
Joe Rogan Is the New Mainstream Media - mitchbob
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/joe-rogan-spotify-podcast.html
======
skohan
It will be interesting to see how it goes. On the one hand, this could be a
lot like Stern going to satellite radio: he went from being one of the biggest
personalities in media to someone I don't ever think about.

At the same time, it's super interesting that Rogan negotiated a deal which
appears to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for Spotify to _licence_
his content for 3 years, after which point he could put it all back on YouTube
if he wanted. The fact that he had that kind of leverage as an independent
creator who started by recording his friends clowning around at his house and
now has presidential candidates knocking at his door begging for an interview
shows the power of independent media

~~~
cwhiz
I have been watching his podcast for a while but I won’t follow him to
Spotify. I would switch to Spotify if Spotify would create a proper Apple
Watch app with LTE streaming. Unfortunately, Spotify seems intent on trying to
“punish” Apple.

I think the JRE brand will be diminished but only time will tell.

~~~
koheripbal
I don't get the love for video podcasts. I find it far more efficient to just
listen while doing something else (such as driving or working at my computer).

As long as I can get Rogan on my podcast app, nothing really changes for me.

~~~
cwhiz
To each their own. JRE is the only podcast I watch. You miss detail on his
show if you can’t see the discussion. The episodes with Elon Musk come to
mind. Seeing his facial expressions and reactions is more powerful than just
hearing it. And, obviously, seeing him smoke a blunt was surreal and not
something you can capture in an audio feed.

My point was that you could enjoy JRE the way you wanted to. Now you’ll have
to enjoy it the way Spotify tells you to. As far as I know his episodes will
be pulled off other platforms in September.

~~~
koheripbal
I feel like that's one example that everyone cites - sort of proving the rule
that 99% of his podcasts can be listened to without missing anything.

~~~
cwhiz
It’s the most obvious one. But I don’t need to explain myself to you further.
I prefer JRE video podcasts.

------
CSMastermind
> But there is also a very practical reason Rogan can say whatever he thinks:
> He is an individual and not an organization. Eric Weinstein, another
> podcaster and a friend of Rogan, told me, “It’s the same reason that a
> contractor can wear a MAGA hat on a job and an employee inside Facebook
> headquarters cannot: There is no HR department at ‘The Joe Rogan
> Experience’.”

I think that might be the takeaway for me: modern companies have over-
optimized for political correctness. I wish more companies would be honest
about their politics and that of their employees.

~~~
enumjorge
I thought “keep religion and politics out of the workplace” was advice that
had been in place for a while? Not sure that staying away from sensitive
political discussion while at work is a modern trend.

~~~
im3w1l
It's not that long ago that a significant fraction of people worked on farms
and did what they wanted.

It's not that long ago that workers discussed so much politics that they got
together and had shootouts with their employers.

~~~
oblio
> It's not that long ago that a significant fraction of people worked on farms
> and did what they wanted.

Up until 1860 or so, most people across the world were working on farms. And
most of those people were at best sharecroppers, if not serfs or slaves.
Something tells me there wasn't a lot of freedom going around :-)

------
Gatsky
Interestingly he says one of the great attractions of podcasts is that you
don’t really have to pay attention. It’s like sitting in front of two
interesting people on a plane.

Most modern media is too stimulating. Massive budget 3 hour long movies, epic
TV series, clickbait websites kaleidoscopic with ads, shrieking tabloids,
overproduced hypersexualised pop music... podcasting is just two people
talking. It’s a relief, a comfort, it’s humanising. But it will no doubt
develop the same perversions as other forms of media now that serious $$$ have
arrived. I suspect this will really come into play as the US election
approaches.

~~~
pharke
There already exist a plethora of over produced podcasts, the thing is they
just aren't as good as the more basic interview centered ones. Podcasts didn't
invent anything new, conversation is probably one of the oldest human
activities after all, and long form interviews and discussions have been
popular before even on broadcast media. Podcasts just democratized the media
and allowed the audience to find the content that they wanted. Sure people
will try to copy its success while also forcing it into the legacy system and
they will probably have some degree of success but the portion of the audience
that doesn't like that will just seek out the shows that stay true to form.
The accessibility of this media means there is a never ending flood of new
podcasts being created daily. This is what happens when you successfully lower
the barriers that prevent the dissemination of
information/content/entertainment/art. Think of it as doing the same thing for
interviews as the printing press did for books or what YouTube did for video.

