23 ms·

I like the JRE. I like that he listens to everyone and engages with them. The world could do with more of that rather than this tribalism shit. On one of his r

I like the JRE. I like that he listens to everyone and engages with them. The world could do with more of that rather than this tribalism shit. On one of his recent podcasts, he supports fox news keeping it's guests from specific no-no topics because they don't want to loose their credibility. The irony, obviously, being that Joe should also keep his guests and himself away from certain no-no topics. That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of. It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n. That's the entertaining and appeal of the show. Edit It's my fault for grouping them into the same sentence, but I didn't claim (or mean to) that his show is just junk entertainment because it's just people talking. My claim is that's the appeal of the format. He obviously has credible and knowledgeable guests on his show. I said Joe doesn't see himself as a news source or a voice of a movement. Martial arts, working out, and DMT, however, yes he probably thinks of himself as someone to take advice from there.

beeboop 5y ago
This is the same defense Jon Stewart always used. "It's a comedy show". I'm not sure whether you're a credible news source absolves you of responsibility of spreading harmful misinformation. He has a huge platform and a huge voice. What he does isn't illegal but it's definitely not the most moral behavior.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  As if the regular media hasn't had their own fair share of misinformation.
  - vinay427 5y ago
    If they're similarly guilty of misinformation, those responsible in the media should absolutely face consequences as well. This feels like whataboutism, which doesn't preclude people taking a stand against the JRE podcast.
- johncessna 5y ago
  The difference is that the Daily Show looked and acted like a traditional news show, which of course, was part of the parody. No one has ever confused the JRE for that.
  - sjtindell 5y ago
    But they do. People defended the show by saying he’ll listen to anyone. The products he endorses and people he has on enjoy gigantic boosts in popularity. Literally nobody is saying, “oh it’s just some dumb show”. A lot of men look to Joe Rogan for guidance. If you don’t see it, you’re not paying attention imo. I used to look to the show for dumb fun, sure, but also to expose me to information about working out, cool activities, cool people to follow like Cameron Hanes and David Goggins, lots of stuff.
  - bryans 5y ago
    You must be listening to a completely different JRE. He pretends to speak as an authority on all subjects, occasionally to the point of shouting down guests and not even letting them finish a thought -- usually because Rogan just thought of a good jab and needs to get it in before the guest can finish making their correct point. Made worse that a substantial portion of Rogan's fan base is quite rabid and are well known for harassing guests (sometimes for months after an appearance) simply because Joe disagreed with them. It's egregiously ignorant to proclaim that his comments aren't taken seriously or don't have real life consequences. You don't get to dole out medical advice as a self-proclaimed expert and then hide behind "it's just entertainment, bro."
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      What! JRE shows are around 2 hours long. Guests have plenty of time to talk even if interrupted. I have seen no other show that provides such an opportunity for guests to finish a thought.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      He shouts down guests? Reminds me of my uncle and yelling doesn't make you an authority.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gorgonzolachz 5y ago
I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers. Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop). He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care. Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone: "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.
mattigames 5y ago
> he listens to everyone and engages with them Yeah, in a very specific meaning of "listen to everyone", as in he clearly listened to the people advocating Ivermectin to trait covid but not the vaccine, which to me seems like tribalism as such decision is not based on listening to anyone making a bit of sense.
- nradov 5y ago
  That is factually incorrect. Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Peter Attia who repeatedly advocated that people protect themselves by getting vaccinated. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=ThpVqythRh-rT8z4rrZzwg https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=T...
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
Joe Rogan is a useful idiot for grifters who know that he won't seriously challenge them for what they're saying under the guise of "hey it's just fun" and "hey I'm just letting them say their piece." He is a perhaps a good conversationalist for engaging with and listening to his guests, but he is a poor interviewer and, unless he's in on the con, a poor judge of character.
- libraryatnight 5y ago
