11 ms·
As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?
- frankydp 6y agoIndependents hurt profits. Pretty straight forward. The Liberal Rage For Profit industrial complex does not approve of profit diversion.
- 0xy 6y agoAm I the only one who thinks it's incredibly toxic and anti-science when campaigners for transgender rights attempt this kind of censorship and deplatforming? If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children then it feels like a political ideology is at the wheel. I've noticed this online in traditionally liberal-leaning forums. There's no room for nuance in discussion without being the recipient of vicious attacks, deplatforming or bans. If the case for transgender rights is so strong, you should not need these tactics to make your case. Make your case, don't attack those who respectfully question the policies and science.
- jskdvsksnb 6y agoWhat exactly is there to question about the "science and treatments"? I'm curious what these totally rational questions are.
- eloff 6y agoI agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away. I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding they're trans and transitioning when much of the time they're simply confused teenagers. You merely have to look at how it clusters in friend circles like a contagion of the mind for proof it's a social phenomenon and not a biological one. Adults who should know better are encouraging them to do irrevocable harm to their bodies. I don't care where you fall on trans rights, that's going to be looked upon as a terrible tragedy down the road that we allowed this to happen.
- gilrain 6y agoWow dude, being trans is not a "contagion of the mind". This is wildly and dangerously hateful.
- hirundo 6y agoIt isn't hateful if it's true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
- gilrain 6y agoOops, you "forgot" this part of the study: >Notice of republication >After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
- 0xy 6y agoThe reassessment doesn't invalidate the original study at all.
- throwaway33339 6y agoThis is probably the time to plug this wonderful extension [0] that directly warns you, whenever a link to a scholarly article is posted, that said article has had comments on its PubPeer entry. For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious. The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/
- nick_gur 6y agoHes reasonable with his stance . It's not extreme or radical in any way, and backs it up with personal experience + studies hes read. Oh well
- UncleMeat 6y ago> If people can't even question the science, treatments or effects on children People absolutely can do this. Research is done and presented in journals regularly without controversy. It is just that not all criticism is valid. "I'm criticizing the research" is not an invincible shield that one can hide behind. The research must be methodologically sound and dispassionate. The specific transphobic guests that Rogan has brought on have not done this kind of research.
- stolenmerch 6y agoI think Joe Rogan is so popular because he openly espouses ideas that MANY people feel and believe. It almost has to be the case. Basically, I think he believes that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone -- unless they are trying to hurt each other in a fight, which is where the trans debate he's had is born from. It's a sort of "liberaltarian" approach that holds a lot of appeal and seems like an antidote against extreme views from the Left and Right. He seems like a genuinely good guy that is super interested in lots of different viewpoints.
- catmistake 6y agoI think it is far simpler than that. He is macho, and that is popular due to evolution. The meanest monkey has the most offspring, but the meanest monkey has turned into the one no one wants to fight, so he can risk being cuddly, but it is a act. The meanest monkey is still there. FWIW Libertarianism is super trendy, but misguided, because, in a nutshell, it leads to tragedy of the commons, and ultimately, pure socialism.
- donmcronald 6y agoLibertarianism is great if you own one of the big sticks.
- throwaway33339 6y agoLeaving aside the usual quip about HN being an endless source of entertainment when it comes to attempting to comprehend basic concepts in biology that they weren't taught in high school, I'm wondering about something. What's with the propensity for the typical HNer, and the tech demographic in general, to subscribe to the whole alpha/beta charade in the first place? Your average programmer isn't usually a bodybuilder or even what you may call a 'Chad'. Even on social media, blogs, and generally speaking the whole ecosystem of believing dumb evopsych crap, the most prominent speakers aren't exactly paragons of traditional masculinity themselves. And conversely, Joe Rogan himself (if you're willing to consider an MMA pro 'alpha') probably doesn't care at all about the Google memo. So, like, if you're soft-spoken, introverted, maybe effete, maybe overweight, what's the point of doing all this? Why fantasize about an immutable, evolutionary-driven hierarchy of males if you're not even putting yourself at the top? Does that stem from self-loathing? Maybe a fetish of some kind? I'm curious to read different perspectives from HNers.
- IIAOPSW 6y agoFreedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism. Calling criticism "liberal backlash" is just using name calling instead of actually disputing those criticisms. If I say "Joe Rogan is a bit of a hack IMO", that isn't the same thing as "there is growing backlash to Joe Rogan from the hn liberal tech elite."
