Don’t underestimate the Rogansphere. His mammoth ecosystem is Fox News for young people
Don’t underestimate the Rogansphere. His mammoth ecosystem is Fox News for young people
Podcasts like Joe Rogan’s and Theo Von’s aren’t on the fringes. Their blend of off-the-cuff, Trump-leaning commentary blurs traditional lines between left and right – and offers listeners companionship
Summary
The “Rogansphere,” a sprawling ecosystem of podcasts and online shows led by figures like Joe Rogan, has become a powerful cultural force for younger audiences, functioning as a “Fox News for the young.”
With its mix of anti-establishment rhetoric, distrust of Democrats, and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas, it normalizes figures like Donald Trump for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men.
Democrats risk underestimating its influence, as this ecosystem fosters deep listener loyalty and has contributed to a significant shift in young male voters toward Trump.
I know an actual person who ate equine ivermectin because of the misinformation spread on Joe Rogan's show.
The individual who did this was going on about worm larvae living in the masks made in China, and that's what is making people sick and not covid. That's why masking is bad and ivermectin good.
Apparently this is the quality of the information he promotes. He doesn't even take responsibility for it. He hides behind free speech and being a "comedian." Neither of those things absolve a person from being responsible with their platforms. Especially when it contributes to making a worldwide public health crisis worse.
Also, for the record I semi-recently found out he was a comedian. I always thought he was some Alex Jones type pushing fucked up conspiracy theories. And I honestly still believe that. He's not funny and he pushes harmful conspiracy theories.
He's no better than Alex Jones.
Also, for the record I semi-recently found out he was a comedian.
To be fair he's not a very good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvgiHcvAUFU
Does anyone remember when Joe played Joe on Newsradio? He played an insecure muscle headed conspiracy nut job.
joe rogan, fox news. cult of idiocracy. cult of idiocracy. cult. of. idiocraccccyyyyyy....
Unlike fox News though Rogan isn't outright hostile to liberals. If you go on fox News as a liberal you'll maybe be able to get half your point across before the host calls you an un-american communist. On rogan you could probably get through a 10 minute Marxist diatribe, as long as you dont use any scary or long words like proletariat, and he'd probably be to dumb to see what your doing and nod and agreee.
For better or worse the democrats seem to have abandoned the identity politics that angered this group so much so it wouldn't be too hard to bring this crowd over if the messaging is right.
Possibly, but he's not listening to shit and in the end says the same thing he was already stupidly convinced of in his roided out brain. Nothing redeeming in this chud.
"Yeah, but this shit you eat doesn't have any little rocks in it, so it goes down smoother"
Just don't eat shit, cowards.
Yeah, not saying you should listen to him. But a lot of people do and telling that audience he's an idiot and shouldn't be listened to wont work as well as playing along and trying to use his platform to promote something besides conspiracies and light fascism.
The podcast host famous for letting guests say what they want with no criticism isn't even on the same planet as Fox News. People are way to eager to brand everything right of Marx as far right.
I like Galloway's analysis here: https://www.profgalloway.com/the-podcast-election/
I am going on AC360/MSNBC/Smerconish to discuss the male vote — this election gave us the opposite of the expected referendum on bodily autonomy; it was the Testosterone Election. The only thing I’m (fairly) certain of is what medium played a pivotal role, for the first time, in young people’s decision to violently pivot to Trump: podcasts.
Almost half of adult Americans, 136 million people, listen to at least one podcast a month. The global audience is now 505 million, a quarter of the internet’s reach.
Rogan has 16 million Spotify subscribers and can reach many more people across a variety of other platforms: In just three days after the live podcast, his three-hour-long conversation with Trump was viewed 40 million times on YouTube.
By comparison, when Trump appeared on Fox News’ Gutfeld!, which averages about 3 million viewers, he reached 5 million people, and the full episode has been viewed 2.3 million times on YouTube.
