HonestyHurts wrote:
LOL. This question is laughable. Joe Rogan's success is a reflection of the fact that a lot of people (mostly apolitical, white men who enjoy UFC) feel they can relate to his point of view. It's not because he's a great interviewer. I gave his podcast a fair shot (listened to at least 50+ episodes) and (1) he doesn't do a great job of going in-depth with his interviewee (despite having them on for over 1.5 hours), (2) he is repetitive and rather predictable (80% of the time he's ranting about how in his view everyone is too PC, how social media has changed the nature of our news cycle and communication, and how if everyone just picked up a martial art we'd all be better off).
Remember, just because someone is popular, doesn't make them skilled at what they do (an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy).
Also, while I'm here -- does no one else see the irony in the fact that he constantly promotes "objectivity," YET sells snake-oil-like pills that are supposed to make you smarter? C'mon people!
Right on the money. Just because Rogan is quick on his feet and fairly savvy doesn't mean he is suddenly some kind of journalistic superhero. Those interviewing exemplars are the everyday pros who work for great newspapers, TV stations, websites, etc., or have their own gig. These people are able to create a balanced, contextualized, and relevant piece of reportage, and aren't interested in self-promotion.
And the UFC thing is just barbaric....making money off this sort of primitivism is just reprehensible.