~~~
skohan
A lot of it has to do with the discovery mechanism. Compare it with Youtube:
the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature, because the
discovery mechanism is that the thumbnail and title has to grab the user's
attention from a grid of similar content.

Podcasts AFAIK (or as far as I experience) are largely discovered by word-of-
mouth. If I discover a podcast, it is probably because one particular episode
was interesting enough that someone brought it up in a conversation. Relevant,
thought-provoking conversations lend themselves much better to that form of
discovery than cheap emotional appeals. Podcasts are a lot like books in that
way.

~~~
frank2
>Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by
nature

Except that Rogan's 3-hour-long interviews are massively popular on Youtube,
which undermines your point. (The interviews include video.)

~~~
skohan
But Rogan's discovery mechanism on youtube is largely short clips of the most
controversial or attention-grabbing moments from his long-form content. I
would wager to guess that many of his youtube-only viewers probably learned
about him from a short clip and went on to watch the full interview out of
curiosity.

------
programmertote
I keep seeing Joe Rogan's name on Reddit and sometimes on HN. Why does he seem
to strike a chord with the demographic that hang out on Reddit and HN? Why is
his podcast good? Is he really a good moderator? Does he provide good insights
to the listeners about people he interviews or topics he discuss in his
podcast?

~~~
sho_hn
I've watched a few episodes.

\- He gets high-profile guests across a decently wide spectrum and at an
overall high volume. >95% of his interviews don't interest me, but for the 5%
that do - say, John Carmack - the name is the main draw. These people just
don't get interviewed all that often so it's an event regardless of the MC.
Probably the same for his entire audience, just different 5% slices.

\- If you know the old mystery TV anthology show Columbo, he does a similar
routine to the titular character: He plays the unassuming everyman and then
asks unexpectedly smart/pointed questions, using simple terms but with
reasonably deep implications. His interviews seem generally well-prepared.
They don't go particularly deep on any subject matter, but if you're familiar
with the subject matter they still prompt interesting responses from the
guests - you can see someone like Carmack or Musk go into rubber-duck
debugging mode trying to digest complicated thoughts into succinct answers and
that has an interesting information side-channel to it (it tells you what they
really think is important to say or highlight, and Rogan seems to be aware of
this - he is good at getting the bits they _personally_ find important).

\- Related to the above, the macho/masculinity slant aside he acts humble and
un-obnoxious. I might feel differently if I watched any episode with a guest I
really dislike (because he seems to be more accommodating than
challenging/critical, for sure), but in the episodes I watched I wasn't
annoyed with him.

\- Part of his prep is also clearly to read up on recent/controversial things
related to a guest and probe for it during the interview, so there's the shock
value/titilation factor that adds to the entertainment. His skill is that both
him and the interviewee anticipate this but he still puts his subjects at ease
enough in the moment to make the responses compelling. It has your brain
constantly working to sort through what is guarded and what is not (=real),
just like quality reality TV (everyone knows reality TV is scripted -- the
entertainment is in trying to identify the sliver of authenticity in people's
emergent behavior on camera).

~~~
jiggawatts
A lot of people mistakenly thing that Joe is not very smart because he asks
"dumb questions". I think it's the exact opposite, he leads his guests with
well chosen questions that he probably already knows the answer to, but the
guest can surely elaborate on from deep experience.

When I see mainstream media interview people that are expert in topics I'm
well versed in, the questions are cringe worthy at best.

For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman
regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his
guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual
perspective of their guests be front and centre.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> For comparison with someone trying to create a similar show, Lex Fridman
> regularly asks some stupid, stupid questions. He's clearly approaching his
> guests from his own personal perspective, and not letting the individual
> perspective of their guests be front and centre.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I had high hopes for Fridman's podcast after the JRE revered him as a sort of
young, genius, intellectual version of JRE. He's highly respected among JRE
online communities, I think because he presents himself the way most JRE
listeners expect a generic smart person to sound. Yet every time I listen to
him, I'm left scratching my head.

