[rlt]

> Rogan is clearly pandering to an audience who already know what they want to hear.

I don’t think that’s the case for the majority of his listeners. I like him because he’s a good interviewer and has lots of interesting guests from across the political (and apolitical) spectrum. And I’m tripled vaccinated, since I guess that’s needed for credibility now.

Serious question: is there a point-by-point debunking of the alleged “dangerous misinformation” appearing on his show?

I think funding something like that would have been a better use of Neil Young’s Spotify royalties than just giving them up.

[smackeyacky]

Debunking doesn't seem to work with anti vaxxers or racists. No matter how many facts are placed in front of them, they don't care, don't trust the sources and never absorb anything new unless it fits whatever conspiracy they believe in.

This is what makes Rogan so dangerous. He seems reasonable, unlike Alex Jones, but Jones started his slide by flirting with growing his audience through nutters and Rogan will end up the same if he continues.

[fortytwo79]

People have always been that way. Before Rogan showed up, before the internet was even invented, there were "nutters" that had deeply misinformed perspectives which they followed, sometimes, to death. I'm sure someone will argue scale is the differentiator, but I'd argue that the proportions of people who ignore facts vs consider facts, is probably unchanged. (Although admittedly, I have no statistics)

Also I think a big part of the problem is the aggressive labeling of content as "misinformation" or "fake news." To me, misinformation implies propaganda issued and promoted by an enemy entity. But today, it is a term that is used to mean anything that has a fact (whether verifiably correct or incorrect) that implies a conclusion that is generally unacceptable.

For example, if the generally acceptable premise is: "everyone who is able should get a vaccination," then publicly talking to someone harmed by a vaccination (even if it's true) would be considered misinformation, because it potentially concludes something opposing the acceptable premise.

If we can't openly share ideas, good, bad, informed, misinformed, then the 99% (fake number) of us who aren't "nutters" that follow bad advice to extreme conclusions, will be denied the volume of data, perspectives, and opinions we need to make a truly informed decision.

[rlt]

But most of his listeners are not anti vaxxers or racists, otherwise you wouldn’t believe he was a “dangerous” influence.

If the best his critics can manage are character attacks against him and his guests (which is mostly what I’ve seen), his listeners will not only continue to listen to his “misinformation”, but believe he’s trying to be silenced.

That said, I do believe he bears some responsibility to balance out the more controversial viewpoints, and he has stated he will. I would love to see him host two guests with opposing views more frequently.

[smackeyacky]

Thats not what I said.

I am saying if he decides that growing his audience via the standard laundry list of RWNJ topics and conspiracies, he will slide into being just another Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. At the moment he isn't that, but he is definitely on that path.

I get that it's lucrative since that particular audience seem to be cashed up rubes who will throw money at anybody who panders to them, but it inevitably leads to getting involved in the lies they want to hear.