
Why Is Joe Rogan So Popular? - paulpauper
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/my-joe-rogan-experience/594802/
======
everdrive
I'll take a stab. I'm not a "fan," but I do like to listen to him from time to
time. He's ...

\- Open to nearly any idea.

\- (almost) Never talks down to the audience or his guest. Although the
motivations are almost certainly different, this is a bit reminiscent of David
Letterman always playing a bit of a fool. It's generally endearing to most
people.

\- Generally friendly and congenial.

In a world full of Joe Rogans, you wouldn't have very many good interviews.
He's not adversarial, he's often not prone to, nor equipped to meaningfully
disagree with a guest, and he's open to multiple, mutually contradictory
opinions. But, the adversarial interview has gained in popularity for so long
that it's become the norm. In this environment, he's a breath of fresh air.
There really is a place for hearing someone lay out their views in a long,
methodical way without being badgered every few minutes by an interviewer
looking for a sound bite.

~~~
acjohnson55
I listen occasionally. I generally find his conversations interesting, and
sometimes even enlightening. But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of
unchallenged straw man beatdowns from his more polemic guests. There's an
argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go unchallenged. That
it's a tacit endorsement.

~~~
macspoofing
>But it can be frustrating to hear 3 hours of unchallenged straw man beatdowns
from his more polemic guests.

This is a philosophical position: do you see the interview as a way to learn
or understand how someone else thinks on specific topics, or do you want to
use the interview as a club to tell them why they are wrong (and virtue signal
to your audience how right you are).

I find it much worse for a biased, or uninformed interviewer challenging a
guest on every point they make (usually by relying on slogans, talking-points
or simply a strawman of their position) - making the entire conversation an
exercise in frustration for the interviewee and the listener.

>There's an argument that it's actually not noble to let bullshit go
unchallenged.

Bullshit according to whom? Joe Rogan had Bernie Sanders on recently, I can
tell you right now, a good half of what Bernie was saying was pure bullshit.
I'm pretty sure Bernie supporters would disagree with that.

~~~
dagw
_do you see the interview as a way to learn or understand how someone else
thinks on specific topics_

Except Rogan isn't necessarily even good at that. All you'll really learn
about are the talking points they want to present to the world. Without
pushing them on some issues or asking them to argue or defend those points
it's impossible to understand how they actually think about the issues. Or as
someone else in this thread put it, if you're not pushing back at any point
then it's just an infomercial.

~~~
macspoofing
>Except Rogan isn't necessarily even good at that.

That's a subjective assessment. I think Rogan is very good actually, and there
was circumstances when he skewered the interviewee by simply asking them to
clarify their position. The recent example of this was his interview with Bari
Weiss, who had the self-inflicted misfortune to simply assert that Tulsi
Gabbard is an "Assad Toadie" and Joe Rogan, politely, asked her to clarify -
and Bari fell over herself and couldn't even define what 'toadie' meant in
context. I've never seen that kind of politie (and unintended) evisceration on
network TV.

>All you'll really learn about are the talking points they want to present to
the world.

It's actually quite hard to delegate to talking points in a 3 hour freeform
conversation. I would argue that the alternative, the 60 Minutes-style
interview format which wholly consists of talking points and sharp edits to
fit a narrative. Those kinds of interviews are much more prone to simply
generic speech as the interviewee tries as hard as they can to be
uncontroversial because they know the interviewer is actively trying to catch
them buggle some phrase, and then push this sound bite in every preview of the
interview.

>Without pushing them on some issues or asking them to argue or defend those
points it's impossible to understand how they actually think about the issues.

That's what makes him great. He's humble about his level of knowledge. He
knows he's ignorant about many things. Referencing the Bari Weiss interview,
how many interviewers would ever admit to not understanding a word or a
concept and genuinely asking for a definition. This is in sharp contrast to
"mainstream" interviewers pretending they are experts, when it is painfully
obvious they are not.

>Or as someone else in this thread put it, if you're not pushing back at any
point then it's just an infomercial.

You say that and maybe it feels that this should be true, but if you actually
listen to his interviews, it just doesn't come of as an infomercial. I keep
going back to contrasting mainstream interviews which in fact, do come off
fake, wooden and infomercial-like.

------
phito
To me it's not about Joe Rogan himself, but his guests. He gets great people
on his show and lets them talk, and that's why I like his podcast so much. I
don't listen to it because I especially like Joe (although I find him to be a
rational human being), but because he has a big variety of interesting guests.

