I don't think the hate or admiration for Rogan is warranted. Rogan appears to accidentally be a good interviewer: he's amicable, credulous, and lets his guests

I don't think the hate or admiration for Rogan is warranted. Rogan appears to accidentally be a good interviewer: he's amicable, credulous, and lets his guests talk. This can be great for learning a lot about a guest really feels, or at least how a guest really wants to present themselves. However, if the guest makes a bad point, Rogan is unlikely to notice it. (the same goes if the host makes a point in bad faith.) And arguably, the audience may not notice it if neither Rogan nor his guest highlight it. Is this the end of the world? No, not really. Another news publication somewhere else will ask the questions that Rogan cannot. And, in a perfect world, there's value in both kinds of interview: the adversarial interview, and the softball long-form interview. In principle, the softball long-form interview could actually be very damning when compared against other sources of information, such as the adversarial interview. In a less polarized world, I suspect that Rogan would never have been famous in the first place.