I think you mean crackpot views.
> carefully curated information which is incomplete
Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.
It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2]
W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests?
Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule.
---
[1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ (NSFW)
"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.
Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
OK. Here's the ones I ignore:
He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here.
False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet.
False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff...
Here are the serious ones:
Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai... "A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said.
Distorted statements about the approval status of vaccines: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor...
I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them.
If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above.
If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted.
If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted.
If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.
Your assertion seems wholly immature without any explanation for your position.
Isn't the Tom Brady retirement news fiasco enough to convince you that most media does not confirm and verify information?
For those not familiar with this...
"NFL Twitter Revels in Tom Brady Retirement Fiasco: ‘Gisele Asked Tom to Take the Garbage Out Now That Hes Retired and Tom Had Second Thought’s Real Quick’"
https://www.essentiallysports.com/nfl-news-twitter-revels-in...
"Tom Brady wraps up an unprecedented NFL career. His TB12sports Twitter account wrote: “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons." Still at the top of his game, he had cited a desire to spend more time with family."
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1487527717562032130
The Twitter linked AP Story Now...
"Despite reports that he is retiring, Brady has told the Tampa Bay Buccaneers he hasn’t made up his mind, two people familiar with the details told The Associated Press.
It’s unknown when he’ll make an announcement, leaving his team guessing and fans hoping for one more run that seems unlikely considering his age and family situation."
https://apnews.com/article/tom-brady-retirement-reports-8ec4...
"AP sources: Despite reports, Tom Brady hasn’t made up mind"
The video/audio in question is from September 27, 2005, from the show called _Opie and Anthony_ [1]. The guest was Bill Burr. The full show is here [2], the segment starts at 2:00:17. Also, during that time, it seems that some "mystery apes" were a thing [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_Anthony
As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides.
Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations.
I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.
Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority?
OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...
>Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.
What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.