Most of the discussions on his podcasts sound healthy and sane, but sometimes
he gets more wild/controversial ones which is always entertaining.

He just doesn't go to the extremes. No clickbait, no outrage, no suspicious
promotions, he just feels down to earth which is refreshing in this day and
age on the internet. It doesn't mean that he's always right, but he realizes
this and doesn't try to push his opinions too hard.

I find that the "haters" that always criticize him are missing the point of
the postcast which is to hear the guests, not Joe.

~~~
athorax
Exactly, the best part about Joe is he gets out of the way and lets his guests
do most of the talking and just gently moves the conversation along.

~~~
pssdbt
Mostly this, though he does call people out on things that he thinks are
wrong. The Adam Conover episode comes to mind. It's a good balance though.

------
jdietrich
_" If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value
in people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to it,
even when the harm outweighs the good. It comes from a generous place, but it
amounts to careless cruelty. He just won’t write people off, and then he
compounds the sin by throwing them a lifeline at the moment when they least
deserve it."_

I'm no fan of Joe Rogan, but this criticism sounds like high praise to me.

~~~
fullshark
Not in an age where people want to use (traditional/social) media to bully
people into ideological agreement with them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Not in an age where people want to use (traditional/social) media to bully
> people into ideological agreement with them.

I.e., every age ever; the times when it seems less so are just the times when
one faction has been so successful that public dissent from the mainstream
view has been effectively suppressed, minimizing viisble conflict (that
appearance is probably especially strong if that side is your own.)

------
Eric_WVGG
The problem with Joe Rogan is that he’s the standard bearer for that weird
form of anti–intellectualism masquerading as intellectual curiosity.

For a bit of background: His first big “gig” was on a (rather incredible, imo)
sitcom in the mid-nineties called NewsRadio. Somewhere in his audition he
mentioned that he thought the moon landing was a hoax, which at the time was
probably the craziest thing that the interviewers had ever heard (we didn’t
have vocal flat-earthers on the Internet back then). So they decided that his
part would be just that, the crazy conspiracy theorist engineer guy. Fast
forward.

I bet a lot of us had some kind of phase in college where you started to learn
a little bit about the virtues of skepticism, then later post-modernism and
deconstructionism… Some folks go down that rabbit hole and the next thing you
know you’re up at 2am bleary–eyed insisting that this glass of beer in your
hand is corporeal. The guy across from you keeps repeating “well, prove it,”
and that ostensibly makes him a smart guy.

And now we’ve got flat–earth conventions and “fake news” and Joe Rogan on the
internet having earnest intellectual conversations with the entire gamut of
thinkers, politicians, crazies and scientists. The problem is that at the end
of the day, he is, as he’s willing to admit, kind of a dumb guy, and this
style of discourse is just making everything else dumber.

~~~
tosser0001
I've seen people praise him for changing his mind about the moon landing being
a hoax, but the fact that he accepted that idea at all to me is just totally
indefensible. I can't take anyone seriously that could even countenance that
for a second.

~~~
jvagner
He’s amused by ideas. I think that’s where it came from.

I’ve been listening to him for years now, most often on BART. I can’t resolve
his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones, but what I have come to
terms with is this: almost everyone I really know has some crazy or
indefensible belief. For many it’s their family or partner relationship. Dig
into that, and people are living lives premised on an externally unacceptable
belief. Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political
beliefs are hard to swallow.

Joe puts his out there. He’s not embarrassed by himself. From there, he makes
more sense.

That said, he has a platform. I think he’s a net positive.

~~~
whatshisface
> _I can’t resolve his acceptance of Alex “he’s a really nice guy” Jones,_ >
> _Have any finance people in your life? I guarantee their political beliefs
> are hard to swallow._

I don't really enjoy Joe Rogan due to the college dorm room style mentioned
above, but I don't understand this sentiment against Joe for being too
accepting. There are people who get very unhappy whenever they are reminded
that their opinions are not universal, and even further beyond them is a
position that in my opinion is pretty dangerous: people who dislike anyone
that doesn't share their militancy. People who really hate Joe Rogan because
he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's
polarization problem.

~~~
mrmuagi
> he fraternizes with the enemy are helping to contribute to America's
> polarization problem.

This statement is a bit ironic no? Then again I have no clue what helps get
rid of polarisation.