  I thought a blog piece on Rolling Stone summed up Rogan decently enough: "This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity. Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. " https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-peterson-joe-rogan-interview-climate-change-1290696/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-pet...
  - paganel 5y ago
    > platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. " At this stage of the pandemic we know that much of the MSM has done the same thing. I'm triple vaccinated, I have followed this pandemic since late January 2020, at the time when "coronavirus" as a hashtag was seen as a trump-ism and not present on Twitter's front page or wherever it is that they publish their hot hashtags.
    - libraryatnight 5y ago
      All lies aren't equal.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular. > Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. Rogan has stated openly many times that his guiding ethos is literally to have people on that he finds interesting or wants to learn more about. I've seen nothing to really contradict this. This likely just intersects with controversial and/or popular in some or many cases, but it's disingenuous to then claim that this was the motive all along.
bitsnbytes 5y ago
While that is true about Joe and the show that doesn't completely paint the whole picture either. Actually it really leaves out the key part of the whole picture. Irregardless of what Joe says about himself and the show being nothing more than a bunch of idiotic guys talking, the truth of the matter is he does have credible and subject matter experts come on his show and talk and give their viewpoint on their area of expertise. However when those experts come on and they go against the MSM narrative then the focus becomes about Joe and his silly tactics as a way to dismiss or downplay the counter views for some.
sjtindell 5y ago
Ironic because Fox News has zero credibility. Their prime time anchor Tucker Carlson won against slander charges in court by arguing that he does not state actual facts and instead engages in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations. And since the beginning of Covid Joe Rogan has stopped being just a dude who hangs out and smokes with his buddies, something I used to love about the show. He is constantly and consistently political, making medical claims and other kinds of claims that are nonsensical. He’s started favoring certain types of guests, and avoiding the friends who call him out. I used to argue vehemently that free speech can be infringed upon under no circumstance. I still will. But now I see the “other side” more clearly, that is, where is the line when someone has one of the largest platforms in the world and uses it to spread dangerous misinformation? He’s way past just some dude. I have friends who take what he says as gospel, because they want to learn how to be men and Joe is a man’s man. At the same time, he does make good arguments in favor of discourse, hearing different viewpoints, etc. so how do we handle this?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  To be fair to Tucker Carlson... Facebook did the exact same thing but claimed all of their fact checkers under that legal umbrella in their own court case.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    That's really interesting, do you have a source?
    - xdennis 5y ago
      See what the judge said[1], specifically: > The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. All media sources hide behind "being just entertainment and not factual opinion" just like the New York Times or MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who, when she was sued for saying OAN is "paid Russian propaganda”, won the case because “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation”[2] even though MSNBC couldn't prove OAN was paid by Russia. [1]: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb... [2]: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-i... "paid Russian propaganda”
diego_moita 5y ago
> It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n. > That's the entertaining and appeal of the show. Facebook's press releases talk just like that. They also pretend to be "neutral". But Rogan, Facebook and Spotify made choices with repercussions and consequences. They just don't want to bear responsibility/accountability for those consequences. And, no, I don't use both Facebook or Spotify.
- imgabe 5y ago
  What are the repercussions and consequences, exactly? Can you give examples of specific harms that occurred because of Rogan's show?
- refurb 5y ago
  And, no, I don't use both Facebook or Spotify. So by your own admission you haven’t listened to Rogan’s Spotify podcast?
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Agreed. The corporate media attacks on him make no sense to me. It's a freaking podcast where he talks about sports, hunting, UFOs, the supernatural, comedians, ai, and yes conspiracy theory. I enjoy the variety and the wild topics.
kumarvvr 5y ago
> That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of When you have an audience numbering in the millions, and have a long term presence (unlike old school radio), you are a news source, whether you like it or not. And you have a responsibility to be careful with your words, whether you want it or not. In this age of boundless social media, where what is true, what is false and what is mis-leading is non-existent, it is pertinent for people like JRE to absolutely not go into topic they don't know or knowledgeable about. I would really like to see him bring on Dr. Fauci, and have a good listen to him.
