Hacker News Reader

Comment by yessirwhatever | Hacker News Reader

My take on this this is it has nothing to do with Joe Rogan, Neil Young, or Spotify.

The mainstream media push against podcasting is really a fight to hold for their power.

People who think they have the power to tell people "what's going on" are annoyed that a mere "podcaster" can also do the same nowadays. It's pretty interesting when you start to notice the derogatory tone mainstream-media celebrities use when talking about podcasts. The idea that some rando (in their mind) can just skirt the whole path they suffered through to get where they are, and have enough power to have their say and affect people's mind. People in this group include people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Matt Lauer, Jake Tapper, etc...

Those television journalists have it in their mind that they're the authority, and their authority is being challenged now by the fact that a podcaster is becoming more and more of a big-shot.

It's pretty much the same push initially against youtube, social-media, and possibly even the internet, before corporate media managed to find a way to use those tools to their benefit. This also explains the push for monitoring, regulating (aka controlling) what's being said via this medium.

Mainstream media is not just TV "journalism", but also the rapidly deteriorating online/print journalism:

- https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-challenge-of-detect...

- https://theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/12/sinister-sounds-po...

- https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/7/22821823/joe-rogan-media-...

View on HN

Funny, I associate podcasts with deep, meaningful well researched news coverage. A good example are the Jupiter Broadcasting podcasts [0], I have learned so much. And they actively shy away from knee jerking, meaning that if a news worthy event is still young (and it's just shouting on twitter) they will either report very minimally and let it play out while researching further or not report on it for now. I so appreciate this, it just feels so balanced, I just know that if there is drama, I get a nice explanation about what happened in a coupled of days.

Also, for the Dutch speaking, Nerdland Maandoverzicht [Nerd land month overview]. Brilliant, in depth with scientists who know their stuff and a lot of humor as well. [1]

[0]: https://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/

[1]: https://maandoverzicht.nerdland.be/

> The idea that some rando (in their mind) can just skirt the whole path they suffered through to get where they are

Joe Rogan has been on national television since the '90s. He paid his dues too. That fact is a wrench in the works of your argument, as it applies to this specific dispute.

I completely agree. To me the idea that the people in positions of power or authority are principled and really concerned about misinformation - about covid or anything else - is laughable. And that goes for the managers at Spotify, media personalities, celebrities of any kind, etc.

> Those television journalists have it in their mind that they're the authority, and their authority is being challenged now by the fact that a podcaster is becoming more and more of a big-shot.

Same thing is happening in print journalism with substack.

"The mainstream media push against podcasting is really a fight to hold for their power."

So Neil Young represents mainstream media?

As far as I can tell, this was a personal initiative from Neil Young, so your points against the arrogance of mainstream media people might be legit, but with no connection to this case.

Well, aren't we all pawns of some narrative, it's something we all cannot deny. Neil believed in mainstream media so he made his move to "defend" the narrative as a tribal instinct. I think Neil should have invited Joe to a podcast to discuss his grievances, rather than just raise an ultimatum.

Showing an openness to discussion would have been so much better for his case.

"Showing an openness to discussion "

Hell yes - there is way too much fanatism in this whole debate and I am frankly quite disappointed with Neil Young's initiative. This is not rocking the free world for me.

I’m only talking about the narrative around the whole “we need to shut Joe up”. I have no interest or idea in why Neil Young himself thought it’d be a good idea to get himself into this, at least in this manner.

>It's pretty interesting when you start to notice the derogatory tone mainstream-media celebrities use when talking about podcasts

It becomes really obvious when the podcaster is a professional analyst for that subject and doing the podcast as a side gig. They'd have the same type of person saying the same thing as a guest but they're being a whiny jerks because said person isn't on their platform answering their cherry picked questions.

Joe Rogan is mainstream media. He’s not some “rando” sticking it to the man. He’s not some guy with a mic and a laptop recording a show and putting it online. He was famous before he started podcasting and he’s getting paid millions of dollars by a corporation to speak exclusively on their platform. The true con in all of this is that Joe Rogan has managed to convince so many people he’s just like them. He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.

> He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.

I quite disagree. But say thats true, so what? Whether he's some rando or not, we should be able to choose who we want to listen to. Shout out to the "muh private company" peeps. I know you're out there

I wish Spotify would let us hide his podcast from the front page of their app, at least. I have no interest in his podcast. Let me remove it.

