491–500 of 600 posts
His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.
More people listen to his podcast than watch network news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All he has done is repackage some pretty basic self-help advice into a gross right-wing ideology. I don't think this has any value.
I'm sorry, where is the right wing ideology exactly? He's pretty passionate about his criticisms of the far left. That doesn't automatically make him right wing. Most of his views are more left than right.
You should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.
There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing. Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate. If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad…
Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report.
> Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate.
This was heavily covered mainstream news and resulted in CNN firing Brazile. Brazile also assisted the Sanders campaign as the Sanders campaign has admitted, but we don't have the Sanders campaign emails to see how much.
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/3038...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I posted links. If you don't think Google has encrypted its cross-datacenter traffic, you can try to access it yourself. If you don't think the NSA has stopped collecting all phone metadata, why would there be records of the NSA collecting a subset of metadata afterward?
Every corrupt organization keeps two sets of books.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing. Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate. If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad…
> There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report. > Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign…
The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging. For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing. Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage. But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a 13 hour movie? I see a definite trend towards long form content rig…
Until you listen to his actual content and it is, the vast majority of the time, pretty "easy" listening in the sense that it is pretty vacuous and doesn't really require any sort of concentration to follow along. Don't get me wrong -- I listen to it often on my way to work, but one of the reasons I do is because it is not something that really requires much of my concentration to follow along.
The show is successful because it knows that Google exists - it knows there's a universe of information outside the bounds of the show. It provides the gestalt and it's up to the listener to explore the details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a death threat. He literally said the whistleblower should be killed.
To be fair I've only seen him on record alluding to the idea that he should be killed. Can you cite his literal statement?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/oh-nothi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does he? He's not a journalist, he's a talking head. He'll challenge statements he can't get behind, but this is an opinion/entertainment show, and he's not throwing up slogans that read "fair and balanced" at every opportunity.
Journalist or not, he still has a responsibility to his audience. It's a shared responsibility, between him and the guests and the people that listen and take it at face value that should know better. He can very well balance better the entertainment aspect with the accuracy of the information, especially on topics that have an actual impact on people's lives like health-related topics.
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. I don't know what your point is. Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does he? He's not a journalist, he's a talking head. He'll challenge statements he can't get behind, but this is an opinion/entertainment show, and he's not throwing up slogans that read "fair and balanced" at every opportunity.
Journalist or not, he still has a responsibility to his audience. It's a shared responsibility, between him and the guests and the people that listen and take it at face value that should know better. He can very well balance better the entertainment aspect with the accuracy of the information, especially on topics that have an actual impact on people's lives like health-related topics.
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. What's your solution? Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?