- RikNieu 5y ago
  Afaik both him and Lex Fridman tried to get Fouci on. He either declined or wanted to limit it to 15m
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    Really? Source?
    - RikNieu 5y ago
      Lex mentioned it in one of his recent ones, I can't recall which one, sorry
- bhawks 5y ago
  He recently did a full podcast with CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr Sanjay Gupta. I'd imagine Dr Fauci would be welcomed as well to the show. Joe's conversation with Dr Sanjay covered a variety of topics (Covid, marijuana policy, CNNs representation of Joe). On all these topics Dr Sanjay was definitely given an opportunity to make his argument - and I believe he probably reached a good number of people through Joe's platform.[1] It is unfortunate that CNN's unprofessional representation of Joe's personal experience with Covid sucked up so much of the conversation around the episode. Dr Sanjay wasnt a part of this (until after the podcast...) And on the podcast he also took issue with CNN's coverage. Obviously this didn't go well over at CNN and I truly felt bad for Dr Sanjay being publicly steamrolled by the networks own talking heads in the days after. [2] On their Covid discussion Joe raised some points that he has spoken about in other forums - they shouldn't surprise anyone. Primary among them are how we should account for natural immunity, clarity on the risk of side effects for children versus the risk of Covid, and treatments beyond vaccines (which given how frequently breakthru cases occur should be important conversation for pro/hesitant/anti vax alike). These are things that Dr Sanjay (or Dr Fauci) should be able to have a meaningful discussion around. Dr Sanjay did a good job in my opinion (and his own opinion [3]) Honestly I think the feedback that talking heads should not speak with authority they don't have is something Don Lemon needs to reflect on. I think there is general disappointment in the mainstream press for not asking challenging questions and that it is related to the growing distrust of the 4th estate. Today's media has soundbytes, cheer leading puffery, and context free gotchas. 1: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rAgS1KiUvLRNP4HfUePpA?si=CtSE_QiQR2WzYDkbg9ixew https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rAgS1KiUvLRNP4HfUePpA?si=C... 2: https://youtu.be/oHWkvaQmxvI?start=124 https://youtu.be/oHWkvaQmxvI?start=124 3: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/13/health/sanjay-gupta-joe-rogan-experience/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/13/health/sanjay-gupta-joe-r...
sAbakumoff 5y ago
- sergiotapia 5y ago
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
- logicchains 5y ago
  > A few weeks ago, 270 doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals and professors wrote an open letter to Spotify, expressing concern about medical misinformation on Rogan’s podcast. And more than 17,000 doctors and scientists signed in support of Mallone's message: https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/.
  - sAbakumoff 5y ago
    - johnmorrison 5y ago
secretsatan 5y ago
Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in? You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side" Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?
- IAmNotAFix 5y ago
  He has had Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, for what it's worth.
- johnmorrison 5y ago
  Peterson's claims about climate objectively match leading science. You may disagree with him, but what he says is not rubbish. (For credibility, see the studies included in IPCC reports.)
- Flankk 5y ago
  Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and bestselling author. He has published over 100 scientific papers. You make a great point about him being an idiot.
  - ourmandave 5y ago
    What makes a clinical psychologist qualified to speak about climate science? It's like a heart surgeon claiming architects have building design all wrong.
    - Flankk 5y ago
      What makes you qualified to criticize a scientist? It's called freedom of speech. The difference is you don't have anything interesting to say.
      - 5y ago
yosito 5y ago
Joe Rogan isn't as fair and balanced with his guests as you're giving him credit for. He doesn't equally listen to "everyone" or have "everyone" on his show. When was the last time Joe had a pro-vaccine expert on his show to ask them about the real science of vaccines? It doesn't happen. Edit: Apparently he had Peter Attila on who is pro-vaccine, but that's hardly a leading expert on the topic, and there's still a clear bias in the guests Joe invites to his show.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  He had Sanjay Gupta on just a couple of months ago. Joe Rogan isn’t anti-vaccine. His stance on the Covid-19 vaccine is if you’re older, fat, or with an existing comorbidity you should go get vaccinated. For everyone else it isn’t strictly necessary and shouldn’t be a requirement. It basically comes down to individualist versus collectivist. If you’re a collectivist you think JRE is spreading misinformation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