Among Fox’s 3.5 million regular viewers, 70% are 50 and over and 45% are women. The No. 2 cable network, MSNBC, reaches 1.5 million viewers most days; its median viewer is a 70-year-old woman. So: a big audience of young men vs. a small audience of older women. People listen to pods to learn; they watch cable TV to sanctify what they already believe. The former is (much) more appealing to candidates and advertisers.
Rogan’s demographic is 80% male, 93% under 54, and 56% under 34. Men under 34 are the Great White Rhinos of advertising, the most valuable beast in the consumer jungle, and they’re increasingly difficult to find.
He also mentioned in a CNN interview: "Look at the top 10 podcasts. 8 of them lean right, and Trump went on 6 of them."
Don't a lot of people who listen to podcasts do so while driving? If so, this is eerily similar to how conservative AM radio brainwashed people who drove a lot, especially in remote areas where FM radio with music wasn't available.
Goddammit I don't want another round of right-radicalization like the 90s. Fuck's sake. Wasn't living through one round enough?
Goddammit.
I'm not a Rogan fan and have only seen a couple of his "interviews" but the guy is really stupid. The ones I saw Rogan acted like the kid that didn't read the book before attempting to interview the author for three hours about the book.
It is all good to have an open mind but maybe not so open your brains fall out. Anyway, the problem I have is that these are not serious people, Rogan is either unwilling or unable to do even the most basic amount of research into a topic before platforming a guest. What is impressive to me is that people eat this shit up. Rogan is like Fox News because they are both just sugary nonsense with no meat and potatoes.
The way I see it these casters are doing to politics what Ancient Aliens did to history.
You're absolutely right that he's dumb. It would therefore be extremely easy for progressives to get their message out because Joe isn't smart enough (nor cares to) push back. He just agrees with everything you say if you sound convincing. So why aren't Democrats and progressives going on his show? We've entered this spiral where people like Kamala don't want to "legitimize" him or whatever, despite him being the easiest person to talk to ever with a huge audience. Just play the game people! Ignoring this whole sphere isn't working.
Ben Burgis went on his show a couple years ago, he wrote an article about it (https://jacobin.com/2022/04/the-joe-rogan-experience-podcast-democratic-socialism). Sam Seder just did an amazingly patient appearance on the Tim Pool show. So they get on the popular show and spend a ton of time just establishing basic reality with the hosts. Then we get stuff like Carlson not airing an interview with Rutger Bregman not because he was spouting white supremacists rhetoric but because he called for taxing the ultra wealthy. Carlson and Fox have no problem platforming the neo-nazis.
The thing is all their shows and content are free and the right wing content is way more popular. People want their junk food content, the kind of stuff that makes them feel smart and never challenges them. Maybe we need to spend more time teaching viewers basic critical thinking skills and media literacy. Something like before youtube let's you play that third whatifalthist video you have to take a quiz that demonstrates you don't have donkey brains.
I only knew him from fear factor, and i only watched a handful of episodes. I listened to his stand up, and it was fine. Not very funny, not terrible. I heard a lot about his podcast, but never listened to it, because it wasn't on spotify. Then it suddenly was and i gave it a go. The episode was the bob lazar episode, because i thought this might be fun. But it wasn't, he just agreed with everything and it was like listening to a warhammer 40k podcast where they talk about 40k as if it was actual (future) history. It was crazy to listen to, he would make up some ridiculous bullshit and joe just sat there: "oh wow, so you sat in a real spaceship? Nice dude."
