The term good faith means to have a sincere and honest interaction. This article will do just that while describing discussions I’ve had with Joe Rogan fans on Twitter. The first thing that must be said about Rogan fans I’ve interacted with is that they seek authenticity. They believe Rogan provides this authenticity flaws and all. They also vehemently defended him against criticism. To that end Rogan provides a service for these people. I will be criticizing Rogan in this article however it is done so with that in mind. If anything, larger media outlets and their failure to be objective have led to the rise of personalities such as Rogan.
I’ll be using the most popular Tweets to help guide this discussion with handles blocked for privacy. This isn’t about calling anyone out or providing gotcha moments.
Censorship and or free speech are main concerns for the Rogan viewers I spoke with. So, let’s begin with censorship. Censorship is the suppression of communication and can be enforced by many agents ranging from governments to informal social groups. Calls for Rogan’s show to be changed or deplatformed have been met with accusations of attempted censorship.
When Rogan signed his million-dollar deal with Spotify censorship was already on the table. Around 40 of Rogan’s episodes that were transitioned to the platform were edited or deleted. This was reported by outlets ranging from Digital Music News to right wing Breitbart. Rogan admitted this himself,
“There were a few episodes they didn’t want on their platform, and I was like ‘okay, I don’t care.’ But other than that, in terms of what I do in the future, the big test was having Alex Jones on. A lot of people are like, they’re telling Joe Rogan what he can and can’t do. They’re not, they’re not,” he said, still insisting there is no corporate oversight.
Spotify clearly has no issue editing or censoring content. The issue seems to be with promises made during the contractual agreement for exclusive rights to the Rogan podcast. It is important to clarify this to dull ideological fervor. If I were to create a podcast based on Holocaust denial, then Spotify would remove it. Freedom of speech is not limitless for Spotify and that is their right as a private corporation.
Freedom of speech is a closely related but separate topic that often gets used interchangeably with censorship. Every American is protected by the first amendment from government interference of self-expression. If president Biden drafts an executive order forcing Spotify to remove all of Joe Rogan’s episodes, then that would be a discussion about infringement of free speech. That is not the current state. Free speech is not part of this conversation.
Another common sentiment was that Rogan is not a journalist, an expert or anything other than a comedian with MMA skills. So, back off.
There isn’t anything wrong with this opinion. If Rogan discussed topics that were not extremely serious then he would be given the slack being asked for. I personally love ridiculous conspiracies, ufo lore and cryptid nonsense. It’s fun and a relief from daily stresses. The same can be said for sports, pop music and other forms of media entertainment. The difference between the aforementioned media and Rogan is that Rogan does indeed steer into serious topics with purported experts. He doesn’t just have simple conversations but instead interviews guests with some prepared questions. In other words, there is structure to the show even if it appears ad hoc.
There is simply a different level or standard being applied to Rogan episodes that involve interviews of experts in highly important fields regarding very important topics. Rogan freely chooses these topics and guests. In doing so he also invites the associated critiques and criticism which would not otherwise exist. It isn’t the outside world that is at fault and victimizing Rogan. It is Rogan choosing topics and guest which will solicit more criticism from the outside world. Some of that criticism is valid and some of it is not.
Rogan defenders often claimed that he “just has conversations” with people. Because of that there isn’t the same standard as say a formal debate.
There is a term for that style of conversation. The term is JAQing off. Rational Wiki describes JAQing off as,
“Just asking questions (also known as JAQ ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.”
JAQing off became very popular among far-right content creators because it reframed extremist views as a free speech discussion. An example would be a podcast host asking if white nationalism is all bad. When faced with criticism the response would be “We are just practicing free speech. It’s up to listeners to decide. We are just asking questions. We never said we endorsed it.” The end result however is simply proliferating racist ideas and expanding their reach.
This is the heart of many criticisms pointed toward Rogan. Rogan can claim he is “just having a conversation” but that isn’t truly accurate. He is using his platform to amplify content which, at times, can be misinformation regarding significant topics such as public health.
So, the claim that Rogan is “just” a comedian goes out the window when he decides to be more than that. It’s his choice.
One of my initial reactions to The Joe Rogan Experience was surprise at his lack of follow up. This was specific to the Robert Malone episode. Malone said things which were clearly half-truths or lacked context. An example is his discussion of myocarditis. In that lengthy exchange he never specified that people with Covid19 have higher rates of heart inflammation. He did not specify that other vaccines which are not mRNA based have similar rates of myocarditis. He didn’t say that other completely different medications also cause myocarditis. Leaving out these details created a narrative that wasn’t true or accurate. As we will see, it came back to bite Rogan on a later episode. This is lying by omission. Rational Wiki defines lying by omission as.
“Lying by omission otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception.”
Both Rogan and Malone are guilty of lying by omission in this case. Malone excluded details to form a false narrative and Rogan failed to correct or inquire about them.
