If you want to understand why podcasting is killing, he says, you first need to appreciate the world-changing, brain-rewiring transformation in how we consume information.I agree that podcasts are better when you are cooking or brushing your teeth and so forth, but you can read a book while walking. That's about the only way I can maintain the focus to really read a book — straight through. I walk and listen to an audiobook. The immersive experience is exactly what you want on an extended walk. Maybe Bari Weiss is talking about walking in a crowded city, which needs something more snippet-y.
Reading or watching the news is no longer immersive, as it was when you sat down with a bunch of papers or in front of a living room TV. Now it is a fragmented experience, usually done on a cellphone.
“The problem,” he told me, “is that the cellphone also has YouTube videos of the craziest things ever — babies landing on cats and animal attacks and naked people.”
Why would you read a 2,000-word story about the collapse of health care in Venezuela when you can zone out with some TikToks?...
While I cook dinner I’m likely listening to Rogan, Sam Harris, “The Portal” or “Red Scare.” I go for morning walks and listen to “The Daily.” You can’t cook or walk while reading.
Anyway, I listen to Joe Rogan's podcast, and it's easy for me to see why what he does is working and also why it's so hard to do what he does, even if not thinking about it and feeling okay with the idea that you're dumb is an essential part of how it's done.
When you’re on MSNBC for a five-minute hit, you can control your message. When you are sucked into a conversation with Rogan, it can go sideways, fast. And you’re in the hot seat for sometimes three hours. As a guest, no show is more intimidating.Now, that makes the podcast sound more immersive. You enter into Joe Rogan's environment — "The Joe Rogan Experience" — and wild things can happen in there.
That unpredictability, that willingness to take risks with topics, tone and guests, is one of the reasons podcasting is eating our lunch. The prestige press has become too delicate, worried about backlash on Twitter and thus shying away from an ever-increasing number of perceived third rails.And it's way too partisan... while pretending to be professional. A poisonous combination.
“I think there’s so much manipulation and so much bullshit when it comes to politics, I’m not interested in it,” he said. He said he turned down requests from Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to come on the show. (Though he interviewed Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders.)Good.
But whether he wants to or not, Rogan doesn’t need to play politics to influence it. His whole ethos — curious; not particularly ideological; biased toward things that work; baffled by the state of both parties — is where so many Americans are right now. And that’s his power....
Posts
80 comments:
Yes, I agree. Good.
"Why would you read a 2,000-word story about the collapse of health care in Venezuela"
How many people seriously read such stuff back in antiquity?
I missed the entire Howard Stern era.
Glad.
I'm missing the JOe Rogan era too.
Glad. *Tho - it does appear that Joe Rogan is a little higher on the evolutionary scale.
Rogan is surfing our zeitgeist and cashing in on it by simply being genuine.
Whether the authenticity is real or fake, only time will tell. In any case, he'd probably have called bullshit on all this if you'd showed him his reality unfolding at present some ten years ago. Who knows - even I installed a Spotify app.
Life's like that. Stick around. You never know, you know?
I think its success is because it's good infotainment for men. The legacy media are all fighting for the attention of white women.
appreciate the world-changing, brain-rewiring transformation in how we consume information. Reading or watching the news is no longer immersive, as it was when you sat down with a bunch of papers or in front of a living room TV. Now it is a fragmented experience, usually done on a cellphone. . . . Why would you read a 2,000-word story about the collapse of health care in Venezuela when you can zone out with some TikToks?
Newspeak double plus ungood.
#NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoPretense Rogan is politically incongruent and an effective reporter with a curious mind.
MEMORIAL LOSS Less than HALF of Americans know the true meaning behind Memorial Day
Good on Joe. I'm amused that at the same time that "experts" tell us attention spans are shrinking the #1 podcast goes on for over 3 hours on occasion.
That's about the only way I can maintain the focus to really read a book — straight through. I walk and listen to an audiobook.
College ruined reading for me. All that hunting for deeper meanings or structures or sign systems. Most of the novels I "read" since then were audiobooks.