~~~
whatshisface
> _People who really hate Joe Rogan because he fraternizes with the enemy are
> helping to contribute to America 's polarization problem._

Grammatically, that sentence is saying that the people who hate Joe Rogan for
his liberality are contributing to polarization.

~~~
mrmuagi
Ah, I misread it. Cheers!

------
discopicante
I listen to some of Rogan's podcasts (usually not comedians or MMA commentary)
because of the long conversation format. For me, it's more about who Rogan is
talking to rather than being interested in listening to Rogan talk.

Whether it's POTUS candidates (Bernie, Yang, Gabbard), intellectuals (Dr.
Cornell West, Eric Weinstein), interesting individuals (musicians,
nutritionists, etc.), or the more 'controversial' guests you get to hear a
'real' conversation and understand more about the person he's talking to.

You can't get away with canned soundbites in this format, so I think it leads
to less propaganda and BS and more considerate dialogue and thinking.

Whether Joe Rogan is the best person to host these conversations is negated by
the fact that he's one of the only people doing this. To that end, I support
him 100%.

~~~
dagw
One of Rogan's both strength and weaknesses as a host is that he never pushes
back or challenges his guests on anything, asks really probing questions or
even really prepares for the interview. He basically just lets his guests talk
about whatever they want for as long as they want with him nodding along and
throwing the occasional softball. This does lead a very natural flowing
conversation where the guest can freely present whatever information they
wanted to present.

I do however dispute your claim that this leads to "less propaganda and BS".
Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any
claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as
they want, safe in the knowledge the Rogan posses neither interest or the
background to challenge them on any of it.

~~~
linuxftw
Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience decide
for themselves what is BS and what is not? Whose job is it to police thought
crimes?

If you want the mainstream viewpoint on whatever someone is talking about, go
read or watch the mainstream, there's no shortage of people telling you what
is acceptable already.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Why can't he impartially present his guests ideas and let his audience
> decide for themselves what is BS and what is not?

Because at that point it's just an infomercial.

~~~
linuxftw
I'm not sure his guests are paying to be on the program, I don't think I've
seen too many shilling for some product on his show.

But, even if you consider it an infomercial, I don't see what the problem is.
Don't like what they have to say? Don't watch. Not sure you can trust his
guests? Don't watch.

~~~
ceejayoz
You don't have to have a product to be shilling something, and it doesn't have
to be a paid infomercial to be an infomercial.

I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher
edges and ramifications of their beliefs are more valuable to their listeners,
and will preferentially watch/listen them instead as a result. You're welcome
to disagree if you like.

The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan is a good example of someone who won't let a guest
dodge a tough issue - his interview of Erik Prince is a must-see for the
benefits of a more confrontational approach, IMO.
[https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-
caught...](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught-erik-
prince-lie-190315125456331.html)

~~~
linuxftw
So, I said 'what's wrong with how he does what he does', you say 'because it's
an infomercial', I dispute and then raise 'what difference does that make' and
your answer is 'I don't like infomercials'.

So, because you don't like infomercials, Joe Rogan shouldn't do them?

> I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the
> rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs

I feel I'm smart enough to figure out for myself if someone's claims or
beliefs have rougher edges and ramifications. I don't need someone to ask
these questions, if they go unaddressed, I make a determination as to why.

For instance "Drink this koolaide and you'll go to heaven." I don't need
someone to question that, I'll be sure to question it on my own. Did the
person espousing such a belief do enough to substantiate their opinion during
the interview or not?

~~~
ceejayoz
I think doing infomercials instead of an effective interview is a disservice
to the listeners.

"I'm smart enough to figure out for myself" is sometimes true, but it's also
what gets us anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

Joe Rogan can do whatever the fuck he wants, just like I can criticize his
choices.

------
Sholmesy
I read the article, thought it was interesting, spent a bit too much time
ranting about Alex Jones, when in reality he makes up < 0.01% of JRE's
podcast.

Joe Rogan just gets out of the way and let's people say their piece. He's
super open, and inviting, that turns interviews into a casual conversation.

