Criticized Joe Rogan Questions Media Ethics

Podcaster Joe Rogan of the Joe Rogan Experience. Photo by Paul Mobley.

Does podcaster and entertainer Joe Rogan possibly have a valid point — is he being unfairly judged, criticized and shamed by the media and social media because of deficiencies in media reporting?

“The problem that I have with misinformation, especially today, is that many of the things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact,” he states. “For instance, eight months ago, if you said, ‘If you get vaccinated, you could still catch COVID and you could still spread COVID, you would be removed from social media.’”

Rogan, who has communicated he will become more balanced in the guests and views he puts on his show, nonetheless feels the issue is not so much about the people he chooses to interview to share what he says are, “interesting conversations,” but the shortcomings or failings of journalists and medical professionals.

“The answer is not to silence me, the answer is [for] you to do better," Rogan says. “The answer is for you to have better arguments.

“If you want to do better, just f---ing change your model, change the way you do it. Stop this editorial perspective with guys like Brian Stelter and Don Lemon that nobody listens to. Nobody is like chiming in saying, ‘Oh, yeah, finally we get the voice of reason.’ Nobody thinks that,’” he says. “Have people that give out effective news, objective news, rather, and I'll support you. I would turn around 100% … and I'll be one of the people that tells people, 'I saw this on CNN, watch this on CNN.’”

Rogan’s response creates an interesting debate. In a country where free speech is gift and common practice as well as demanded by its citizens and censorship is rejected, this ongoing argument and conflict critics have with Rogan is worthy of discussion.

Brandi Herrman of Brandi Herrman Communications

“The question here lies in the issue of whether Rogan follows the guidelines set forward by journalists? Does he have to align with the standards of journalists — fact-checking, etc. — or is he an entertainer? The lines are incredibly blurred,” says Brandi Herrman, a masters-educated communications professional of two decades, founder of Brandi Herrman Communications, and an adjunct instructor at Columbia College, Mo.

“However, this isn’t new,” she says. “Think back to the shock jocks of the 1990s. This is just another variation. The difference here is that our media landscape has changed dramatically. Now, people get most of their news from social platforms rather than the old standards of broadcast – TV and radio and print.

“The public isn’t well-versed in what is real in the media landscape. From the general public’s perspective, all media looks the same. CNN and the New York Times are right alongside Joe Rogan in the media landscape.”

Which is why Rogan, feeling defensive, because he is an entertainer and talk show host, continues to take the media to task about what he sees from them as unprofessional and unethical behavior.

“... .you want more people to pay attention, you should be honest," he says in response to insinuations he took “horse paste” and “horse dewormer.” He added, “I don't hate CNN. I used to go to them every day for the news...”

If the media reported such things about Rogan, or any person, is that deserving of empathy, for the hurt and offense caused, due to reporting errors?

“If CNN provided inaccurate information, absolutely he has a reason to be upset,” Herrman says. “Neither of these media institutions – CNN or Joe Rogan’s podcast – are entirely blameless when misinformation is being shared.”

Herrman has observed clear shifts in the industry that have happened.

“Over the past two decades, most media outlets have become increasingly competitive in a crowded market. A market that is getting even more crowded since anyone can create and share a podcast, vlog or web news service in the form of a blog, she says. “Truth is paramount for a journalist. It’s what journalism schools teach. However, once journalists are in the real world, they are often pushed into a world that cares more about the business side without regard to the public. They want eyeballs. They want ears. And the rest sometimes becomes secondary.”

Rogan’s statement shows pain and anger. The question of its effectiveness, especially towards his critics, is unsure.

“Rogan spoke primarily to his base of supporters. However, his comments absolutely made sense to some of those outside his core supporters, Herrman says. “He made people stop and consider who he is and the general scope of information available to the public.”

CNN did not sit back and let Rogan’s criticism go without a retort. It too delivered a punch, petty maybe and of questionable professionalism — in this heavyweight fight.

“The only thing CNN did wrong here was bruise the ego of a popular podcaster who pushed conspiracy theories and risked the lives of millions of people,” the network’s statement said.

Herrman analyzes it.

“Joe Rogan does share information that is scientifically inaccurate. He does suggest that taking a substance like ivermectin might work. He finds experts to suggest that as well. Did he take it himself? Maybe not. He says he didn’t. So, CNN did cross a line if they stated that,” she says.

“However, the intent of Rogan’s statements certainly leads the general public to believe he endorses the use of ivermectin. And when the general public is listening to this, how closely are they parsing words? How closely are they listening to the nuance of these statements?

“Not nearly as close as you would think.”