- refurb 6y agoThe article is pretty clearly calling out the hypocrisy of the criticisms. It says nothing about “you can’t criticize Joe Rogan”
- rbecker 6y agoBut it does sound like "backlash" is a more accurate description than mere "criticism" in this case.
- happytoexplain 6y agoAgreed - I've seen right wing friends who criticise Rogan get called "leftist" as an insult for it. I have no strong opinion on him, but I think he hits nerves with extremists on both sides of politics, despite the false image of being anti-liberal which has been hoisted on him, mostly by the right.
- xupybd 6y agoA wave of criticism calling for his censorship is backlash. That criticism is coming entirely from the left. Hence liberal backlash is correct. I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.
- Barrin92 6y agoMy problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists. Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. The article frames this as 'elitist' and implies it's bad, but I think this 'here's a real guy who broadcasts from his garage and tells you the truth the mainstream won't tell you' attitude is harmful, it feeds into a particularly American culture of anti-intellectualism, it's the modern extension of talk radio.
- koonsolo 6y ago> is uncritical attitude towards his guests This is actually the part I like the most, and I think contributed the most to his success. I don't like conflict and arguing, that is also why I stay away from the news. His podcast feels like you meet some interesting person at the bar, and keep talking to them until the late hours. Nobody needs to convince anyone about something. And at the end of the night, you go home and think what you want to think.
- dilyevsky 6y agoYmmv but for myself I prefer not to have my hand held entire life and explained “the one true way” I’m supposed to think. There’s a ton of programming out there that already does this (for your personal definition of “the one true way”)
- vannevar 6y agoThis is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.
- dilyevsky 6y agoNo it isn’t. As I said if you want your microwaved lasagna go watch 60 minutes. I want to see Dorsey, Jones etc for the lunatics that they are and be thoroughly entertained by it
- Kednicma 6y ago"liberal" is too wide of a brush, basically; most folks are liberal (and also conservative!) and so the label brings in too many folks. Rogan's further to the left than the "liberal" centrist media; if it were not for all of the "signaling" that he does, like being a person who enjoys MMA, then he would be branded as a "socialist" just like his guests Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. Ten words or less to answer the headline: Because mass media is actually quite illiberal.
- dqv 6y agoThe article makes this distinction. There are people who have liberal beliefs and people who are embedded in liberal culture. That liberal culture is directed by the liberal intelligentsia. And I think your suggestion that liberal intelligentsia and the legacy media aren't intertwined is unfounded.
- atomi 6y agoCapitalism requires liberalism. Illiberalism just doesn't make sense when profit is the question. In a capitalist system, we're a liberal society because we _have to_ be. Don't take my word for it, read some John Locke - the Father of Liberalism.
- seibelj 6y agoRogan is an individualist. By this I mean he supports telling people to take control of their own lives, better themselves, hear different ideas and make their own opinions. Enjoying combat sports such as Boxing, MMA, and Football means you approve of people making their own conscious decision to potentially scramble their brain. I also enjoy these sports, and if someone wants to scramble their brain playing football or getting their skull bashed in by a fist, that’s their decision and they can accept my entertainment dollar. The concept of individualism is anathema to many on the left. In general, they want everyone to see themselves as part of a collective, blame society (or just “someone else”) when they have a problem, and expect the government to provide with sustenance cradle to grave. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad - but someone with this belief system will not approve of someone whose an individualist that advocates for personal responsibility, relying on one’s own skills, and not expecting society to put a band aid on every boo boo one receives. There is also a belief in “toxic masculinity” which is hard to define, but beating the shit out of someone else in a ring probably triggers some people to see toxicity. However a lot of males need this sort of outlet for aggression, and by saying “males” need something specific it probably also triggers a lot of people who reject concepts of inherent male and female traits and major differences between the genders in preferences based on sex alone.
- tmpz22 6y agoYou missed the important takeaway, that undeniably the best outcome includes a mix of individualism AND collectivism. The UN, Red Cross, US Military, a billion other examples of societal good stemming from collective institutions exist and they cannot be ignored when listing the merits of individualism.
- seibelj 6y agoI agree there is a healthy balance. But when trying to analyze why Rogan is extremely popular with a mostly male audience, and the major left wing talking heads completely ignore him or react very negatively, we need to assess the values of the political left in regards to what Rogan represents. That was the point of the article and also my comment.
- 6y ago
- alexashka 6y agoThe same reason Howard Stern ridiculed podcasters - 'the media' is threatened by anyone who isn't part of 'the media' but can take a chunk of their audience away. Joe Rogan's podcast is not about politics, the only people upset with a dude who likes to tell jokes and has a sensible set of opinions, are people who don't like anyone who has a set of opinions that happens to differ from theirs on subjects they 'deeply care about'.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoThe media and liberals(the overlap there is large) have insulated themselves from the rest of society. So when they’re confronted with (many times majority) other opinions and views, they go berserk.
