Majority of ‘270 doctors’ who signed letter to Spotify take action against Rogan not medical doctors

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

How did Joe Rogan become a centerpiece in this mess? He's an actor, comedian, MMA announcer with a podcast that reaches lots of folks. Still, I'm not understanding why his opinion ranks as merit for critique? Did he get covid and smoke a joint with Elon Musk while eating horse pills? We're truly a stupid species.

Yes, I thought the same with Trump President.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How did Joe Rogan become a centerpiece in this mess? He's an actor, comedian, MMA announcer with a podcast that reaches lots of folks. Still, I'm not understanding why his opinion ranks as merit for critique? Did he get covid and smoke a joint with Elon Musk while eating horse pills? We're truly a stupid species.

The price of success I guess...

Had he been running a podcast out of his garage with only 1,000 monthly listeners...nobody would've have even noticed or cared in all likelihood (despite his popularity in other realms)

I don't think the criticisms were necessarily directed at him personally, some people just didn't like the fact that he was giving a platform (that reaches a lot of people) that was outside their realm of influence.


What I'm not understanding about it, is why they have an issue with the concept of "hearing from all sides". Even if what the other side is saying is utter nonsense...to me that doesn't matter. People should be able to listen to whatever they want, and I don't necessarily like the notion that outside entities should decide what I'm allowed to be exposed to based on their opinion of what I can or can't handle hearing. In a way, it resembles the mentality that Frank Zappa was fighting against when he went before the senate to debate them on whether or not people were allowed to hear "certain words" in music.

For anyone familiar with his content, he has people on from all over the spectrums on a wide variety of issues, that's sort of "his thing"

For instance, he's had on Pastors and staunch religious people, but he's also had on Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. He's had on Alien conspiracy theorists, and he's had on astrophysicists. He's had on Steven Crowder and he's had on Cenk Uygur. He's had on Dan Crenshaw, but he's also had on Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders.


At the center of the controversy...
He had on the two Doctors in question that started the controversy (Malone and McCullough) -- even though the former I wouldn't necessarily call a true "anti-vaccine" person (as Malone even stated on that podcast that after weighing the risk:reward ratio, he still chose to get two doses of the Pfizer despite having a prior infection in 2020)

But, he also had on Sanjay Gupta and Michael Osterholm (who was part of Biden's original Covid task force) to talk about the covid subject as well.

 

[cow451]

The price of success I guess...

Had he been running a podcast out of his garage with only 1,000 monthly listeners...nobody would've have even noticed or cared in all likelihood (despite his popularity in other realms)

I don't think the criticisms were necessarily directed at him personally, some people just didn't like the fact that he was giving a platform (that reaches a lot of people) that was outside their realm of influence.


What I'm not understanding about it, is why they have an issue with the concept of "hearing from all sides". Even if what the other side is saying is utter nonsense...to me that doesn't matter. People should be able to listen to whatever they want, and I don't necessarily like the notion that outside entities should decide what I'm allowed to be exposed to based on their opinion of what I can or can't handle hearing. In a way, it resembles the mentality that Frank Zappa was fighting against when he went before the senate to debate them on whether or not people were allowed to hear "certain words" in music.

For anyone familiar with his content, he has people on from all over the spectrums on a wide variety of issues, that's sort of "his thing"

For instance, he's had on Pastors and staunch religious people, but he's also had on Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. He's had on Alien conspiracy theorists, and he's had on astrophysicists. He's had on Steven Crowder and he's had on Cenk Uygur. He's had on Dan Crenshaw, but he's also had on Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders.


At the center of the controversy...
He had on the two Doctors in question that started the controversy (Malone and McCullough) -- even though the former I wouldn't necessarily call a true "anti-vaccine" person (as Malone even stated on that podcast that after weighing the risk:reward ratio, he still chose to get two doses of the Pfizer despite having a prior infection in 2020)

But, he also had on Sanjay Gupta and Michael Osterholm (who was part of Biden's original Covid task force) to talk about the covid subject as well.

Is Joe Rogan whining about being a victim?

 

[HannahT]

Is Joe Rogan whining about being a victim?

From the little I know of him? lol that's highly unlikely.

Media is a competition, and if he is #1 or near that? You are always going to be a target to be taken down. That's just the way it is. It's the same with many realms of business. Everyone is after that top spot, and if you are lucky enough to get there? Hold on because you are on a wild ride until someone finds a way to take you down.

(Shrugs) I think the ones that are whining are the individuals and groups that want to take him off Spotify. It will be interesting to watch for sure.

