Not Your Average Joe

Posted on

by


Abstract

Social media has an extremely influential presence in our lives today. This paper describes the role of podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan, and his influence online through his podcast The Joe Rogan Experience. Since his podcast began in 2009 he has created and developed a space for unfiltered mass media consumption. He has experienced some controversy but has established a reputation for presenting and interviewing guests representing both sides of an issue. On topics discussed on the podcast Joe Rogan presents himself as a curious participant with a wide variety of interests, often playing devils advocate. His views are often fairly neutral, but he is not afraid to speak his mind and does not avoid confrontation. He makes a point of challenging guests to back up their perspectives. The paper goes into details about specific examples and events from the podcast to support evidence. Some examples occurred during heated debates surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Joe Rogan is unapologetically himself and has found a platform to successfully provide unfiltered content. His podcast informs the viewer about important events while allowing them to form their on conclusions on topics. This style is refreshing to viewers today as it does not force one opinion on them it lets them decide for themselves.

Introduction

The transformation of media over centuries has been occurring at an exponential pace. Originally media was hard to come by and had to be sought after, yet over the years it has become an inescapable part of everyday life. A hugely popular mass media presence has been built by Joe Rogan. This paper will discuss how he is a pioneer for direct-to consumer media consumption, providing unfiltered mass media distribution. Some current media issues revolve around what is true, the problems with mass media censorship, and how stories are perceived. He has become a major voice playing a role in identity and online advocacy. Joe Rogan is a diverse individual with a passion for learning new things and listening to people’s life stories. He is known for being a comedian, a sports commentator, and a personality with several interesting hobbies. He began a podcast in 2009 called The Joe Rogan Experience where he discusses his large array of passions with a wide variety of guests (Rosman et al., 2022). The role Joe Rogan conveys as an advocate and influencer online through his podcast has vastly impacted how people consume media daily. He uses unfiltered content without censorship, providing refreshing and balanced views on sensitive and controversial topics.

Types of Censorship

All individuals are constantly faced with two types of censorship while consuming media. Direct censorship is enforced by laws and policies that are strong enough to deter publication. It is often government driven and focuses on events that draw immediate attention (Sehdave, 2024). Groups supporting viewpoints that differ from the governing power are blocked. These opposing viewpoints are not given an audience, significant attention or publication and are dismissed until they eventually pass (Sehdave, 2024). What has allowed Joe Rogan to have so much success is his authentic and genuine approach to podcasting and media in general. One way he achieves this is by inviting a broad variety of guests all with different backgrounds that share an array of talents, passions, expertise, and political views. An example of this occurred in 2021 when he discussed the risk of the COVID-19 vaccines with Dr. Robert Malone, a scientist who worked on some the first variations of the vaccine (Bond, 2022). In mainstream media we were all made aware of the positive effects of the vaccine when protecting against COVID-19 (Bond, 2022). The mainstream media never highlighted any risks the vaccine presented and blocked out anyone trying to discuss them. Joe Rogan did not allow himself or his platform to be directly censored by the media, he continued to have conversations and provide both sides of the issue to listeners. This direct form of censorship can certainly influence people’s views and thoughts on the world. When people are repeatedly exposed to only one side of an issue, they will eventually believe what they are being shown is true or right (Sehdave, 2024). It can be extremely challenging for humans to escape and overcome this thought process proving that this type of censorship is dangerously effective (Sehdave, 2024). It is well recognized that Joe Rogan presents both sides of any topic being debated virtually eliminating any direct censorship.

Censorship can also be indirect, which is more common for humans to experience on a daily basis without realizing (Sehdave, 2024). It is more subtle and is implemented through choice of language, and vague explanations, allowing it to fly under the radar and hide in plain sight (Sehdave, 2024). It is the expression of an opinion buried in language (Sehdave, 2024). This type of censorship can be seen even in the words people use to describe recognized things. An example of this occurred back in World War II when the Germans used the word Holocaust to describe their evil genocide of Jewish people (Sehdave, 2024).  This Greek derived word from holokauston actually means a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God” (Sehdave, 2024), implying it was a deserved sacrifice. Germans kept using this word overriding the term Sho’ah which was preferred by people of Israel and France meaning catastrophe (Sehdave, 2024). By using a more benign term for the genocide, the Germans affected and tried to alter the sentiment of their horrific acts (Sehdave, 2024).  They used the term so much that it won over as the accepted term for the genocide and its original meaning was consequently lost over time (Sehdave, 2024).  This misuse of language for labelling downplayed atrocities and painted a more favourable picture of Nazis using indirect censorship (Sehdave, 2024). This indirect form of censorship involves controlling how information is conveyed to the public, and similar to direct censorship it makes people believe that the perspective they are seeing must be correct (Sehdave, 2024). Joe Rogan mitigates indirect censorship by speaking his mind and allowing guests to do the same. There is no pressure to meet guidelines because it is a free-flowing conversation. This is another one of the many ways he is a leader in providing unfiltered media content, influencing people to make their own decision where they stand on certain issues.

Epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers

What is dangerous about direct and indirect censorship is that they are both forms of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. Epistemic bubbles are very common and can also be self-inflicted (Sehdave, 2024). They occur when relevant voices are not taken into consideration and are inevitably eliminated (Sehdave, 2024). Rogan combats this by bringing on guests with opposing views and asks each probing questions to expose why they hold these opinions.  This provides listeners with a balanced view allowing them to make their own informed decisions. Epistemic bubbles are caused by people only seeing what they want to see through personal patterns of interest (Sehdave, 2024). This often involves individuals mainly connecting with people who share similar interests and views on topics, blocking out the opposition. What is dangerous about epistemic bubbles is that they can be accidental, and self-inflicted but have major consequences (Sehdave, 2024). Once these bubbles are established it becomes very hard for people with opposing views to find common ground because everyone is only surrounded by people who share their same opinions (Sehdave, 2024). This leads to more tension, less empathy and overall, a smaller willingness to understand opposing viewpoints when people with differing beliefs are forced to interact (Sehdave, 2024). Echo chambers have similar characteristics but are slightly less common. An echo chamber occurs when relevant voices are invalidated through an external source (Sehdave, 2024). People begin to only trust others that hold the same values and views on topics, losing trust in the outer world (Sehdave, 2024). Echo chambers are dangerous because they stop people from thinking for themselves, forcing them to adopt an opinion based on other people. They limit people from growing, understanding, and thinking on their own reinforcing existing beliefs and biases (Sehdave, 2024). When false information is implemented into an echo chamber poor decisions are made by people which can lead to irreversible damage. The division of people and groups caused by echo chambers can be very serious as it allows people to see outsiders as enemies instead of possible friends (Sehdave, 2024). It has been noted that the political echo chambers occurring since the 2016 US presidential elections has taken the focus from issues to partisanship (Guo et al., 2018).  Instead of discussing forward thinking ideas and helpful legislation the energy is mainly focused on reinforcing the group identity of supporters (Guo et al., 2018).

Benefits of Unfiltered Media

It has always been known that Joe Rogan does not care what people think and is going to do what he wants on his Platform. This was reinforced when he smoked marijuana with Elon Musk on a podcast in 2018 (Rosman et al., 2022). It was a surprise to all when his free speaking podcast landed him a $100 million dollar deal with Spotify in May of 2020 (Rosman et al., 2022). He promised to his listeners when he signed the deal his podcast would stay unfiltered by stating “It will be the exact same show. I am not going to be an employee of Spotify” (Rosman et al., 2022). Spotify saw their stock price increase 17% the day the deal was released, and his podcast continues to be the biggest on Spotify in the United States and 92 other countries today (Rosman et al., 2022). He appeals to an extremely diverse group of followers not just particular fringe groups. The chief executive of Spotify Daniel Ek told employees that The Joe Rogan Experience was crucial for Spotify in competing against tech giants Apple and Google (Rosman et al., 2022). The podcast even allowed Spotify to swiftly change their platform by including video with their podcasts, helping them differentiate themselves from competition (Rosman et al., 2022).

Possible Counterarguments

There are several positives to having accessible censorship free media but there are also counterarguments against it. When there is only free speech in the media there is no way of telling who is educated on topics and who is not. It can also promote hate towards certain groups and cause other social issues. We saw examples of this after Joe Rogan’s Spotify deal was announced as it sparked a lot of controversy. One of the main arguments against him included some misinformation about COVID-19 on his podcast (Rosman et al., 2022). In April of 2021 Rogan said, “if you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well, like, I don’t think you need to worry about this” (Steiger, 2022). Rogan is smart but he has no medical background and education regarding vaccines. These comments are problematic as he was broadcasting to a large audience that if you are young and healthy you do not need the vaccine. In reality a large number of young healthy people were dying of COVID-19 (Steiger, 2022). He also expressed his thoughts on vaccine passports saying society is getting “one step closer to dictatorship” (Steiger, 2022).  In January of 2022, 270 scientists wrote to Spotify to report that Rogan’s podcast contained misinformation surrounding COVID-19 (Rosman et al., 2022).  In line with this Neil Young demanded that his music be taken off Spotify saying, “they can have Rogan or Young… not both” (Rosman et al., 2022). Rogan also received backlash for his use of anti-trans language in 2021(Rosman et al., 2022).  Various other inappropriate comments were circulated at this time to discredit Rogan.  He responded with apologies and has largely overcome the backlash since then (Rosman et al., 2022).