- donmcronald 6y agoI’ve never really watched Joe Rogan and haven’t followed the current controversy, but I was surprised when Spotify signed his big deal because I knew enough to know he was polarizing. Did Spotify know what they were buying?
- hirundo 6y agoThey had over a thousand episodes to watch and he hasn't changed since the deal.
- donmcronald 6y agoI meant that in the context of wondering if Spotify got lazy and didn’t assess it properly.
- darepublic 6y agoMore likely it's a calculated risk imo. With some internal company politics thrown in for good measure.
- manigandham 6y agoThe people who made the decision were probably focused more on the popularity and potential revenue than worrying about the content because it's already been widely available for years. That's also why the backlash is strange and unexpected since the content hasn't changed, just the hosting platform.
- bassman9000 6y agonever really watched knew enough to know he was polarizing
- mikewarot 6y agoHow did you know he was polarizing? Did you know why? Did you care? When someone gets labeled "polarizing" I tend to check it out and decide for myself, because those are the people with the most interesting ideas.
- hirundo 6y agoI went carnivore a week ago and so far the results are amazing. Thank you Joe, sincerely, for talking to Mikhaila, Jordan, Shawn, etc. Surfacing stuff like that is why his platform grows.
- motohagiography 6y agoRogan is a target because outwardly reasonable people just get in the way of radical agendas. When they come for the comedians, I think it's really truth they're afraid of. But Rogan isn't provocative about much at all. He appears unapologetically honest about his feelings toward the people and topics he's presented with, and I think that guileless honesty is a contagious threat to a mainstream that trades in outrage. He reminds me a lot of the way when John Stewart utterly took down Tucker Carlson by just in-effect appealing to the principle of being a good man. At the time, Carlson represented a neocon movement that had become just as cynical about truth and power as regular people see ostensibly progressive elites in media being today. Personally I think as an emotion, most anger originates somewhere in shame, and Rogan's avuncularity and basic good nature triggers people in proportion to their other issues - which the outrage-trade is designed to elevate and exalt. A self-described meathead who is professionally funny and who people genuinely like is anathema to humourless true believers who can't see past their own sense of purity, and in a social media culture that thrives on hysteria, together, are a perfect storm for backlash. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
- stillbourne 6y agoJoe Rogan espouses a mindset that is not conducive to skeptical inquiry. He will readily accept for face value anything that fits into his assimilated world view. Oftentimes those ideas are unscientific, pander to conspiratorial mindsets, and are often just down right wrong. Furthermore, he will often make his show a platform for people who are either full of shit, full of hate, or crackpots and snakeoil salesmen. I think the best term described for his show is that he is Oprah for Men, and she's just as bad. In my opinion he is only one or two steps removed from Alex Jones. Once in a blue moon he'll have an interesting guest on but no one that's willing to stand up to him and hold him accountable.
- danielscrubs 6y agoHold an comedian accountable? How much anger does the population have when people, that makes others laugh for a living, have to be accountable for others?
- stillbourne 6y agoThe JRE show has very little in the realm of comedy, and is more driven by Joe's philosophical views and opinion than any semblance of comicality. If his show was generally a stand up routine I would not have the same critique or hold it to the same level of skepticism.
- danielscrubs 6y agoIt has been nominated for best comedy podcast year after year.
- stillbourne 6y agoBy whom?
- spoopyskelly 6y agoI wish someone would hold you accountable for your bad posting.
- doopy1 6y agoI like the JRE podcast a lot, but I come for the guests. Joe Rogan is an entertainer and taking what he says on the podcast as authoritative "news" is poor judgement.
- JesseObrien 6y agoI've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are. The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
- dogma1138 6y agoHe is polarizing because some people think he is perpetuating what to them is “wrong think”, sadly that notion comes primarily form the more left leaning people in society, the amount of times I’ve heard him described as Alt-Right and thinking really? What Joe reminds me is of is the era of old school broadcasting where you had giants like Mike Wallace who were willing to interview pretty much anyone of note. And while Joe’s format is pretty much free form rather than researched guided interview it’s very different than what you have on the media today where you have essentially people form only one side of the spectrum or worse the BBC style of “balance” where on each subject they’ll get the two biggest loons they can find to balance eachother out. IDGAF that Alex Jones was on his show I didn’t watch that episode because he doesn’t interest me, just like I didn’t watch the episodes with Abby Martin who’s pretty much the left wing version of Jones.
