It took 4 New York Times writers to write "Spotify Bet Big on Joe Rogan. It Got More Than It Counted On. The deal that brought his podcast to Spotify is said to be worth over $200 million, more than was previously known. Accusations that he spreads misinformation have roiled the company."
This piece is about the business of streaming, and that's a great topic:
Spotify was already the king of music streaming. But to help propel the company into its next phase as an all-purpose audio juggernaut, and further challenge Apple and Google, it wanted a superstar podcaster, much as Howard Stern helped put satellite radio on the map in 2006. Spotify executives came to view Joe Rogan — a comedian and sports commentator whose no-holds-barred podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” was already a monster hit on YouTube — as that transformative star.
I guess they didn't want to waste any time trying to explain what's so great about the Joe Rogan podcast, but as a regular listener, I was irked to see "no-holds-barred."
It invites non-listeners to imagine all sorts of ugly nastiness, and it piles on after people have made various inapt accusations. And you can't really understand Spotify's decisionmaking if you don't appreciate what's so good about the show, if you think it's sweaty, loutish guys letting loose with sexism and racism!
Obviously, some "holds" are "barred." Joe lets his guests speak and he listens, but he breaks in and challenges things that seem off or where he's aware of other evidence. And he's selective about guests, often bringing in scientists with excellent credentials.
But maybe "no-holds-barred" just means freewheeling and rambling, not tightly edited.
***
Are you looking for a little escape?
This is an unprecedented display of strength and determination.
Posts
47 comments:
When Maddow and The View ladies spread misinformation - It's all good.
when any pro-democrat media outlet spread lies and half-truths and fabrications. and hype. It's all good.
“No holds barred” simply means no topics off limits. That’s how I’ve always read it.
"Spreads misinformation"
That could be said about anyone who comes up with any new idea about anything, or anyone who uses non-government approved information. What the hell kind of free society thinks that citizens "spreading misinformation" is some kind of problem? Worry about what government spreads, take care of your misinformation problem by spreading useful facts and data. It seems the default now is censorship rather than debate.
I agree with what you said about their use of "no holds barred".
But it's probably seemed apt to them because of Rogan's involvement in MMA
Your Welcome!
What the hell kind of free society thinks that citizens 'spreading misinformation' is some kind of problem?"
The gags just write themselves.
In today's world it takes 4 college grads to do the work that a high school dropout could do at a newspaper in 1960.
And do it worse- far worse.
“No holds barred” has a wrestling connotation. Last time I check, however, isn’t the kind of wrestling that makes “no holds barred” claims fake?
I haven’t read the article, but the “no holds barred” reference doesn’t seem apt in this case. Unless the NYT is trying to make the Joe Rogan podcast into something of a Kardashians reality podcast. In which case, the claims of the podcast’s “misinformation” are just promotional munch.
I would look into the origins of the “no holds barred” phrase.
Pull that up Jamie. ☺️
The scientific method is not science without people learning and spreading "misinformation".
Or as Thomas Kuhn said in 1963 (in my own words) about science - 99.9% of scientists repeat the same experiments over and over again until one misinformed scientist decides to do something different and creates a scientific revolution.
Joe Rogan is helping Science advance. Tony Fauci is helping government bureaucrats advance. He is anti-science not Rogan.
Why I's say that these "four college guys at the NYT" are "hitting below the belt".
But the boys and girls at the NYT tend to do that when confronted with ideas and people of which or whom they do not approve.
Isn't this the same publication that accused a kid waiting for bus of intimidating a native American? Maybe they need to do some barring of their own.
"I would look into the origins of the “no holds barred” phrase."
There's no question that the origin of the phrase is wrestling.
I consider the metaphor particularly unfair and misleading in this case.
And what "holds" are "barred" at the NYT? What "holds" should be "barred" in public speech?
"I was irked to see "no-holds-barred.""
Why? It's the NYT. Progs spouting propaganda. Why be irked at their consistent MO?
"it piles on after people have made various inapt accusations."
Why inapt? Accusations are tools, and they served their purpose very well.
"And you can't really understand Spotify's decisionmaking if you don't appreciate what's so good about the show, if you think it's sweaty, loutish guys letting loose with sexism and racism!"
Who cares about understanding decision-making? What's so good about a show that doesn't bar the wrong holds?
In the the current phase of the culture war, these reporters are fighting. The Althouses of America respond with annoyance. They are irked! Accusations are inapt! Those reporters don't appreciate!
It's better than nothing, which is a high standard. But when will they take the next step?
Former NYT columnist Russell Baker describes how he got promoted in journalism in his rookie job at the Baltimore Sun.
Baker was one of the beat men, who went around the city and phoned in the details they could find to the rewrite men, who did the actual story. One night the city room was conspicuously understaffed and a couple hot items were being phoned in. The night city editor needed another rewrite man and picked Baker.
"Maulsby's working an 8-alarm fire. You'll have to take it."
