I haven't listened to that much of Joe Rogan, but I feel what's he's really missing is any sort of attempt at understanding through rational criticism. Just letting people talk their same talking points doesn't particularly promote an understanding, rather it just provides another soap box next to a familiar face. The slant of both Rogan and his guests wouldn't matter much if there were analysis of the ideas presented - ie if Joe Rogan stood for some kind of wider context in which guests had to justify their ideals.

For instance, if Meghan Murphy is on as a "gender critical feminist", then why is Rogan letting her go on about "Marxism" ? I'm sure the term means something to her. But unless the best of her opponents are describing their own points in terms of "Marxism", then it's merely a straw man for her to bash.

If she really thinks her definition of "Marxist" is an important lemma for her main point and it's not going to color the conversation too much, then make her fully define that term how she's using it and elaborate whenever she uses it - don't let it be a "stop thinking" terminus as such terms are often used.

In general, guests should be spending the effort to make widely accessible points about their topic, to promote a larger understanding. I know these generally exist from my own attempts at understanding, because they gain followers somehow, and because the opposing camp goes out in their own weeds. Not pushing guests into the larger context just results in propagating the same old self-consistent-in-a-vacuum narrative that all of the political teams rely on.

An important part of having an open mind is questioning what is coming in. A closed mind doesn't take in a point. A too-open mind just lets any point pass through. There is a happy middle that forces conflicting ideas to be reconciled with one another, and we need a lot more of that. I don't know if Joe Rogan can actually be the person we want him to be, but he's certainly in the right position.