4 ms·

> …and an even worse podcast host Mmm I’m interested on your reasons for saying that as I think the opposite. He lets the interviewed to talk freely and reques

> …and an even worse podcast host Mmm I’m interested on your reasons for saying that as I think the opposite. He lets the interviewed to talk freely and requests explanations when bullshit claims are made. He never attempts to conduct the interview to follow his way of thinking. It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind. The show feels like the classic easy going guy from the gym having a innocent conversation with someone who knows about some area. Overall, I think he is a great interviewer and the only thing I could complain is that sometimes he might brings some wacky people, but hell, I have enjoyed a lot of those too.

nohr 5y ago
He famously does not call out anything lmao. All he does is ask them to talk more.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  I haven't even watched 5% of his episodes, and yet I've seen him call things out a number of times. Sometimes asking his producer to Google stuff to check in real time. I award your claim with 4 pinocchios.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    Do you think it is conceivable that what the parent comment is pointing out is found... I dunno, somewhere in the other 95% of Rogan's content that you haven't seen?
    - steelstraw 5y ago
      They are just echoing popular (famous, if you will) misinformation from Twitter. The mob repeats it whenever Rogan trends.
- dham 5y ago
  Yea he asks that Jamie guy to look up stuff all the time. That's all he does lol
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    Apparently the lookups themselves are a really funky ruse sometimes actually, so it looks like he's fact checking but the source of the fact is like, some random opinion article somewhere.
    - Zpalmtree 5y ago
      Apparently? You're just guessing, or do you have evidence of this?
ajross 5y ago
> He lets the interviewed to talk freely and requests explanations when bullshit claims are made. Rogan has a long history of false vaccine claims on his show, presented both by him and his guests: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misinformation-joe-rogan-spotify-petition-1282240/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi... He'll surely challenge a guest when he thinks they're wrong, it's his own mistruths and the ones he ignores that are at issue here.
- refurb 5y ago
  Interesting how you back up your claim that Rogan is spreading disinformation by referencing a publication known for disinformation. The Duke rape case completely blew up Rollingstones credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.
  - cbreynoldson 5y ago
    Not to mention the false Ivermectin story about poisonous overdoses.
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > The Duke rape case completely blew up Rollingstones credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious. So what you're saying is that one act of disingenuous credibility should forever taint a publisher? Say...like Joe Rogan?
    - refurb 5y ago
      Well considering OP hasn’t even proven disinformation by Rogan yet, let’s start there. And Rollingstone has multiple examples of either exaggerating stories or making them up out of whole cloth.
      - mbesto 5y ago
        > And Rollingstone has multiple examples of either exaggerating stories or making them up out of whole cloth. Ok so then maybe don't make statements like this: > blew up credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.
mbesto 5y ago
> It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind. I used to think this, but the more popular JRE has become, the more and more I believe it less. The program is deliberately sold as being "neutral" - hence its popularity. Rogan's ideology is "question everything" and "consider everything" no matter how crazy it is. That's the problem - it's slowly turning into a conspiracy theorist field day and an anti-science field day. And it's not facilitating critical thinkers, it's facilitating anarchy. Anyone who makes a living in media has some sort of agenda - which is to make money. This is why you'll never have an unbiased source in news. It's just literally impossible because at some level, money is involved. JRE is proof you can never truly provide an objective 3rd party viewpoint on news and current topics. As an example, I've watched the JRE episode on Alex Jones. It's surprisingly well done for how much a wack job Jones is. Rogan does a great job of dismantling Jones's hyperbole and gets him to be, essentially, genuine. While fascinating to watch, it's setting an odd precedent - no matter how much of a wack job you might be, you can always end up on a show with millions of subscribers. If Jones wasn't given a megaphone, he'd just be some village idiot that everyone would ignore. If Rogan was more objective, less controversial and bring on less interesting guests, he'd essentially be boring. He's the modern day Howard Stern, where people tune in to see "what will JRE's guests say next!".

nohr 5y ago

He famously does not call out anything lmao. All he does is ask them to talk more.

steelstraw 5y ago
I haven't even watched 5% of his episodes, and yet I've seen him call things out a number of times. Sometimes asking his producer to Google stuff to check in real time. I award your claim with 4 pinocchios.
- rezonant 5y ago
  Do you think it is conceivable that what the parent comment is pointing out is found... I dunno, somewhere in the other 95% of Rogan's content that you haven't seen?
  - steelstraw 5y ago
    They are just echoing popular (famous, if you will) misinformation from Twitter. The mob repeats it whenever Rogan trends.
dham 5y ago
Yea he asks that Jamie guy to look up stuff all the time. That's all he does lol
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Apparently the lookups themselves are a really funky ruse sometimes actually, so it looks like he's fact checking but the source of the fact is like, some random opinion article somewhere.
  - Zpalmtree 5y ago
    Apparently? You're just guessing, or do you have evidence of this?

ajross 5y ago

> He lets the interviewed to talk freely and requests explanations when bullshit claims are made. Rogan has a long history of false vaccine claims on his show, presented both by him and his guests: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misinformation-joe-rogan-spotify-petition-1282240/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi... He'll surely challenge a guest when he thinks they're wrong, it's his own mistruths and the ones he ignores that are at issue here.

refurb 5y ago
Interesting how you back up your claim that Rogan is spreading disinformation by referencing a publication known for disinformation. The Duke rape case completely blew up Rollingstones credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.
- cbreynoldson 5y ago
  Not to mention the false Ivermectin story about poisonous overdoses.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > The Duke rape case completely blew up Rollingstones credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious. So what you're saying is that one act of disingenuous credibility should forever taint a publisher? Say...like Joe Rogan?
  - refurb 5y ago
    Well considering OP hasn’t even proven disinformation by Rogan yet, let’s start there. And Rollingstone has multiple examples of either exaggerating stories or making them up out of whole cloth.
    - mbesto 5y ago
      > And Rollingstone has multiple examples of either exaggerating stories or making them up out of whole cloth. Ok so then maybe don't make statements like this: > blew up credibility pretty much forever it was that egregious.

mbesto 5y ago

> It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind. I used to think this, but the more popular JRE has become, the more and more I believe it less. The program is deliberately sold as being "neutral" - hence its popularity. Rogan's ideology is "question everything" and "consider everything" no matter how crazy it is. That's the problem - it's slowly turning into a conspiracy theorist field day and an anti-science field day. And it's not facilitating critical thinkers, it's facilitating anarchy. Anyone who makes a living in media has some sort of agenda - which is to make money. This is why you'll never have an unbiased source in news. It's just literally impossible because at some level, money is involved. JRE is proof you can never truly provide an objective 3rd party viewpoint on news and current topics. As an example, I've watched the JRE episode on Alex Jones. It's surprisingly well done for how much a wack job Jones is. Rogan does a great job of dismantling Jones's hyperbole and gets him to be, essentially, genuine. While fascinating to watch, it's setting an odd precedent - no matter how much of a wack job you might be, you can always end up on a show with millions of subscribers. If Jones wasn't given a megaphone, he'd just be some village idiot that everyone would ignore. If Rogan was more objective, less controversial and bring on less interesting guests, he'd essentially be boring. He's the modern day Howard Stern, where people tune in to see "what will JRE's guests say next!".