking, for an extended period of time. It's refreshing. There are plenty of people I would never have listened to otherwise, because they are outside my bubble or just because they would represent something against my view of the world. But because I also saw people I view as interesting or people I already knew from somewhere else, and because they have the time and space to elaborate, I gave the others a chance. This allowed me to be exposed to new topics, points of views, etc, in a relaxing and human format. Just like regular media, it's full of bullshit. But I'm full of it too. It does, however, feel way more genuine than regular media.

RandomTisk 6y ago
In any sane world, you wouldn't be getting downvoted, but here we are. One side wants heavy censorship and modern day book burnings, one doesn't. Joe doesn't, so he's evil to the left of today. It's a little bit unreal, but then again one might have seen it coming..
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tomhoward 6y ago
  This comment is an example of why complaints about downvotes are discouraged in the HN guidelines. The comment is not downvoted now. Given a bit of time, substantive comments that get early downvotes generally get restorative upvotes and end up back in the black, so to speak.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

martythemaniak 6y ago

I don't listen to him, but he is basically the essence modern masculinity. Reddit and HN skew very heavily on the male side, so it's not surprising he's this popular. I personally think of him as King of the Bros and think it's kind of sad that he's become the model man, but it is what it is.

iagovar 6y ago
What makes it sad?
- pohl 6y ago
  What’s not sad about mediocrity being held up as a model? Someone once asked “Is Joe the smartest dumb person or the dumbest smart person?” That question captures him so well.
  - kjakm 6y ago
    Mediocrity? He's just licensed his podcast for three years for over $100m. He's a very successful comedian. He's one of the most well known personalities in the MMA world. If that's what you judge as mediocre I'd love to know what you judge as successful.
    - pohl 6y ago
      But that’s also sad, that the amount of a signed contract is what makes someone worth emulating today. Beyond sad: it’s tragic. The world is full of all kinds of people who happen to make money. That shouldn’t make them all models.
      - iagovar 6y ago
        There's plenty of people way smarter than him, making way more money and making the world objectively a worse place. I don't really see much substance in this sadness point. If some people out there has Rogan as role model I honestly, comparing him with most media figures, I can't be bothered. He has a format that people enjoys, and he's not trying to make people swallow any narrative. That's good in my book.

sho_hn 6y ago

I've watched a few episodes. - He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5% that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC. Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices. - If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared. They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of this - he is good at getting the bits they personally find important). - Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't annoyed with him. - Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real), just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's emergent behavior on camera).

julesqs 6y ago
I think the "wide spectrum" part is really important. I'm on the far left by American standards and Rogan still has a lot of interviews that interest me even though I think he's more traditionally associated with conservative-ish or libertarian-ish views.
- 6y ago

datalus 6y ago

You visit the sites as well, since you're seeing his content directed your way... maybe you're also his demographic or view content that is related?

2019-nCoV 6y ago

Authenticity. Deep conversation on interesting topics rooted in genuine curiosity. The long form is a rarity.

JSavageOne 6y ago
Yes if I had to sum it up in one word "authenticity" would be it. It seems like he truly doesn't care what other people think of him. If he thinks something, he'll say it (but not in an arrogant way like Trump). If the "mainstream media" doesn't approve of a guest on his show, doesn't bother him, he's still willing to hear them out - and more importantly will call them out on their bullshit. He doesn't even pretend to give in to the identity politics bullshit that for whatever reason I can not comprehend has taken over the public narrative. This is not something you see on mainstream media, where everyone is carefully crafting their words and hedging every statement to ensure they offend as little people as possible, ultimately saying little of interest and disillusioning the public because everyday people feel that no one in power is a real human being who understands them. When someone will just bluntly say the obvious that for whatever reason the establishment won't, it's refreshing. In addition, he is radically open-minded in a way that's very rare from these kinds of hosts, and people in general. Most people are very rigidly set in their ideologies, which leads to many people sounding like carbon copies of one another (boring). Rogan will consider any idea no matter how outlandish. And he is very curious and asks insightful questions, while knowing when to shut up and let the guest speak (helps that the interviews last 1.5-3 hours). Also as a comedian, he's significantly more entertaining than your average dry newscaster. I'm not glorifying Rogan here, just trying to articulate why I enjoy his show, despite the fact that I don't really listen to many other podcasts. He certainly is not perfect and has his weaknesses - for example when discussing technical topics he doesn't dive as deep as I'd like (eg. Elon Musk, John Carmack, Neil DeGrasse Tyson). But overall, he does a great job of bringing interesting guests and getting interesting conversations out of him, so it's not surprising to me that he's so successful.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Exactly. People are starved for authenticity and truth, and the freedom to both express and enjoy it.