- bassman9000 6y agotaking what he says No one that knows this podcast takes JR serious on anything else than MMA/fighting, hunting, or the stand up comedy world. Guests supply everything else, which is the point of bringing in people so different to each other.
- ffggvv 6y agonotice everyone started attacking him first when he endorsed bernie and now even more when he made fun of biden?
- m463 6y agoI listened to one of his podcasts where he made comments about Bernie Sanders saying some good things but some things he didn't quite buy.
- joshuamorton 6y agoPeople have been complaining about the JRE for years. It's got very little to do with who he's endorsing for president.
- rptr4 6y agoIsn’t Joe Rohan a libertarian rather than a liberal? The article lost me on that in the very beginning. Not saying anything against Rogan (or for Rogan for that matter), but I’ fairly certain his ideals align with libertarianism, not liberalism.
- imposterr 6y agoYou know what Joe is? Joe is that fun friend I had in high school that I could just shoot the shit with. He's that dude I got high with in university and discussed all manner of topics with. Joe is the person who in my professional world, does not (and possibly cannot) exist. I miss the Joes in my life, and I think that's what originally led to me picking up his podcast. Sometimes I'm just tired of all the engineering discussions and want to enjoy something _else_. I didn't listen to him because of some deep seated desire to push against "the left's" control of speech, or because I thought he was a particularly polished interviewer. No, I could tell from the beginning he was way too into pseudoscience and that a lot of his guests were not well informed. But again, it was something different, and something interesting to think about. Something that in my day to day I would never consider, even if what's espoused on his podcast is complete bologna. It's almost a form of creative thinking. Every now and then, however, he would say things that didn't sit well with me. But I liked Joe, and I could ignore a few small misgivings, we're all human after all, right? However, as time passed, these small things kept piling up. Like when he had a Native lawyer on who wanted to speak about the atrocities committed against her people and all Joe wanted to do was grill her about what great bloodthirsty warriors the Comanche were. Or when he asked Owen Smith what the benefit of having a woman of color in the Vice President's seat would be. Eventually, after all the misinformation about corona started, I just couldn't look away from the pile. It had just gotten too big. And given the possible seriousness of the situation, I think it's reasonable to hold people like Joe responsible for the misinformation they spread. And for me, he failed. I still have a soft spot on my heart for Joe, but I just can't listen to him anymore.
- 0xy 6y agoWhat misinformation about corona did he spread? It's my understanding that governments all around the world and the WHO were also responsible for spreading massive misinformation at the start of the pandemic. For example, WHO were vehemently against border closures with China and they parroted the CCP's lies of no community transmission in late January (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Even Dr Fauci worked hard to spread the misinformation (he knew it was false at the time) that masks were not protection against the virus. He later admitted he spread this misinformation in order to protect supplies for healthcare staff.
- djflexure 6y agoI enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast because it is unique in the current world of media. The host is a comedian and a MMA commentator, yet he talks to people from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, scientists to musicians and instagram celebrities. He doesn’t have any strong political agenda or affiliating with certain groups. He’s a regular dude just curious about other people’s life and views, and really gave his quests enough room to express themselves. This is important to many of us, that we want a platform where we can see the real, the human side of the guests, letting them explain themselves, rather than just snippets of soundbites clipped with different intentions by different groups, or 2-minute quick debates that’s often confusing than informative. That’s what makes the show more trustworthy to some people than some big networks. There are warts that I frown upon as well. I disagree with some of this diets and views on intravenous supplements and stem cell treatment. And I never listen to his shows about aliens. But I have come to acceptance that aren’t and will not be a perfect show. The balance between informative and entertainment and eye-opening is quite a compromise. I think an educated person should treat the platform as a source of information, rather than THE source of information. I guess what I really appreciate about the show is that people with vastly different views can still chat, drink and have a good time. For example, as someone outside US, I nevered had a good impression of Bernie Sanders until I watched the show seeing him talk and reason. I never imagined Richard Dawkins’s response about consuming weed and mushroom. I have learned a lot from Joe about being an interviewer on how to get along with people you don’t fully agree with, especially on how to handles some of his consipiracy-loaded friend. Many of the TV interviews are too “heated” and “confrontational” for my liking. Sometimes I just enjoy listening to some silly and relaxing conversations. Bullshit from the guests can be distinguished without the interviewer actually calling them out on the show. In the age of chaos and cancelling, I really appreciate such a platform. I hope the deal with Spotify will not direct the show to a narrower road. As his popularity rises and being closer to the political war zone, I wish him and the show good luck.
