4 ms·
By giving interesting people a large, open, unconstrained platform and plenty of time to speak, he's going 'way deeper' than most of the mainstream press. Joe
by jariel 6y ago
By giving interesting people a large, open, unconstrained platform and plenty of time to speak, he's going 'way deeper' than most of the mainstream press.
Joe is smart but you're right, he does play the nice guy and doesn't ask his guests hard questions - but the format is really powerful.
I watched 2.5 hours (!!!) of Bernie Sanders speak and came to the realization that I don't think I'd seen Bernie speak for more than 5 minutes previous to that - ever. People are supposed to elect national leaders on the basis of sound-bytes, controlled scenarios, ridiculous 'gotcha debates'?
I really don't think you'll find a longer format out there for anyone. It literally takes time to get to know people and the open, conversational format, particularly the length is really helpful. On cable news you get 1 minute if you're lucky, a longer, hurried interview if you're famous.
Many of the 'issues du jour' require some explanation - every unfortunate interaction between police and some assailant that's on the national news has nuance, certainly many of the more theoretical issues have nuance. And public figures, speakers are very often misinterpreted, misquoted.
Not only is there enough time on the format, people are tuning in.
Though you're right to point out Joe is not doing regular journalism by asking the tough questions - he is doing something else, which asking 'un PC' questions which would never get asked in highly politicized or sensitive information systems.
If there is 'editorial bias' on the part of Joe, it's easily circumvented by the guests who have time to answer the questions. Contrast this with most broadcast outlets who design the questions, don't give time to respond, heavily edit the question/response, and shave it down to tiny digestible formats.
Joe Rogan's mere existence is really counter intuitive - if major press outlets were doing their jobs well I don't think he would exist. He's found a credible, if not perfect niche.
- nabla9 6y agoI agree with you, Rogan is smart and long format allows more. The problem is not one Rogan and one show, it's that his style is spreading. Rogan is smart but lacks general knowledge. Good hosts are very knowledgeable and pretend to know less for the sake of the audience. Rogan can't do that. Rogan projects sentiments like awe and wonder, but they are not genuine. They are just part of the brand and character. The end result is that his non-PC stance and alternative viewpoint falls prey to hype, hustlers and pseudointellectuals. He ends up repeating phrases and platitudes and never analyzing them.
- jariel 6y agoYes, the big drawback is that he's agreeable to people in instances where he shouldn't really agree with them, that's an unfortunate line that's crossed sometimes. That said - I don't think in those specific cases it's that important, I loathe Alex Jones but I'm not sure how important he is. He doesn't support Anti-Vaxxer conspiracy theories, he's spoken publicly about that, though I'm not sure if he has publicly spoken out against QAnon, he did have an interesting and nuance guest Tim Dillon [1] to explain it in a nuanced and reasonable way. One thing that's interesting about his guests is that they are not 'communications' people in the classical sense. On the news, you get people in makeup, nice suits, symmetrical facial features and talking points. I don't think Rogan is the solution to anything, but it's an valid format. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1fdIP_KyL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1fdIP_KyL0
- __s 6y agoThere are longer formats out there, here's the full 8 & a half hour 2010 Sanders filibuster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLNKNq9soLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLNKNq9soLE
- jariel 6y agoYou just proved my point, though. A 'Congressional filibuster' is literally redundant filler used to fill time, often in the middle of the night to literally an empty room with no expectation of an audience or even a coherent message. People literally go up there and read Dr. Seuss out loud. Find someone having reasonably candid dialogue with Bernie Sanders for 2.5 hours - I don't think it exists. But that would be besides the point - Rogan's format is consistently an order of magnitude longer than others, it's open and generally unedited - this doesn't exist elsewhere.