I wish I could hide the entire category. I don't listen to podcasts on Spotify because I don't like what they are trying to do to the medium.

Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant.

I frequently get annoyed at Joe and as an interviewer I think he got worse over time (perhaps ego). But I respect immensely that

- He stands for free speech and freedom of the arts. And has always done so consistently.

- He still comes out often to admit he is wrong or just an idiot on some topic.

- He has never called for the censorship of anyone else, in stark contrast to figures like Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow.

- Finally, he has on a variety of guests, his interview with Bernie Sanders was great, and the first time I understood more nuanced ideas of his politics.

> Going after the listeners' intelligence is petty and arrogant.

I read that differently: it’s not raw intelligence but the self-image of being an intellectual without actually doing the homework — like the people who have various hot takes based on some post they read who then start doing the “mainstream science is wrong about …” dance with the voice of authority but no actual understanding of the field. We’ve seen that a lot during the pandemic with various claims about things like HCQ, Ivermectin, vitamin D, etc. where people would a strong position that something worked but really had no expertise in the field to assess those claims.

Rogan is dangerous because he’s an entertainer who needs controversy to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in viewership but a lot of his audience think he’s giving them something more than that.

> Rogan is dangerous because he’s an entertainer who needs controversy to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in viewership but a lot of his audience think he’s giving them something more than that.

By that logic, Neil Young is also dangerous. Technically they're both as dangerous as any other media personality or entertainer with a mic (or platform) and an opinion. You shouldn't be listening to Rogan without questioning, nor should you listen to MSM without questioning. Treating what they say as something that needs to be curtailed is at best patronizing to the millions of people that are in the audience, and autocratic/authoritarian at worst.

Saying that he's specifically dangerous (without highlighting that it's the same for others in MSM) is in fact dangerous because it's cherry picking what fits your biased narrative.

There’s a key difference: Neil Young isn’t dangerous because he’s not portraying himself as someone he’s not. He’s not presenting contrarian hot takes but simply saying that the experts are right on this and we should listen to them.

When you try to dismiss that as a “biased narrative” or “authoritarian” it demonstrates the danger of this intellectual sloppiness: you’re conflating two positions as equally worthy of attention without acknowledging that one of them has near-unanimous consensus among experts and has been extensively validated. Trying to “both sides this without accounting for that weight is making you less informed, not more.

He’s literally virtue signaling trying to cancel another entertainers contract. It’s very authoritarian and bent towards a biased narrative. Maybe that’s not the words I would have used myself but I completely catch the meaning.

How is Neil Young adding any value to the world by this action? Do you really see Joe as a threat to something? What is it?

It's not “virtue signaling” to say that someone should not use their platform to foment deadly misinformation. Rogan isn't talking about sports, or debating whether someone's music is better than another artist's, he's giving weight to people who are pedaling advice which will reliably harm people.

It's especially interesting to see you attack the scientific consensus as a “biased narrative” because that's what you are actually trying to promote. The scientific process isn't perfect but it includes a lot of effort to avoid bias, starting with how things like experiments are designed and conducted. Claiming that someone else's politically-motivated position deserves equal weight is revealing that the problem here isn't bias but rather that it's not biased in the direction you would like.

Which doctors and scientists do you specifically think spread ‘deadly misinformation’ on Joe Rogan?

I think the point of the 1st amendment is that to distinguish speech is to apply bias - good or bad… the outcome of such action is selecting winners and losers and a path to oppression.

This is a very inaccurate understanding of the first amendment and freedom of speech in general. The first amendment prevents the government from restricting speech – King George cannot have cops quiet you in the town square — but it doesn't say anything about someone having the right to an audience or that anyone has an obligation to promote everyone else's speech — and, of course, if it did, Rogan certainly wouldn't meet that standard since he selects his guests based on what he thinks the audience will like rather than some attempt to present a full spectrum of opinions.

> since he selects his guests based on what he thinks the audience will like

What makes you think he does that? And if so, isn't this exactly the same thing that MSM does?

Interesting point of view. So why are you labeling what the experts that Rogan brings on as "presenting contrarian hot takes"? Is it just because they're different from what another group of experts are saying? What gives one expert-group the right to say something more than what some other experts-group?

Then again if you read my comment carefully, you can see that I'm not "dismissing" what Neil himself is saying/doing, but what the comment I'm replying to did, which is labeling one thing as dangerous and the other as not. Which IMO is dangerous for the opinion holder themselves because it eradicates any chance of self-inspection.