There are two possibilities as to why Rogan did not inquire further. The first is that Rogan simply didn’t know this information. The second is that he believes it’s up to the listener to figure that out on their own.
The first option would fall on Rogan. Well, both do but we will get there. If Rogan freely chooses to interview purported experts on important topics, then it’s incumbent upon him to be prepared. It’s his responsibility to his viewership to understand basics of the topic and be able to push back when information doesn’t seem accurate. The obligation comes from having a conversation in good faith, understanding that the nature of the topic has greater consequences than others and to provide authentic experiences to his viewership. Basically, to not lie by omission and skirt that fact under the guise of JAQing off.
Placing the burden of proof on listeners is inherently flawed. Yes, we should all critique information provided to us from any source. But let’s consider this scenario as an example. You are tasked with writing a research paper. You leave out all information that is contrary to your thesis. You not surprisingly receive an F on this assignment. Why? Because it is not incumbent upon the reader of your paper to find what it is you omitted (back to lying by omission.) It is instead incumbent upon you, in the process of proving your thesis, to address and explain contrary information.
Another less academic example would be labeling ingredients. Consumer protection laws force companies to label ingredients on packages. Why? As the Tweet states “we don’t need gov being parents.” Well, because there’s a long consumer rights history tied to it. It’s not reasonable to expect someone to deconstruct the ingredients of a product on their own. So yes, we all need to do our own research. However, when any media outlet is found to have purposefully left out information or lacked proper follow up then they deserve criticism. This includes Joe Rogan.
This was a very popular Tweet. There were many tweets similar to this in wording or sentiment. To begin with, people can express themselves publicly. No one suggests otherwise. “Publicly” does not mean on a show that is facilitated by a private company. For instance, I don’t have “the right” to be on The Joe Rogan Experience. I do have the right to talk about things publicly.
Having a good faith discussion isn’t coercion. I blame cable news shows for this misunderstanding even though the phenomenon is as old as human discourse. The current reality of political and or socially significant discussions has become so partisan that generations simply expect bias. The model is some combination of news and entertainment mashed up with a strong political lean in which a guest or dissenting voice is berated.
That model is not the same as having a genuine discussion that includes questions and vigorous defense of a position. If you are going to be a guest on any media platform the expectation is that you’re able to defend the claims you’re making. At least that’s the expectation if you wish to have legitimacy. Likewise, the expectation is that if you are hosting a show, you will challenge guests when necessary. This is not coercion but instead an authentic discussion. Authenticity being an attribute Rogan fans seek.
And opinions are opinions. We all have them for what they are worth. However, there are also facts. If someone is expressing an opinion that they like plain pizza better than pizza with toppings, then that’s fine. It’s an opinion. However, topics such as vaccination are not just opinion based. There are facts associated with them. It is important not to mix fact with opinion or else we end up in a regressive postmodernist place of total equivalency in which there is no truth. The best we can ever do is make informed decisions using the highest quality information available. Seeking absolute and ironclad certainty in anything will leave you stagnant and unable to make decisions. Some situations are too dire for that inaction.
Let’s wrap this up with a final Tweet.
People certainly have the right to determine what is right and wrong. Much of this conversation is about exactly that. However, it is very difficult to do so when presented with half-truths, leading questions, omissions and generally misinformation.
Rogan, himself fell victim to this exact scenario in the Josh Szeps episode. Szeps stopped Rogan in his tracks to correct a statement about myocarditis.
"I don't think that's true. I don't think it's true," Rogan combatted.
It was only when Rogan asked the producer to fact check this believing himself to be accurate that he was proven incorrect.
And why would Rogan believe that in the first place?
Well, as discussed before, Robert Malone talked about myocarditis for a lengthy period of time without any push back, follow up question or context. And this was a real time example of why that is dangerous. Joe Rogan himself was caught operating under a false belief based on, as he stated, “what he had heard before.” This is what doctors, nurses, ER and ICU staff who have been overworked for years fear.
Now extrapolate that incident out upon his multitudes of listeners. This is why Rogan faces criticism. He live played it for us all to witness. I’ll add he wasn’t exactly open to being wrong either.
Look, Joe Rogan isn’t many things’ critics have labeled him. He has said some bad stuff and been criticized for it. The average age of his viewership is 24 with 71% being male. His demographic is naturally going to seek a voice that seems to speak out against authority or mainstream narratives. Critiques of Rogan need to be clear, open and in good faith or else this crowd will smell it out in an instant. Political generalizations and uninformed slights aren’t going to change anyone’s mind. If anything, this demographic has been led to Rogan due to the failures of established media. That being said, Rogan is not immune to criticism. As he becomes more popular and takes on more controversial topics, he will face greater criticism. Some of that criticism is going to be valid. It is up to his fans to accept that reality as well.
This content is also available on the free Substack along with audio and video: linktr.ee/...