It was surprisingly easy. After two years studying what rewrite men did with the facts I phoned them, I knew that journalism was essentially a task of stringing together seamlessly an endless series of cliches. I began feeding takes to the city editor.
Baker was soon promoted to the job. The only difference is, now it takes four men to get the cliches right.
Robert Cook said...
“The gags just write themselves.”
I had to fact-check this. Turns out gags don’t actually write themselves. Gags don’t know how to write or read. In fact, they barely can gag.
Facebook hires hacks to "Fact Check" and the fake "fact checking" is all bogus BS based on their ideological biases, instead of actual, you know, facts.
Don't you dare question these paid hacks!
But maybe "no-holds-barred" just means freewheeling and rambling, not tightly edited.
In the news business, "edited" used to mean clean up. Take the story, fix the grammar and punctuation, question accuracy and sources,etc. Now it means focusing the narrative. Making sure the message aligns with the Democrat Party agenda.
I like to use the word 'curated'. Like a museum, library, or archive. There is lots of material out there and you cant have it all, so you choose those that best represents the message you want to send.
Rogan does the same thing. But he seeks out all sides of a position.
The Striesand affect is in full bloom around Rogan. I joined Spotify just because of the controversy. The first thing I listened to was the Dr Malone interview. Took a couple of sessions, but the time just flew by. The detractors use the smear of misinformation, but never give proof, no examples. Nothing that can be debated. Exactly what is misinformation. Dr. Malone has armor plated credentials and a lifetime of experience and accomplishments (compare to Fauci). I can't see how you can call the interview misinformation. (and still allow Al Sharpton on TV)
And even then it takes the use of a spoon.
Rogan interviews people and lets them speak.
This drives the narrative-only thought-control left insane.
To those who criticize Joe Rogan without having listened to any of his podcasts I suggest trying episode 1216 where Joe talks with Sir Roger Penrose about his work. This was about 2 years before Sir Roger received the Nobel Prize in physics. Consider how well you would have managed the interview. Then consider who else would be able to introduce Sir Roger to the millions of deplorables you imagine his audience to be.
…and the gag must be munching on chips, crackers, saltsticks, or granola.
Trump Wants Joe Rogan To Moderate A No-Holds-Barred Four-Hour Debate Between Him And Joe Biden.
Joe Rogan shared his no-holds-barred opinion of CNN as he discussed anchor Chris Cuomo's recent dismissal from the network..
Hey @joerogan... Any interest in doing @TheComedyStore podcast? I host and it's no holds barred, any story/opinion goes. Should be fun..
Joe Rogan interviews Christina Hoff Sommers in no-holds-barred interview.
Joe Rogan Delivers the No-Holds-Barred Opinion on Biden That We're All Thinking.
There's no question that the origin of the phrase is wrestling.
You must be thinking of professional wrestling which is ironically tightly scripted.
Amateur wrestling bars several holds, according to my HS wrestler stepson.
I went skiing with two of my NPR-listening friends this week. One of them brought up Neil Young and Joe Rogan. I told them that Joe wasn't a conservative and was actually a Bernie supporter. I also said that he's a comedian and ex-wrestler who smokes pot while on air.
They honestly had never heard of or imagined such a thing. They seem to think he is the reincarnation of Rush Limbaugh.
Not stupid people.
This is the world we are dealing with.
I used to listen to Rogan before Spotify. So many Google free podcasts to listen to (no agenda, Megan Kelly, Scott Adams, business wars, Dan carlin, history of rock and roll, and...) I don't have enough room to listen to all of like. Why pay for more?
I subscribed to Rogan when free and would listen to perhaps 1 out of 10 interviews. When he had an interesting (to me) guest I would download and listen. I was almost never disappointed. Rogan is very good at this.
I would say that rogan is "no holds barred" in the sense I understand the phrase unscripted, noting off limits, sometimes a bit confrontational but not cnn style mud wrestling.
I don't subscribe to Spotify. Most of the podcasts I listen regularly to are listener supported as opposed to ad supported. I do support them. Some with automatic subscriptions (500 songs) some with a lump sum from time to time.
I probably pay a 50 cents to a dollar per episode though I don't have any particular formula.
They provide a good product, they deserve to be paid for it.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Not stupid people.
This is the world we are dealing with
I said something to my daughter 36? year old, referencing the Canadian Trucker protest. She asked me "what protest?". Again, not stupid. Their family income kicked out of the covid cash, so very smart and way above average work ethic. But with 2 kids, involved in sports, school, Church, community, and family, they don't spend any time listening to anything other than a weather report.
They are conservative.
But when the Dems brag about how their voters are college educated, that's credentialed, not accomplished, OR, informed. Dems live on that level if ignorance. Not take that to the urban population that only knows about govt handouts, and you see why there are any elected Democrats.