I'd really like you to specify as clearly and concisely as possibly why you think the two positions are not equally worthy of my attention:

- A) the experts that are pro something

- B) the experts that are against something

Is it just the "near-unanimous consensus" as you put it? How is it near-unanimous? and who's consensus is it? And does consensus make things unquestionable? Not exactly clear on what you're trying to say.

Or are you saying that the people Rogan brings on are not experts? Or were experts and not anymore? If so, please provide some examples.

It’s that they’re not experts at all. For example, Malone was involved in the earliest days of mRNA research in the 1980s. He’s not an expert on what other people subsequently did over the next 3 decades and his endorsement of medications which don’t work and the antivax movement shows that he’s no longer willing to meet the standards of being a scientist.

Now, that might be a sad, slightly comical end to a career if it was something harmless — similar to how, say, the creationists would latch onto one guy with a Ph.D in something science-related to say there was a controversy — but it’s medical malpractice at a time when thousands of people are dying daily and vaccination lowers that number by at least an order of magnitude.

To say that "Malone was involved in the earliest days of mRNA research in the 1980s" is an understatement to say the least really.

Malone is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection [1] and architect of mRNA vaccine platform (check the 9 patents he holds) [2].

Please don't take what I'm saying here as an attack on you personally, but what makes you capable of saying that he's not an expert on "what other people subsequently did over the next 3 decades". And what sort of credentials you personally have to say that whatever medication he's endorsing "don’t work", or that "he’s no longer willing to meet the standards of being a scientist". What are those standards? Is it that he's not part of the consensus you're speaking of?

With that being said, I'm absolutely NOT saying that he is right and the others are wrong either. But to pretend that he's dangerous and others are not just because he doesn't bias in the direction you like is not a good reason really to dismiss it, or to want to brand whatever show he gets hosted on as "dangerous" for doing so. He has as much right to say his mind as others. He's no more dangerous than Anthony Fauci or any other expert involved.

1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297778/pdf/pnas...

2] https://patents.justia.com/inventor/robert-w-malone

Where was his involvement in the development or testing of the vaccines we’re actually using? The extensive safety and efficacy reviews which were conducted in multiple countries prior to authorization? The ongoing review since then?

That’s what matters when discussing his expertise on the subject of the COVID vaccine. It doesn’t matter how great he might have been at one of the many parts of the scientific process which got us here, what matters is the topic we’re actually discussing. Scientists are not like you see in the movies: nobody is an expert at everything and they’re not perfect, either — that’s why the process is built around adversarial review since everyone makes mistakes. Linus Pauling was a Nobel laureate and by all accounts a brilliant researcher but that didn’t mean he was right about vitamin megadoses.

What is "antivax"? He was vaccinated against covid! And afaik doesn't question vaccination in general, he just has raised concerns about the MRNA Covid vaccines because of the Spike Protein. His concerns may be disproportionate and not necessarily what I'd prioritize during a global pandemic but saying he has blood on his hands and calling for censorship seems outrageous...

He’s making false claims about the vaccines’ safety and speaking at antivax events. He doesn’t need to believe what he’s saying - plenty of people find it profitable not to - but that’s irrelevant because his public statements have the same impact whether or not he believes them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/23/dc-anti-v...

> He’s making false claims about the vaccines’ safety

Like what? From your Atlantic piece this seems to be the closest to a false claim and its pretty underwhelming. These pieces read more like I should be upset because he appears is in the same sentence as Steve Bannon or the Proud Boys than the actual content of what he has said.

"Malone may keep company with vaccine skeptics, but he insists he is not one himself. His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary" [1]

> and speaking at antivax events.

The one linked in your second article is an Anti-Vaccine Mandate event, which is not the same thing as being anti vaccine. It's possible to appreciate the benefits of vaccines and simultaneous think the government shouldn't force everyone to take one.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...

It’s fine to criticize that, but you should be even handed and also acknowledge that establishment experts and captured mainstream institutions have tried very hard with deceptive tactics to hide any possibility (I said possibility… I didn’t say fact) that the people dying daily you are concerned about are dying from a virus released by a lab leak in a system managed by what would seem to be your preferred experts. The possibility is there and it should not be deflected from with deception and talking points.

In other words you are so concerned about the credibility of one person, but you don’t seem to care that the entire field has compromised its own credibility by the behavior of its leading figures and key institutions.