It also takes a while to overcome resistance or inertia and immerse oneself in the world of a novel and then to decompress afterwards. With an audiobook one doesn't have that problem.
Before election day, Trump will go on Rogan.
I see here that Biden wants on. I think his people know better, but if Trump goes on he may have no choice.
You read it here first. Load up another semi trailer full of popcorn.
You can listen to a book while walking.
You can read a book while walking if you are taking a turn around the garden in a Jane Austen BB production.
Are you using "reading a book" and "listening to an audiobook" interchangeably?
One just as easily could have written the reason he's popular is that there aren't many choices that aren't political propaganda or straw man warriors.
The dumb thing is like every great host ever. You act dumb so your guest can articulate their positions in their own words. It might come easy for Rogan. So what...
"Why would you read a 2,000-word story about the collapse of health care in Venezuela"
How many people seriously read such stuff back in antiquity?
Trick question!
My compliments to Joe. I hope this becomes a global movement of 'walking away' from Google and Facebook's near stranglehold on information dissemination.
Youtube's 'Adpocalypse' was just for openers. People haven't imagined yet what they'll pull out of their sleeves (I firmly believe that they will have no qualms about digitally editing content - i.e. deepfaking - accounts they don't like in the future to get them off the air...it would be your word against theirs).
Now is the time to hurt them, when ad revenue globally is tanking. They must be made to understand a lot of people aren't interested in content they 'suggest'.
The problem with the media is it wants to be smart.
It not only wants to tell you what happened, but why, and what’s going to happen tomorrow as a result.
It’s no longer for people who wish to think, but for those who can’t live in a world without a false sense of certainty.
I would listen more regularly if he offered a condensed version or shorter shows — he is an interesting guy and I do generally like him but 90 or 120 minutes is just not something that fits easily into my day.
It amazes me that so many people can fit that in ... what do their days look like?
communism killed venezuelan health care, the times missed that, the same thing is happening in spain with the nationalization of the private hospitals,
Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to come on the show. (Though he interviewed Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders.)
I don't buy that Rogan's non-ideological. He is a clear lefty even if he's unafraid to criticize the dumber aspects of the Democratic Party. I like that he interviewed the candidates who challenged the party but not the good party soldiers.
if he could summarize some,
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1264782365110538241?s=20
Jeff Brokow: search JRE Clips on YouTube.
Blogger RK said...I think its success is because it's good infotainment for men. The legacy media are all fighting for the attention of white women.
+1
He is a guy thing, smoking dope and doing shots, saying fuck, and giving the appearance of not giving a shit, even though he carefully nurtures his audience.
My problem is that many of the interviews take a big quality dive after the first hour. And his hardon about UFOs. Oh yea, and Joey Diaz.
Anyone else get the Home Depot Memorial Day email ad: "Remember the Fallen"? Right next to it is a picture of a guy on a ladder.
It amazes me that so many people can fit that in ... what do their days look like?
It's about the same length of time as a baseball game. I often just watch it on my TV (via YouTube) in the evening, but only really interesting guests.
He strikes me as a man without insignts. Go with the feelz.
I think he's a uniter. He's a self-described lefty who abhors SJW, PC culture and legacy media double standards. He's common ground for a vast center.
Some of us sort out our thoughts while walking. Or gardening. Or mowing the lawn. Or splitting wood.
Quiet is good for the soul. So is hard, sweaty work done outside.
I can scythe the lawn listening to Scott Adams, if he doesn't have a guest or attempted guest. The guest is always the smartest man in the world and is always a loser.
Listening to Rogan interview Elon Musk was interesting. It was obvious Rogan often didn't understand what Musk was talking about. Musk would throw out some term about AI or an SR 71 and Joe would look totally confused. Then he would have Musk break it down for him. Musk is a genius, he sometimes has a hard time communicating with people. Joe asks questions when he doesn't understand, which is good. He doesn't mind appearing uneducated.
Why on God's earth would I spend one or two hours listening to a podcast when I could read an interview or transcript in a few minutes?