It feels like he's working hard to copy-and-paste the JRE format, but like
many other imitators it exposes why Rogan is so popular in the first place:
Rogan is a expert conversationalist who makes both the guest and listener feel
at ease, like the listener is part of the conversation. His charisma isn't
entirely obvious until you start comparing him to imitators.

I'm still hopeful that Lex Fridman's podcast will get more enjoyable over time
as he relaxes a bit and masters the art of the podcast. He's been able to get
some high profile guests on his show, so the potential is there.

~~~
pharke
It's strange, there are some interviews where he seems to reach a much better
rapport with his guest. These tend to be guests who are also in the computer
science and software domain. I think his biggest hinderance is his reliance on
his notes and his apparent fear of looking dumb or unprepared. I get it, I'd
probably do the same thing if I were interviewing the same calibre of people
but I think he just needs to relax a bit and look for common ground with his
guests. Maybe there's too much fear of missing the opportunity to ask certain
questions of these high profile people but it's a bit of a turn off. Rogan
seems to get this right, maybe even going too far sometimes by not being
afraid to just shoot the shit and talk about random incongruous interests. It
shows you a side of his guests that you would never get to see elsewhere and
it's a lot more humanizing than just question-answer style interviewing.

------
nabla9
Money is good demonstration of how media is changing.

Rogan reportedly makes 30 million per year from the show already. He makes
more than TV talk show hosts. He really is the new mainstream.

~~~
threeseed
He's just another Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh etc. We've had personality talk
show hosts for decades and will continue to have them in the decades to come.
The media landscape is not fundamentally changing.

And how much Spotify paid him is not a reflection of his mainstream
popularity. It's a reflection of how much the LTV of his audience is worth.
Two very different things.

~~~
im3w1l
> It's a reflection of how much the LTV of his audience is worth.

That may not be it exactly either. What they are paying him to do is bootstrap
the spotify podcasting ecosystem. Spotify hopes the publicity will bring in
people who _don 't_ listen to Joe Rogan as well.

~~~
KirinDave
It's not like Rogan is inaccessible right now. He appeals to a different age
group, but a similar political demographic.

~~~
TheHypnotist
Anyone with an iPhone can listen to him easily. I suspect Android was similar.

------
giarc
>Rogan is laddish and generous with everyone he sits across from

I think this is a big problem for him. I cherry pick some episodes to listen
to (depending on the guest). I listened to the Alex Jones interview and was
totally appalled by how much he agreed with Jones' wingnut theories. But I've
also heard his interview with Alex Honnold (free solo climber) and it was
great. I'm afraid his openness with some guests, and his wide audience will
just introduce more people to people like Alex Jones.

~~~
chadlavi
This is exactly the reason I've never been a fan of his.

First of all, Jones didn't just happen to show up for the recording that day;
he was either invited on the show on purpose or his publicist asked and
Rogan's production said yes. You're responsible for the sort of people and
ideas you expose your audience to, especially when it's predominantly teenage
boys.

Second, as you mentioned, he didn't challenge any of Jones's insane beliefs.

Providing an unquestioning platform for dangerous people like that really does
a lot to whitewash their reputation and make their ideas more palatable to a
wider audience. It's very dangerous.

At best it's lazy brohangs masquerading as journalism.

~~~
pharke
I think this comment more or less epitomizes the lack of understanding of
conversational media and is probably the reason why traditional media is
failing so badly right now.

People can think for themselves, they don't want a self-righteous gatekeeper
to spoon feed them the bits of information that they think are correct,
relevant, or acceptable. People don't want more spin and more production value
and more hot takes and more dunking. Censorship is ultimately counter
productive in the same way that sterilizing everything in your environment is
for your immune system, you need exposure to a variety of information and
viewpoints including incorrect, toxic and down right whacky ones in order to
learn the metacognitive skills that you can use to think about how that
information impacts you and the viewpoints you hold. If you just funnel the
"correct" information into people you wind up with a bunch of infantile paper
tigers that can only parrot back what they've heard and collapse in a heap of
sputtering rage the moment their prepackaged world view is challenged. Nobody
is pretending that Joe Rogan is a journalist, least of all himself. He isn't
there to challenge anyone's beliefs or to discover the truth or fiction of
what his guests are saying. That's your job you lazy fuck, as he would say.