Curious about your thoughts regarding misinformation like, "only 1% of patients get addicted". In a single year that line killed more people under thirty than under thirty unvaccinated to covid will ever die. And it was propagated by expert consensus.

Consensus among experts hasn't meant anything more than protection of the ruling class. See Wright brothers and even vaccination for other examples.

Assuming you are talking about Oxycontin, the problem there was that there was no expert consensus - in fact there was no information at all on addictiveness - but the FDA still allowed that language to be used in the promotional literature. The guy who approved it ended up working for Purdue a few months after leaving the FDA.

The story of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family definitely exposes issues with the FDA, but I'm not sure it's a good example of expert consensus getting it wrong. (Not to say that expert consensus is always right.)

Doctors were parroting the line and prescribing the drug anyway. Despite their perception as experts apparently a lot of them never bothered to cross check the alleged study with their common sense and previous training.

No, the difference is opposite from what you say: Neil Young is the one portraying himself as something he is not: a person who supports freedom.

While Joe Rogan frequently calls himself an idiot (meaning it in the sense that we are all idiots about certain topics, but especially him since he often covers topics that are new to him) while bringing in smart people with opposing views and learning from them.

One of these people is representing himself more honestly than the other, and it’s not who you think.

And there is and should be no rule that all discussions of important topics need to be academically rigorous as defined by you.

The best way to beat Neil Young is to be more popular than him. He's failed at this before. He wrote a song called Southern Man which got some airplay, but Lyrnyrd Skynyrd wrote a response that ended up being far, far more popular ("southern man don't need him anyhow") and ultimately Neil Young ended up regretting his original song because he realized it was condescending. https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a43715/swee...

I'm sympathetic to Neil on this one but he's just signalling to his tribe and won't have an impact on anybody else.

How is he more dangerous than corporate media interests?

Also, this usage of the word danger puts a bad taste in my mouth. I really struggle to agree that a podcaster is dangerous, even to the public good, just by his exercise of free speech.

Exactly, it's this sort of fear-mongering that is exactly dangerous.

I've talked with a lot of people who enjoy JRE and other skeptical podcasts, not one of them thinks of themselves as more-intellectual or superior to others who don't.

Interesting, what is your take on Neil Young with regards to GMO?

>Young sings, "I want a cup of coffee but I don't want a GMO" https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/arockstarbucksacof...

Young has been foolish and reactionary in his songs plenty of times. "Let's impeach the president" is not exactly lyrical nuance. That doesn't make Rogan better. He also doesn't have an army of fans who insist up and down that he is actually a proponent of reasoned analysis and listening to expertise.

I’m not saying that Young has all of the answers, only that in this case it’s good advice to go with the medical consensus when there’s an easy way to prevent thousands of deaths daily.

I do agree with you, and Rogan has platformed a lot of people who are famous for opposing the medical consensus.

I disagree with blanket opposition to GMOs — there is legitimate concern about adequate regulation — but the stakes are far lower: thousands of people are dying every day from COVID-19 and vaccination lowers that rate by at least an order of magnitude, while nobody will die because they choose not to eat GMO[1]. I think there’s a really big distinction between having an opinion on a topic which does not have a simple consensus and offering comprehensively-disproven medical advice at a time when the daily death toll is measured in thousands and illness is causing widespread economic disruption.

1. Yes, I’m aware of the value of GMOs for improving crop yield. That’s important, likely necessary to mitigate the impact of climate change, but it’s not a direct cause of death like a virus and most of the food insecurity in the world traces back to politics rather than an absolute shortage.

Also, insisting on only having non-gmo does not force other people to drink non-gmo stuff.

refusing to vaccinate or wear masks, means that if you get sick, you will make others sick

Let's say Young gets his wish and GMOs are banned worldwide. Do you still think nobody will die?

You're comparing two different types of situation: the first is a direct casual relationship: if you get infected with the COVID-19 virus, you are less likely to infect others and are an order of magnitude less likely to die from it if you've been vaccinated — and that's a non-hypothetical situation with how widespread it is and the strain this has placed on the healthcare system, impacting patients with completely unrelated needs.

