Has there been any evidence what he's said has actually caused any harm? Clearly there's a good chance the anti vax lot have been lapping it up...but has anybody discovered that because of Joe Rogan X amount of the population became staunchly anti vax due to misleading information?
Joe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
that’s impossible to prove
I wouldn't say impossible, but it's not something that's easily quantified. Even though I like Joe Rogan I'm not saying he isn't theoretically causing a problem with some of the guests he's putting on...but at the moment it's all just guesswork.
But that only works if Joe is a stand alone in his position and not part of a wider problem?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/59ade5/inside-youtubes-alt-media-ecosystem
This is beginning to sound like an O.J. trial.
Promoting antivax views to millions of people is definitely a problem
Has anyone tried putting the glove on Joe Rogan?
It is impossible because no one listens only to Rogan. It’s a downward spiral and anyone who gets sucked in gets exposed to more & more content like this — be it on Spotify, YouTube, Facebook etc. To be fair it’s not exclusive to anti-vax or any other specific theme, it’s just the way that the social media works.
There are ways to prove his general influence (for example, by comparing google trends on the themes that he talks about before & after an episode airs), but you’ll never get a direct and undeniable correlation between his specific words and, say, someone dying from not getting a vaccine.
I lived through the Iraq war. I don't need to be lectured on what went on. You had to actively seek out sources that weren't pushing the same narrative. Even the supposedly neutral BBC were found to be among the most aggressively pro-war outlets.
71% of US media was pro war. Every single mainstream television news outlet was predominantly pro-war.
3% of US media outlets were actively opposed to the war. Three percent. A war that was based on lies, that was declared illegal by the United Nations shortly after. The US cynically used the hysteria of 9/11 and intentionally conflated Iraq with Al Qaeda - The media by in large did nothing to challenge this obvious distortion to the extent that 57% of American's believed the two entities were linked. 69% believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This stuff doesn't require hindsight and anyone saying otherwise is a fool. There were plenty of people who called out the bullshit at the time - But as the above statistics show they were not getting a voice in the US, they were barely getting a voice anywhere.
There was no will to oppose the war and lot of money was made by a lot of powerful people. The New York Times even apologised for their coverage and they're well aware of the stain it still remains on their reputation, but as I said before that's small comfort for the victims. And yet you have people here acting like it was no big deal, just a swing and a miss as if the consequences weren't catastrophic. They had a far, far bigger influence on public perception than Joe fecking Rogan.
Literally no one is doing this. Maybe read the thread before posting this nonsense.
there was enormous public opposition to the war though, tens of millions of people were protesting in dozens of countries
I know. The public's sentiment and the media sentiment being at odds is literally one of the points I'm trying to make. They did not represent the views of their population at all.
First of all comparing the ratings of live television to a podcast that accumulates views over weeks and months is actually laughable.
Secondly - 18.2 million people tuned into GWB's address before the Iraq invasion on CNN and Fox alone. So no, Rogan's scope isn't even close to the combined mainstream outlets, certainly not in 2003.
you just compare average viewers per show
Joe gets about 11 million for an average run-of-the-mill show, and the main channels get 2/3 million
I don't know why we'd compare it to 2003 when Joe Rogans show didn't exist, but using that comparison yes they beat Joe Rogan in 2003
I agree with your other point that the entire non-Joe Rogan media has a bigger reach than Joe Rogan, though
The 11 million number is completely unverified as far as I know.
I'd compare it to 2003 because I was specifically talking about the media's influence on the Iraq war. Even if Rogan were more influential than modern mainstream outlets it wouldn't lessen the influence they had at the time. The fact that there were no podcasts/YouTube videos just increased the responsibility of those outlets and they got it horribly wrong.
I think Rogan is extremely harmful but I imagine his actual impact in terms of lives lost is probably overstated. Introducing the world to the likes of Bret Weinstein and giving him a platform probably caused more harm than anything Rogan has done directly. I get the feeling that it's anti-vaxxers flocking to him as much as it's him creating anti-vaxxers. I look at his reddit page and it seems a lot of fans of the podcast hate everything about his covid rhetoric.