beeboop 5y ago

This is the same defense Jon Stewart always used. "It's a comedy show". I'm not sure whether you're a credible news source absolves you of responsibility of spreading harmful misinformation. He has a huge platform and a huge voice. What he does isn't illegal but it's definitely not the most moral behavior.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
As if the regular media hasn't had their own fair share of misinformation.
- vinay427 5y ago
  If they're similarly guilty of misinformation, those responsible in the media should absolutely face consequences as well. This feels like whataboutism, which doesn't preclude people taking a stand against the JRE podcast.
johncessna 5y ago
The difference is that the Daily Show looked and acted like a traditional news show, which of course, was part of the parody. No one has ever confused the JRE for that.
- sjtindell 5y ago
  But they do. People defended the show by saying he’ll listen to anyone. The products he endorses and people he has on enjoy gigantic boosts in popularity. Literally nobody is saying, “oh it’s just some dumb show”. A lot of men look to Joe Rogan for guidance. If you don’t see it, you’re not paying attention imo. I used to look to the show for dumb fun, sure, but also to expose me to information about working out, cool activities, cool people to follow like Cameron Hanes and David Goggins, lots of stuff.
- bryans 5y ago
  You must be listening to a completely different JRE. He pretends to speak as an authority on all subjects, occasionally to the point of shouting down guests and not even letting them finish a thought -- usually because Rogan just thought of a good jab and needs to get it in before the guest can finish making their correct point. Made worse that a substantial portion of Rogan's fan base is quite rabid and are well known for harassing guests (sometimes for months after an appearance) simply because Joe disagreed with them. It's egregiously ignorant to proclaim that his comments aren't taken seriously or don't have real life consequences. You don't get to dole out medical advice as a self-proclaimed expert and then hide behind "it's just entertainment, bro."
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    What! JRE shows are around 2 hours long. Guests have plenty of time to talk even if interrupted. I have seen no other show that provides such an opportunity for guests to finish a thought.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    He shouts down guests? Reminds me of my uncle and yelling doesn't make you an authority.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gorgonzolachz 5y ago

I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers. Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop). He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care. Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone: "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

mattigames 5y ago

> he listens to everyone and engages with them Yeah, in a very specific meaning of "listen to everyone", as in he clearly listened to the people advocating Ivermectin to trait covid but not the vaccine, which to me seems like tribalism as such decision is not based on listening to anyone making a bit of sense.

nradov 5y ago
That is factually incorrect. Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Peter Attia who repeatedly advocated that people protect themselves by getting vaccinated. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=ThpVqythRh-rT8z4rrZzwg https://open.spotify.com/episode/5DuxGhOJSa7X0AKvJGwwta?si=T...

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

Joe Rogan is a useful idiot for grifters who know that he won't seriously challenge them for what they're saying under the guise of "hey it's just fun" and "hey I'm just letting them say their piece." He is a perhaps a good conversationalist for engaging with and listening to his guests, but he is a poor interviewer and, unless he's in on the con, a poor judge of character.

libraryatnight 5y ago
I thought a blog piece on Rolling Stone summed up Rogan decently enough: "This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity. Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. " https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-peterson-joe-rogan-interview-climate-change-1290696/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-pet...
- paganel 5y ago
  > platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. " At this stage of the pandemic we know that much of the MSM has done the same thing. I'm triple vaccinated, I have followed this pandemic since late January 2020, at the time when "coronavirus" as a hashtag was seen as a trump-ism and not present on Twitter's front page or wherever it is that they publish their hot hashtags.
  - libraryatnight 5y ago
    All lies aren't equal.
- naasking 5y ago
  > This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular. > Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. Rogan has stated openly many times that his guiding ethos is literally to have people on that he finds interesting or wants to learn more about. I've seen nothing to really contradict this. This likely just intersects with controversial and/or popular in some or many cases, but it's disingenuous to then claim that this was the motive all along.