Overall, Joe Rogan has faced some controversy in the past regarding his unacceptable statements and opinions.  He remains to be a direct voice and has been appropriately called out when these extremes are given airtime on his podcast. He has shown a strong ability to react and adjust accordingly, recognizing when he has taken something too far and apologizing appropriately. This shows Joe Rogan is human and will make mistakes, but he is more than capable of overcoming them and thrives in an uncensored format. The role he plays as an influencer does not need to be controlled by outsiders. Listeners are able to relate and identify with his open discussions on current issues.

Conclusion

Joe Rogan has used his platform of interesting guests, open dialogue, and consideration of both sides of every issue to create an unfiltered podcast to listeners worldwide. Avoidance of direct and indirect censorship has provided listeners with refreshing and balanced viewpoints, while mainly avoiding the phenomenon of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers.  Despite some blunders along the way Joe Rogan has recognized the need to act responsibly and proven that uncensored content is viable. Joe Rogan’s censorship free approach to media is refreshing as he is influencing and challenging listeners to think deeply and look at both sides of story before making an opinion.

References

Bond, S. (2022, January 21). What the Joe Rogan podcast controversy says about the online misinformation ecosystem. NCPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation

Guo, L., Rohde, J., & Wu, D. (2018, July 3). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks. Taylor & Francis Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793?casa_token=sOn0bKobhowAAAAA%3AcFgnFEeminZ0a4sGeWUo-OvbODmxfesWOqHN6UDub7y9E_B1l7oRzYBo7M8gAjomUFk2FDZbddE4

Rosman, K., Sisario, B., Isaac, M., & Satariano, A. (2022, February 17). Spotify Bet Big on Joe Rogan. It Got More Than It Counted On. The New York Times. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/602a5678aeefe23588ad9da9/t/6214df8b38d59f032ffbc8f8/1645535118000/Spotify%27s+Joe+Rogan+Deal+Is+Said+to+Be+Worth+Over+%24200+Million+-+The+New+York+Times.pdf

Sehdave, T. (2024, February 6). The Unfiltered Lens: Social Media as a Threat to Democracy. Critical Debates HSGJ. https://criticaldebateshsgj.scholasticahq.com/article/92540

Steiger, G. (2022, February 1). An Analysis of Joe Rogan’s COVID-19 Apology. An Analysis of Joe Rogan’s COVID-19 Apology


Search Site

Your Experience

We would love to hear about your experience at our conference this year via our DCN XV Feedback Form.

Comments

17 responses to “Not Your Average Joe”

  1. annahope Avatar
    annahope

    Hi Jack. I really enjoyed reading this.

    I think what your viewpoint highlights is the importance of a public right of reply to online content. When misinformation and disinformation exist in closed spaces there is the potential for adherent viewpoints to be amplified by the coercion of others. So, if an influencer was to cultivate a large following but use a private server to maintain contact with these individuals, this potentially removes the opportunity for public scrutiny, which has proven useful in holding Joe Rogan and others like him accountable for their various oversteps. As you say, Joe Rogan’s show seemingly attempts to create this dialogue through the inclusion of guests with varied viewpoints, however, much like an algorithm, these guests are still ultimately curated in some way, and thus exposure to the open market of ideas afforded by other forms of media generates a more wholistic discourse. Interested to know if you agree!

    I have explored the impact of closed spaces and a desire for privacy on the dissemination of problematic online content in my paper and I’d love your thoughts! https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/csm/3840/why-a-platform-known-for-nazis-appeals-to-fandoms-the-uncomfortable-link-between-hate-and-community-building-on-discord/

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Anna,

      Thank you for your comment! Joe Rogan has always been open about his views on topics and shares them publicly allowing them to be up for debate. The hypothetical point you brought up about influencers having a private server is interesting and important to my topic. If Joe Rogan was to operate his platform privately with only people sharing the same views it would create an echo chamber. I agree when you say that his guests are still ultimately curated in some way but I believe there will always be some bias, however he does the best he can to avoid it. I’ll be sure to check out and comment on your paper!

