Podcaster Joe Rogan (profile here), who self-identifies as a libertarian and free speech advocate, claims “I’ve never tried to do anything with this podcast other than just talk to people and have interesting conversations.”
A lot of people beg to differ, including “270 scientists, physicians, professors, doctors, and healthcare workers [who] wrote an open letter … expressing concern over ‘false and societally harmful assertions'” about Covid-19 on his show, plus a growing number of high-profile musical and other celebrities now leaving Spotify, the platform hosting his podcasts.
Rogan, a college dropout, has no subject matter expertise on Covid-19 or much of anything else; at most, he’s an entertainer. He tried his hand at martial arts, stand-up comedy, and TV work before striking gold as a talk-show host. As this article points out, “Rogan platforms a lot of people whose ideas are dangerous [and] without a background in journalism or … editorial oversight, Rogan … hasn’t always been the best person to critique or fact-check his highly influential guests.” (Um, like never?)
While Rogan claims he just moderates “interesting conversations,” a critic argues (here) that he “traffics in conspiracy theories, cultural intolerance and blatant racism” and is “an agent of these social ills.” And he does have personal opinions about Covid-19 far removed from mainstream. He’s touted quack remedies like ivermectin and vitamins, and in April 2021 — more than a year into the pandemic — he personally, not one of his guests, asserted that “young and healthy people should not be concerned about getting COVID-19,” a comment he later walked back, and which clearly isn’t true.
For more about quack doctors and cures, go here. Rogan apparently thinks he’s performing a public service by giving them a soapbox and microphone when nobody else will.
And when he’s challenged, insincere apology is part of his m.o. He later called himself a “moron” for uttering that comment; and then, facing a storm of criticism for using the “n” word on his show (read that story here), he apologized again. He backs down when he has to, but he doesn’t back off from putting disreputable people and ideas on the air..
Rogan says he opposes “cancel culture,” a politically loaded term referring to efforts to stifle or drown out certain viewpoints. We, in America, do treasure free speech and free exchange of ideas. But this is more complicated than Rogan explains or likely understands.
Although Republicans aren’t above using government censorship to suppress ideas they don’t like (for example, barring Florida state employees from using the phrase “global warming,” culling books from school libraries and teachers’ reading lists, and threatening teachers with jail if they discuss racism in classrooms in ways that might cause “discomfort” to white people), when most people say “cancel culture” they’re referring to social censorship (e.g., the taboo against the “n” word).
But a sharp distinction must be drawn between trying to silence someone, and not giving them a soapbox. What’s mostly happening in the Covid-19 arena is yanking away the soapbox from spreaders of what the medical establishment deems misinformation. That’s what Twitter did to Dr. Robert Malone. He’s a medical researcher with an impressive resume (profile here), but also has a tainted reputation as a shrill anti-vaxxer who compares health mandates to the Nazi Holocaust. Twitter booted him “for spreading misinformation about COVID-19.” Dr. Malone can still screech about public health official “dictators,” just not on Twitter.
Rogan apparently conceives his role as offering a soapbox to cranks like Dr. Malone. There are two questions to ask here. First, is he simply giving Malone an opportunity to present a reasoned defense of alternative views on legitimately debatable issues, or is he handing a megaphone to a crackpot who contributes nothing of value to public discourse? And second, is he inviting rebuttal guests, and moderating an airing of views in an honest search for truth, or is his show a one-sided platform for dodgy propaganda?
In very broad terms, no university, news editor, or social media platform has any legal or moral obligation to give voice to misinformation or falsehoods, especially harmful ones, and arguably has a social obligation not to. On the other hand, care should be taken not to dismiss unpopular views that might turn out to be correct, simply because they’re not currently accepted. Those who professionally search for knowledge and truth are the last people we want to be lemmings. Their proper role in society is to exercise critical judgment, not blindly follow the herd.
Passively handing a microphone to a Proud Boys leader (see story here) isn’t that. I’m not sure what we should call it, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a good thing socially.
I don’t listen to Rogan’s show, but I’m picking up red flags. A lot of reputable people have judged him guilty of propagandizing, perhaps not so much for what he himself says, but through his selection of guests like Dr. Malone and a systematic failure to invite reputable experts to present the other side. His lack of professional background, and position as an entertainer who gains financially from pandering to ignorance-embracing audiences, also calls into question his bona fides.
Following the latest kerfuffles, Rogan is offering to make changes, so let’s wait and see if he actually becomes an honest broker of ideas. The verdict so far, though, is that he sounds like just another rightwing mouthpiece peddling conspiracy theories and Covid-19 nonsense.