In contrast, the link between GMOs and food insecurity is nowhere near that simple. If you are starving because you are a member of an ethnic group which is not in power, GMOs won't do a thing. If you are starving because you don't own your farmland and the owner charges too much in rent, GMOs won't change that dynamic. If you are starving because you lack adequate water or have contaminated farmland, GMOs may or may not help enough to make a difference. If you are starving because insects or fungus destroy your crops, GMOs might help if you can afford the seeds but not if, say, they help by letting the crops survive if you spread pesticides which you can't afford. If you are starving because your lack of access to birth control means that you (as was common throughout human history) have more children than your farmland can feed, GMOs probably won't help enough to change your life. If you are starving because other economic conditions force you to sell too much of your crop to pay for other things like shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. GMOs won't really help, either. If you have any of these problems and the company which made the GMOs won't sell you seeds at an affordable price, well, guess what?

That's not saying that GMOs don't have a useful place — as you might note, I described them as necessary for the impacts of climate change on agriculture — but unlike COVID there isn't a single problem and it's not something which can be fixed with a cheap, infrequent action. The problems GMOs help with are only part of a complex set of overlapping problems and they don't solve anything as much as they help manage it — American farmers jumped on Roundup-resistant crops for obvious reasons but it wasn't a game changer for them because the benefits are partially canceled by the ongoing cost of buying seed and pesticides.

Cumulative worldwide Covid deaths since the start of the pandemic : 5.63 million

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

Yearly deaths due to hunger : 9 million

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty...

More people may die from hunger than Covid :https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaynaharris/2020/07/09/more-pe...

Yearly hunger deaths are nearly double Covid deaths.

One of the major issues with hunger is that you can not just ship food from a place that has it to a place that doesn't, that ends up wiping out local farmers and creating more food instability.

GMO are the best way to create crops that are drought and insect resistant. This is huge in bot resisting the effects of global warming and also reducing the amount of pesticides we use.

The idea that we can have food that is better for us and the environment and yet there are people that do their best to prevent it's use is insane.

Again, I don’t oppose GMOs (as you might note from the examples in my comment) but it’s the height of sophistry to claim that they’d solve this problem as effectively as vaccines reduce the risks from the virus actively circulating now. The latter is a direct causal relationship, the former is one factor affecting one of multiple overlapping problems.

Yeah, the problem is not intelligence, but the fact that he simply is uneducated, and does not have the skills of critical thinking, deduction and scientific method. Yet he poses as one, gets involved in debates and makes claims of which he is just not qualified at all. He is dangerous because he inspires people to have strong opinions and reach conclusions about things they are not qualified to assess.

Assuming you're talking about Rogan here, and not one of his guests. He doesn't pose as anything, certainly not as an expert on topics that he's not. So everything besides MMA. Seems to me that you've never listened to his show. He never debates scientists or academics on their areas of expertise. He asks questions.

And your final line about him being dangerous because he inspires people to have opinions about things they are not qualified to assess... Utter garbage. First of all, you don't know anything about his audience, their qualifications and their opinions and conclusions. Second, this line of thinking would extend to all media. Here, let me give you a contemporary example:

- Masks aren't necessary, just wash your hands

- Wear masks

- Closing schools is good

- Closing schools is bad

- The vaccine stops the spread - Don't need masks if you're vaxxed

- The vaccine was never meant to stop the spread, sorry you interpreted it that way - Fauci's own words (how many people died because we were told that the vaxxed don't have to worry about infecting anyone any more?)

- Wear masks even though you're vaxxed

- Get the Vax to save others even though it doesn't stop the spread

The mainstream media has been a pile of hot garbage and endless contradictions during the pandemic. You're expected to just take everything they say at face value and "trust the science". That right there is what's truly dangerous.

The media and government should be honest and explain that "the science" is far from conclusive, rapidly evolving, and that there are many unknowns. Instead, they of course assume that everyone is a moron and must be told what to do.

The idea that Rogan is dangerous because some morons may do whatever a guest tells them to do is full of hypocrisy. That, and neither Rogan nor his guests actually tell anyone what to do. But they may inspire people to ask questions and dig deeper. And the fact that this is so frowned upon in this day in age, is the tragedy of our time.

So by your logic every media member, fauci, and even the president is dangerous. They made a lot of serious claims that the data showed were completely false. Here are just a couple.

Masks aren't effective You wont need more than 2 vaccinations There are 0 side effects You cannot get covid if you are vaccinated You cannot get hospitalized from covid if you are vaccinated You cannot die from covid if you are vaccinated There will never be vaccine mandate Covid natural immunity is worse than the vaccine

All these things were false when they said them and are still false today. Furthermore at the time they were said the actual data said the opposite.

