Experiencing Joe Rogan: 5 questions
I am watching the Joe Rogan controversy unfold with great interest. I think it speaks to our collective frustrations with media writ large. A lot of this is about standards. Personal, political, informational. All that stuff.
As someone getting ready to launch a podcast, this issue is top-of-mind. I have questions. I believe that if I can answer them in universal terms (i.e. without naming a specific group or political affiliation), I think I have a real shot at creating something of quality. Reach is another story.
Riddle me this:
1. If we can’t trust all sources of information, what are my standards for selection? I.e. what’s the lowest-quality source I will tolerate?
1b. Will I tolerate that same level of quality from people I disagree with?
2. What red flags would disqualify someone as an expert?
3. Do I have heightened responsibility when it comes to topics that might impact the wellbeing of my listeners? And should that change if my reach grows beyond a handful of people?
E.g. JR emphasizes that he deliberately doesn’t prepare for shows and prefers to throw opinions out live because that’s part of the show’s charm.
4. What does intellectual humility look like—beyond repeating, “Hey, I’m just a silly ole goose; I don’t claim to be an expert.” JR has made some pretty emphatic and authoritative-sounding statements.
How do I actually avoid falling into the trap of thinking that I have more expertise on a subject than I actually do?
5. Finally, if I notice that members of hate groups are disproportionately represented in my audience (or—in JR’s case—that of a potential guest’s), why haven’t I told them to fuck off yet?