~~~
Clubber
Yes, the article started out ok, then took a turn to predetermined,
predictable, political dribble. I stopped reading it because the author
started regurgitating typical script.

~~~
drevil-v2
Exactly my thoughts. For me it was the bit about the Kevin Hart interview and
how "rogan did not take him to task for his homophobic views from decade
ago"... I was like ok this writer is Woke(tm) and everything is going to be
flavoured by that.

No nuance. No grey areas. Just the Black and White of either you are woke or
you are a nazi. No thanks.

------
rpmisms
What made me realize the author actually missed the point of Joe Rogan.

"...a key thing Joe and his fans tend to have in common is a deficit of
empathy. He seems unable to process how his tolerance for monsters like Alex
Jones plays a role in the wounding of people who don’t deserve it."

and

"If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value in
people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to it,
even when the harm outweighs the good."

As judged by who? This kind of whining is _what drives his audience to him_.
Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy. Hyde Park
in the UK, or the wall in Blueberry Park in Daniel Pinkwater's excellent "The
Snarkout Boys" series both spring to mind.

Yes, these political ideologies are "bad" (I'm not naming any here, fill in
your own blank), but every idea, no matter how awful you find it, deserves a
voice and public judgement.

When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the
same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very,
right.

~~~
pas
> As judged by who?

People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24
screaming cycle?

> This kind of whining is what drives his audience to him.

Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid.

Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem.
(That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep
into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as
extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past
centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.)

> Providing a platform for anyone is tremendously good for democracy.

Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media
certainly made its deal with the devil.

> Hyde Park in the UK

Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea.

Except, well, look how great the UK is doing.

> When both Bernie Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and __Alex Jones__ happily go on the
> same podcast and have civil discussions, you're doing something very, very,
> right.

Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen.

Which is okay, sure, why not. It's just doesn't make the JRE "great". It makes
it bad in the big picture, because it again provides an outlet for those
people that are at risk of getting hooked into something extreme.

~~~
rpmisms
> People who can, willing and want to go beyond the factoid soundbyte 0-24
> screaming cycle?

Not you, apparently

> Of course, but it doesn't make the "whining" invalid.

Not necessarily, but it's completely self-defeating.

> Uncritically discussing ideas in front of such a huge audience is a problem.
> (That's why we have so many people who found shit on the Web and got so deep
> into the hole that now they are probably beyond repair. Basically just as
> extreme xenophobia/racism/bigotry/classism indoctrinated people in the past
> centuries now we have the Internet with its cacophony of bad ideas/memes.)

No, it's not. Uncritically discussing ideas in front of an engaged audience is
literally the core of democracy. The Roman "Forum" was literally this.

> Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media
> certainly made its deal with the devil.

Depends on who you ask. The current president has gotten record numbers of
people active and engaged in political discourse and policy. People are
interested in what our country is doing. All other things being equal, isn't
that a net positive for democracy?

> Speaker's corner. The soap box. Such a noble idea.

> Except, well, look how great the UK is doing.

You mean after essentially removing free speech? Yes, look how well they're
doing now. Wow, great example.

> Or .. just nothing. You are just an empty conduit, a blank screen.

JRE adds value by providing an honest environment. You don't get that in the
news anymore, as you admitted.

~~~
unethical_ban
I think Trump got a lethargic population engaged in politics the same way a
fire gets me engaged in fire drills - holy shit, we need to pay attention
because someone set the house on fire.

And you're supporting the Forum, talking about how "letting anyone talk is
good" \- but you missed the caveat: Not all talk or opinion is equal. Terrible
opinions and thoughts must always be challenged in public. That is the
critique of Rogan. No one is saying that Alex Jones literally should not be
allowed to speak, but that letting him speak to your curated audience of
millions, without challenging their horseshit, makes you an enabler to those
bad ideas.

Bad ideas as judged by me. And most people. Stop with this moral relativism
line about how everything is equal. It isn't.

~~~
reroute1
> No one is saying that Alex Jones literally should not be allowed to speak,
> but that letting him speak to your curated audience of millions, without
> challenging their horseshit, makes you an enabler to those bad ideas.

Actually lots of people are saying that. He was deplatformed from youtube,
facebook, and twitter which is exactly why Rogan had him on the show. He is a
personal friend and explains that many times. Having Alex Jones on his show is
not some dumb idea enabling bullshit, all of his ideas are not completely
wrong.

Let people come to their own conclusions. Why do you think people listening to
him will not see for themselves? If they can't listen to a rational discussion
and make an informed decision there isn't much credit to ones opinion anyway.
Just banning him from media is a childish perspective in my opinion.

------
rvn1045
He's said this himself on one of his episodes that he's like the Oprah Winfrey
for dudes.

~~~
puranjay
I think a great deal of his success comes from the fact that he's successfully
combined two qualities guys would like to have: machismo and intellectual
curiosity. If he was just an MMA fighter or just a comedian, he wouldn't get
nearly the same kind of following.

