As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#51

Post by dqv » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:06 AM UTC

Scalestein wrote: post #27

vannevar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.

Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from…

Thank you for explaining this. De-platforming is an annoying liberal tick that ends up creating an information disparity. When trying to get more information the only thing that comes up are a few intelligentsia-approved articles that lack an accurate description of the de-platformed individual.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#52

Post by hirundo » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #42

I’ve never really watched Joe Rogan and haven’t followed the current controversy, but I was surprised when Spotify signed his big deal because I knew enough to know he was polarizing. Did Spotify know what they were buying?

They had over a thousand episodes to watch and he hasn't changed since the deal.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#53

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:13 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #50

Barrin92 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't listen to that many podcasts. Tyler Cowen has an excellent podcast called Conversations with Tyler, Russ Roberts is a long time podcaster/blogger with a focus on economics, Lex Fridman has a good science/compsci focused podcast and Sean Carroll's Mindscape as well as Ezra Klein's podcast I think have almost always high quality, fairly diverse guests. I'm well aware none of these have the audience that Joe Rog…

Agreed that those are excellent podcasts! Ezra Klein is one of my favorites and I am always delighted by how he seems to productively engage with people on his show. His guest list is also pretty diverse although it is mostly intellectuals. I don’t think much is lost to the world by not engaging with Trolls or Quacks. There seems to be a weird kind of “both sides” going on where people seem to think that they should…

[deleted]

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#54

Post by dilyevsky » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #49

Scalestein wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from…

No doubt, you can draw the line at different points. And obviously, in terms of audience and profit, Joe has found a sweet spot, with enough crazy people to be interesting but not so crazy as to make it a nonstop freak show. My point was that there's a wide band there, and that simply excluding a guest whose beliefs are demonstrably incorrect or morally reprehensible is not the same as pushing a single orthodox belie…

So you’re praising him for keeping the balance but the show is somehow “problematic” as some folks like to say bc he invited that one crazy guest? Sounds like more of strawman to me. And yes jre style is very much softball questions I don’t think anyone really disputes that

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#55

Post by manigandham » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #42

I’ve never really watched Joe Rogan and haven’t followed the current controversy, but I was surprised when Spotify signed his big deal because I knew enough to know he was polarizing. Did Spotify know what they were buying?

The people who made the decision were probably focused more on the popularity and potential revenue than worrying about the content because it's already been widely available for years.

That's also why the backlash is strange and unexpected since the content hasn't changed, just the hosting platform.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#56

Post by donmcronald » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #52

donmcronald wrote: post #42

I’ve never really watched Joe Rogan and haven’t followed the current controversy, but I was surprised when Spotify signed his big deal because I knew enough to know he was polarizing. Did Spotify know what they were buying?

They had over a thousand episodes to watch and he hasn't changed since the deal.

I meant that in the context of wondering if Spotify got lazy and didn’t assess it properly.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#57

Post by hirundo » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:16 AM UTC

gilrain wrote: post #36

eloff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I've got nothing against transgender people. I've got a problem with transgender activists going after people like J.K. Rowling, and trying to deplatform her, for her completely reasonable opinions. Fortunately in her case, she's too successful to deplatform, no publishing company is that stupid to turn her away. I'm also deeply horrified what's happening to young girls especially where they are deciding the…

Wow dude, being trans is not a "contagion of the mind". This is wildly and dangerously hateful.

It isn't hateful if it's true.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/

And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#58

Post by happytoexplain » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

Scalestein wrote: post #27

vannevar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man argument. There's a big difference between simply vetting your guests to weed out quacks, and pushing some single-minded idea of orthodoxy.

Who decides what counts as a quack? One of the things I find compelling about the format of the show is that the long format really exposes people, for better or worse. If you want to find out whether Alex Jones is a quack there is probably no better evidence than watching his appearance on Rogan's podcast. Same is true for Milo Yiannopoulos (often deemed an alt-right troll) who basically had his career wrecked from…

I see the "who decides" argument used a lot like this, where the implication is that the mere nature of something being subjective means one must not leverage discernment, or that a single authority must be able to be established. I feel like the engineering types of minds attracted to HN are more prone to accidentally committing this kind of fallacy, as it involves a bias towards black and white objective processes.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#59

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:18 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #6

My problem with Rogan isn't political in nature but with his uncritical attitude towards his guests, and his mixture of inviting respectable scientists (say, Roger Penrose, Robert Sapolsky) and then two episodes later inviting someone like Alex Jones, some complete quack or conspiracy theorists. Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual…

> Together with his lack of keeping the guests straight it creates a pretty toxic sludge that makes it impossible for casual audiences to determine who actually knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

I don't think it makes sense to criticize Joe Rogan for casual run your mouth conversation when we all know Joe rebranding to be more scientific and educational would destroy him and anyone else who tries. Trying to be sciency while winning isn't really a thing in US broadcasting.

The late Mr Rogers suggests that those in broadcasting have elevated responsibilities as per their elevated stature in society, but maybe those who follow such advice have all but disappeared, undernourished by the market.

Re: As Joe Rogan’s platform grows, so does the media and liberal backlash – why?

#60

Post by motohagiography » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

Rogan is a target because outwardly reasonable people just get in the way of radical agendas. When they come for the comedians, I think it's really truth they're afraid of.

But Rogan isn't provocative about much at all. He appears unapologetically honest about his feelings toward the people and topics he's presented with, and I think that guileless honesty is a contagious threat to a mainstream that trades in outrage. He reminds me a lot of the way when John Stewart utterly took down Tucker Carlson by just in-effect appealing to the principle of being a good man. At the time, Carlson represented a neocon movement that had become just as cynical about truth and power as regular people see ostensibly progressive elites in media being today.

Personally I think as an emotion, most anger originates somewhere in shame, and Rogan's avuncularity and basic good nature triggers people in proportion to their other issues - which the outrage-trade is designed to elevate and exalt. A self-described meathead who is professionally funny and who people genuinely like is anathema to humourless true believers who can't see past their own sense of purity, and in a social media culture that thrives on hysteria, together, are a perfect storm for backlash. I wouldn't take it too seriously.