Much is made of Joe Rogan’s politics and his embrace of Trump late in the presidential election, and the extent to which appealing to “manosphere” podcasts and media accounts helped the Donald win.
A common criticism is that politically Joe Rogan pretends to be independent, but he’s really a secret conservative. A show I listened to for a few years is WNYC’s On the Media, which is supposed to be an analysis of media bias. It generally has a left-wing bent, with the idea that the defining mistake of the media in the 21st Century was to not be skeptical enough of George W Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war. That sensibility is a big part of why I don’t listen to it any more, as well as a lack of transparency regarding the acrimonious departure of a former host on a show about media transparency.
In one section of the latest episode, host Micah Loewinger talks about various podcasters, mentioning how the Nelk boys used to be apolitical and how Theo Vonn isn’t a MAGA guy “although he hosted a viral conversation with Trump” on his podcast. Most of the ire is directed at Rogan, in response to criticism that Kamala Harris should have gone on his show.
How did the former host of the network reality show Fear Factor become a political kingmaker? For one, he was an early podcast adopter. Rogan realized there was a hunger for media that doesn’t tell you how to think, or at least presents itself that way, a hunger for discussions that aren’t bound by broadcast time constraints, stuffy talk show decorum or editorial guard rails that favor mainstream experts and centrist politics.
One objection is that I have no idea what Loewinger considers to be “centrist politics.” Since this is about how someone compares objectively to others on the left-right political spectrum, that term should be used neutrally. The most obvious definition would be that if you ranked American adults from left to right in terms of their political opinions, the people in the middle are centrists and their policy preferences as opposed to those on the left or right would be centrist. I have no sense whether the editorial policy at WNYC matches this interpretation, or whether this term is used thoughtfully.
Justin Peters from Slate is brought on as a commentator, and not challenged in his interpretations about Rogan or Elon Musk.
I think you’re right that this was the moment Musk started really trying to reach out for the alt-right intellectual dark web appeal, and smoking weed with Joe Rogan was the turning point.
Loewinger continues “For Rogan, politics was a bit more complicated. Even as he hosted buddy-buddy interviews with Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and the like, he was still reaching a politically diverse audience” and then notes left-coded comments that Rogan had made, like when he said “I think I’ll probably vote for Bernie. Him as a human being, when I was hanging out with him, I believe in him. I like him. … I’ve never voted right-wing in my life. I’ve always voted Democrat, except for the one time I voted for Gary Johnson, because he was on my podcast.”
Or “I’m very pro-choice. I’m very womens rights, civil rights, gay rights; I’m even for universal health-care.” as well as “Obviously this protective status is driving me crazy, this thing Trump is doing with children who were born in other countries and then brought here.”
I do not like the implication that friendly interviews should be treated as a source of suspicion. There is no hint that an interviewer who is cordial with controversial left-wingers should be treated as an obvious partisan. It’s also weird that Rogan was accepted when he supported a Socialist who made an unsuccessful attempt to win the Democratic party rather than when he supported a successful presidential candidate.
Justin Peters discussed the theory that Rogan had been red-pilled by guests. “When someone keeps saying I’m a liberal, I’m a liberal, and then people with whom he talks speak incessantly about the evils of cancel culture, who talk about how the mainstream media is suppressive and so and so forth, then you’re not actually a liberal, you’re wearing a costume, and I think what’s happened over the last five years is that Rogan has finally taken off the costume and revealed himself for who he is all along.”
I really don’t like talking about what other people really believe, since that’s an obnoxious thing to be wrong about. But Peters doesn’t make any effort to say why it’s liberal to support the worst excesses of cancel culture, or to refuse to criticize the mainstream media. A decent well-informed human being should be able to identify bias that favors their side, and call it out. Some on the right, skeptical of what they see as an authoritarian bent among conservatives, have described themselves as “classical liberals” because they believe process is more important and that the best way to achieve good policy outcomes is through open, transparent discussions. This fits Rogan’s expressed views quite well.
Rogan has said some nutty things, many of which were pointed out in the OTM episode. I thought it was especially strange when he went on a half-hour tangent in his interview with Matt Walsh (Daily Wire commentator and host of the documentaries What is a Woman? and Am I Racist?) on how the radiation of the Van Allen belt makes him suspicious about the moon landing. That just seems like questions to save for an astrophysicist. But as an eccentricity, it doesn’t seem to have a partisan bent.
Loewinger considers whether Democrats may need their own Joe Rogan, looking at Twitch streamer Hasan Piker as an example, noting “He’s big and burly. He’s fluent in memes and gaming culture. He gets the internet, but as a socialist he’s likely seen as too extreme to be embraced by mainstream Democrats in the way Republicans have embraced their right-wing influencers.” A moment later he quotes Hasan Piker’s opinions on right-wing influence in podcasts and other new media spaces, which are presented without any pushback, further getting to the idea that as far as hosts of an ostensibly nonpartisan mainstream media show are concerned, backing Trump is way outside the norm, but we should listen to socialists.
As an English teacher and a lawyer’s son, Thomas Mets tries to be exact in his language, hence why this is titled “Who Says This S*!&” and not “Who Writes This S*!&” as this is in response to something on a podcast.
Do you agree that the media should treat Trump supporters by the same standards they treat supporters of other politicians? Perhaps you think they do. Let us know in the comments below.