 

[cow451]

From the little I know of him? lol that's highly unlikely.

Media is a competition, and if he is #1 or near that? You are always going to be a target to be taken down. That's just the way it is. It's the same with many realms of business. Everyone is after that top spot, and if you are lucky enough to get there? Hold on because you are on a wild ride until someone finds a way to take you down.

(Shrugs) I think the ones that are whining are the individuals and groups that want to take him off Spotify. It will be interesting to watch for sure.

I take it then, he isn’t a crybaby like some are when the are banned from a social media platform like Twitter.

 

[bekkilyn]

From the little I know of him? lol that's highly unlikely.

Media is a competition, and if he is #1 or near that? You are always going to be a target to be taken down. That's just the way it is. It's the same with many realms of business. Everyone is after that top spot, and if you are lucky enough to get there? Hold on because you are on a wild ride until someone finds a way to take you down.

(Shrugs) I think the ones that are whining are the individuals and groups that want to take him off Spotify. It will be interesting to watch for sure.

It seems that some people can't stand that Rogan didn't get any credentials as a "media professional" and yet is far more popular than those who did. Sour grapes and all that.

 

[cow451]

It seems that some people can't stand that Rogan didn't get any credentials as a "media professional" and yet is far more popular than those who did. Sour grapes and all that.

He’s a successful SGOTI. Let’s not mistake popularity for credibility.

 

[bekkilyn]

He’s a successful SGOTI. Let’s not mistake popularity for credibility.

He has exactly the credibility he needs to host the variety of guests that appear on his show, which is apparently too much for some sour grapes to bear.

 

[Pommer]

He has exactly the credibility he needs to host the variety of guests that appear on his show, which is apparently too much for some sour grapes to bear.

What?

 

[cow451]

He has exactly the credibility he needs to host the variety of guests that appear on his show, which is apparently too much for some sour grapes to bear.

So, why does he need Spotify?

 

[cow451]

What?

 

[bekkilyn]

So, why does he need Spotify?

Why does Neil Young?

 

[Tom 1]

Dr. Cheesesteak? We require one sandwich. With 40 cc's of cheesesteak stat!

You have cheesesteak Drs over there? Suddenly I understand what all the fuss about the US of A is about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So, why does he need Spotify?

I don't think he did...pretty sure he was already making bank on a variety of other platforms. I think it was spotify that wanted him to be exclusively on their platform instead of putting his content up on all of the other ones.

Companies in a variety of digital realms (whether it be music, tv, video games, etc...) have opted to go with the concept of "platform exclusives" in order to find a way to separate themselves from "the pack".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He’s a successful SGOTI. Let’s not mistake popularity for credibility.

That's true, the two concepts shouldn't be conflated.

But, that said, if you look at the ratios of guests he's had one, what would you estimate the ratio of "wackos":"credible" has been?

He's had a few of the former on there obviously, but he's also had nearly a thousand guests. The overwhelming majority have been credible with regards to the subject matter they happened to be covering when I scan through his guest list.


Joe Rogan Podcast Guests - JRE Podcast

...and it's highly doubtful that his show ever would've become as popular as it did if he didn't at least know how to conduct a halfway decent interview with people.

 

[public hermit]

What I'm not understanding about it, is why they have an issue with the concept of "hearing from all sides". Even if what the other side is saying is utter nonsense...to me that doesn't matter. People should be able to listen to whatever they want, and I don't necessarily like the notion that outside entities should decide what I'm allowed to be exposed to based on their opinion of what I can or can't handle hearing. In a way, it resembles the mentality that Frank Zappa was fighting against when he went before the senate to debate them on whether or not people were allowed to hear "certain words" in music.

Enter, Neil Young. If Zappa were alive, what would he say about all this?

I agree. I certainly don't want to be told what I can and cannot view or listen to or read. Of course, the contents of music or art seem to be a different kind of situation than promoting accurate/inaccurate medical information. I'm not sure how to navigate that, but it reminds me of laws prohibiting yelling "fire!" in a movie theatre (so I've heard). That kind of law makes sense. If words are taken by others as providing life or death information, that's a level of responsibility for the one who speaks them.

Obviously, part of the discussion is determining exactly what is and is not harmful/helpful. But, assuming that can be shown, then doesn't responsibility entail for the one who handles that information for public consumption?

Perhaps Rogan seems exempt from culpability because he's not an expert; whereas, Dr. Fauci is? That distinction has some plausibility, I think. The problem is, we have a significant part of society that rejects expertise, not because experts aren't experts, but mostly for politicized reasons. I mean, nowadays, people's choice of breakfast can be politically informed. At any rate, if people are going to take life and death guidance from just anybody, then just anybody who gives such guidance should be responsible and treated accordingly. So, maybe Rogan earned the critique. I don't think it will stop people listening to him lol.