To be critical of Joe Rogan, since what praise I have for him has already been expressed:
He gives a lot of softball interviews. I listened to Tulsi Gabbard, and was not impressed by either the host or Gabbard. I kept wanting to ask, other than your criticism of Hillary Clinton and her foreign policy, what is different about your candidacy? How are you different from any other liberal? Why do you think being a US House rep has prepared you for the Presidency? And, most of all, how is your foreign policy different than President Trump's?
So many other unasked questions. I get she had no chance of winning, but I believe in taking candidates seriously.
On the other hand, Rogan provided a service in showing that Gabbard can't even sustain a three-hour podcast.
I'm not bothered by a lot of the wooooo bullshit Joe seems to believe in. It's far less annoying than political bias.
There are a lot of good shows, though, when Joe has a subject matter expert on. I'm glad the show exists. He lets people talk!
It's killing...because Journalists are activists, and nobody trusts THEM anymore.
My wife likes to listen to TV talking heads (not David Byrne).
I only watch football on TV. I find TV talking heads to be vain, and stupid like Wolf Blitzer on Jeopardy.
Bottom line, many women like to have someone tell them what to think. Yeah....that's not going to be a popular opinion.....
"Are you using "reading a book" and "listening to an audiobook" interchangeably?"
That was my question too. Listening and reading are very different animals. Not only do they happen via different cognitive mechanisms, but reading is so much faster and, at least potentially, less annoying - I absolutely hate having to listen to someone whose voice grates on my ear or whose reading or presentation manner irritates me. Among the podcasts I listen to are some in which the presenters are an active barrier to my enjoyment - I listen because I am interested in their subject matter, but I have to get over them in order to make it through.
A number of my book club friends now seem exclusively to listen to our book of the month - and their comments tend to be about the actual reading of it, the skill, accent, inflection, or whatever of the audio reader, rather than about the book. It's weird to me.
RK, I believe, gets to the real reason for Rogan's success- I would wager Rogan's audience is at least 75% male, and probably higher. That Althouse is a regular listener is probably supporting evidence for my assertion- she is exactly the kind of female I would expect to be a Rogan fan.
As I wrote the day the deal was announced- I have only watched (I can't concentrate on anything else and listen to an interview) only a few of Rogan's full podcasts, and probably about 40 or so segments of podcasts since I first became aware of his podcasts (I remembered him from Fear Factor in the early oughts) about 6 or 7 years ago. What he has is a generally unbiased approach to interviewing his guests, and an unbiased approach to who he invites to the show. That is increbibly refreshing.
Will he be able to continue in his fashion with the Spotify deal? We will see, but for $100 million dollars, I think Spotify is more likely to want to exert some control over Rogan- they are, after all, still a social media company with the same kind of Left-wing management, and they will be pressured by the Left to "rein" Rogan in if he doesn't genuflect before the PC gods enough.
Audiobooks remind me of grammar school when the teacher would read to us a chapter from Charlotte's Web or short stories about Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. It was always a nice diversion from real work, but it didn't seem to me to improve reading skills and comprehension.
"you first need to appreciate the world-changing, brain-rewiring transformation in how we consume information."
"Consume information" is such a cliche today that it's easy to miss how weird it sounds. It's not a synonym for learning -- instead, to consume something means to use it up. "World-changing, brain-rewiring" is another silly cliche -- there is nothing world-changing about the act of listening to a podcast, and having a conversation with another as a means to learn something while challenging one's views is as old as Socrates (no doubt, quite a bit older). I've never listened to Joe Rogan (only recently even encountered his name), but I doubt he's up to the Socrates standard. All the blather (and especially the $100 MM price tag) tells me that it just a way some (many) people entertain themselves, like listening to Rush or Howard Stern (don't do that either). That's usually an exercise in bias-confirmation -- people cheering the bits they agree with and brushing off the rest.
But perhaps the Rogan thing is a bit different.
The elite media, the apple polisher media, look back fondly upon being lied to and manipulated when they were in school and they credit those lies and manipulations with making them the wonderful, wonderful men and women they are today.
They just can't understand why, when they try it on the rest of America, it doesn't work the same way. So frustrating.
