5 ms·

This was the interviewing technique that impressed me most when I listened to Joe Rogan (the few times that I have). Shutting the fuck up means that you allow t

This was the interviewing technique that impressed me most when I listened to Joe Rogan (the few times that I have). Shutting the fuck up means that you allow the interviewee to steer the conversation, and if you'll allow me to torture the metaphor, you quickly learn whether they're able to confidently navigate the conceptual terrain or promptly drive into a ravine. I've even tried it myself a few times in social situations and the quality of the conversation often shoots up.

Barrin92 6y ago
The style works for All Gas no Brakes because he wants to give people an insight into a niche subculture and often it is humorous, so that's no problem. But Joe Rogan fails horribly to actually call guests out on their bullshit given the amount of crazy people he invites. He simply let's them talk because 99% of the time Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place. Guests on Rogan frequently opine on serious questions as if they're speaking from a position of authority, and Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation.
- amscanne 6y ago
  > Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation. You’re begging the question. Who’s to say Rogan’s intent isn’t “to give people an insight” into some crazy person’s ideas? I don’t think the role of an interviewer is to unilaterally keep people “honest” or contextualize. Sometimes it’s simply to steer the conversation through different arenas and keep it interesting. I like to read a lot of articles by people all over the political spectrum. They don’t need “contextualizing” in order for me to evaluate them critically, and neither do interviews.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    It's fine if you can do it, but not everyone can. When he had Alex Jones on his podcast I actually had this debate with someone else, and I went to Facebook, I searched for discussions or posts of the video (you can do this right now too I guess), and the amount of people who actually believed Alex Jones is crazy, in some comment sections it probably was the majority of users. You had people repeating everything from Jews running the world, to Sandy hook victims being actors, to pizzagate, and so on. Joe Rogan has 30 million listeners, he has a responsibility when it comes to what he puts out into the world. As it stands it basically a clearinghouse for bad ideas and conspiracy theories.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      My distaste for Joe Rogan is the same as the parents in this thread - may times he is in over his head while his guest plainly states bullshit that goes unchallenged. Joe has shown he can push back but his style of interview isn't a debate. However, the idea that Joe has a responsibility is something I heard and don't understand. Who bestow'd on Joe this responsibility? How has the responsibility changed from when he had 30,000 viewers? And why is he supposed to change his format? I ask this question for two reasons. One, the very idea of saying "you can no longer talk about X because you have Y million viewers" is an odd sort of censorship. Does my Freedom of Speech end when I gain Y amount of followers? Two, when did the World become so helpless that Joe "Wow look at the size of that Gorilla" Rogan has become the Messiah of the people?
      - kelnos 6y ago
        I think if you're going to provide people a platform to spread their ideas, you have a responsibility to challenge what you believe to bad ideas, publicly (but also give the person the space to respond to your challenge). Allowing people greater reach in spreading bad ideas, unchecked, is irresponsible. As the person running the show, that responsibility increases as your audience increases. I still have yet to check out Rogan's show, but if he's just providing nutjobs a platform to spread lies and misinformation, without Rogan giving enough context, that's incredibly irresponsible of him.
      - 6y ago
- overgard 6y ago
  Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree. I think his style is very conversational and deferential to his guests in letting them make their point without interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting people and interviews them in a style that lets them get into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he has a responsibility outside of that. This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why they believe those things. I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but he also has enough influence that it's important to understand how he formed his audience in the first place. It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch of people, but it's more likely that there were people out there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to know why that wave is there.
sukilot 6y ago
Is it good to have a show where the guest can lie about whatever they want unchallenged? That just selects for good bullshitters. Fox's Wallace and Axios's Jonathan had great Trump interviews where Trump where they let him drive himself into a ravine by asking tough questions.
moneytide1 6y ago
I see it as beneficial spreading agro for the room. The camera man plays a major role in this immediate-proximity-social-attention-fluctuation. Before cameras were palm sized, and after they were a novelty (before mass produced television), they were large and bright lights were needed. This meant that the camera direction is what we're all supposed to be paying attention to. Holding the microphone also delivers this same cue (directing any flow once others ping to join this sudden "focus" since the guys with the mic and camera with large light have now shown up to the gathering). In all of "All Gas No Brakes" videos, the context is a crowd assembly. Since the interviewer is mostly holding the microphone in front of a crowd member, both in the middle of the event and off to the side for personal interviews, there is opportunity for "anyone who wants to broadcast." But it is not a news network van pulling up. It is a similar format, but without restrictions. People are comfortable with parody and satire in his presence - anything goes because you have the audience of a neutral observer. He does have a duty to guide the conversation with the occasional steering prompt you refer to, and it has a rhythm to it. Much of the content is edited monologue footage, and that is the opportunity he grants them with unconditional attentiveness.