Seems to me they way more dangerous than Rogan as they are supposed to be sources of trust to the American people but instead are just making up stuff to fit their political narrative. IMO if these so called sources of trust didn't straight up lie to the public for 2 years, Rogan would not be able to sway so many people.

With great power comes great responsibility, though.

No it's not. Joe Rogan's content is objectively stupid. He somehow manages to amass an audience while entertaining some of the dumbest thoughts I've ever heard. He gives experts and charlatans the same platform, and treats them as though they're equally experienced or qualified.

Refusing to have Jordan Peterson, a psychologist, on your show to say pseudo-intellectual nonsense like "climate doesn't exist" is not censorship, it's just basic editorial sense. Rogan somehow fools people into thinking this lack of sense is a virtue.

Was Donald Trump a mainstream politician? He was president!

Yes - he wasn’t just some fluke but had near-unanimous support from both elected Republicans and the most important right-wing media sources like Fox.

Rogan isn’t that mainstream but he’s influential enough that you can tell what he’s covered recently by all of the people talking about it. Whatever he used to be, he’s mainstream now.

> Yes - he wasn’t just some fluke but had near-unanimous support from both elected Republicans and the most important right-wing media sources like Fox.

Not at first he didn't.

That depends on how far back you go. 2005, sure, but by the time he was running he was pretty much in tune with the tone on Fox; most of the remaining moderate Republicans were purged as part of the post-9/11 turn towards previously extreme positions. A lot of the shock came from people who didn’t follow the right-wing media that closely and hadn’t realized how normalized those positions had become.

I take it you were watching a lot of fox news back then? Or is that just what you "heard"? Because I was watching Fox news back then, and you are absolutely incorrect.

That's my recollection as well. I didn't watch FOX or anything conservative really, but the highlights that I sometimes came across were all pushing Bush and maybe a couple of other candidates here and there.

Why do you consider him mainstream, because he has a million+ viewers?

>He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.

In all honesty, I think you're proving the point that online hatred needs to be curbed before it becomes overwhelmingly destructive to society. Who are these people who so obviously wrongly think of themselves as intellectuals, in your mind, when they really are nothing of the sort? ALL of Joe Rogans listeners, or just the ones opposed to government-enforced medical procedures?

> The true con in all of this is ..

.. is that its possible to espouse hatred (calling Joe Rogan a con, people 'think they are intellectuals', etc.) for an out-group and not be called to task over the reasoning behind that hatred.

Do you hate Joe Rogan because he's mainstream, or because he espouses a view that is not mainstream while appearing to be a mainstream media personality? How is it possible to hold both positions?

Personally, I am not pro-Joe Rogan, I enjoy his podcasts but don't agree with his personality and find his views on some things utterly intolerable, but I am anti-hate speech, which we have seen has allowed the commitment and further justification of so many actual crimes in Americas' socio-political environment recently. Surely there comes a time in every American's mind where they need to balance the strength of their states freedom-granting instruments (the Bill of Rights) with their desire to tone-police the cultures they don't like into oblivion... isn't this how the Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria/Yemen mess got started in the first place - Americans deciding they don't like the voices of some out-group?

>Do you hate Joe Rogan because he's mainstream, or because he espouses a view that is not mainstream while appearing to be a mainstream media personality

It's that he is mainstream and provably wrong most of the times he opens his mouth, and barely any opposition is ever allowed onto the podcast. It is an actual example of an "ideological echo chamber", unlike most of the times a conservative proclaims it.

Mainstream media is quite often provably wrong too, but yet not held up to the same standards (unless you're 'a conservative' with a "cancel CNN!" t-shirt) .. so when they come for Joe Rogan, and you say nothing, who will be there to protect you when they come for CNN/MSNBC/NYT?

Essentially, you are saying you despise Joe Rogan because he's mainstream, pretending not to be, and mis-informing, while also pretending not to .. so does this begin a new era in the American socio-political landscape where news is no longer going to be used to propagandize an entire country, and 'mainstream media' is going to be held to much, much higher levels of truthful standards than ever before?

Because its going to be great to see the disinformation inherent in the modern American media landscape be replaced with actual truth-telling. Like, a lot of us who don't live in that bubble are going to be very relieved to see the truth being told, for a change, about such things as Ukraine, Yemen, and so on ..

Or do we only care about Joe Rogan because he impacts the lives of fellow American citizens?

Everything after "essentially" is you being very presumptuous about what I believe and I didn't sign up to defend the version of me made of straw.

"presumptuous" straw man?

