3 ms·

> Joe admits that he is “a cage fighting commentator” and while I think he self labels that way to sometimes get away with fringe viewpoints This is the same w

> Joe admits that he is “a cage fighting commentator” and while I think he self labels that way to sometimes get away with fringe viewpoints This is the same way John Stewart and Stephen Colbert hid behind, "I'm just a comedian." It's a great strategy if you can pull it off.

tinco 5y ago
You can pull it off if you've got integrity. John Stewart surely has plenty of integrity in my eyes. Joe's definitely also going for integrity, but maybe he's also liable to be pulled into the views of his guests. He certainly keeps an open mind, but if you surround yourself with a certain kind of people at some point you'll develop a bias no matter how open you're trying to be. What's scarier are the persons who for the law are considered entertainment, but conduct themselves on Fox as if they're real journalists, and lie and deceive with impunity. If Joe Rogan could disrupt the right media with that, the same way John and maybe Stephen did on the left side, the world would be a better place for sure.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no real legal distinction between entertainers and journalists. The separation of news and editorial content is purely a matter of ethics and not law. Journalists don't have any special statutory privileges.
  - macintux 5y ago
    > Journalists don't have any special statutory privileges. I’d say a special mention in the first amendment is notable.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Nope. US courts have consistently held that the first amendment applies equally to everyone regardless of occupation. There is no special legal test to determine if someone is a member of the press. There are centuries of case law on this issue.
      - macintux 5y ago
        Journalists have (some) protection against being forced to testify about sources. I guess it becomes a philosophical question at that point whether being a journalist is an occupation or an action.
        nradov 5y ago
        Wrong again. At the federal level, journalists have no such protection. https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privilege_shield_law_primer.php https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privil...
        macintux 5y ago
        That article says 30 states have such laws, however, and another source indicated 49 states (plus DC).
aeturnum 5y ago
I actually think Rogan's approach is exactly the opposite of Stewart and Colbert (S&C). S&C would critique news organizations for failing to provide counterpoints. They would also earnestly advocate for their own views without feeling the need to provide counterpoints. Their justification was that they were entertainment - they believed what they were saying and didn't feel like they needed to properly inform on every element. Rogan feels like he wants it both ways. He wants to pick the people for his show and get credit when he picks well, but if people dislike one of his picks he would suddenly like to be seen as 'mixing it up' or a "cage fight commentator." He won't really own a view (or the idea of wanting to expose people to particular thinkers), but he would rather bring people on in a way where he's seen as minimally responsible for the uncomfortable content he produces.
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  Joe holds and promotes many extreme beliefs but wants plausible deniability. The format he uses lets him do this, empowering everything from Ivermectin promoters to white nationalists, while allowing him to feign that he’s not doing that

tinco 5y ago

You can pull it off if you've got integrity. John Stewart surely has plenty of integrity in my eyes. Joe's definitely also going for integrity, but maybe he's also liable to be pulled into the views of his guests. He certainly keeps an open mind, but if you surround yourself with a certain kind of people at some point you'll develop a bias no matter how open you're trying to be. What's scarier are the persons who for the law are considered entertainment, but conduct themselves on Fox as if they're real journalists, and lie and deceive with impunity. If Joe Rogan could disrupt the right media with that, the same way John and maybe Stephen did on the left side, the world would be a better place for sure.

nradov 5y ago
There is no real legal distinction between entertainers and journalists. The separation of news and editorial content is purely a matter of ethics and not law. Journalists don't have any special statutory privileges.
- macintux 5y ago
  > Journalists don't have any special statutory privileges. I’d say a special mention in the first amendment is notable.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Nope. US courts have consistently held that the first amendment applies equally to everyone regardless of occupation. There is no special legal test to determine if someone is a member of the press. There are centuries of case law on this issue.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Journalists have (some) protection against being forced to testify about sources. I guess it becomes a philosophical question at that point whether being a journalist is an occupation or an action.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Wrong again. At the federal level, journalists have no such protection. https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privilege_shield_law_primer.php https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privil...
        macintux 5y ago
        That article says 30 states have such laws, however, and another source indicated 49 states (plus DC).

aeturnum 5y ago

I actually think Rogan's approach is exactly the opposite of Stewart and Colbert (S&C). S&C would critique news organizations for failing to provide counterpoints. They would also earnestly advocate for their own views without feeling the need to provide counterpoints. Their justification was that they were entertainment - they believed what they were saying and didn't feel like they needed to properly inform on every element. Rogan feels like he wants it both ways. He wants to pick the people for his show and get credit when he picks well, but if people dislike one of his picks he would suddenly like to be seen as 'mixing it up' or a "cage fight commentator." He won't really own a view (or the idea of wanting to expose people to particular thinkers), but he would rather bring people on in a way where he's seen as minimally responsible for the uncomfortable content he produces.

amznthrwaway 5y ago
Joe holds and promotes many extreme beliefs but wants plausible deniability. The format he uses lets him do this, empowering everything from Ivermectin promoters to white nationalists, while allowing him to feign that he’s not doing that