  2. annaconwayyy Avatar
    annaconwayyy

    Hey,
    You’ve provided a comprehensive analysis of Joe Rogan’s impact in the realm of uncensored media particularly loved how you provided a backdrop of the history. Your paper effectively examines the nuances of censorship, the benefits of unfiltered content, and the challenges Rogan has faced due to controversial statements on his podcast. I am not a big fan of him, I think I see clips out context a lot do you think other podcasts that are similar but do not have other opinions and views should be banned or at least censored. I think there is such a fine line and seems like so many male dominated podcasts have overstepped this and have created a new and harmful audience. How can platforms push for more neutral podcast without taking from its authentically. Overall, your paper offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of media and the role of influential figures like Joe Rogan. Great job!

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Anna,

      Thank you for your feedback and opinion on my topic. With media constantly evolving an everyone having a platform it is hard to decide who should have a voice or not. I do believe some censorship is good but I also think the right people should be given a platform to speak what they believe. I think Joe Rogan does a very good job at not forcing his opinion on viewers and keeping topics up for debate, allowing viewers to decide for themselves. You bring up an interesting point about how male dominated podcasts are overstepping creating a harmful audience, is there anything you think we can do to help combat this?

      1. annaconwayyy Avatar
        annaconwayyy

        Hi Jack.
        I always joke with my friend that “podcasting equipment should be expensive to hire out”. I believe combating people spreading misinformation and harmful narratives can be done through media literacy. I think anyone who is about to start a podcast or anything related to the digital realm should be required to some sort of media literacy. Additionally, taking cultural course to have that as a back drop.

        In the survey findings, it was revealed that 71 percent of employees who haven’t experienced sexual harassment in the workplace acknowledge their company’s provision of effective training programs on gender sensitivity. Additionally, when incidents of sexual harassment do arise, 94 percent of employees express satisfaction with the resolution process when their employer has implemented a robust training program (Florentine, 2016).
        When I am talking about male dominated podcasts I am talking about the Whatever podcast and podcast similar. I think it boils done to a lot of these podcast hosts just been uneducated. I personally, think we should accepting rage bait. The rolling stone quoted “rage bait doesn’t just work – it thrives […] The growth and prevalence of rage-bait content can make it continually harder for people to accurately fact-check videos in front of them.” (Osunsade, n.d.).

        So ignoring it definitely helps as well as platforms responsibility of removing harmful content that is disguises as “dating advice” ect. will definitively help. You can still have an option with being derogatory towards a whole group of people.

        References
        Florentine, S. (2016). Education key to combating gender discrimination. CIO. https://www.cio.com/article/240661/education-key-to-combating-gender-discrimination.html
        Osunsade, A. (n.d.). Ragebait and “anti-woke” content. http://Www.linkedin.com. Retrieved May 8, 2024, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ragebait-anti-woke-content-abadesi-osunsade-b336e

  3. katelyn.rolfe Avatar
    katelyn.rolfe

    – Hi Jack, thank you so much for this article!

    Presenting information without an agenda and bias is incredibly important, and, unfortunately, is something neglected by almost all media organisations nowadays. When the majority of mainstream media pushes a single agenda, with no room for debate, this leads to groupthink (or hive mindedness) and it can be dangerous, with people believing in issues/things without having a proper understanding of why they do – only that the mainstream media told them to think that way is ‘correct’ and ‘everyone else thinks that’. The obvious example is Nazi Germany, when the German population was slowly brainwashed into believing that the Jews were subhuman and deserved to be exterminated. We also saw a textbook example of groupthink over the past four years. Both examples I see you have used!

    I appreciate Joe Rogan’s role in promoting people to make up their own minds about topics after hearing the facts from both sides of an argument. So refreshingly balanced, as you say.

    Great point about being aware of epistemic bubbles. It’s so much easier to listen to opinions that affirm your own, but we should really branch out and listen to a wide range of opinions, even though they might conflict with our own, to become further informed, which then gives us the tools to discover the truth!

    I’d be interested to hear your take on social media censorship. How far is too far? What should and shouldn’t be censored, or should nothing be censored? I’ve been struggling with these questions myself – especially with my paper on anorexia. I think the pro-anorexia content is incredibly harmful and shouldn’t be on social media platforms, especially because it is a social contagion that can lead to death and mainly targets children under 18. However, this would mean suppressing the free speech of that group of people. Where should the line be? Should there be a line?

