I think he's an interesting guy for sure. I think he's a mixed bag. Left wingers will hate him because he has right wingers on his podcast. Right wingers will hate him because he has left wingers on his podcast. What's clear is that he doesn't have a particularly strong ideology either way - his opinions seem fairly malleable. I think he represents a lot of Americans, honestly. Plenty of Americans don't adhere to a political party, and consider themselves swing voters. I think instead of vilifying people like him, we should listen, because they play an important role in how elections turn out regardless if we agree with them or not.
This is a great post and it gets me thinking.
As such a widely popular podcast, from a sociological point of view it is fascinating to study Rogan and
why he is popular. He could easily be used as a case study for many societal issues we are facing.
If we ask,
Why is Rogan getting so many listens?
What does the popularity of Rogan say about society?
We might get some interesting discussions going.
Personally I think Rogans charm I would compare to Art Bell. That may seem like a strange comparison, but hear me out.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Art Bell; Art Bell was the original host of a popular late night radio show called "Coast to coast". It was mainly targeted at exploring supernatural theories, but I would say as time went on, it also ended up exploring conspiracy theories and in a sense preventing an "alternate" point of view that mainstream media would never cover. Many people only listened to this radio program on Halloween because they open the phone lines and let people share their spooky stories.
Much of what was on Coast to coast made no sense and was nutty. Sometimes though they would touch on things that has legitimate evidence behind it but mainstream media wouldn't touch because of corporate interests. The mix of true and false allowed the program to continue because people who wanted to discredit the show had no trouble; point out the whacky ideas and it made the legitimate ones automatically invalid.
One of the reasons the show was so successful was Art Bells unique style of hosting. Unlike talk radio, Art Bell was not a moderator: he did not often interject his opinions or debate people. He would, however, probe his guests with questions phrased like,
"I think what you're saying makes sense. [Validating the views to relax the guest]. But that about people who say x y and z? What do you say to those people?"
These methods generally allowed bell to get the guest to talk without getting defensive and to extract more information from them. Notice, though, that Bell never said he agreed. He was simply letting people say what they had to say and questioning them to get a better understanding.
Rogan, mostly, follows this format. He does have his own views and will share them but rarely does he do this in a situation where it may threaten a guests openness. Much of Rogans opinions are shared on his more casual podcasts with his comedian friends. When he has someone to share information he is much more reminiscent of art.
By straddling the line of opinions viewers on both sides can relate. He even appeals to conspiracy theorists by regularly bringing theories up with the warning,
"I'm not saying this is true, but..." Which theorist believers dismiss as him having to say that. Those who don't believe them are satisfied with Rogans delicate rejection of them.
Very, very smart.
