Joe Rogan Cancels the Cancelers

Not really, he's still a shock jock pretending to be a journalist.

He’s never claimed to be a journalist.

Then why are you comparing him to "the MSM" like they're supposed to be competitors?

Because he's a better interviewer and doesn't rely on thirty second soundbites.

But you just said he's not a journalist. Shouldn't you be comparing him to Jimmy Fallon or John Oliver or James Corden?

Rogan has been referred to as Oprah for Bros.

Joe Rogan is a variety talk show. It is a completely different thing than news commentary. Yes, you might get some news commentary on Joe Rogan, but his main focus is entertainment. Of course he will blow away the propaganda news from MSNBC to Fox news. They always have less viewers than talk shows.

Now let us see how BrOprah compares to Ellen, or late night talk, or The View.

My apologies to Oprah for comparing such a lowlife wannabe nothing to her success and Empire. Joe is not even the buzzing of flies to the real stars in his category which is why they need to compare him to the propaganda news.

Rush vs Rogan:

When I think of "shock jock," I think of Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony. I don't even know that Limbaugh, as a fiery political commentator, fits into that category. If so, we'd also have to include Shapiro, Tomi Lahren, Tucker Carlson, etc. While their comments may be shocking to some people, the main purpose is to push a political agenda. That certainly doesn't describe JRE (The Joe Rogan Experience). @shootER

Even calling JRE a variety show (@Tererun) adds too much intentionality. The original point was just to talk shit with his comic friends in order to entertain himself and generate enthusiasm for his stand-up tours. Now it's to satisfying his own curiosity by talking to people he finds interesting. If people are entertained, shocked, or convinced of a political position, that is purely incidental.

The content is entirely dependent on the guest. A great many episodes are sober and not shocking at all. Some are quite wholesome, like in recent months when he interviewed a black martial arts master and they spoke of the impact on youth in the community.

All he does is talk to various people. Completely unworthy of the vitriol, but for the fact that people (largely on the dogmatic Left) can't handle heterogeneous views of the world and life.

First off, if you think his present talk show is not completely intentional then you are out of your mind. It may have started as such, but now it is much more planned and slick. Like many popular money making internet talk it may have started as some vanity project, but it is now a full on money making show. He has to show up, make his plans for the show, book guests, and satisfy an audience on a professional level. To even think a person who was involved with professional productions like Fear Factor is unaware of ratings, professionalism, and how to keep an audience is naive to an extreme.

You do not keep an audience like his by being some fuck around show. The image that he is just some fuck around show is one he plans and cultivates by not being a fuck around. Also, he is contracted by spotify. They do not put some dude with a vblog on a huge contract. There is a huge difference between professionalized programs and some people having fun with their opinions on some monetized youtube show. The discipline and schedule to get to his level of show is not something most internet shows are able to produce.

Don't think Joe does not know his audience and their leanings. I would say it is more like the tail wagging the dog, but he knows what he is doing, and it is quite intentional.

Feel free to supply any actual evidence of this meticulous planning and and curating of an audience and an image. Who, what, where, when, and how. @Tererun

I don't think that's quite the criticism that tends to get levied at Rogan. It's more to do with the whole "Oprah for Bros" thing that's been mentioned before in this thread. Much like how Oprah did with Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, Rogan is providing a massive platform for guests that are (arguably) knowingly peddling dangerous misinformation, and he's not questioning the claims they're making in any sort of meaningful way. Other than his interview with Sanjay Gupta, I can't recall ever seeing a story about Rogan calling out a guest for lying. You could certainly argue that he's under no responsibility to do so, but others disagree.

He’s had Bernie Sanders on. Do you think that you can get a US Senator on your show without a lot of advance work?

He gave a platform to Tulsi Gabbard when nobody else would. He's given a platform real journalists, several different scientists, doctors, writers, entertainers, activists, philosophers and a whole host of other people. Because he has such a wide audience, I'm confident that there are people out there that are learning things about our world and the universe they never would have otherwise. I know I have.

Some guests may be harder to book than others, although Sanders is known for his openness to appear in unorthodox and unfriendly media (eg, Fox News). But what does that have to do with curating an image and pandering to a certain type of audience?

I'm sure there's some planning, but it's not like your average talk show where he has notes and predetermined questions, he doesn't, the conversations are more organic.

Unfortunately, “dangerous information” is often just code for opinions that Lefties don’t like.

Even with Alex Jones, spottify made them fact check everything he said.

Like CRT? Oh, that's you guys.

Well, that shows sterling judgment.

I don’t know. Let’s let @14thDoctor give some examples of factually incorrect ideas that Rogan platforms. Not minority expert opinions, not unpopular value judgments, but factually incorrect ideas.

He might not but his fans sure seem to think so. Go back the post from @Rimjob Bob to help recall the context of our posts. It had a Tweet comparing Rogan's viewership ratings against various news channel shows. Plus the overarching discussion on various editorialists/infotainers.

Is it fair to compare viewer ratings of journalists vs. non-journalists, or does that seem a little disingenuous?

Actually none of the other entities listed there are journalists either. They’re all interview/opinion shows.

On the opposite side of this point, it’s worth pointing out the inconsistency of the criticisms against Rogan. On the one hand, they want to diminish his success because he’s just an entertainer on a podcast and not someone to be taken seriously. On the other hand, in terms of the quality of the content, the critics expect him to have high journalistic standards for factuality, soundness, and social responsibility.

Either JRE is a serious show or it’s not, so which is it?

It doesn't matter if you've got everyone on the planet desperate to be on your show, you have someone whose job it is to schedule that shit, because not only do you have to work around when they're free, you also have to work around when you're free. Not to mention if you're someone who has multiple guests on at the same time, you have to worry about who wants to be seen with whom. Some folks don't want to be on the same stage as someone else. You have to know these things if you're going to book someone on your show.

That specifically? Nothing, other than the term "Bernie Bros" isn't terribly different than the sneers lobbied at fans of Joe Rogan. What does have to do with it are the piles of money that Spotify threw at Rogan. Dude didn't just get big piles of money, he got to dictate the terms of part of the deal. Namely that his stuff isn't exclusive to Spotify. He's one of the few, if only, person to get such a deal. AFAIK, everybody else who's agreed to a deal with Spotify has had to stop putting out their shows on other platforms. Not Rogan. He got to stay on other platforms for months, while everybody else that I'm aware of who inked a deal, pretty much had to move exclusively to Spotify by the end of the month. You think a guy like that is someone who doesn't carefully curate his image? Come on.

Fair enough. I don't actually watch those shows so I don't know their actual content, but I recognized that some of them were on news channels.

And you don't see how those two things are related? I don't have a strong opinion of him or his show, but doesn't it make sense that if he had higher standards for fact-checking etc., he might be taken more seriously and not considered just an entertainer?

Not that I care one way or another. It's fine if he's content being viewed as an entertainer if he chooses, but people shouldn't take his words or his guests' words as gospel without at first thinking about it.

So what, if anything, about Sandy Hook did Jones say on the podcast? Did Rogan ask him about that?

Again, I am missing what one thing has to do with the other. His sweet deal with Spotify is simply a reflection of his popularity and market power.

Which is sound advice for anyone listening to anyone ever. Is this what the criticism waters down to?