~~~
ausbah
People can think for themselves and censorship is ultimently
counterproductive, right - but what should be done when people "think for
themselves" and come to horrendously wrong conclusions?

Clearly the likes of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists have done some
amount of the above and come to the wrong conclusions, so something is
obviously wrong in their thought process that led them thinking in such a way.

I'm not sure what is the best way of correcting people's broken though
processes and beliefs like those are, I don't think just stating evidence at
them really works. At the very least I fail to see what value is to be gained
by letting such thoughts be granted a platform to continue the cycle of flawed
reasoning.

~~~
piaste
It really sounds like you haven't fully grasped the concept of freedom of
thoughts if you think that something "should be done" about wrongthinkers.

People acquiring and holding wrong ideas is _entirely the point_. Because
otherwise you need to have an entity deciding that an idea is wrong and should
be suppressed. Do you trust Google with that power? Do you trust Facebook with
it?

The only trustworthy judge of an idea is reality and its consequences.

Some people think that 5G causes coronavirus? Let them ban 5G from their
towns, from their countries. Other countries will not, and after a few years
they will not be any sicker and be a little ahead in technological
infrastructure. The 5G-phobics will eventually give up, or worst case, they
will die of old age and their children will learn.

~~~
ausbah
No, I completely under the point of freedom of thought and letting people
think whatever they like. My sticking point is that I believe letting some
ideas being carried to fruition in reality to measure their worthiness via
their consequences is an extremely flawed metric. I see some consequences as
holding nothing but irreversible harm and thus outweighing any benefits free
expression of those ideas may bring.

I mean take anti-vaxxers for example, if enough people become anti-vaxxers and
don't have their children vaccinated - herd immunity is compromised, children
get sick, some of them die. I do not see how easily preventable deaths can
ever be held as worth the unfettered spread of the ideas that directly
contributed to them.

The other gripe with consequences as the sole value metric of an idea is just
because an idea doesn't work when carried out, doesn't mean the idea is
discarded everyone at large. Some awful ideas keep resurfacing again and again
despite all evidence to their contrary.

You are right though that suppressing such opinions would have to be done by
large, controlling institutions like governments or corporations. However as
much as I distrust such institutions like anyone else, I think the compelling
interest of society is enough to grant them the ability to censor - at least
in specific instances of universally condemnable opinions like anti-
vaccinations, eugenics, etc.

Take from this what you will.

~~~
piaste
Actions are not the same as speech. You can mandate vaccinations without
restricting people's right to protest against vaccines. Just like you can
prohibit marijuana without restricting people's ability to protest for
legalization.

------
waheoo
> The right has always insisted that the elite left controls the culture. But
> Rogan’s popularity shows that perhaps that’s no longer true.

Is this whole thing just trying to paint joe rogan as alt right again?

~~~
maw
Probably.

But here's an interesting sequence of events:

\- The alt-right emerges as an influential bloc

\- Our self-appointed explainers and meaning-makers try and fail to understand
it; unable to understand it they're completely unable to explain it

\- The term "alt-right" is bandied about more or less carelessly, often as an
insult or as a way to discount ideological opponents, until:

\- The term "alt-right" loses much of its meaning and is applied to people
with only the most tenuous links to the original group.

The same basic thing has happened before and since: think of the neocons and
the dirtbag left for example.

So, yes, they probably are trying to paint him as alt-right, but not at a
level much above "lololol Bro Rogan sux !!!!!!!!". Reassured?

------
jeffdavis
"His success was made possible, at least in part, by legacy media’s blind
spots."

Blind spots generally persist because someone isn't held to account for
reality. In this case, perhaps the editors are not being held to account. But
how can that be fixed without just perpetuating the media meta-argument?

I guess the answer is variety: if you don't like the editorial decisions here,
go somewhere else. That is a necessary solution with a free press, but ideally
would not be the first line of defense.

The answer in this case is that Joe Rogan is simply taking on all of the
roles: editor, interviewer, commentator, and sometimes the subject. But I have
to imagine the separate roles were created for a reason... is it a net win?

------
mark_l_watson
I discovered his podcast about 6 weeks ago, but only listened to a few of his
recent guests. I liked the episodes I listened to, but I won't bother with
Spotify, there is enough great stuff out there. This is much my attitude about
"inconvenient" web sites with rollovers, painful Javascript, popups, etc. - I
simply immediately leave if content is not easy to digest. I don't mind
advertisements but I don't want ads to try to take over my browser.