The same people I know who fall for bullshit on Fox fall for bullshit on Joe Rogan. They'll complain about "THE MEDIA" and tells you all about their "research "
Well, all the news outlets are pretty biased one way or another, and some are willing to lie to their viewers to make a point cough CNN cough. Which is pretty horrid. When people think "research" means using Google for a few minutes or hours, that is a problem, but "the media" does suck
Personally, i don't like joe rogan. He does a horrible job at making sure he isn't spreading misinformation and he is indeed contributing to influencing people in a bad way
That being said, i think acually challanging and approaching these mindset is valuable to show that the left is present in politics, not just the one we agree with all the time. If we dont open up discource on platforms that the right accually watches, more left wing discource, ideas and topics gets lost in the echo chamber of "we don't want to talk to anyone on the right". We cannot think people on the right and people alienated by the democrats will suddenly start consuming leftist idea if we wont bring that to their turf. I think a lot of people supporting the right are accually in agreement with the left such as economic reform etc , just that the right have much better platforms and charismatic people that accually adress their concerns.
Im not saying we should consider rasist, misogynistic and hatefull speech to be okay at all, and we are not part of the problem if we are present on platforms trying to challenge them. But we need to show that we are here for everyone, not just ourselves. The people we disagree with don't vanish because we dont want to talk with them, because they will find other people who want to talk, and they might be encouraging their already damaging viewpoints.
I came across this video a few days ago and i was intrigued, i reccomend watching, it gave me an idea on why we are stuggeling to reach more people:
I thought he was smart enough to not endorse a political candidate like proper independent media, but he's succumbed to the same polarization and thus a part of the same widespread problem. Good vid though, I find it's very much like one of the commenters point out a battle of lobbyism vs. populism rather than the standard left vs. right, people are desperate for change of any kind and Harris stating that nothing would change was just about the worst thing she could've possibly said during the campaign.
Harris stating that nothing would change
Are you referring to that one "The View" interview where she flubbed the question about what she would have done differently than Biden before returning to it later in the same interview to add in a bit about reaching across the aisle, or is she on record elsewhere saying that nothing would change during her presidency?
Because when I search for it all I see is tens of right-biased news outlets talking about that "The View" interview.
A thoughtful and lucid answet.
you will be destroyed
But, I've been assured that the guy who moved to TX to avoid taxes, despite benefitting greatly from services that they provided in CA, routinely gives the far-right a megaphone, endorsed the orange guy, and is chummy with the Gov of TX, despite being an open drug user was a moderate centrist!!1
He only did that because the Left rejected him
He did that because he's a shitty person and always has been.
I was annoyed with Kamala's lack of appearances on podcasts. Podcasts are quickly replacing legacy media especially with young people, and especially during the last 4 years with a ton of people now working from home. Kamala went on Call Her Daddy, and it was way too short. I think like 45 minutes. She treated it like a CNBC interview imo and didn't really seem to get the fact that a podcast should be a little less buttoned up. I don't think she went on any other podcasts.
I listened to Trump on Theo Von, and if I was a young, dumb, uninformed, undecided voter, I could see him resonating with me. Being that I am informed, I could barely stand it, but trump definitely got some voters going on that show. I guarantee it. Bernie did Theo like a week later and I was wondering when Kamala would be on? Then Trump did Rogan, and I still waited for Kamala. I couldn't force myself to sit through Trump's Rogan interview because Rogan is a moron, but having said that, he has millions of followers, and neglecting to try to reach that audience was a major misstep. To my knowledge there are no articles saying either wouldn't have had Kamala on, so I can only think they willfully stayed away from those shows because of the perception of their audience. They should be fighting to get their message to those people, and frankly anyone who will listen.
I was particularly interested in this as well and Rogan has stated that he would have "done it for free" and he was given opportunities to do interviews at specific times and places but the kamala team didn't want to go sit down with him in Texas, for whatever reason. So he ultimately didn't do it because she wouldn't come down - just like Trump did - and talk for a few hours on his podcast.
I think it was a huge mistake to not go on it and echo your sentiment that they should get their message out to anyone who would listen. But when it comes down to it, it was both parties who had some type of predisposition to how the interview was going to shake out, which caused it to fall apart.
I find this frustrating. Yes, many of those podcasters are conservative and have participated in spreading misinformation, but there is a huge difference between a private cable news company that is designed to manipulate the electorate, and a bunch of loosely connected yahoos on YouTube who share similar opinions.