Guys always respect a guy who can fight. But when that guy can also do comedy
or hold shallow but intelligent opinions on a lot of topics, he gets a lot of
respect from everyone.

~~~
woofyman
>Guys always respect a guy who can fight

That’s frightening and sad

~~~
forgottenpass
>That’s frightening and sad

Yeah, discipline and dedication to mastery of one's psychical self is for
weirdos. Furthermore, what's the point of combat skills in a world with law
and order? He should really just spend more time sitting on the couch
consuming media.

~~~
danbolt
Sorry, could you explain how fighting is akin to "discipline and dedication to
mastery of one's psychical self"?

The former strikes me as something that involves other people, while the
latter you've described seems like an individual thing.

~~~
emmelaich
Doing exercise and martial arts does make you know yourself better.

Especially martial arts; there's a reason martial arts is often mixed with
religion / mysticism for instance. Think Shaolin monks.

------
OzCrimson
One vote of massive respect is after Jack Dorsey was on the show and Joe's
audience gave him hell for letting Jack get away with BS. Joe admitted that he
didn't know enough about the topic.

So, Joe scheduled a do-over and had Tim Pool alongside, and Tim acted as the
BS-detector. To Jack's credit, he and his lawyer showed up for the do-over (as
opposed to just declining).

Will a MSM reporter admit they're in over their head? Not a chance. But there
are different motivations. MSM reporters are after the ratings. If a screaming
match unfolds, that's more important than anything else. I'd rather have the
polite conversations that Joe Rogan leads. Get to know the guests, get to know
how they think.

------
alexanderthe-
Joe is popular because he is essentially fearless. He brought Podcasting and
the longform interview to the mainstream and is a modern day renaissance man.
He has friends and acquaintances from many different worlds and social
classes, from the humble to the avante-garde, and he treats them all equally
with the respect they are due as human beings. He is responsible for the
launching of countless podcasts, for the listening of billions of intelligent,
and some not so intelligent but hilarious conversations, and force of nature
in the change of global consciousness.

------
jron
The podcast has changed a lot since it first started almost a decade ago.
Podcasts were far from mainstream and the Fleshlight was one of the biggest
sponsors. The things that didn't change were the long form conversations and
insane number of hours poured into the show. Joe had a long time to build an
audience and he put the hours in to get better (3000+ hours if I had to take a
guess).

It also helps that he actually wants his guests to change his mind on subjects
if they can rationally argue their position.

------
axaxs
I like Joe Rogan for the very reason most here seem to criticize him - that he
just has conversations with people without pushing an agenda. I learned so
much about candidates this year just from listening to a few conversations. He
doesn't try to 'gotcha', bring up something they did 5 years ago, etc. There
are no shortage of people who do that, and to be honest, he probably wouldn't
land the guests he does if he was one of them. In some ways, it feels like
uneducated ol me(in the topics being discussed) just having a conversation
with someone about something they are interested in.

------
Clubber
I started watching his shows a few months ago. I like his long form format. It
shows people who the media typically either worships or vilifies as normal,
everyday people. His format allows me to ingest more information than the
typical sound bite coupled with 5 minutes of predetermined punditry.

I watched an episode last night who was a conservative congressman. I
disagreed with some of what he said but he presented his thoughts in a way
that made the issues more complex than I had originally considered concerning
foreign policy. Fox or NBC would simply take out a piece of what someone says
and pundit it to death, omitting most of the nuance. In other words, the
traditional media format steers the audience to an opinion while the long
format allows a much broader consideration of a topic.

If I were to boil it down, his format allows viewers to consider much more of
a topic than traditional news, which seems to try to force an opinion on you.
It breaks down issues to the topic rather than the party position. (I lean D
on some issues and R on others. I feel it's too simplistic to force my views
into a single party's platform.

Anyway, it's something only new media can do today. I think Phil Donahue had a
similar format way back when, but I was too young to be interested in it.

------
rbreve
Because he does what he wants with his show. He doesn't have an agenda,
doesn't depend on advertisers. He is free to talk about anything he wants. He
has time. He is also very open to ideas and doesn't confront his guests.

------
losvedir
I guess I contribute to his popularity since I've seen some of his interviews
and subscribe to his YouTube channel. But the article seems to overanalyze it:
for me, it's because he has a huge variety of guests, and some of them are
pretty interesting. For instance, I really liked the Elon Musk and Andrew Yang
interviews. The interviews are not particularly all softball questions nor
especially combative. They're just _long_, and he's a passable interviewer,
and so lots of good stuff comes up.