    Katelyn

    P.S. I would love it if you had time to comment on my paper ‘The Negatives of Social Media Communities: How the Pro-Ana Community Circumvents TikTok’s Algorithm with Refracted Publics’ at: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/csm/3609/the-negatives-of-social-media-communities-how-the-pro-ana-community-circumvents-tiktoks-algorithm-with-refracted-publics/

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Katelyn,

      Thank you for your kind comments and for taking the time to read my paper! I think you bring up a very interesting point when talking censorship and how much is too much. I personally believe some censorship has positive benefits especially regarding people speaking out who are not educated in certain fields. I think it is very hard to determine the line where censorship is good and where it becomes destructive and I think we will continue to deal with this problem for the rest of time. In a world where we a constantly surrounded by different media outlets saying opposite opinions it is hard to tell what is true and what to believe as a viewer.

      1. katelyn.rolfe Avatar
        katelyn.rolfe

        Hi Jack,

        Regarding censoring people who are ‘not educated in certain fields’, (just playing devil’s advocate here) should anyone who hasn’t been educated in politics, for example, not be allowed to share their political views? If I’m not educated in agriculture, should I be censored for stating what fertiliser is best for growing carrots? If I don’t have a degree in history, should I refrain from discussing my thoughts on the impacts of World War 1, the Industrial Revolution, or Auschwitz? What about people who aren’t educated in certain fields, but have anecdotal, tangible or observable evidence of something within those fields?

        Yes, I agree that this problem about censorship and what is too little — and what is too much — will be around for a long time!

        Absolutely. Especially when so many media outlets are sponsored by larger companies who dictate to them what to say is the “truth”.

        Katelyn

  4. 21742082 Avatar
    21742082

    Hi Jack,

    What a great read this was 🙂 My comprehension was that this paper explored Joe Rogan’s influential role in the realm of podcasting and mass media consumption. The discussion around censorship, epistemic bubbles, and echo chambers offers valuable insights into the dynamics of media discourse and the importance of unfiltered content in fostering balanced viewpoints. Great job!

    One aspect I found particularly intriguing is the exploration of the benefits and challenges of unfiltered media, especially in light of the controversies surrounding Joe Rogan’s podcast. It’s evident that while Rogan’s platform allows for open dialogue and diverse perspectives, there are legitimate concerns about the spread of misinformation and the potential impact on public discourse.

    My question for you is how do you propose balancing the need for unfiltered media with the responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation and harmful content, especially in the context of influential platforms like Joe Rogan’s podcast? Additionally, how can listeners discern between credible information and misinformation in an era where unfiltered content can sometimes blur these lines?

    Kind regards,
    Maddison

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hello Maddison,

      Thank you for taking the time to read my paper and im glad you found it interesting. Overall I believe unfiltered media has many positive impacts but you bring up an important question about misinformation and harmful content which can be common in unfiltered media. Joe Rogan is very influential and has a massive audience so if his information is wrong or not accurate it can be very harmful. Whenever there has been controversy around the information on his podcast and he has been proven wrong he has come out and public apologized and stated that he was wrong. As long as people are willing to admit there mistakes on topics like Rogan has in the past I don’t think there will be any issues with unfiltered media. Issues will only occur if people spread false information and refuse to admit they are wrong when they are proven wrong by facts. I think that people will have to get sources from many media outlets for the rest of time and have to make their own decisions on whether the information they are being given is credible or not.

  5. Mathew.C Avatar
    Mathew.C

    Hey Jack,

    Your paper raises a number of interesting points relating to the importance of freedom of speech and the problems relating to censorship of media and reporting of news and current events. Choosing Joe Rogan as the focal point to centre these points around was a bold move, especially as you have pointed out, he has been the focal point of controversy over the years, and not for positive reasons.

    While exploring the benefits of unfiltered media and Rogan’s desire to be censored or controlled by any external bodies, he has undeniably built an incredibly lucrative empire around his reach and global influence, which has in turn netted him tremendous financial rewards in terms of contracts, sponsorships, merchandise and more.

    With regards to this, I can recommend and link two other papers (below) from this conference which highlight how influencers such as Rogan can amass tremendous amounts of control and influence over their viewership based on a perceived level of trust, and how this kind of global media reach and influence can hold a great weight when it comes to influencing and challenging preconceived ideas his viewers may have about any particular view, based on his own opinions as they develop.