Trump gained ground with nearly every demographic out there. They weren’t all watching Kill Tony. Working class people, comedians who rely on unrestricted speech, and a whole lot of other demographics have legitimate grievances that the Democrats have either ignored or shamed them for. They either need to lean how to address these people’s needs, or they will continue to suffer the consequences.
And when you aren’t trying to form a political opinion about it, Kill Tony is actually a pretty funny show. That is why it is the number one comedy podcast, not because of Tony’s political opinions.
loosely connected yahoos
This particular yahoo has a $100 million deal with Spotify.
He may not have the multi-billion dollar revenue of Fox News Media. But he does only have a fraction of their staff and operating expenses. That is certainly no pittance.
The rest of the yahoos are emulating him. Together they have a huge impact.
But they are not a coordinated cabal like Fox, which is the point I was trying to make.
I agree with everything you said, except Kill Tony being funny. I have not heard anything from him that made me laugh.
I am genuinely still waiting.
Kill Tony is the name of a show that has featured hundreds of comedians—that is what I was endorsing as funny, and that is what most viewers come to see. Tony Hinchcliffe is a person, and he serves primarily as a judge on the show, not a featured entertainer.
This exact misunderstanding—that enjoying the product is an endorsement of the political opinions of the creator—is a good example of what I’m talking about. If Democrats want that audience to watch a Democratic comedian’s show, then all they have to do is make a better comedy podcast than he did.
We are being downvoted for this but it’s funny to me that they are calling him Fox News for young people. The show really isn’t all that political. Instead of whining about Rogan, democrats need someone who occupies a similar space as Rogan that young people want to watch.
When I was younger we had Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Times have changed and right leaning comedians are edging out left leaning comedy, for whatever reason. Maybe the left is too PC? I don’t know.
The problem is that Rogan is the beginning of algorithmic rabbit holes that relatively quickly draw people into further right-wing political commentary, pundits like Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh or Tim Pool start popping up more and more on recommended pages, for whatever criteria the almighty algorithm had decided Joe Rogan and right-wing pundits have in common.
He might not seem very political, but he has politically engaged figures on his show quite often.
Even on my own YouTube, I actively curate the recommendations and channels that get suggested to me and tend to cut out the extreme right wing and I still get suggestions for anti-woke conservative videos.
Rogan is an inflection point that leads many people to right wingers.
democrats need someone who occupies a similar space as Rogan that young people want to watch.
I've said it before and I'll probably say it another hundred times but that.cannot.happen. It's not possible. It's like saying "democrats should fight an armed conflict with water balloons and paste" - it is not a possible thing to do.
There are some really interesting reasons why that is, but the TL;DR of it is right-wing conservative bullshit does not translate. So what we'd get is a left-wing liberal papier-mâché version that wore thin quickly.
All I'm saying is don't bother going down this road. It'll eat up lots of time and have no results that will help. The answer to Fox News Limbaugh Rogan Chudville Station is not the opposite sameness. It's entirely different media.
In my opinion, the heavy policing of language during the 2010’s made the Democratic Party a hostile environment for improvisational artists. The whole style of their art is to make an omelette on the fly while definitely breaking a few eggs along the way. It is fundamentally necessary for them to be able to make a mistake and move on, and that is something that the “cancel culture” was progressively trying to deny.
It has gotten a little better, but this latest round of blaming comedians and podcasters for Trump isn’t going to help. The Democratic Party needs to realize that when they point the finger at others, there are three fingers pointing back at them.
I've been a comedy fan my entire life, by and large nobody respected comedians outside of whether or not they make you laugh. I don't understand how or know when the culture changed so much. These podcasters are comedians. Why is everyone comparing them to News broadcasting companies or any other industry that is supposed to have merit and accountability? At most/best, these podcasts are a long form version of Regis and Kelly or Ellen. You people taking these CLOWNS seriously, is the reason stupid kids and dumb men my age think they should be taken seriously. Joe Rogan is talked about on the news like he's a fucking politician, why is anyone surprised his show effected politics after YEARS of the news talking about him and politics in the same breath?
why is anyone surprised his show effected politics after YEARS of the news talking about him and politics in the same breath?
