No, this is not how you do “open research”. He’s a shock jock ffs. A good one, maybe, but not Woodward or Bernstein.
Their ideas were so shocking they weren't only banned, but were made pariahs of, thrown into asylums, and burned.
The best we can do is hear different ideas with an open mind, and use our logic and discernment to come to our own judgements.
Since the quality of judgement differs greatly from person to person, it's dangerous to allow your flow of information to be filtered by corporate or governmental pressures; let alone by any single segment of society.
Though all that said, I'm against deplatforming him.
At worst he stands to gain less money out of his show. It’s the business risk he took with being risqué, and as any risk, he may take a fall.
He has a 3 hour conversation with a guest where he talks at lengths about pretty much anything he wants to ask them about.
That isn't a shock jock!
I'm guessing not. Most of these people calling to censor him have never listened to a second of his show besides the sound bites the corporate media (who see him as competition even though he's never claimed to be a journalist) has played. Or they are articles out headlines. You can tell someone who's never watched him because they claim he's a right winger when really he's further left than they are.
Or, for the last two years, Covid and only Covid.
And anyone who disagrees with him, including the world's leading experts are stupid.
Then he has Alex Jones on to say provocative things to boost his audience.
But yes, we will call this open research, and not being a shock jock somehow...?
like jim gaffigan, adam curry, carrot top, beeple, steven pinker, ron white, snoop dog, gilbert gottfried, chuck palahniuk... i mean, i could go on and on.
it's like people don't even look at his guests.
It's the biggest story in the world right now and if affecting everyone. You expect him to have a 3 hour conversation and not talk about covid once? And despite what your echo chambers tell you he doesn't only talk about covid.
Like every other TV show, news papers, radio program because it has been a persistent feature of our lives for almost 2 years now. How is this a criticism?
> And anyone who disagrees with him, including the world's leading experts are stupid.
I doubt he said this. I've seen clips where he has questioned orthodoxy surrounding things like mask mandates and vaccine mandates and the effectiveness therein. But I doubt he called people straight out of stupid because they disagree with him.
> Then he has Alex Jones on to say provocative things to boost his audience.
And? Are you saying he should get boring people on his show? That he shouldn't have popular people on there?
Alex Jones was made notorious because of his removal from many social media platforms.
Many people find Alex Jones entertaining. That doesn't mean they agree with his views. I find Alex Jones entertaining but I think many of his views are ridiculous.
> But yes, we will call this open research, and not being a shock jock somehow..
I didn't say it was open research. I was disputing the fact he is a shock jock. A shock jock goes out of their way to be controversial. Think Howard Stern in the 90s. Joe Rogan isn't isn't that.
The controversy around Joe Rogan is drummed up by his competition (tradition news and media) to ironically get views (the thing you were complaining about by him having Alex Jones on the show).
Howard Stern is a shock jock, and a crass one too.
So much of this outrage seems to be coming from people who don’t watch Rogan and simply base their opinions on second-hand information.
This theme stretches beyond Joe Rogan
If someone's decided to be upset over Rogan, there’s not much he can, or should, do about it. The content is not shocking, it’s the intolerant overreaction that shocks the wannabe censors.
Had he had a show no one cares about, he wouldn’t get as listeners and as many advertisers.
But there’s another side to promoting such speech, which is taking responsibility for it when it makes some people and advertisers reject him.
Spotify and Rogan try to only take the upside without the downside.
The content - offensive/inaccurate or not - doesn't matter if the host knows their show causes outrage and chooses to lean into it.
Edit: He's different from other shock jocks, though, in that he's been smart enough to do this in a way that straddles the line - he doesn't look like a Limbaugh or a Stern and can say that he's "just doing research" and "only asking questions", while still intentionally profiting from outrage.
People like him because he appears to genuinely mean that.
It is clear that if arguments like how often he said "cunt" or "nigger" on air get tossed into the debate of censoring his podcasts on covid-related matters, the pitchfork brigade is just out to get him. Not much coherency here.
That's quite a shocking low effort attack that means absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe your claims.
What this thread cries about it Rogan and Spotify trying to minimize the downside of risk they have just suffered - what gives you bigger gain can also cause you bigger losses (and not that big here tbh)
Joe Rogan Experience in particular is just him and some other dude/dudette talking for 3 hours straight.
I have never seen media more unscripted than these podcasts, except maybe live sports, but even those have egregious commercial breaks. Given how unscripted and extemporaneous his 3+ hour interviews are, I highly doubt he even has time to make them scripted, contrived and "editorialize(d) for creating controversy". What is he supposed to do prepare 3 hours for every 3 hours of podcasting he does, editorialize that 3 hours, and by the way he has another job as a comedian, so after that would he prepare for his comedy routine, and then by the time the runs his show and hangs out, he wakes up before he has any chance to sleep because he does like 3 of these interviews every week?
There is no editorialization, and if there were it would have to be extremely minimal. Trust me, just watch a few of them, entire episodes that is. Its just two people talking for 3 hours straight, maybe on drugs, maybe a little high, maybe just completely hammered, or completely sober. Its just two people talking, and he puts it up online so others can enjoy it as well, and you're trying to convince yourself he does it for a motive. You can do the exact same thing too, just talk with someone you find interesting for a few hours and put it up online, no need to be mad that he has a big audience.
I could care less about losing internet points - but you should look at yourself in the mirror and see what it represents about who you are.