bitsnbytes 5y ago

While that is true about Joe and the show that doesn't completely paint the whole picture either. Actually it really leaves out the key part of the whole picture. Irregardless of what Joe says about himself and the show being nothing more than a bunch of idiotic guys talking, the truth of the matter is he does have credible and subject matter experts come on his show and talk and give their viewpoint on their area of expertise. However when those experts come on and they go against the MSM narrative then the focus becomes about Joe and his silly tactics as a way to dismiss or downplay the counter views for some.

sjtindell 5y ago

Ironic because Fox News has zero credibility. Their prime time anchor Tucker Carlson won against slander charges in court by arguing that he does not state actual facts and instead engages in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations. And since the beginning of Covid Joe Rogan has stopped being just a dude who hangs out and smokes with his buddies, something I used to love about the show. He is constantly and consistently political, making medical claims and other kinds of claims that are nonsensical. He’s started favoring certain types of guests, and avoiding the friends who call him out. I used to argue vehemently that free speech can be infringed upon under no circumstance. I still will. But now I see the “other side” more clearly, that is, where is the line when someone has one of the largest platforms in the world and uses it to spread dangerous misinformation? He’s way past just some dude. I have friends who take what he says as gospel, because they want to learn how to be men and Joe is a man’s man. At the same time, he does make good arguments in favor of discourse, hearing different viewpoints, etc. so how do we handle this?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
To be fair to Tucker Carlson... Facebook did the exact same thing but claimed all of their fact checkers under that legal umbrella in their own court case.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  That's really interesting, do you have a source?
  - xdennis 5y ago
    See what the judge said[1], specifically: > The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. All media sources hide behind "being just entertainment and not factual opinion" just like the New York Times or MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who, when she was sued for saying OAN is "paid Russian propaganda”, won the case because “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation”[2] even though MSNBC couldn't prove OAN was paid by Russia. [1]: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb... [2]: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-i... "paid Russian propaganda”

diego_moita 5y ago

> It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n. > That's the entertaining and appeal of the show. Facebook's press releases talk just like that. They also pretend to be "neutral". But Rogan, Facebook and Spotify made choices with repercussions and consequences. They just don't want to bear responsibility/accountability for those consequences. And, no, I don't use both Facebook or Spotify.

imgabe 5y ago
What are the repercussions and consequences, exactly? Can you give examples of specific harms that occurred because of Rogan's show?
refurb 5y ago
And, no, I don't use both Facebook or Spotify. So by your own admission you haven’t listened to Rogan’s Spotify podcast?

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Agreed. The corporate media attacks on him make no sense to me. It's a freaking podcast where he talks about sports, hunting, UFOs, the supernatural, comedians, ai, and yes conspiracy theory. I enjoy the variety and the wild topics.

kumarvvr 5y ago

> That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of When you have an audience numbering in the millions, and have a long term presence (unlike old school radio), you are a news source, whether you like it or not. And you have a responsibility to be careful with your words, whether you want it or not. In this age of boundless social media, where what is true, what is false and what is mis-leading is non-existent, it is pertinent for people like JRE to absolutely not go into topic they don't know or knowledgeable about. I would really like to see him bring on Dr. Fauci, and have a good listen to him.