Did I hear that Rogan's first year with Spotify is a co-broadcast?
After that, what's Rogan's exit clause? That's key to his enduring control.
Anyone else get the Home Depot Memorial Day email ad: "Remember the Fallen"? Right next to it is a picture of a guy on a ladder.
My wife fell off a ladder a few years ago and broke her wrist, not something I think about often. So thanks to this comment, I am remembering one more of the fallen today.
Thanks Howard, will do.
One of Joe's strengths is his appeal to those under 30. My sons (22 & 25) have been regular listeners for years. They introduced me to his series of podcasts and I believe his style is especially attractive to younger generations who never developed a personal affinity for watching TV news or reading the local papers. They also listen to Ben Shapiro almost daily, and he benefits from some of the same market dynamics.
The Rogan phenomenon provides a healthy example for what journalism could be, if those in this line of work did not see their mission as serving as the PR-wing of the DNC. Joe has become a role-model for many young people as he authentically tries to seek a nuanced understanding of complex issues in ways that bear no resemblance to the agenda-driven pablum spewed by "professional" journalists.
John Oliver also takes a long-form approach to explaining things on TV -- without any guests -- but he is far more opinionated than Joe, and he is completely opposite in terms of demanding we respect his intellect. He needs his viewers to think he is a brilliant commentator, so he avoids any give & take that might interrupt or undermine his highly scripted rants.
Changing times...
"a generally unbiased approach to interviewing his guest"
OK, fine. Maybe worth a listen at some point.
But I'm getting a sense from the other positive comments here that the man doesn't actually know anything. Correct?
For those who can't or won't watch a 3 hour podcast on Youtube, you can subscribe to "JRE Clips" channel and get the highlights.
I find that I am unable to maintain attention to podcasts and audiobooks, especially when I am doing other things at the same time.
AA - you caught me there? "...you can read a book while walking..." Not very safely?
"...I walk and listen to an audiobook...?"
Sorry but that's not reading that's listening!
I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh or Scott Adams while I do mechanical tasks like posting receipts for work. I've been thinking about checking out Rogan.
I've long marveled at how Rogan can remain so uninfluenced by political messaging that he seems to be genuinely naive when speaking to partisan guests, or discussing partisan topics. It's almost a Rain Man-type condition.
I enjoy it, though I tend to listen to A) guests I already agree with, or B) clips referred to me by a source knowing they will tell me what I want to hear.
NYT does a bangup job on their transcript consistency, unidentified sources claim!
I know the "falling off a ladder" thing is a kind of cliche thing in most people's mind, but when I had a relative in the ICU at Vanderbilt's hospital, one of the other patients there had fallen off a ladder and hit the back of his head- he wasn't expected to recover. I spent many a Summer as a teenager and early 20s adult roofing and re-roofing houses- an unsteady ladder is a scary thing.
“That's about the only way I can maintain the focus to really read a book — straight through. I walk and listen to an audiobook.”
That surprised me. Even the contemplative law professor can’t sit still in an era of birdshot inputs.
Neither can I, though. In my youth and young adulthood I could read for for hours at a stretch. Children, work, home ownership, and an ever widening range of interests, put paid to that. And reading the comments at Althouse. Hopefully, when I hit retirement I can regain some of that capacity for stillness. Given the Internet though, probably not.
His whole ethos — curious; not particularly ideological; biased toward things that work; baffled by the state of both parties — is where so many Americans are right now. And that’s his power....
So he's Larry King, Don Imus, Paul Harvey, etc. He's the latest incarnation of Reader's Digest.
“But I'm getting a sense from the other positive comments here that the man doesn't actually know anything. Correct?”
Neither does the bulk of the podcasting audience. Which is why I’m a fan of podcasters who, while having a clear ideological bent, strive to keep a neutral voice in their podcasts. Matt Forde’s The Political Party and the Canadian kid who does HI 101 spring to mind.
Where others breach, Rogan will broach.