I haven't seen the majority of his stuff, so I wouldn't call myself a "fan".

------
vidanay
I have never felt more like an out of touch middle-age white dude like I do
just now....I know nothing about Joe Rogan. Of course I heard about the Musk
interview...but I never knew the host was someone popular. I don't recognize
his picture (I Googled him) from any movies or TV shows, and I have never
heard him being discussed by any of my friends, relatives, or acquaintances.

~~~
pests
He hosted Fear Factor back in the day. He also replaced the host (iirc) for
The Man Show. He was involved with UFC as a commentor or broadcaster.

His podcast is also one of the top downloaded worldwide and has been for
years.

~~~
nickthegreek
Now I feel old as my first thought is 1995's NewsRadio.

~~~
cableshaft
No, you're correct. That should be your first thought :) Newsradio was
amazing. I still rewatch episodes of it from time to time.

------
whatshisface
This article makes a huge deal about gender, far moreso than Joe Rogan does.
What's the gender balance of Joe Rogan's fanbase anyways?

------
S_A_P
I listen, his podcast is a great way to fill my commute. Here is what I think
he does well: -Give people room to "breathe" and get a sense for who a person
is in every day life -Expose a broader point of view/marketplace of ideas than
the average media outlet -seems to promote a general sense that everyone
should strive for self improvement -improve discourse for dissenting points of
view

Here are some things that he doesn't do so well/don't like so much -Can be one
note(you need to do psychedelics/ayahuasca/intermittent fasting/twitter
tribes) -He touts that the long format is there to allow for nuance, but often
there is not said nuance in the interview. -Most times things wont be a deep
dive.

I think that in terms of podcasting he has some of the most interesting guests
to me, but I understand its not for everyone. I think Marc Maron is more of a
traditional version of radio on demand format, and he has some good shows as
well, but I find him more hit and miss. Sometimes Marc can be a bit exhausting
to listen to when he is in an especially doom and gloom mood.

It seems like he is fast becoming a lightning rod for the far left, whom he is
critical of.

------
EnderMB
I like Joe Rogan, and I think there's a handful of reasons why people love him
so much:

1\. He has strong principles. This is evident when you look at his involvement
in the downfall of Carlos Mencia, despite being a relatively unknown comedian
at the time.

2\. The only filter is himself. He's not a part of a network, and thanks to
you "fuck you money" he made from Fear Factor he doesn't need to answer to
anybody. That allows him a level of independence to have who he wants on his
show, and to talk about what he wants.

3\. Passion. I do BJJ, and a lot of people have got into BJJ through Joe Rogan
talking about it on JRE. It's funny how much of an impact he's had,
considering there is very little footage of him actually sparring. For
reference, he's got two black belts - one under Jean Jacques Machado in BJJ,
and one under Eddie Bravo in his 10th Planet style of BJJ. Both instructors
are as legit as they come, and they don't just hand out belts, so Rogan earned
those belts. His passion for BJJ and MMA earned him his spot with the UFC, and
a UFC post-Rogan will be a much-worse place.

4\. He naturally leans to the centre. It's funny how some people on the left
call him right-ring, and some on the right call him liberal, when I'd say he
has individual views on multiple sides. He'll have a civil chat with Bernie
Sanders on one episode, and will praise Trump for playing a good campaign
against the Democrats on another. It's refreshing to see someone open his
airtime to multiple different views, when even the likes of the BBC cannot
represent both sides of a debate without extreme government bias.

5\. He knows what he doesn't know, and he won't convince himself of something
without fact. That attitude in a sea of people that push opinion as fact is
refreshing.

~~~
nervousvarun
Great points and 100% agree.

Rogan is refreshingly centrist in a country that is alarmingly polarized.

The extremes of both sides seem to genuinely hate him.

I do wish he'd taken a tougher stance on Alex Jones though. I get that they're
"real life friends" but the Sandy Hook stuff alone should have been enough to
86 his access to Rogan's audience.

~~~
rpmisms
Your last sentence kills it. Alex Jones is yet another voice. People who know
he's crazy can be entertained by him. People who don't will listen anyway. He
says interesting things. Frogs are gay.