I hope that Spotify works out for Joe Rogan. He seems like a very nice guy.

------
wrnr
Probably, but that still doesn't make the NYT the independent alternative edgy
medium it would like to be.

~~~
henriquez
I’m surprised they didn’t try to take him down as a “white nationalist” like
they did with PewDiePie. Maybe this is their way of admitting defeat?

~~~
kissickas
NYT is currently publishing a series of podcasts called "Rabbit Hole" which,
in its latest episode, portrayed PewdiePie as a misunderstood guy who is
definitely not a white nationalist or alt-right. That said, what you are
saying could be true at the same time. I don't read the paper and certainly
don't care to follow the PewdiePie story.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/podcasts/rabbit-hole-
PewD...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/podcasts/rabbit-hole-PewDiePie-
youtube-virus.html)

~~~
henriquez
NYT was all over WSJ’s takedown of PewDiePie like a fly on a turd. It’s not
really that charitable of them to correct the record now that they’re done
milking their clickbait controversy for ad revenue.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/tech...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/pewdiepie-
new-zealand-shooting.amp.html)

------
unraveller
Title is one of those obviously farfetched and barely supported assertions
that the editor must have forcefully decided upon late in the game.

Just proves nothing has replaced old mainstream media exactly, it has merely
dwindled the more slack it gets for willfully risking a misunderstanding to
take place.

The definition of Mainstream Media is still the same, as a setter and
destroyer of definitions, since it has vast retrospective powers for editing
out context to control the degree of controversy seen by the masses. Helped
along by a collective of adversarial journalists able to limit discussion with
a barrage of assertions and hold sway over mass sentiment through an implied
consensus.

A one man interviewer does not give any semblance of consensus, it is at best
a battle of convictions, but at least you can argue a conviction head on, no
arguing with a consensus -- no learning from one either.

------
Ericson2314
Some of problems they mention on content are real, but ugh I hate the pace of
podcasts (even if I adjust the speed, the problem is I don't want a constant
rate) and much rather read. Are the reading > listen types really a dying
breed?

~~~
dorchadas
It's nice to see someone else say this. I would much rather read than listen
(or watch, as well). Perhaps it's because I can go at my own pace, and easily
go back and to review something already said or connect ideas, but I just find
it a struggle to stay focused on listening/watching anything for that long.

------
ausbah
I've never been a Joe Rogan fan, I've only followed him in the news whenever
he pops up or in some short clips that get milled around social media. So my
opinion of him might be misinformed, but I've only ever gotten the impression
that Rogan only ever really cares about selling a "neutral" but enticing
experience. The focus isn't serious discussions or prodding the arguments of
his guests, it's just about him playing the "dumb but curious everyman" as a
stand in for the audience letting whoever has the most appealing mantra freely
speak their mind. I think this identity as someone who just listen and doesn't
question is genuine to him, but it also makes a great selling point as
"politically neutral" or "both sides" speak.

Some of these ideas are genuinely worthwhile, but when those same thoughts are
given even equal weight to the ravings of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro - I don't
see how anyone who is looking for intellectual rigor can derive value from
consuming his podcast. If that's a good or bad thing is a value judgment
someone has to make personally.

~~~
kjakm
Given it's hosted by a comedian and has a diverse range of guests from
entertainers to scientists to wackos, I've always thought of it as a show
meant to entertain (which occasionally informs). I don't think it has ever
pretended to be somewhere for robust intellectual discussion.

~~~
iorrus
Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?

One thing about Joe Rogan is that he covers a far broader spectrum of people
than anyone else. Who has Alex Jones/Elon Musk/Neil deGrasse Tyson on?

To be frank I find most "robust intellectual discussion" stultifying e.g.
hacker news has exactly this problem.

~~~
chance_state
>Where do you go for "robust intellectual discussion"?

Sam Harris and Tim Ferriss have great long form interviews with interesting
people.

~~~
iorrus
I used to listen to Tim Ferris years ago, even bought the 4 hour workweek but
for whatever reason I eventually lost interest. I think he was a bit
predictable and bland also a bit too deep into "Tech" culture.

Never really paid much attention to Sam Harris so might have another look at
him.

