"His success was made possible, at least in part, by legacy media’s blind spots." Blind spots generally persist because someone isn't held to account for reali

"His success was made possible, at least in part, by legacy media’s blind spots." Blind spots generally persist because someone isn't held to account for reality. In this case, perhaps the editors are not being held to account. But how can that be fixed without just perpetuating the media meta-argument? I guess the answer is variety: if you don't like the editorial decisions here, go somewhere else. That is a necessary solution with a free press, but ideally would not be the first line of defense. The answer in this case is that Joe Rogan is simply taking on all of the roles: editor, interviewer, commentator, and sometimes the subject. But I have to imagine the separate roles were created for a reason... is it a net win?