Joe Rogan HAD a “no holds barred” podcast on YouTube. Now he’s self censoring and Spotify is “cleaning” their archives. I am impressed that he transitioned from freewheeling to these long-form discussions. People are hungry for REAL content but every TV “discussion” is essentially scripted on broadcast and cable. Podcasting is where adult conversations have migrated to. You can’t find open honest debate anywhere else. I think examined in this light the answer is a definite YES. People are looking to escape the NARRATIVE the Times insists on filtering the news through, the NARRATIVE that CNN etc insist on furthering each day instead of presenting the news. People seek authenticity and Joe is it. That’s why the legacy media keeps trying to take him down. His earnestness threatens them. His freedom frightens them. But goddammit he was a Bernie Bro so it’s so hard to “other” him though by God they’ll keep trying.
Nice juxtaposition. I read about the humorlessness of the "savers of the world", then right after how Joe Rogan offers a rambunctious show by improper curation of what is allowed to be discussed.
Yes JK, it is a classic Althoustaposition. She’s the new drudgery.
What "holds" should be "barred" in public speech?
Why “misinformation” of course.
Yes that word also requires quotes.
I also said this on the "humorlessness" post:
As with Rush, criticisms like these of hate and humorlessness on the right do dissuade the unpersuaded for a time; but among those who are nevertheless persuadable and do listen, these mischaracterizations become an early reveal that there's a level of deception on the other side that extends, possibly, to every other assertion they make.
This is how Rush built his audience and a movement. Persuasion, fearless honesty and humor.
And what "holds" are "barred" at the NYT?
"The incitement to violence was clear" ... uhm. Not forbidden at all. Especially when an editor inserts his own opinions into the original author's opinion essay. Anything you want that you can dredge up from your imperfect memory and however inartfully phrased is permitted and indemnified. The full power, prestige, and legal resources of the NY Times will stand with you. Nothing is barred. Nothing at all.
Provided, of course, that you are speaking ill of conservative whites.
I have only listened to parts of two Rogan podcasts. My takeaway is that Joe Rogan is extremely gifted at the art of lively conversation. He has a lot of verbal tricks to keep the conversation going, to show interest and excitement, to be caught up in the moment, to add a bit of drama. Listened to Howard Stern interview Demi Moore, and that had the same level of energy and skill. "Hard Hitting" Not at all. Lazy and unobservant journalism.
I think with "NHB" they had in mind repeated use of the N word.
I have had spotify for quite a while. Never listened to a Joe Rogan broadcast. Then saw the had the great Dr. Peter McCullough on and listened to the whole thing. Wow, actual in depth conversations about things that are important.
No democrat spin, no republican spin, just conversations where the host doesn't try to out talk the guest.
How refreshing. Then saw the Dr. Robert Malone one, also great. So I thought I would look up whether he had talked to someone I had just become interested in. Elon Musk.
Good grief, what a great interview with one of the worlds most interesting person. He's had three, I'm at the end of number 2.
Let's just say I would follow Rogan anywhere he went at this point. No where else have I heard anything like it.
No one ever says….”then refute the ‘disinformation’. With substance.”
It is pretty amazing isn't it, the government has continued to rail about misinformation more and more.
The MOST information ( including the information and the ability to broadcast it ) is the government. No one else is even close.
And at this point, everything out of their mouth is first disinformation until proven otherwise. It may take a few months or years, but in the end it will be proven to be a lie.
hawkeyedjb - 'What the hell kind of free society thinks that citizens "spreading misinformation" is some kind of problem?'
Excellent. Go get yourself a dime out of petty cash.
Joe got the message that the solution to misinformation is not more misinformation from a different angle.
The "they do it too" excuse is juvenile at best, but mostly evil.
Based on some of the comments here, I expect Democrats to push for a new cabinet position - Ministry of Truth and Misinformation.
Are you interested in the job, Howard?
"The "they do it too" excuse is juvenile at best, but mostly evil."
That's not the argument being made. The argument is that misinformation/disinformation has become a highly subjective matter. What most people (on all sides) call misinformation/disinformation usually amounts to a different opinion than theirs. At the moment, only one side has the effective power to use the term to limit speech they don't like. That you happen to agree with that side doesn't make what they are doing right.
Has anyone else noticed the new acronym, MDM? First time I noticed it was a week or two ago. I've seen it a dozen times since. Mostly in context "Joe rogan (or fox, or trump etc) spreads MDM"
It stands for mis-, dis- and Mal-information.
It the the new fascist word to replace lenin's now unfashionable "politically incorrect".
It is factually correct but prevents people from believing the fascist narrative and should be banned.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
You need a better bullshit detector, Chris.
The meaning may be that all things are considered and no topic is out of bounds. But the implication is that the podcast is a free-for-all where every kind of attack or insult or outrage happens. Maybe it's also a reference to Joe's involvement with WWE or UFC, entertainment that Times readers regard as violent and lower class.
Marc Maron could have been Joe Rogan. I listened to his interviews quite a bit, even though he was a left-left lefty.
Then disconcerting signs appeared. He seemed to delight in being a jerk. He even had some guy on his show he had differences with, which he explored in narcissistic depth, and promised to do better by the guy.
Which he didn't. Then he called Trump voters "evil" and I thought, "Yeah, that's enough of him."
Post a Comment