> Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere.
The market would suggest otherwise.
The market would suggest otherwise.
"Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all sides of many issues, and he asks sincere questions for hours on end.
The New York times these days has 6 million digital subscribers, that's about six times more than they had in print circulation during their heyday. They've also consistently grown in revenue and are in way better financial situation than they were during the slump a few years ago. So just going by your market story this narrative just doesn't check out. Rogan is doing well, but so is the times. And so is WaPo and the WSJ.
I think it's noteworthy to point out that all the major newspapers have shifted their revenue model towards subscriptions, away from ads. That means there's been a real increase in engagement with readers who pay for content.
"In January 2015, the podcast was listened to by more than 11 million people. By October 2015, it had grown to acquire 16 million downloads a month. By April 2019, the podcast had 190 million downloads a month."
That's a lot higher a number than your NYT 6 million subscribers (-1 as I just canceled in early June after it became clear how far along it is in its transformation into naked narrative-driven agitprop).
The NYT has become a niche market.
But that doesn't say anything about what the NYT has become. They have a larger audience now than they had in the past, and their status isn't just a function of size of viewership.
Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No. The fact that there's a new entertainment personality in mass media doesn't say anything about the state of journalism.
Who knows, though? If people influence opinions, by definition don't they influence social or political life?
This reads like someone who discovered it because Elon Musk showed up along with a bunch of other celebrities in the last 2 years.
Give it some more time and you'll get over this savant view of Rogan. If anything I'd recommend going back to watching some episodes when it was filmed in his living room, not his millionaire's playground shop
I think you mistook my comment as saying "Joe Rogan podcast is great and everyone should listen." I was only saying that it is a source of "opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere," and that he has obtained a remarkable amount of working class listeners.
He had Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInees on, and never once challenged them on their white supremacist views.
The point is to hear what his interesting guests have to say, not for Rogan’s take on what he thinks they are saying.
Charlie Rose used to fill that role, until his bad behavior came to light.
Perhaps I should I have just relied on what Twitter and countless parrot sites say about him (try a search on his name). But I didn't.
In https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-... I found:
"I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”.
"Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral."
"Naturally, I oppose all morals and laws that create unjust advantages for either men or women."
and other reasonable statements to which which vast numbers of people would assent.
https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-...
Are these the views of a white supremacist? Perhaps he's a secret one for all I know. If so it would be nice if we stopped using gross simplistic labels for people and simply attacked his views head on (if we wish) quoting their actual words and not attributing views to them that they don't appear to hold.
“I don’t view humanity as a single species...” —Podcast FDR2768, “Collective Guilt for Fun and Profit”, Saturday call-in show, August 9, 2014
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.” —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.” —YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015
That's the issue with all of this, people like Molyneux put on a smile and a suit, covering up with vague statements and dog whistles.
He's still going because he has had an independent publishing platform and he's not dependent on a media network to survive. If someone else were to do the same thing.. they couldn't survive.
People paint him that way not because he has them on there, but because he almost always lets them spew their nonsense without any push back because he isn't an actually good interviewer.
Dave Chapelle, too. Comedians are lying to you (mostly), they are regular people trying to figure shit out (often times with you listening at home).
This is why they are popular.
Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.