I know of someone who says they listen to Joe Rogan podcasts (political I assume) but I don’t know what this means or what the connotations are. Both this person and I live in east asia.
Well first his show is one of the biggest podcasts in existence and spent a lot of time at the #1 spot - it’s not just a new thing.
Compared to other career interlocutors we might name from old media like Barbara Walters or Michael Krasny, Joe Rogan is a major step down on intellect. He doesn’t really prepare for interviews - reading the subjects book or whatever. He just wings it and spends a lot of time nodding and saying “wow.”
This is a problem when he invites on guests who spew misinformation. Joe doesn’t know it’s misinformation because he doesn’t research. And in fact he seems to think he’s a rebel journalist who hosts people that others want to silence. And he himself falls for many conspiracy tropes, frequently throwing out phrases like “they don’t want anyone to know this.”
So you’ve got a big dumb show full of misinformation that reaches a lot of young people. This is a problem for a lot of folks.
Others love Joe and find his lack of intellect relatable. He’s just a “regular Joe” to them. Maybe they don’t want a fancy interviewer who’s read all the books. Maybe they want someone just as uninformed as them so the information conveyed in the interview arrives at their level.
Sadly, Joe’s now hosted many of the top minds in the world. People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson just see him as a podcast host who’s popular with the youths. So why not go on his show. These people have boosted his numbers even more and legitimized him. Then he brings on a vaccine denier and it all goes to shit. He seems to thrive in the criticism, too, doubling down on the fact that he wants to investigate the things everyone else wants to bury (when his critics say he’s just giving the worst people in the world a platform).
You make it sound like he just uses the Socratic method to give weirdos the rope they need to hang themselves. And maybe that’s true for a sophisticated audience who already come in with solid critical things skills in place. When they don’t, as is often the case for his under-25 audience who are still coming up, the appearance is that he treats them as legitimate - the same as he treats NDGT.
I listen to Oh No Ross and Carrie frequently, and it does a similar thing except they actually do research and make sure to inform the listener about what they say that’s wrong, misconstrued, or a lie. They look into the background of the people and their history and a whole lot of detail into what they’re pushing. They don’t just give them a platform that doesn’t push back. It’s irresponsible to do otherwise.
I stop listening to anyone who uses the word “misinformation” unironically.
You know that’s a real word that applies to things right? If someone is saying the earth is actually flat and making up things to prove it, that’s misinformation.
It’s just used as an excuse to shut down speech the government/tech companies don’t like because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
So what if someone believes the earth is flat, let the people hear and decide for themselves. That’s a bedrock of democracy, people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Not you or anyone else has a right to tell them what to believe or filter down the information they get.