I don't really see Rogan as the problem. Do we need better experts? Perhaps we do, but what about the way we approach important issues that, by default, are always wrapped in a political agenda. That, I think, is the problem. This whole pandemic has been politicized. We are political animals, I guess.

 

[bekkilyn]

Enter, Neil Young. If Zappa were alive, what would he say about all this?

I agree. I certainly don't want to be told what I can and cannot view or listen to or read. Of course, the contents of music or art seem to be a different kind of situation than promoting accurate/inaccurate medical information. I'm not sure how to navigate that, but it reminds me of laws prohibiting yelling "fire!" in a movie theatre (so I've heard). That kind of law makes sense. If words are taken by others as providing life or death information, that's a level of responsibility for the one who speaks them.

Obviously, part of the discussion is determining exactly what is and is not harmful/helpful. But, assuming that can be shown, then doesn't responsibility entail for the one who handles that information for public consumption?

Perhaps Rogan seems exempt from culpability because he's not an expert; whereas, Dr. Fauci is? That distinction has some plausibility, I think. The problem is, we have a significant part of society that rejects expertise, not because experts aren't experts, but mostly for politicized reasons. I mean, nowadays, people's choice of breakfast can be politically informed. At any rate, if people are going to take life and death guidance from just anybody, then just anybody who gives such guidance should be responsible and treated accordingly. So, maybe Rogan earned the critique. I don't think it will stop people listening to him lol.

I don't really see Rogan as the problem. Do we need better experts? Perhaps we do, but what about the way we approach important issues that, by default, are always wrapped in a political agenda. That, I think, is the problem. This whole pandemic has been politicized. We are political animals, I guess.

However, the person that Neil Young and others are trying to ban for "misinformation" by getting rid of Rogan IS a medical expert and actually took part in developing the mRNA technology and has done extensive research in the field of virology and immunology. Fauci and his side of the aisle are doing everything they can to censor viewpoints other than their own and a multitude of doctors and scientists have been cancelled over it and accused of "misinformation". That's troubling in and of itself regardless of who is right or wrong. "Misinformation" in this context means only "those who disagree" and not because they are some random person on the street with an opinion. (And those opinions ought not be censored either when presented as opinions.)

 

[public hermit]

However, the person that Neil Young and others are trying to ban for "misinformation" by getting rid of Rogan IS a medical expert and actually took part in developing the mRNA technology and has done extensive research in the field of virology and immunology. Fauci and his side of the aisle are doing everything they can to censor viewpoints other than their own and a multitude of doctors and scientists have been cancelled over it and accused of "misinformation". That's troubling in and of itself regardless of who is right or wrong. "Misinformation" in this context means only "those who disagree" and not because they are some random person on the street with an opinion. (And those opinions ought not be censored either when presented as opinions.)

I see what you're saying. Yes, that expert has a responsibility to give helpful information.

I don't disagree that this whole thing has become politicized. It's playing out the same on both sides, not just one. Both sides are trying to control information, either by squashing it or by nurturing alternative narratives. It's endemic.

I think Young has as much right to say he wants Rogan banned as Rogan does to have some expert on his show, actually. I do wonder about specific situations where medical information is involved, as I stated above. If Fauci is giving bad info, or the guest on Rogan's show, I do think they have a responsibility.

Moreover, it's much better to deal with these things through public pressure than it would be to try and legislate against it (although, I'm still unsure about medical advice, maybe that should be an exception). So, you know, good for Rogan and good for Young. May the best information win the day.

 

[HannahT]

I take it then, he isn’t a crybaby like some are when the are banned from a social media platform like Twitter.

I guess that depends on the person, and the reason for the banning.

It's not like they (Twitter) haven't been wrong in the past.

I don't make my money by working online, but many outlets/individuals use their online presence as their job. Twitter knows that too. Twitter makes money off them as well, and if they were smart? They would work with people more closely at times, because there will come a time in which another platform will have a bit more power than they are comfortable with...and it will hit them back in the pocketbook. Their shareholders won't be so pleased with their popularity - or lack thereof - at that point.

When you don't ban evil leaders of this world like dictators and violent despots, and are more worried about the Rogan's of this world instead? That's a conflict they need to resolve, because their terms of service don't mean anything if they don't. Just sayin.

 

[cow451]

Why does Neil Young?

He doesn't. That's what he is saying.