It's an interesting article. One of the immediate issues I have with this is who defines the AIN? You could potentially include people like Stephen Fry in this and then claim he's a gateway influencer to more extreme content.
I really find these assumptions a hard reach...
"But for the viewers, these collaborations could lead viewers down where, for example, they begin as fans of Rogan and later end up becoming consumers of radicalized, far-right hate speech."
"Talk show hosts like Rubin and Rogan depend upon a large number of guest stars and organically connect with other content creators, which is why they are included within this network. Even though they aren’t at the very center of the AIN, with the greatest amount of connections between users, they often serve as a gateway to more extreme users, especially because both have had guests from the far right."
Also despite some of the things Rogan has said or his guests have said being total crap, there are some things around the fringes that seem sensible to me to be debated.
Rogan went through a phase around the time Trump got elected where he was platforming every right wing propagandist going.
He distanced himself from all of them since and admitted himself in an interview with Glenn Greenwald that he felt he was irresponsible at that time, which is hilarious considering what he's done since. The likes of Milo and Molyneux just went full Nazi eventually and it was obvious even at the time what they were all about. Same goes for a lot of those guys. A fecking 8 year old could see through Dave Rubin's act and every one of those IDW dipshits have never been able to live down their association with him.
And tell me, on what basis were the public forming that sentiment? How were they learning about what was happening in Iraq? What media were the vast majority of them reading?
I’m guessing your American and maybe your media was a lot more jingoistic than what I was exposed to in Europe. But, as I keep saying, “mainstream media” is a broad church and it’s really not difficult to find balanced opinions.
Last edited:
The fact is he did support it though. I didn't support hence I didn't vote for Tony Blair's Labour again in 2005. Millions of other people in the UK marched against it. Millions of people in the US didn't support it. But Greenwald loves to act like some kind of enlightened above the fray critic when as a grown man who had a professional education and employment he did support the war and avoids taking ownership of it while ascribing motivations to those who didn't.
Maajid Nawaj is an upcoming guest on Rogan's podcast.
It seems very convenient.
Do you think Joe Rogan heard of Maajid until a few weeks ago when he became a hero of the online anti-vax community? Because after spending the entire pandemic spreading all sorts of conspiracies on social media that veered into qanon esque garbage and using his radio show to shout down callers in who dared to offer a different view including experts (Maajid loves saying we should question everything but apparently that does not extend to questioning his views) he did not have his contract renewed with LBC.
Maybe it is as much to do with the fact while the station saw record breaking listening numbers over the pandemic his show wasn't one of the contributing factors. Maybe they saw the numbers and decided after a year of giving him a national live platform to spew lies that even his own colleagues were embarrassed about that the market no longer justified him being on the station? LBC is a station that has regularly featured Nigel Farage so it is not like they are some sort of left-wing safe space.
It seems very convenient.
Do you think Joe Rogan heard of Maajid until a few weeks ago when he became a hero of the online anti-vax community? Because after spending the entire pandemic spreading all sorts of conspiracies on social media that veered into qanon esque garbage and using his radio show to shout down callers in who dared to offer a different view including experts (Maajid loves saying we should question everything but apparently that does not extend to questioning his views) he did not have his contract renewed with LBC.
Maybe it is as much to do with the fact while the station saw record breaking listening numbers over the pandemic his show wasn't one of the contributing factors. Maybe they saw the numbers and decided after a year of giving him a national live platform to spew lies that even his own colleagues were embarrassed about that the market no longer justified him being on the station? LBC is a station that has regularly featured Nigel Farage so it is not like they are some sort of left-wing safe space.
He's been on before. He's a prat though.
Ok, I stand corrected. He's been on before ... and now he just happens to be invited back as soon as he has become a figure of the online anti-vax community who is a victim of "cancel culture". Very convenient.
