Over the last ten years Joe Rogan has built his podcast into an influential empire. It has evolved into one of the world’s most powerful media platforms. Rogan’s show has a wide-ranging lineup of guests on it, from comedians—like Shane Gillis, Kyle Dunnigan, and Tim Dillon. This enticing combination has captivated millions of listeners. Recent episodes reveal that even some of his usual guests are growing more exasperated. They are angry, not only about the divisive issues he pushes, but the tone and tenor of his conversation.
It doesn’t hurt that Rogan is refreshingly candid and clearly eager to engage with unconventional thinking. Yet he has been much chastised for giving a podium to wild-eyed conspiracy theories. Specifically, he has spread misinformation that goes against clear scientific consensus on issues such as vaccines and climate change. This approach has raised concerns among critics, who argue that the comedian’s lack of skepticism regarding certain guests’ claims contributes to misinformation.
At the end of the day, that’s why Rogan is a problem. He continues to draw headlines with his vocal opposition to the current war in Gaza and lobbyists control over Washington D.C. Though many applaud him for his willingness to engage with difficult issues, critics raise concerns over the veracity and rigor of his claims. Critics say Rogan often relies on indirect straw man arguments. They think he puts his political agenda in front of having an honest discussion about the complexities of the issues that he tackles.
One of Rogan’s closest friends and frequent podcast guests, Sam Harris, has been getting louder with his alarm bells lately. Perhaps unsurprisingly, McCullough has been one of those to criticize Rogan for giving so much airtime to amateur and conspiracy-minded historians on the show. Harris argues that this shift damages the quality of the debate and poses a great danger of poisoning the well with many false narratives. He criticized Rogan for failing to push back on guests who spout pseudoscience. He thinks this lack of transparency will do specific and tangible harms to the public’s understanding.
“The grossest and cringiest shit anyone has seen for a long time.” – Tim Dillon
Predictably, Rogan doubles down in the face of this criticism. He gets away with this a lot, deflecting criticisms by pretending to be nothing more than a harmless comedian with questions. This defense strikes a chord with most of his listeners, who are drawn to his casual style of addressing much weightier subject matter. Yet that hasn’t stopped continued rebellion from rank-and-file members of his administration. Douglas Murray, another frequent flier on Rogan’s platform, has recently shared his concerns. He is especially alarmed by the spread of conspiracy theories and the revisionists of World War II.
Rogan’s ties to influential figures go beyond the usual Democratic establishment. This week alone, he referred to Elon Musk as “a super genius that’s been fucked with.” He went on to admire Musk as “one of the smartest people on earth.” This endorsement fits right into Rogan’s pattern of platforming inflammatory figures, all while creating a media frenzy about their views. Yet he keeps welcoming characters such as Musk and Donald Trump. Most recently, he welcomed Trump to a UFC match like a head of state, letting you know that Rogan’s podcast has drifted pretty far down the Trumpy populist pipeline.
The comedian’s stake in the Austin comedy scene deeply reflects his overall idea to create dialogue about controversial concepts. Rogan acquires other comedians’ comedy clubs and controversially books himself or pushes himself to the front of the line. Rogan has become, as fellow standup David A. This both nurtures homegrown talent and makes room for unique perspectives to flourish.
This approach raises questions about accountability. Critics emphasize the need for influential figures like Rogan to engage critically with their guests and provide context around controversial claims. Rogan’s critics say he’s creating an environment of indiscriminate distrust to all mainstream narratives. In turn, they criticize him for failing his public service duties as a media figure.