- funviolence 6y agoI like him because he challenges the trans mafia. They tend to be unhinged and cause a lot of noise against anyone that doesn't submit to their fanatical views.
- darepublic 6y agoJRE espouses beliefs that resonate with many people but have become more taboo in recent years which is partly why I think he is successful. It's reassuring to know that the extremists haven't completely won yet.
- verylittlemeat 6y agoWhenever I read about Joe Rogan on HN I wonder how many people have actually listened to one of his podcasts or are just mad/concerned he had X crackpot on his show. You should check it out one day. It's not nearly as controversial or dangerous to society as apparently some people want you to believe. I found a coffee I really like from a guest he had on once.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoLol what a loaded title. Rogan is the next shock jock, and this kind of article is built to generate more publicity for him. Not much else to be said. Enjoy it for entertainment- it's not a substitute for journalism.
- anm89 6y agoExcept nothing hee does is particularly shocking.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoWrong. Check out his subreddit and sort by top or controversial. There's plenty of controversy. It's literally how he got big.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoThe opening sentence is rather exaggerated, > one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics, if not the single most influential
- RedEdward71 6y agoRogan is no different than Larry King or Phil Donahue. They're all talk show hosts, entertainers at best. Nothing of substance is gleaned from talk show entertainers. Besides the ways and means to fiddle with "view" numbers is well known to anyone who makes the effort to investigate it.
- rv-de 6y agoI don't like him moving to Spotify. With regard to idealism I think Vimeo f.x. would have been cool. But just practically speaking - originally the show might be a podcast but I nonetheless need the video with the audio to enjoy it. Also the interviews are way too long for me to sit them through which is why I liked the JRE Clips Channel.
- cwhiz 6y agoJoe is not extreme enough. If you aren’t a far left progressive, you’ll hear, see, and feel the rage from these people on the internet. Joe reminds me that most of America is not the people who foam at the mouth on the internet constantly. No, most of America is not extreme. You just won’t find these people on the internet defending their views because it’s too exhausting to ignore with an angry horde.
- BTCOG 6y agoWhat is most scary to me about all the recent talk about Joe Rogan is that many commenters against him as a human being obviously don't know much or anything about him, but that they wish to censor him for some reason. I also question like the article, "Why?" Are you threatened by Joe Rogan being a kind man and having his own podcast? Why is there so much modern wish to censor someone's good time and speech if you don't agree with them, and to get so enraged about nothing? Joe Rogan deserves what he has accomplished, if you don't like him don't listen to him. Don't comment about him if you haven't listened to 100+ hours of his podcasts as you don't even know what you're talking about. You do not even understand what you are arguing about at that point, you just decided to at a whim take a harmful stance. The world needs more love, and the world absolutely needs more good people like Joe Rogan. There are many guests who may be deemed controversial and not everyone will agree with everyone. It used to be that if you didn't like someone, you may say you don't and you move on. The entire pitchfork party campaign aimed at people you vaguely don't like, or even strongly dislike is a new thing in my eyes signaling a larger problem of too much hate and absent love. It's very sad that someone would even take several hours total of their time to constantly put others down they disagree with at all. It's not your fight. Go do something you like and let others have enjoyment. If you wish to be successful and lift yourself up at any point in your life, stop being someone putting out so much negative energy towards others. Be well. Joe Rogan isn't harming you. Go do what you like. Listen to who you like, but be very careful to have an open mind and listen to all sides of these arguments.This is how we form our own opinions. The world would not be a nice place if everyone had to have the same ideals and opinions. The negatives I see constantly driven towards Joe always sound like they're teeming with unhealthy hatred and a wish for censorship.
- luord 6y agoI don't know anything about Rogan nor have I ever listened to his podcast (nor have any intention to), so I gotta ask: has he ever proclaimed himself an authority on, well, anything? Because all of the criticism of him I read in here stems from what he chooses to talk about (which the critic dislikes or deems less important than other issues) or whom he chooses to talk with (whom the critic hates). Apparently, his deciding to focus on specific topics or talking to specific people somehow constitutes an "endorsement", but if he's no authority nor he has declared himself to be so, I don't see how that criticism is in any way apropos. If his podcast really is as his fans/apologists describe, long conversation without specific goal. In that case nothing could possibly be an endorsement of, well, anything.
- TheMblabla 6y agoI think the idea is that he's brought on people who spread hate and disinformation, thereby popularizing and empowering them. He's so popular that by going on the show guests get a 'bump' in popularity, like the Oprah Bump.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]