    Paper 1: Leveraging Parasocial Connections: The Influencer Monetisation Strategy
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/csm/4272/leveraging-parasocial-connections-the-influencer-monetisation-strategy/

    Paper 2: Social media platforms have emerged as powerful tools for raising awareness about political issues on a global level
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/onsc/3706/social-media-platforms-have-emerged-as-powerful-tools-for-raising-awareness-about-political-issues-on-a-global-level/

    Your paper mentions Rogan was involved in “some misinformation” during the COVID pandemic, with widespread reports of news events from this time citing the numerous reckless remarks which can be perceived as health and medical advice during a pandemic, including the wearing of various masks, vaccinations, social distancing and more. It is clear Rogan and his team understand their responsibilities and are aware of their global reach and influence over millions of individuals, which was made clear during clean-up as they apologised for spreading misinformation after messy public relations debacle in 2022.

    With that in mind, do you think there is an inherent danger in platforms such as Rogan’s who made have the capacity and reach to freely disseminate misinformation, personal views, and provide advice on matters they have no inherent experience or expertise on in an ‘unfiltered’ live show?

    Interested to hear your take 😊

    All the best,

    Mat

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Mat,

      Thanks for you comment! Ill be sure to check out those other papers you linked as well. I think there can be some danger in free speech especially when it has the ability to reach mass audiences if there is misinformation or personal biases. I do believe that Joe Rogan has found a way to master this by trying to have the least amount of bias possible and owning up to his mistakes which has allowed him to have such a large following. Going forward I think that people will just have to use many sources and then formulate their own opinion when looking into social or political views because of all of the different media outlets out there now.

  6. Reuben Cunningham Avatar
    Reuben Cunningham

    Hi Jack,

    This was a fantastic paper that symbolises the influence that powerful individuals like Joe Rogan have on society. I love how you brought up the evolution of the Joe Rogan podcast starting in 2009 and media censorship. I love how you brought up the controversy surrounding the Joe Rogan name, as he is a little more unfiltered than other podcasts and then you brought up the benefits of uncensored media. It truly opened my eyes and perhaps more people could potentially learn some truths.

    You also kept it very unbiased by including some possible counter arguments. This stood out to me because you’re not giving into confirmation bias surrounding Joe Rogan and uncensored media. Great job.

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Reuben,

      Thank you for your comment im glad you enjoyed my paper! If you have any questions or want me to read yours let me know!

  7. lilymesfin Avatar
    lilymesfin

    Hi Jack,

    This post was super interesting, I feel like you covered most points really well.
    Im interested to know if you as a viewer, or fan, believe Joe Rogan has a responsibility to apply ethical standards to his content considering how popular he is, especially to young male audiences?

    I feel that his online presence can contribute to unhealthy views on masculinity for young viewers.

    For example this highly concerning tweet from Joe https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/320006249456492545?lang=en, which uses language like “choke to death” when referring to male feminists.

    Or this video title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6p-0Vw5uXo that also has negative terminology in regards to male feminists.

    Despite these words coming posts of the past, I feel like these values are reflected in his podcast episodes.

    Recently there’s been a controversy surrounding the expulsion of Australian high school male students, due to ranking their female peers in levels of ‘hotness’ with the lowest level being deemed as ‘unrapeable’.

    I believe that figures like Joe rogan are not to blame but have heavy influence and encouragement over such attitude and languages towards women. Because of his power and influence amongst the male demographic he should only be encouraging positive behaviours towards women or nothing at all.

    Let me know what you think?

    1. Jack.Scholes Avatar
      Jack.Scholes

      Hi Lily,

      Thank you for reading my paper and taking the time to comment. I do believe Joe Rogan has a responsibility to apply ethical standard to his content. With his platform he is able to reach mass audiences and the demographic of people who consume his content I think it is crucial that he presents himself in an ethical way. I am sure there will be times when people disagree with his views but I overall believe he should be aware of his audience and do whatever he can to be a good role model for them.

  8. 20543556@student.curtin.edu.au Avatar
    20543556@student.curtin.edu.au

    Hey Jack,

    Great read and fantastic structure of your paper; loved the way you targeted your choice of topic as it was structured and throughout perfectly. Your paper’s name is unique and stands out, but it may leave a person wondering what the paper is actually about. Joe Rogan is an exciting choice of topic as he is unapologetically himself and has found a platform to provide unfiltered content successfully. Before I read this paper, I was unsure of this person, but reading on, I have been intrigued to learn more and dive into the ideas you chose to cover.

    Do you think there is a danger in platforms such as this, which have the ability to freely disseminate misinformation and provide advice on matters that they have no experience or expertise with?

    You had a very interesting paper, love your work!

    Thanks,
    Emma

Leave a Reply

Skip to content