>he is mainstream and provably wrong most of the times he opens his mouth

I mean, this is your stated opinion.

But he's not mainstream or we'd be seeing his show on the televisions in the airport - instead he's only available on special platforms that have to be sought out .. and your opinion that he is wrong most of the time is also specious.

But lets assume that both of these points of view are 'true': now that it is okay to start cancelling 'mainstream shows' because of the disinformation they spread, do you support the winding down of CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times - who have each been found guilty of spreading disinformation multiple times in their history?

The issue is, at what point is 'your side' more informative than 'the other side'? When it becomes mainstream? When it has the approval of known, entrenched establishment entities who stand to profit a great deal from their disinformation campaigns (as is the case with CNN/MSNBC/etc.)?

Mostly, I just want to understand why cancelling mainstream shows should stop at Joe Rogan, in your mind.

I'd LOVE to see CNN and Rachel Maddow - and Tucker Carlson, too - get cancelled in my lifetime over their quite clearly profit-motivated propaganda activities .. so if that is the inevitable end result of the "Cancel Joe Rogan Movement", then - sorry Joe - I'm in.

Stop. I'm not even in the US. I give very few shits about what you think I think is good or bad journalism, or what political pundits I'd defend. Takes my words as they are and please, shut up.

Mainstream for millennials and gen z - maybe even gen X. He’s probably not mainstream for boomers.

Because your definition of mainstream is incredibly narrow. In the age of the Internet, mostly boomers and some gen X are watching TV. I don’t watch what’s on any tv anywhere. I haven’t used TV in the traditional sense in over a decade and that’s very common in my demographic. To me - those “news” networks spread as much disinformation as Joe Rogan does. (Which is to say - a lot and practically all the time)

> He’s not some “rando” sticking it to the man. He’s not some guy with a mic and a laptop recording a show and putting it online.

That's the point. He's not a rando anymore but he absolutely was (at least as a talkshow host). Joe was indeed "some guy with a mic and a laptop recording the show" as you describe (here, check the first episode https://www.facebook.com/JoeRoganClips/videos/the-very-first..., sorry for FB link, but I can't find it anywhere anymore).

> he’s getting paid millions of dollars by a corporation to speak exclusively on their platform

He may be getting paid a lot for his show by Spotify, but he's no corporate media. From what I see he's still as genuine as he was before the exclusive deal. Joe has a family and he made it big, which pissed off the "we tell the population what to believe" crowd.

> He’s horoscopes and crystals for people who think they’re intellectuals.

What this tells me is that you haven't listened to that show at all. You couldn't be more wrong on this, it's pretty much as far away from that type of BS as it can get. Mainstream media is at this point the horoscope/crystal people.

Joe Rogan has _never_ been a rando. He started off as a massively popular MMA commentator. Anyone that's followed fighting sports any time between the 90s and 2010 has a giant chance of having heard him. Don't prop him up as a self-made man who rose up from nowhere.

He was on a few sitcoms and a standup comedian before the UFC

> popular MMA commentator

That makes him a rando for the majority of people just like me, those who are not interested in or follow MMA.

The point I was making is not whether he’s really a rando or not, TV journalists sure think he is, because according to them he shouldn’t get a seat on the table.

> he shouldn't get a seat on the table

I'd probably agree with that, depending on the reason for gathering around the table.

If the topic is professional fighting or podcasting, he belongs there. If the topic is immigration policy or foreign affairs, he probably shouldn't be invited.

Is there anybody who deserves a seat at every table or, conversely, at no tables?

Your point wasn't lost, just poorly reasoned. Joe Rogan is mainstream media, has decades of experience in broadcasting and a multi-million dollar broadcasting deal. He's not an outsider.

"TV journalists" criticize him for spreading misinformation.

If he's not self-made, who made him? Where did he come from?

> He may be getting paid a lot for his show by Spotify, but he's no corporate media.

It is really very hard to think of a more exact description of "corporate media" than a media that gets funded by the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars by a corporation for the rights.

He is literally corporate media.

I think what people mean by corporate media is media which serves corporate interests. As in, fluffing up Big Tech or Big Oil or Big Pharma. Any media organization with employees is necessarily a corporation, right? So by your definition, all media is corporate media, tautologically.

No one is listening to him bc he was on Fear Factor.

He is mainstream media to the extent of the mainstream media's obsession with covering him.

"intellectuals"? his audience is mostly dudebros.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com