If Rogan is making the case that he's dumb, then endorsing Bernie for president on the grounds that Grandpa Gulag has held to the same dopey, irrational beliefs for most of his life . . . well, I wouldn't argue against him.
Once in a while I'll watch mix martial arts fights on tv. When Joe Rogan is one of the announcers, I hit the mute button. He blows everything out of proportion. I'm able to better discern how hard the punch or kick was.
Part of Rogan's success is that he bridges a lot of demographics. People here listen, potheads listen, libertarians, lefties, and conservatives listen. He pulls in gun owners, hunters, vegetarians, snowflakes, science lovers and dreamers, becuase there really is something for most everyone to grab onto. Then once he has you convinced his show is not a one-dimensional place, you listen to stuff you might normally pass over. I disagree with him a lot, and some of his reasoning is silly, but he both challenges guests and lets them run. With him doing the interview, I may not get all the push back I want, but I trust him to interview people I agree with or disagree with, as he gives guests a chance to convince, and still challenges them.
Joe knows as much as most interviewers and a lot more on some subjects, the difference is he admits and accepts the holes in his knowledge. That gives him unusual ability to ask the right questions and field the answers in much more interesting ways that show true curiosity. Most questions asked by the media are not really questions at all.
"I would listen more regularly if he offered a condensed version or shorter shows — he is an interesting guy and I do generally like him but 90 or 120 minutes is just not something that fits easily into my day. "
Agreed. Crowder offers 15-18 minutes on a particular topic, and I'd rather listen to that.
But I'm an outlier. I walk with my daughter, so no time there for three-hour podcasts. Since I don't commute, no time there either. Only when I exercise, and I tend to listen to book marketing podcasts.
I wonder how much of the reading vs listening divide hinges on your comfort wearing some kind of headphones. The shape of my ears makes it impossible for me to wear earbuds. I have some lightweight over-the-ear headphones but they become irritating pretty quickly, and if I wear them for more than 30 minutes or so, they give me a headache. If I want to listen to something, I play it through a speaker... which is ok if I’m alone but in our open-floor plan house with everyone working from home, it doesn’t happen often.
I agree with Douglas. Listening is so frustrating to me because I have so much less control and it’s just so slow. I pretty much gave up on Scott Adams when he stopped writing. If I could read transcripts of his podcasts, I would. Joe Rogan is just not that interesting to me. I watched clips of Tulsi Gabbard’s interview and came away with a “meh” impression of both of them. Tulsi is not as smart as she thinks she is. Rogan doesn’t hold himself up as smart and he didn’t strike me as a particularly perceptive interviewer, either. LOL the person he reminded me the most of was Sean Hannity, but Hannity’s TV show has a great suite of actual reporters that do excellent work. I watch Hannity in spite of Hannity, and because I can fast-forward through it in about 40 minutes. I can’t imagine giving any amount of attention to Rogan for hours at a time.
Blogger Kevin said...
The problem with the media is it wants to be smart.
It not only wants to tell you what happened, but why, and what’s going to happen tomorrow as a result.
It’s no longer for people who wish to think, but for those who can’t live in a world without a false sense of certainty.
Kevin wins the thread
Never listened much, but Rogan seems sincere and willing to listen. Very retro! If you ever get a moment youtube up some TV interviews from the early 70s. A whole different world, where interviewers were interested in drawing out their interviewees.
Amazing that a media personslity made $30 (now $100) million a year doing long-winded podcasts entitled "The Joe Rogan Experience" after a ho-hum acting career and as host of a stupid game show. "Fear Factor" ended when contestants were required to drink Donkey Juice" said to be donkey urine or semen.
"If you vomited you would have to start over, I ended up just vomiting in my glass and drank that. The camera men were vomiting," a contestant told Fox News. "It smells. It's so bitter, and it has a little hint of hay."
Very bad.
MayBee said...
Are you using "reading a book" and "listening to an audiobook" interchangeably?
---------============
unless it is /Robots Reading Books/ what is effect on emotional evocation between reading for oneself and being read to (fond child memories anyone)
Is Joe the skeptical clown gonna be busted by the SEC?