RikNieu 5y ago
Afaik both him and Lex Fridman tried to get Fouci on. He either declined or wanted to limit it to 15m
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  Really? Source?
  - RikNieu 5y ago
    Lex mentioned it in one of his recent ones, I can't recall which one, sorry
bhawks 5y ago
He recently did a full podcast with CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr Sanjay Gupta. I'd imagine Dr Fauci would be welcomed as well to the show. Joe's conversation with Dr Sanjay covered a variety of topics (Covid, marijuana policy, CNNs representation of Joe). On all these topics Dr Sanjay was definitely given an opportunity to make his argument - and I believe he probably reached a good number of people through Joe's platform.[1] It is unfortunate that CNN's unprofessional representation of Joe's personal experience with Covid sucked up so much of the conversation around the episode. Dr Sanjay wasnt a part of this (until after the podcast...) And on the podcast he also took issue with CNN's coverage. Obviously this didn't go well over at CNN and I truly felt bad for Dr Sanjay being publicly steamrolled by the networks own talking heads in the days after. [2] On their Covid discussion Joe raised some points that he has spoken about in other forums - they shouldn't surprise anyone. Primary among them are how we should account for natural immunity, clarity on the risk of side effects for children versus the risk of Covid, and treatments beyond vaccines (which given how frequently breakthru cases occur should be important conversation for pro/hesitant/anti vax alike). These are things that Dr Sanjay (or Dr Fauci) should be able to have a meaningful discussion around. Dr Sanjay did a good job in my opinion (and his own opinion [3]) Honestly I think the feedback that talking heads should not speak with authority they don't have is something Don Lemon needs to reflect on. I think there is general disappointment in the mainstream press for not asking challenging questions and that it is related to the growing distrust of the 4th estate. Today's media has soundbytes, cheer leading puffery, and context free gotchas. 1: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rAgS1KiUvLRNP4HfUePpA?si=CtSE_QiQR2WzYDkbg9ixew https://open.spotify.com/episode/6rAgS1KiUvLRNP4HfUePpA?si=C... 2: https://youtu.be/oHWkvaQmxvI?start=124 https://youtu.be/oHWkvaQmxvI?start=124 3: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/13/health/sanjay-gupta-joe-rogan-experience/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/13/health/sanjay-gupta-joe-r...

sAbakumoff 5y ago

sergiotapia 5y ago
- ShamelessC 5y ago
logicchains 5y ago
> A few weeks ago, 270 doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals and professors wrote an open letter to Spotify, expressing concern about medical misinformation on Rogan’s podcast. And more than 17,000 doctors and scientists signed in support of Mallone's message: https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/ https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/.
- sAbakumoff 5y ago
  - johnmorrison 5y ago

secretsatan 5y ago

Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in? You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side" Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?

IAmNotAFix 5y ago
He has had Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, for what it's worth.
johnmorrison 5y ago
Peterson's claims about climate objectively match leading science. You may disagree with him, but what he says is not rubbish. (For credibility, see the studies included in IPCC reports.)
Flankk 5y ago
Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and bestselling author. He has published over 100 scientific papers. You make a great point about him being an idiot.
- ourmandave 5y ago
  What makes a clinical psychologist qualified to speak about climate science? It's like a heart surgeon claiming architects have building design all wrong.
  - Flankk 5y ago
    What makes you qualified to criticize a scientist? It's called freedom of speech. The difference is you don't have anything interesting to say.
    - 5y ago

yosito 5y ago

Joe Rogan isn't as fair and balanced with his guests as you're giving him credit for. He doesn't equally listen to "everyone" or have "everyone" on his show. When was the last time Joe had a pro-vaccine expert on his show to ask them about the real science of vaccines? It doesn't happen. Edit: Apparently he had Peter Attila on who is pro-vaccine, but that's hardly a leading expert on the topic, and there's still a clear bias in the guests Joe invites to his show.

parkingrift 5y ago
He had Sanjay Gupta on just a couple of months ago. Joe Rogan isn’t anti-vaccine. His stance on the Covid-19 vaccine is if you’re older, fat, or with an existing comorbidity you should go get vaccinated. For everyone else it isn’t strictly necessary and shouldn’t be a requirement. It basically comes down to individualist versus collectivist. If you’re a collectivist you think JRE is spreading misinformation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]