criddell 6y ago

He strikes a chord with a lot of people simply because he puts out so many shows. I think it would be hard to look at his list of guests from the past few months and not find anything that interests you.

itsoktocry 6y ago

>Why is his podcast good? High profile guests, long form content. Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal". If I'm settling into some work and don't want to listen to music, I can put on Rogan and know I've got 3 hours of filler. You can pay attention only to the parts you want to and not be concerned you're missing anything important. After hundreds of hours, part of what makes it special is continuity and familiarity.

xnyan 6y ago
>Rogan's not really a great moderator (for example, he doesn't even read the books of his guests). He's not asking insightful questions. He can even be a bit dense. But he's open-minded, curious and "normal". I don't really like Rogan personally but this behavior is intentional and quite smart in my opinion. Rogan (and his team) preps quite a bit, the vibe he is going for is an everyman who does not know anymore about the situation than you do. This is not reality. The idea is that this style makes the listener not feel stupid or embarrassed to learn about the viewpoints of the interviewee. He's among the most listened to interviewers in the world, so I guess it works.
- petercooper 6y ago
  A BBC reviewer [1] of his podcast picked up on this as well and called him the "Bruce Springsteen of chat" and said: "His listeners get him, like him; maybe even want to be him. He's not a show-pony, or a light-entertainment phoney: he's the all-American do it yourself modern man, tough but intelligent." [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
>he doesn't even read the books of his guests Does he lie when he claims he has? I've heard him discuss books with guests on many occasions, though I'm sure he hasn't read everyone's books given the number of guests he has now.
6y ago

archsurface 6y ago

Other responses say why people do listen to him; I don't listen to him because I don't like long podcasts. His are way too long for me.

mathie25 6y ago

I find that Joe Rogan can be sometimes hit or miss, but for the most part, he has some interesting guests, the conversation with his guests are "natural" and does not seems forced, and I find that he knows how to ask good questions

me_me_me 6y ago

He is a good listener, that is something I lookout for when listening to his shows. He can teach you a lot about how to listen and talk to people who you disagree with. He has a lot of humility, he admits when he is wrong or if he doesn't know something. But also he is not shying away from calling BS when he hears it. I would divide his show into 3 categories: - his comic fiends - a casual convos with a bit insight into comedians world + tons of shit talking - MMA + hunting guests/talks - random invitational guest - literally random - he would talk to dem/rep candidate, dieting, book writers etc. anything that is interesting. also he has fight companion shows for mma fights. I listen primary to invite guest shows, occasionally to others but those get bit repetitive.

pharke 6y ago
There are a few more categories in there 4) conspiracy theory guests that he wants to get more information out of or find out if they're full of shit 5) subject matter experts on topics that he's interested in, and more recently 6) the ones that feel like they're looking for the Rogan Bump and have probably been told to "go on Rogan" by their publicists, I have mixed feelings about this group since it's good to see them react to Rogan's interview style but it also feels like he sometimes softballs them out of deference or maybe just general politeness.

tomhoward 6y ago

He just has a very natural talent for appealing to a vast range of interests/tastes/preferences in the audience. I once heard him half-jokingly say he's at the intersect between the meat-heads and the pot-heads. I.e., those into MMA, bodybuilding, cars, hunting (a giant audience) and those into psychedelics, new-age philosophy, yoga, nature (also a giant audience). And there's a lot in between those categories (people into more mainstream science/astronomy, entertainment, business, politics, health etc). I probably only listen to 1 out of 10 or 15 of his episodes, but that still has me listening to him for an hour or two every week or two, and so I still feel more familiar with him than most other media/public figures these days.

graeme 6y ago

The top answers are good at explaining why he is popular in general. As for why he’a mentioned here: he has the number 1 podcast in the world. So, it’s natural to see him mentioned. His audience also skews male (~70%), and so do the audiences of reddit and HN. So you would expect to see a fair bit of mentions. Finally, he interviews people from many walks of life, so you can expect an episode to be relevant to a variety of conversations. So I don’t think he necessarily has an outsized share of the HN/reddit demographic. He’s just damned popular, and easy to mention.

bamboozled 6y ago

Why don't you just watch / listen and find out ?