~~~
nervousvarun
The frogs are gay or whatever is fine. Calling people who had their children
murdered liars is not. His audience hounded those parents for years. Really
disgusting stuff. Friends or no friends you gotta shut that stuff down.

------
miguelmota
Joe Rogan is a great interviewer; he doesn't have an agenda, he doesn’t
interrupt, allows their guests to speak their mind, asks interesting
questions, doesn't steer the conversation. He's a pretty open minded guy and
simply enjoys talking to people.

I listen to Joe Rogan not because of Joe Rogan but because of what his guests
have to say without feeling pressured.

------
P_I_Staker
Wow, that article was insufferable at times. For example:

> If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value in
> people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to
> it... He just won’t write people off, and then he compounds the sin by
> throwing them a lifeline at the moment when they least deserve it.

I've argued against alt right nutjobs, and have mixed feelings about the very
last part, but it's insane to act like seeing value in people who've made
mistakes is a "sin". The idea that people have forfeited all value as humans
is disgusting to some of us, and part of the reason for Rogan's popularity.
It's a little vacation from all the righteous indignation of late.

------
dustinmoris
Joe Rogan is so popular because he let's other people be themselves. Live and
let live. He doesn't try to enforce an opinion upon others. He sits back,
enjoys himself and explores the depths of his guest by asking interesting and
critical questions without giving much judgement.

People love watching the Joe Rogan Experience because they know that they will
get to see the true self of the guest on the podcast.

In one moment Joe might say something which makes the audience think that he
agrees with his guest's opinion, and in the very next sentence he might throw
in something which might challenge the same thing they just said before. He's
good at giving people a safe place to just talk freely and that is what people
love.

He's done no harm to anyone, he's not using his platform to spread left/right
wing views. He has guests from all corners of life and just let's them talk
about their lives, experiences and views.

I love it.

------
s3r3nity
So yet another article that tries to paint a picture of a person and his
audience with:

1) No data on who the audience is, demographics, their beliefs, etc. (Outside
of looking at a podcast download chart rankings.) 2) Not actually talking to
the subject 3) Using anecdotes about friends as representative of the audience

I try to not hate on the MSM and all that jazz, as I have friends that work in
the business and know how hard the job is, but articles like this that fail at
basic journalistic principles under the guise of "editorializing" just makes
people continue to lose faith in the medium.

This reads like a pretty long, above average blog post from a political /
cultural commentator.

------
40acres
It's clear that the author really likes Rogan but finds it politically
unacceptable to do so.

Joe is a solid interviewer because he's all about letting the interviee speak
-- this can also be a flaw if you get the "wrong" guest, but on net Joe
chooses a wide and at least interesting array of people to interview.

Discounting the comedy and MMA episodes (which albeit, there are a lot of) Joe
has one of the most diverse sets of guests of any podcasts I listen to and
doesn't try to dominate or editorialize too much ( _cough_ Kara Swisher -- who
I love, but definitely can overpower her interviee on occasion)

------
mikelyons
If Joe Rogan wasn't accessible to the "dumb" people, we wouldn't see the level
of consciousness rising on the low end in the general level of consciousness
in humanity. But we are seeing that, it's just misguided so it ends up with
flat earth anti-vaxx in it's adolescent stage, but this isn't to be feared or
hated, but embraced as part of the psycho-spiritual development of those that
lag behind. We're getting smarter as a collective organism, humanity, and this
is part of the necessary growing pain. Joe Rogan was designed by God to be
perfectly exactly what he is at this very moment. And by God, I mean a post-
religious, post-rational, post-atheism definition of God. Richer than the
definitions that have existed before the post-post-post modern age. (before
the age of fake-news, fake-reality, etc.) Hopefully that can land for some,
it's a mindfuck.

------
kvz
While I don’t agree with all of his ideas, Joe Rogan himself doesn’t either.
He’s changed his mind openly on many topics. I admire that. He’ll invite a
guest he knows he’ll disagree with (e.g. Andrew Yang on Basic Income) and
genuinely try to understand how they got there, without hammering on his own
convictions. After three hours he walks away with a more nuanced take on the
topic, and will openly admit to that. Where else do you see this these days.

Again, I don’t like all of his opinions, but from his podcast I also learn
that I don’t have to, and actually, that that’s the way forward. People being
able to talk to eachother even if there are profound disagreements.

He’s also not afraid to ask “stupid questions”, so that all questions get
asked. Which is great because presumably not all listeners are expert in all
things, either, and hearing it from a-z makes all the podcasts accessible.