"Malone had a following before his “Joe Rogan Experience” interview that was released Dec. 31 — but that show introduced him to an even wider audience. On it, he promoted an unfounded theory called “mass-formation psychosis,” telling Rogan that a “third of the population [is] basically being hypnotized” into believing what the mainstream media and Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease expert and chief medical adviser to President Biden, report on the vaccines. Malone went on to compare the country’s pandemic policies to Nazi Germany. "
"Rogan’s episode drew immediate backlash, but Malone found support from Rep. Troy E. Nehls (R-Tex.), who entered a full transcript of the interview into the Congressional Record. At Sunday’s march, numerous Malone followers were in the audience, including Rachel Gillert, who carried a sign reading, “Do you have mass-formation psychosis?” "
“It seems like a lot of people saw his side of this issue for the first time when he did his interview with Joe Rogan,” said Gillert, 31, of Richmond. “It definitely seems like he’s made a big impact.”
"Daniel Kotzin, 52, who flew in from Denver with his two young children to attend Sunday’s march, said Malone’s interview with Rogan, as well as his credentials, have “galvanized” parents who are against vaccinating their children."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/
I stumbled upon this article for reasons unconnected to Rogan, but I think parts of it fit the topic nicely.
"Rogan’s episode drew immediate backlash, but Malone found support from Rep. Troy E. Nehls (R-Tex.), who entered a full transcript of the interview into the Congressional Record. At Sunday’s march, numerous Malone followers were in the audience, including Rachel Gillert, who carried a sign reading, “Do you have mass-formation psychosis?” "
“It seems like a lot of people saw his side of this issue for the first time when he did his interview with Joe Rogan,” said Gillert, 31, of Richmond. “It definitely seems like he’s made a big impact.”
"Daniel Kotzin, 52, who flew in from Denver with his two young children to attend Sunday’s march, said Malone’s interview with Rogan, as well as his credentials, have “galvanized” parents who are against vaccinating their children."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/
I stumbled upon this article for reasons unconnected to Rogan, but I think parts of it fit the topic nicely.
Jon Stewart nails it, imo
Joe Rogan should be engaged with rather than deplatformed or censored.
What makes Rogan different is that he isn't an ideologue or a dishonest actor. He's also willing to be proven wrong on his own show. That's the sort of person you debate and converse with. Because you can. And because if you win, he'll give you your due.
Joe Rogan should be engaged with rather than deplatformed or censored.
What makes Rogan different is that he isn't an ideologue or a dishonest actor. He's also willing to be proven wrong on his own show. That's the sort of person you debate and converse with. Because you can. And because if you win, he'll give you your due.
Last edited:
He wasn't entirely wrong though.
If you listen to his sentiment and then listen to Dr Epstein's podcast on how big tech (in particular Google) is essentially brain washing society with propoganda and can (and has matter of fact) swing elections in recent times in the US.
Dr Epstein came across very well, provided his data matter of fact and supporting evidence of cases he carried out.
As he stated, Google essentially control a good 96-98% of the internet, its very difficult to find balanced information on any topic so it convinces large sections of society into thinking a particular way.
And I mention all this because its obvious Google is arguably the main resource tool people use today to inform themselves on any given topic. When you are not receiving a full and balanced picture of a given subject how can you suggest a person is properly informed?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein Testimony.pdf
I think that’s a naive stand to take. People like Rogan are being engaged with all the time. Plenty people try their best in order to fight misinformation. It only leads to a situation where the followers of people like that see these whacky and dangerous opinions being taken seriously, see how they are engaged with and all that results in is, that these people feel taken seriously in their delusions. That’s dangerous.
When we walk down the street and some maniac starts yelling about the end of the world, we don’t engage with that lunatic. And why would we? They are crazy lunatics with crazy opinions, after all. Yet if these lunatics manage to get a platform they are to be engaged with in a serious manner? That’s just not right.