One of the most interesting things about Joe Rogan is that he's not a one
trick pony e.g. Comedy/Fighters/TV personality etc. I find him more
interesting as a result.

~~~
kjakm
Worth looking into Tim Ferriss again. He's done so many episodes of his
podcast now that there is a wide range of guests. I'd say if it leans towards
any subject it wouldn't be tech but maybe health/body related subjects.

------
JSavageOne
I enjoy Joe Rogan's podcast, but I'm not going to start using Spotify just to
listen to his podcasts. Hell Spotify isn't even available in my country. I'm
sure the episodes will leak out elsewhere, and if I run into them I'll listen.
If Spotify really goes hard on the copyright striking and I don't see the
podcasts anymore, well then I guess I'll miss out.

------
carapace
> ... I still find the extent of his popularity mind-boggling. Imagine if I
> had told you, a dozen years ago, that ...

A list of stuff that leaves out...

 _Joe Garrelli on NewsRadio_
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsRadio)

If you had told me that the guy who plays Joe Garrelli was going to be a
superstar I would have been surprised, but only a little.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Joe+Garrelli+NewsRadio&iar=videos&...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Joe+Garrelli+NewsRadio&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos)

~~~
cableshaft
His last name is Garrelli?

~~~
carapace
The character's name is Joe Garrelli.

NewsRadio Trivia: Joe Rogan wasn't the first Joe Garrelli, a different actor
played him in the pilot.

~~~
cableshaft
Yeah, I was basically quoting the show. I'm a big fan. In the show, people
repeatedly say when they hear the character's last name "Your last name is
Garrelli?"

Examples: [https://yarn.co/yarn-
clip/73188705-1624-4d6a-9d25-6508f82c0b...](https://yarn.co/yarn-
clip/73188705-1624-4d6a-9d25-6508f82c0b4b)

[https://getyarn.io/yarn-
clip/2e4d1f95-e913-43b6-b41b-74822ea...](https://getyarn.io/yarn-
clip/2e4d1f95-e913-43b6-b41b-74822eaf6472)

~~~
carapace
OMG right! "whoosh!" The sound of that going over my head. Ha ha!

My sister just dug out from storage the complete box set of DVDs of the
series! Binge watchin' those this week. :)

------
aszantu
nah, I jut unsubscribed all his content because I don't like spotify, feeling
a little blue but this will wear off soon.

~~~
m463
There is so much content online.

And joe rogan has almost 1500 old episodes (did they take them down?)

~~~
BadOakOx
> did they take them down?

Iirc, it's planned by the end of the year. His podcast will be Spotify
exclusive from then.

~~~
simonh
I’m done. The guy doesn’t owe me anything so no hard feelings.

------
metalliqaz
and he just bought in to "Obamagate"

------
unionpivo
This wouldn't be so bad if spotify would be accessible in my country. (they
are coming to anytime soon for the past 8 years or so)

On the other hand i am sure people will keep uploading his stuff ti youtube.

------
racl101
Ironically, I know more about JRE from YouTube videos. Never heard one podcast
proper.

But, on the other hand, I am glad I have Spotify subscription cause now I get
to continue to enjoy him.

------
bugeats
The Joe Rogan episodes with Bari Weiss (the author of this piece) have some of
the worst like to disliked ratio in the catalog. She is no friend of the
podcast.

------
r0rshrk
Sitting here in Asia: No he isn't :)

------
foob4r
If Rogan is MSM, then Spotify killing the open RSS ecosystem is even worse
that I thought.

------
jshaqaw
This will probably turn out to be capex made as effectively as when Apple
bought Beats.

------
ape4
Whatever media outlet he's on is the new mainstream media

------
rchaud
I listen to JRE on and off. He's not the new 'mainstream media' at all. The
majority of his guests are entertainers, athletes, and occasionally health and
science-related people. I include people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson
in the 'entertainment' category.

That being said, he will occasionally have politicians on, and those
discussions are interesting as it's not the superficial 5-minute interviews
you see on cable news, buttressed by 5 minutes of ads for cars and ED pills.

I've really enjoyed Patriot Act w/ Hasan Minhaj on Netflix. 25-minute deep
dives into a specific topic, and often international in scope. Great
production value, often humorous interviews and I love the on-screen graphics.