...probably not.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/gq3097/joe_rogan_told_his_friend_about_his_spotify_deal/
looks like Joe Rogan may be onto something here in being non-confrontational.
I am not saying he knows Vorkosigan
AA commentariat not so much.
Quotables | Vorkosigan Wiki | Fandom
https://vorkosigan.fandom.com/wiki/Quotables
Aral advising his son : People give themselves to you, in their talking, and in other ways, if you are quiet and patient and let them, and not in such a damned rush to give yourself to them.
Now that raises interesting issues about Trump tweeting : is he giving himself away too quickly? or measured response?
Mr. non-confrontational had his fangs out for Candace Owens.
The next podcast I listen to ... will be my first.
Zero interest.
I heard parts of the one with robert downey jr. there were parts of one with jack carr, the action adventure novelist,
gadfly: "Amazing that a media personslity made $30 (now $100) million a year doing long-winded podcasts entitled "The Joe Rogan Experience" after a ho-hum acting career and as host of a stupid game show."
Interesting Note: gadly is a huge fan Rachel Maddow.
Discuss.
I agree that listening to a book is slow, so it’s hard to be patient with it if you’re just sitting around, but when walking, the feeling is completely different.
I used to read read while walking, which was a little dangerous, but I did it because I found just walking to be boring.
With the iPhone and earbuds and Audible, it’s easy to have lots of books at your disposal and that is my way of getting through whole books, front to back. I read many long books this way.
If I am sitting and reading... reading reading... I am constantly going off into other things, reading articles, shifting to writing. My attention works very strongly but it won’t stay put on a book’s linear path. I don’t think I ever just read a long book reading with my eyes anymore, not straight through.
“My attention works very strongly but it won’t stay put...”
Strongly, but not deeply.
A sine of the times.
P.S. Why not “very, very, very, mega strongly”?
Cool times.
Sebastian said...
..."I'm getting a sense from the other positive comments here that the man doesn't actually know anything. Correct?"
Like the most of us, he knows a lot about some things and almost nothing about other things. He is open minded and more than occasionally asks excellent questions. Otherwise, sometimes asking a bad question then giving the guest all the time they want to respond is even more informative and or entertaining. He will even concede strongly held positions and change his mind when presented with a strong argument.
gadfly said...
"Amazing that a media personslity made $30 (now $100) million a year doing long-winded podcasts entitled "The Joe Rogan Experience" after a ho-hum acting career and as host of a stupid game show."
This is a good time to mention that he is a hugely successful stand up comedian. Huge.
Whether or not I listen to any particular JRE podcast is usually determined by the guest. He's approaching 1500, not counting, I think the MMA themed shows.
I found him about 6 months ago. I don't listen to the comics, the MMA stuff is a snooze, but most of the rest of the interviews are great.
I also like that he discloses his biases.
At some point they will shut him down. Does he have Tara Reade booked?
Audiobooks are good for walking, a life saver on treadmills, and can make long drives better. I cannot just sit and listen.
Joe is a meat eater. But he only eats wild meat. And he actually hunts all the wild meat he eats. Needless to say, the left is suspicious of him.
Joe appeals to the mostly quiet, intellectually inclined, "every man." Living in the LA echo chamber, he would probably be surprised to know how many of his regulars are listening while they go about their welding job, electrical work, plumbing or driving a semi -- all of whom are voting for Trump.
I find Andrew Yang to be interesting, but his solutions are impractical. Trump gets things done -- which is what I'm expected to do at work.
Joe is a patient communicator. He listens VERY carefully and he has a highly tune BS detector. He gives his guests enough rope to hang themselves. Which is why you have to be on your game to do his show.
His most interesting interviews are with self-aware, authentic folks who don't really care what others think. Both Elon Musk interviews were great, but the first one was brilliant. Bari Weiss was excellent.
A lot of celebrity and politician types are an inch deep and couldn't go three hours in an interview. Joe Biden or Kamala Harris would be dying after the first 30 minutes. Joe's solution to the snooze interview is to set-up a topic he's interested in and just monologue on it.
Post a Comment