I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview).
As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting where the conversation goes far beyond sound bites and delves deep into the explanations for why the interviewees believe what they believe (and what their sources for believing that are) could legitimately be the near-future of media. Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions... in short, an exchange of ideas in a public forum.
I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe
She called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' with monstrous ideas. The funny part was them looking up the definition of toady (Joe wasn't aware of the meaning of the word), but the more damning part was Bari's defense of that characterization (from memory: she didn't remember any details, but was sure she read it somewhere).
That was almost but not quite as bad as Dave Rubin's appearance, where he explained how building codes are unnecessary as contractors have a vested interest to do a good job due to Yelp reviews...
Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions...
While I personally find the podcasts oftentimes entertaining, there's generally a lot of fluff and rarely any hard-hitting debate.
The episode -- linked below -- with Tim Poole, Jack Dorsey, and Vijaya Gadde (who manages Twitter policy) was mostly just Rogan sitting back and watching Poole go back and forth with Dorsey and Gadde, mainly only stepping in to deescalate when things started getting heated or to ask a question about which he was curious. I don't recall if it was in that episode (or a previous interview just with Tim Poole) that they debated Twitter's place in electoral politics given that all candidates are conducting direct-to-voters communication via the media and whether it would run afoul of Federal Election law to ban, limit, or even censure in any way the tweets of a candidate for office. I thought that was a pretty intense debate and one that has significant importance give it's election year.
I thought that was a pretty intense debate and one that has significant importance give it's election year.
Sure, there are such episodes; I can think of another one off-hand, and if I took time, probably a couple more. But remember, the JRE podcast is currently at episode 1506, and most of them aren't like that.
>I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe
Can you give me an exmaple of an intelligent discussion there? I’m genuinely curious. I’ve watched parts of a few of his chats with interesting people, such as Sam Harris, but I didn’t last long, as they veered immediately into vapidity and stayed there. (I agree he’s civil, though.)
I find that the more specialist the guest, the more interesting the conversation, especially when Rogan just shuts his mouth and listens to someone passionate about their field.
Lex Fridman, Brian Cox, and Sean Carroll had--in my opinion--super interesting and engaging episodes.
That being said, there are currently over 1500 episodes, so there are definitely a good number of fluff episodes in the mix as well.
Edit: Just thought of a couple more who I found quite interesting. Paul Stamets and Michael Pollen both discussed in their respective episodes research they both participated in, which made them continuous episodes with a fascinating topic.
I disagree and believe some of his interviews with Sean Carroll would've been much improved if he had stopped Carroll every time Carroll had gone on for 4 minutes without saying a single thing he understood and asked Carroll to simplify.
As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting where the conversation goes far beyond sound bites and delves deep into the explanations for why the interviewees believe what they believe (and what their sources for believing that are) could legitimately be the near-future of media. Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions... in short, an exchange of ideas in a public forum.