------
wdr1
Any insight into Spotify's podcast buying spree?

------
cvaidya1986
There’s a “spot” open now.

------
Stierlitz
Paywall protected, could anyone provide the full text?
^[ref]([https://pastebin.com/](https://pastebin.com/))

~~~
nkurz
Frequently, if you paste the link into "archive.is" or "outline.com", you can
create (and post!) a link to such content yourself. Outline.com doesn't work
for NYT articles, but archive.is currently does:
[http://archive.is/YamoB](http://archive.is/YamoB)

------
mellosouls
I'm not particularly a fan of Rogan - too shouty/sweary/jockish, and I can't
read this paywalled article, but its good to see a centrist voice breaking
through the oftentimes liberal-left stranglehold on mainstream media.

More voices like that will help to keep them honest, which is dearly needed at
times.

------
KirinDave
Fox News has been the hyper-profitable and true mainstream media for awhile
now. They make a lot of money because they're pandering to a slight minority
opinion that is often not well supported by other organizations. Put another
way: they manufacture and distribute information that otherwise wouldn't exist
and this is actually in very high demand by people with a message. In short,
supply is scarce for reactionary messaging and when effective communicators do
emerge in that market they immediately find a ton of interested parties
throwing money at them.

Rogan is an extension of that phenomenon, and it's the reason he makes lots of
money. He's a lot like Limbaugh or Hannity in his career path; by showing a
willingness to cater to authoritarian reactionary views, he's opened himself
up to a lot of media opportunities.

What's weird about the narrative around Rogan is that he was ever
"alternative" to begin with. He's been indistinguishable in methodology from
the average conservative pundit for some time. His guest lists are very
similar to the average conservative pundit. That he used a different broadcast
media isn't that significant. He panders to the same sorts of audience
segments in a younger audience.

~~~
rayiner
Joe Rogan is an “average conservative pundit?” He’s an agnostic who is
antagonistic to the Catholic Church. And, from his Wikipedia page:

> He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay
> marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal
> healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second
> Amendment. He also has criticized American foreign policy of military
> adventurism.

He’s basically Howard Dean; and to the left of Joe Biden for the most part.

~~~
Pfhreak
Most leftists I know consider Rogan to skew conservative. (And Biden is hardly
Left, so that might not be the best yardstick.)

~~~
JSavageOne
I'm a "leftist" and I consider Rogan progressive, just like anyone else who
chooses to vote for Bernie Sanders.

~~~
KirinDave
Certainly in relative terms Bernie Sanders would represent some aspects of
progressive politics. However it's very important to know how regressive
American politics are.

While the loss of life is extremely unfortunate, the timely object lesson of
America's ridiculously inferior health care infrastructure is on full display
globally right now. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world
we also can't deal with aglobal pandemic because we simply lack the
infrastructure for Public Health and we've spent 20 years arguing about
whether we should have it.

Bernie Sanders's policies are slightly right of Macron, and he's pretty much
the poster child for neoliberal centrism globally. He wants the same thing
many other similar capitalist Nations have, which is essentially using tax
dollars to ensure business prosperity by offsetting high-risk costs like
healthcare.

~~~
harryh
_the timely object lesson of America 's ridiculously inferior health care
infrastructure is on full display globally right now_

The US is currently expected to have fewer per capita deaths from COVID19 than
the UK, France, Spain, Italy & Sweden.

See: [https://covid19.healthdata.org/](https://covid19.healthdata.org/)

~~~
raydev
Looks like May 14 and later are still projections. It's now May 25. Given the
spikes we've seen since states have started reopening, I'd want to see more
up-to-date stats.

~~~
harryh
I certainly agree that predictions are hard. And things could go in another
direction. I'm just saying that the progress of the disease to date has not
been an "object lesson of America's ridiculously inferior health care
infrastructure."

~~~
KirinDave
It's outrageous, bordering on disingenuous, to compare anyone to Italy and
Sweden and go, "See? Your health care infrastructure isn't so bad."

Sweden deliberately elected not to use their infrastructure. Italy was the
first critical European outbreak and their difficulties were information most
other nations had.

Why not look at South Korea or Mongolia? You know, actual success stories.