------
eqdw
A long time ago I heard someone say this about Rogan. I think they were trying
to insult him, but it's actually really true.

Why is Joe Rogan so popular? Because he's Oprah for men. It's that simple

~~~
remarkEon
This is fair, to be honest, and not really an insult imo. I've started
listening to more of his backlog and a lot of it is just "the guys" having a
good time. Listening to him and his pals argue about what they're doing for
Sober October this year was hilarious. The MMA podcasts are also fun in the
same way.

------
Zelphyr
It seems to me that if Rogan hadn’t ever had Alex Jones on then the author
would be a genuine fan. But because he has had Jones on more than once, that
undoes any redeemable qualities he might see in Rogan. Which is kind-of ironic
because that single-minded, “if you don’t believe exactly as I do about
everything then you’re evil” world view is a major thing Rogan rails against.

------
kbouck
I think he's a bit like Howard Stern in that his interview style tends to
disarm guests. I think there's also something to be said about the long form
interview where guests can fully discuss a topic without needing to dilute
responses into sound bites.

------
lowdose
I enjoy Joe Rogan from time to time and started watching after the episode of
Elon Musk. Alex Jones moved his jaw in a very strange manner while talking and
had to go to the bathroom 2 times during the show.

------
Japhy_Ryder
Because he asks great questions and gets out of the interviewee's way. And he
gets amazing guests like Michael Pollan, Dennis McKenna, etc. I like Joe Rogan
a lot and I think he deserves his success.

------
sleepysysadmin
Joe Rogan is so popular because journalism is in major crisis. Joe is simply
providing what Journalism is no longer doing.

Check it out; go on youtube search "Bernie Sanders" and filter for videos
longer than 20 minutes.

You will get Joe Rogan first with 10 million views. Then a bunch of campaign
videos which aren't an interview; it's Bernie preaching to the choir.

How about the debates? Well you can just watch the Joe Rogan video about
what's wrong with that.

The root cause of the journalism crisis is that journalists are breaking the
journalism rules. Journalists should only push accurate truth, should not be
pushing any ideology, should be extremely fair and impartial. That's what
virtually all of the journalists aren't doing anymore. Not even close.

------
forgottenpass
Alternate title: "Self-styled vanguard of society fails to explain the
popularity of someone willing to mingle with unwashed masses."

------
mythrwy
Maybe because he's not foaming at the mouth with rage about anything.

From right wing talk radio to CNN, the whole rage thing has gotten really
wearisome.

I think people just want to hear normal, friendly talk throwing around ideas.
They are out of adrenaline.

------
a2tech
I'd love to have it explained to me. To me he's like a more palatable Alex
Jones.

~~~
bitlax
Alex Jones is also popular.

~~~
parasanti
HN isn't going to like that comment but it's true.

------
swagatkonchada
DMT

------
treggle
Cause he’s a very smart, tough guy who is a champion fighter.

He’s very left wing but doesn’t agree with all left wing policies.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjX0W_urvo](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjX0W_urvo)

Ref: “Joe Rogan: I'm Not Right Wing, So Stop Saying It

People just don’t know what to make of the above combination. He doesn’t fit
our modern polarized stereotypes.

He’s a renaissance man interested in many diverse topics and people.

He listens in his interviews and does not speak over people.

~~~
_lessthan0
Days old account and little karma?

Don't spread misinformation about people, JR is not in any way left wing. He's
centrist, libertarian, pushing on the right.

~~~
me_me_me
Pushing right? In what regard? I recently started listening to his stuff,
around ep 1100 up to current stuff (skipping mostly over episodes centered
around MMA, comedian, hunting guests).

From that he had few small rants about ppl calling him "right", which he seems
to have quite strong feelings. He openly supports Dem candidates, he is pro
drugs, he is pro equality, he drives tesla and loves nature. He seriously
entertains idea of UBI (multiple episodes). He gets called "right" wing
because he talks to people of all spectrum and/or goes after ultra-left,
ultra-right ideas.

>Don't spread misinformation about people ...

~~~
_lessthan0
Dems != left. Dems can be centre right. Driving a Tesla makes you left wing?
Pro drugs people can be Pro drugs on the right. He doesn't like antifa, which
if you look at it antifa is disregarding or opposite of fascism. If you're not
anti-fascist you are sitting on the fence and are silent, so are siding with
the fascists.

~~~
abstractbarista
That is a disingenuous statement; silence is not consent.