There is no engaging with opinions that are simply wrong. Because these opinions don‘t deserve to be taken seriously. Rogan‘s opinions aren’t a little outside the box or a little strange. They are factually proven to be wrong and harmful. Which he’s been told countless times by people who did just what you wanted, engaging with him. It led us to a situation where one of the biggest podcasts in the world has become one of the biggest drivers of misinformation there is.
So you can of course engage with him all you want. He and his followers will still ignore facts and reason and choose to believe nonsense. And if serious experts sit in his show, he will just ignore their expertise and invite enough quacks afterwards, that confirm his idiotic opinions.
What you want is what’s being done already. It is not working. Not at all. It is what got us into this mess.
There are things you don’t engage with. And people who spread misinformation during a pandemic are amongst those.
Yeah if the libs got what they wanted and Rogan was booted off Spotify, he would go to his former platform and reach a far bigger audience. The only answer is as you said to somehow kick Rogan off the internet completely which while impossible, even the most anti Rogan person would most likely disagree with. So the liberal/progressive is stuck in a position of saying a podcast is killing members of the public and destroying democracy, yet their answer to this is for a warning message at the start of the podcasts.
There is no doubt that the influence of big tech companies on our societies is worrying, but I don't value the opinions of someone who tries to spread misinformation and compares vaccinations to the holocaust. And I think it's ironic to mention this on a podcasts with millions of subscribers that invites people to spread all kinds of misinformation. It reminds of some AfD genius, who got to ask Merkel a question at some public Q&A event and told her his right to free speech was being oppressed, after which she reminded him, who he just got to air this grievance to.
Yeah right. Too bad no one ever told him that vaccines aren't the work of the devil in the past two years, because then surely he wouldn't have invited and promoted all those anti-vax nutters.
People do engage with him and it’s either ignored or retconned to suit Joes point of view.
Just last week he was caught out being wrong in an argument and spent 2 days retweeting quack studies to prove how he was correct all along.
Joes head is gone and is a victim of misinformation himself, in my opinion
That seems like an incredibly chartiable connection to make. There's a big difference between social media influence in elections, which we know is happening, and claiming that Fauci is brainwashing Americans through social media - while comparing it to Nazi Germany.
Yeah, that's just ridiculous.
Engaging with Someone only works if that person wants to be engaged with. Rogan clearly doesn’t.
Nails it.
Are there people or viewpoints you would never engage with? If so, who or what are they?
Sure. Obviously dishonest people
Tomorrow the BBC may run an article that Bo Jo govt. held back some parts of Sue Gray's report and I'm sure you will reply with a 'But what did the MSM do on the Iraq war / Iran Contra / Boston Tea Party I wonder'... I mean bringing up the veracity of conspiracy theories of FBI spying on MLK on Joe Rogan's vaccine skepticism is exactly like dissing on Liz Warren, the 5th most popular candidate not giving up for Bernie Sanders.
You lot will always run a puritan contest to be cuckolded to the neo cons and the rightwing loons. I mean, it's only one step better than the lesser right wing / centrists but yeah both ways are bad.
What misinformation? Just ask as there's so many accusations leveled at Dr Malone it's hard to keep up. Please don't refer me to some "Dr" on Tiktok (as I've had done to me quite a lot recently).
I don't believe Dr Malone to be perfect and 100% correct in his assertions always, he admitted almost immediately on the podcast these exact sentiments. He is vaxed and is one of, if not the top immunologists in the world, his insight is every bit as valid as Dr Fauci's.
Dr Fauci isn't doing it directly per say, however his opinions have been and still being shoved down our throats across MSM and big tech promoting his sentiments whilst removing dissenting opinions removed.
Simply transfer social media influence in elections to vaccines uptake / hesitancy.
I'd argue every single commentator on this thread has at some point in the last 2 years used Google for information on covid and vaccines, the information that is returned builds the foundations of our knowledge and beliefs then going forward.