~~~
rayiner
You're mixing up two very different things. When you talk about Sanders and
"health care infrastructure" people naturally assume you're talking about
hospitals, insurance coverage, etc. That naturally raises the response of
"well, Italy has socialized medicine, like Sanders wants, and that hasn't
really helped it."

South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right--
which is the topic at hand--or even really health care infrastructure. South
Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from China. It
also has a population that is able to follow instructions and defer to
authority, unlike people in western countries.

Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on
disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things done,
comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.

~~~
KirinDave
> You're mixing up two very different things. When you talk about Sanders and
> "health care infrastructure" people naturally assume you're talking about
> hospitals, insurance coverage, etc. That naturally raises the response of
> "well, Italy has socialized medicine, like Sanders wants, and that hasn't
> really helped it."

Quite the opposite. You're the one doing that. I didn't name specific
mechanisms and instead said "infrastructure" precisely to avoid this
conversation. It doesn't matter how it's implemented; what matters is that
effective medical care and clear information can reach citizens in times of
crisis.

All the examples folks have named have _clearly_ shown a total failure to do
this. So despite how many great resources they may have amassed, they could
not mobilize that into an effective civic infrastructure.

You're the one who wants to argue about socialized medicine. From the look of
it, that's because you want to gloss over the profound failure of the US to do
anything resembling a credible disaster response or address the profound
inequalities that exist in American health care.

> South Korea's success does not have anything to do with left versus right

I agree!

> which is the topic at hand

No, the topic is, "Is Rogan a reactionary?" The answer there is yes, and even
recently he's been sympathetic to the ludicrous claims that doing nothing is a
reasonable strategy during this pandemic. The man is a conspiracy theorist. He
has been in the past and he'll continue to be so in the future because he's a
reactionary and that's how they operate.

> South Korea has experience dealing with respiratory virus outbreaks from
> China. It also has a population that is able to follow instructions and
> defer to authority, unlike people in western countries.

South Korea had to enact an emergency law letting cities detain people for
violating stay at home and mask orders because compliance was bad. I don't
know why you think these pacific asian counties are "obedient" but that's...
Not a good characterization. I will follow the site guidelines and assume you
have an unconscious bias there as opposed to an active one.

> Comparisons of the US to South Korea or Japan are "outrageous, bordering on
> disingenuous." In terms of social organization and ability to get things
> done, comparing New York City to Italy is actually very generous.

New York was a worse individual outbreak than any Italian city from the last
numbers I saw, so doesn't this invalidate harryh's comparison?

------
shotta
How is this any different from Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, or Art Bell
signing distribution contracts?

------
Vosporos
Who the fuck is Joe Rogan?

------
nojito
Shock jock radio hosts are nothing new. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

I really wish we could get an editorial/opinion tag on articles.

~~~
itsoktocry
> _Shock jock radio hosts are nothing new. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc._

If you classify Joe Rogan as a 'shock jock', then I can only assume you've
never listened to the show. The content is nothing like those you mention.

------
lowdose
Disappointing ad hominem, expected a better analysis about viewpoints instead
of the people he invites. Joe Rogan is unique not because of his guests but
what he talks about with his guests, these topics are not covered by the
mainstream.

If the institutional gate keepers want to declare a new main stream than also
embrace people with a more nuanced point of view instead of this fully
scripted narrative they publish 24/7.

When was the last positive article published by the NYTimes about Russia, the
Republican party or even number 45?

I wish the main stream isn't as compromised as it is. Until then I have to
listen to Joe Rogan & the portal to tap into nuanced thoughtful content.

~~~
StriverGuy
Considering Joe has millions of listeners I would say he is mainstream, but
then again I am probably talking to a wall by making this comment.

~~~
lowdose
I think that is more a quantification of the unmet need mainstream media
creates by not discussing topics like DMT and the simulation hypothesis. The
long form of content enables conversations even about the most fringe topics.

The Overton window doesn't magically shifts when millions of people are
serviced by a 3th party outside the Overton window.

~~~
mellosouls
Exactly, the mainstream has always been there; but the "mainstream" media has
long been talking down to it rather than with it, and this void in respect of
the common man and woman is something that centrist people like Rogan fill by
just being open to a variety of opinion and ideas, and refusing to demonise
people because they don't sign up to ivory tower prescriptions and
proscriptions.