Barrin92 6y ago

The style works for All Gas no Brakes because he wants to give people an insight into a niche subculture and often it is humorous, so that's no problem. But Joe Rogan fails horribly to actually call guests out on their bullshit given the amount of crazy people he invites. He simply let's them talk because 99% of the time Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place. Guests on Rogan frequently opine on serious questions as if they're speaking from a position of authority, and Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation.

amscanne 6y ago
> Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function of an interviewer in such a situation. You’re begging the question. Who’s to say Rogan’s intent isn’t “to give people an insight” into some crazy person’s ideas? I don’t think the role of an interviewer is to unilaterally keep people “honest” or contextualize. Sometimes it’s simply to steer the conversation through different arenas and keep it interesting. I like to read a lot of articles by people all over the political spectrum. They don’t need “contextualizing” in order for me to evaluate them critically, and neither do interviews.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  It's fine if you can do it, but not everyone can. When he had Alex Jones on his podcast I actually had this debate with someone else, and I went to Facebook, I searched for discussions or posts of the video (you can do this right now too I guess), and the amount of people who actually believed Alex Jones is crazy, in some comment sections it probably was the majority of users. You had people repeating everything from Jews running the world, to Sandy hook victims being actors, to pizzagate, and so on. Joe Rogan has 30 million listeners, he has a responsibility when it comes to what he puts out into the world. As it stands it basically a clearinghouse for bad ideas and conspiracy theories.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    My distaste for Joe Rogan is the same as the parents in this thread - may times he is in over his head while his guest plainly states bullshit that goes unchallenged. Joe has shown he can push back but his style of interview isn't a debate. However, the idea that Joe has a responsibility is something I heard and don't understand. Who bestow'd on Joe this responsibility? How has the responsibility changed from when he had 30,000 viewers? And why is he supposed to change his format? I ask this question for two reasons. One, the very idea of saying "you can no longer talk about X because you have Y million viewers" is an odd sort of censorship. Does my Freedom of Speech end when I gain Y amount of followers? Two, when did the World become so helpless that Joe "Wow look at the size of that Gorilla" Rogan has become the Messiah of the people?
    - kelnos 6y ago
      I think if you're going to provide people a platform to spread their ideas, you have a responsibility to challenge what you believe to bad ideas, publicly (but also give the person the space to respond to your challenge). Allowing people greater reach in spreading bad ideas, unchecked, is irresponsible. As the person running the show, that responsibility increases as your audience increases. I still have yet to check out Rogan's show, but if he's just providing nutjobs a platform to spread lies and misinformation, without Rogan giving enough context, that's incredibly irresponsible of him.
    - 6y ago
overgard 6y ago
Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree. I think his style is very conversational and deferential to his guests in letting them make their point without interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting people and interviews them in a style that lets them get into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he has a responsibility outside of that. This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why they believe those things. I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but he also has enough influence that it's important to understand how he formed his audience in the first place. It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch of people, but it's more likely that there were people out there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to know why that wave is there.

sukilot 6y ago

Is it good to have a show where the guest can lie about whatever they want unchallenged? That just selects for good bullshitters. Fox's Wallace and Axios's Jonathan had great Trump interviews where Trump where they let him drive himself into a ravine by asking tough questions.

moneytide1 6y ago

I see it as beneficial spreading agro for the room. The camera man plays a major role in this immediate-proximity-social-attention-fluctuation. Before cameras were palm sized, and after they were a novelty (before mass produced television), they were large and bright lights were needed. This meant that the camera direction is what we're all supposed to be paying attention to. Holding the microphone also delivers this same cue (directing any flow once others ping to join this sudden "focus" since the guys with the mic and camera with large light have now shown up to the gathering). In all of "All Gas No Brakes" videos, the context is a crowd assembly. Since the interviewer is mostly holding the microphone in front of a crowd member, both in the middle of the event and off to the side for personal interviews, there is opportunity for "anyone who wants to broadcast." But it is not a news network van pulling up. It is a similar format, but without restrictions. People are comfortable with parody and satire in his presence - anything goes because you have the audience of a neutral observer. He does have a duty to guide the conversation with the occasional steering prompt you refer to, and it has a rhythm to it. Much of the content is edited monologue footage, and that is the opportunity he grants them with unconditional attentiveness.