racl101 6y ago

Personally, for me it's because he gets big names on his shows and, much like on Stern, they like to open up, and unlike other hosts of other shows in different media, Joe is not trying to outshine them either intentionally or with annoying idiosyncrasies. Take Jimmy Fallon for example. Can't watch 1 minute of that guy without wanting to smash my TV. His incessant laughing, at everything the guest says whether it really is funny or not is insufferable. I don't know if Jimmy is fake laughing or not, but the net result, is that the show's flow is constantly interrupted by that cackle. Also, Jimmy is kind of a sycophant. Afraid to disagree or challenge and opinion. It makes for a boring show. Then you got other hosts like Kimmel and/or Colbert who are trying to be super political which is obnoxious. Then you've got people like James Corden who are, again, not comfortable shutting up but need, instead, need the center of attention along with the guest and instead of having real conversations, they need to do segments that are essentially games like the carpool karaoke. I know it's different formats but it's an example how certain hosts drown out the guest whether intentionally or not. The appeal of Joe's podcast is in the conversations and the minutiae of those conversations, and even when the guest, isn't necessarily interesting at first, if they converse long enough they're bound to go into an interesting topic. Also, I don't necessarily agree with Joe's politics or other opinions but I always enjoy his podcasts mainly cause he's a good conduit for his guests to open up and start waxing about whatever they normally wouldn't on other shows. Also, let's not forget, Joey Diaz. So many classic moments with Joey and Joe.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 6y ago

Only listened to one Joe Rogan episode: with John Carmack. He doesn't know shit about the field but he did wonderfully inviting him. Don't know if it's his editing or questioning or JC himself but it was great.

0-_-0 6y ago
There's no editing
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I've only heard the audio and didn't realize. Wow! He's great then. A superlative interviewer.

petercooper 6y ago

This BBC review (consider JR is basically unknown in the UK) of his show helped me get a feel for this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52748804

misiti3780 6y ago

I think its a combination of a lot of things: 1) He is a good listener, that asks questions that non journalists would ask. Listen to Ezra Klein interview the same guest and you see the exact opposite type of interview. Klein comes off as more "intelligent" and more "informed", his questions are more journalist in nature, and he has usually read the book (opposite of Rogan). I like both Rogan and Klein, but I get the Rogan appeal, and I think Klein interviews can come off annoying sometimes (the 10th "That's a great question Ezra" is trite) 2) He is not a political partisan. It is refreshing to hear someone who is not "toeing the dem/rep line" (or is it towing). A lot of people in here are saying he is alt-right, which is a joke, he is not at all. 3) He has great guests for all walks of life 4) He comes off as a normal guy (but clearly is actually in the top 1% at this point) 5) He is a comedian, and does not care about political correctness and gives two shits about cancel culture

scottlocklin 6y ago

He's Oprah for dudes.

chrledntsurf 6y ago

-He was one of the early entries in the era of the podcast. -He is pro-pot-smoking, drug-taking, conspiracy talk, and generally being open-minded about everything, sometimes to his detriment. Especially early on he was very curious about a wide range of things, but as he has aged and bought into his own press I think he's become a bit less openminded. -His podcast format is basically a couple of friends shooting the shit, often while stoned or drunk, but his "friends" are typically smart interesting experts in a particular subject matter. When that is the case he will usually let them do most of the talking. -Due to the above format, Rogan rarely questions or challenges his quests in a manner that might make them look bad or feel uncomfortable/defensive. Though if what they are saying goes against his own internal beliefs or views, no matter how ill-informed, he will push back aggressively. In general, he's not very knowledgable or well-read outside of Twitter/YT/etc which helps the conversation flow. -At the same time due to his success and the power of his show most of his guests will bend over backward to not question anything he asserts as fact or make him look dumb/misinformed. They all want to be invited on again as its massive for their career/product they are selling/etc. This helps make the conversations interesting but also light and fluffy to be easily consumed. -He appeals to an overly male skeptic type audience that is fascinated by the fringe across news, information, media, science, history etc. -He cranks out a ton of content with lots of different guests which is really the key to his success. Rogan has been wealthy and successful since the 1990s and has a unique and interesting lifestyle that affords him the ability to do his show exactly how he wants, invite any guest he wants, and do it often. So whether you are into MMA, hunting, scientists, tech CEO's, alt-right political figures, comedians, conspiracy wonks, etc...there is a sub-genre of content available for you to binge.