When your platform is as massive as rogan’s, you have a responsibility not to cause harm through misinfo. He’s worth hundreds of millions. He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew. Even when he does push back, it’s lukewarm and wishy washy. Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US. To which crowder replied that it was at least hundreds of thousands.
Also on the original topic, this lives rent free in my head:
Joe’s audience isn’t there for fact finding. Hiring fact finders would cost more in ratings than it would in salaries. Joe’s entire purpose in existing is to make facts seem boring and irrelevant.
I somewhat agree, but the issue is that people do in fact take rogan as an authoritative source. A month ago a guy was talking to me about litter boxes in schools. That was debunked over a year ago. I told him it was absolutely bullshit and debunked. He insisted it was real. I asked for his source. He said Joe rogan. I lost my chill a bit and said “oh well then I stand corrected” very sarcastically. To his credit he looked it up and realized he was wrong, but this is the kind of issue rogan causes.
I bet he didn’t stop watching Rogan though. It took me a long time to get it, but I finally figured out that people who believe that nonsense don’t want facts.
Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US.
See, this is what I’m talking about. It sounds like you wanted him to get into an extended argument with Crowder, or kick him out of the studio, or something. I think it’s okay if someone makes a claim, you on-the-spot look up the truth and tell your audience what the actual truth is, and then move on. I think people are capable to determine for themselves that it’s an indication that Crowder is full of shit when that happens and start to incorporate it into their mental picture. He’s chill enough about it that Crowder is willing to go on the show, but he’s also not trying to be impartial about what the actual truth is. I can’t off the top of my head think of any other place that would interview Crowder from a “neutral” point of view, but also, not let him get away with bullshit and fact-check him to his face in real time about it, not from an “opposing” guest, but from the official editorial voice.
He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew.
This part, and the greentext about it, I’ll pretty much agree with. It is damaging that Joe’s wading into these complex topics and bringing no qualification whatsoever, which sometimes leads to awful fuck-ups like the Trump endorsement.
More pushback at least to the “hundreds of thousands” comment at the very least. But also, that was one of the better moments in the show. Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Yeah. That’s a problem. I think he’s popular specifically because he exemplifies the general attitude of “it’s more important to be chill than to be qualified, or get overly excited about the laughable falsehood of whatever charlatan is in front of me right now” that’s popular in the US. And having him around probably snowballs that attitude a little bit further along.
When your platform is as massive as rogan’s, you have a responsibility not to cause harm through misinfo. He’s worth hundreds of millions. He could have a full time fact-checking team instead of poor Jamie having to debunk the bullshit his guests spew. Even when he does push back, it’s lukewarm and wishy washy. Like when he had crowder on and interviewed him about his anti-trans documentary, and the fucker claimed there were millions of children under 18 on hormone blockers. Jamie looked out up and the number was less than 1000 per year in the US. To which crowder replied that it was at least hundreds of thousands.
Also on the original topic, this lives rent free in my head:
Joe’s audience isn’t there for fact finding. Hiring fact finders would cost more in ratings than it would in salaries. Joe’s entire purpose in existing is to make facts seem boring and irrelevant.
I somewhat agree, but the issue is that people do in fact take rogan as an authoritative source. A month ago a guy was talking to me about litter boxes in schools. That was debunked over a year ago. I told him it was absolutely bullshit and debunked. He insisted it was real. I asked for his source. He said Joe rogan. I lost my chill a bit and said “oh well then I stand corrected” very sarcastically. To his credit he looked it up and realized he was wrong, but this is the kind of issue rogan causes.
I bet he didn’t stop watching Rogan though. It took me a long time to get it, but I finally figured out that people who believe that nonsense don’t want facts.
See, this is what I’m talking about. It sounds like you wanted him to get into an extended argument with Crowder, or kick him out of the studio, or something. I think it’s okay if someone makes a claim, you on-the-spot look up the truth and tell your audience what the actual truth is, and then move on. I think people are capable to determine for themselves that it’s an indication that Crowder is full of shit when that happens and start to incorporate it into their mental picture. He’s chill enough about it that Crowder is willing to go on the show, but he’s also not trying to be impartial about what the actual truth is. I can’t off the top of my head think of any other place that would interview Crowder from a “neutral” point of view, but also, not let him get away with bullshit and fact-check him to his face in real time about it, not from an “opposing” guest, but from the official editorial voice.
This part, and the greentext about it, I’ll pretty much agree with. It is damaging that Joe’s wading into these complex topics and bringing no qualification whatsoever, which sometimes leads to awful fuck-ups like the Trump endorsement.
More pushback at least to the “hundreds of thousands” comment at the very least. But also, that was one of the better moments in the show. Most of the time he just goes “wow that’s crazy” to whatever ridiculous shit his guests say.
Yeah. That’s a problem. I think he’s popular specifically because he exemplifies the general attitude of “it’s more important to be chill than to be qualified, or get overly excited about the laughable falsehood of whatever charlatan is in front of me right now” that’s popular in the US. And having him around probably snowballs that attitude a little bit further along.