Ignoring him won't make him go away. The reason he affects politics is because culture affects politics. Everything is politics.
If someone gets on an elevator with 6 people all facing the back wall, even if they don't understand, they will awkwardly turn to face the back wall like everyone else. If someone sees a bunch of people they respect (read: "he seems like a down to Earth guy") show their support for Trump, guess what that person is likely to do.
This is the reason celebrity endorsements—oh yay, Swift endorses Kamala—make the news. It's not because people think Swift is a politician, it's because they think she's likeable and not stupid or cruel enough to actually hurt them.
And also, bystander effect, it's much easier to take a stand when you have a leader. To some, Swift is the jumper-cable spark they need to get involved.
The bottom line is Rogan, podcasts, Tik Tok, Youtube—this is the new media. Democrats can't keep pretending the only thing people respect is high-brow interviews on 60 minutes.
I'm young enough. You know what I've never seen? A single CNN interview. At best, I watch people on Twitch cover them.
News outlets are the reason Rogan is taken seriously. Everything you said isn't wrong, but it's ignoring the differences between how "the media" treats Joe Rogan and how it treated other "comedic" figures before him. CNN and just about everyone else, except (maybe) PBS, talked about that bald clown like he was a force to be reconned with.
It doesn't matter if people actually watched those news segments. People heard about it because, even though they don't get views, the major news networks still hold more weight than independent media.
Would you know who Joe Rogan is if you weren't already listening to his podcast and he never came up in the news? 5 years before COVID, he was just "the guy from fear factor" for me.
I'm not suggesting anyone ignore him, I'm suggesting people stop talking about him the way they are. There should be articles about fact checking him without attacking, so his viewers can go to it without feeling bad about watching/listening, not about how important his podcast is. If they weren't attacking him and instead just fact corrected him in a sort of "by the way" kind of way, this election and COVID would have been a lot different. It's still possible to do that now.
Edit: fixed an autocorrect I noticed
His influence is gigantic.
Broprah is a tool, in every definition of the word.
Like these young Trump voters. TikTok is where they get their news and Rogan is who they listen to: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/politics/video/ufc-trump-fans-digvid
Democrats: let's ban TikTok but do nothing about the rest of the social medias
Democrats: let’s ban our opponents
Yes because insulting the voter base is the way to win their votes. This is why we keep fucking losing. Instead of adjusting we call the voters lonely and stupid. Sounds like a sure fire way to win on the fence voters.
This article is essentially saying anyone that listens to these shows is the problem.
Tbf, anyone listening to Joe Rogan is stupid.
I listen to Joe Rogan
They killed their chance with Sanders who had a better approval rate than Hillary and could have won that election. Thats when i realized the democratic party is GARBAGE.
For me it was when they skipped their primary election, then adopted the slogan “Democracy is on the ballot”.
Like damn that is insulting. I’ve voted Democrat in every election in my life until this one, but I will not put up with gaslighting from anyone no matter how long our history.
This, many people who voted for Trump weren't going to vote at all until Hillary called them deplorable.
She didn't. If they weren't voting for trump she didn't call them deplorable. Also, she was referring to only a subset of trump voters. She said you could separate trump supporters into two groups, one was a basket of deplorables. They seem fine with "murderers rapist and thieves and some I assume are good people ", but "there are neo nazis supporting this man, we need to reach the non nei nazis on his side" is too far.
Rogansphere
Roganisphere
Rogaineosphere?
Roganexosphere
Not young people, a specific brand of misinformed idiot of all ages. If you can't read no good, and you don't know what "Roberts rules of order" are or you think they have something to do with the McDonald's drive thru, then Rogan and his type are your fox news - the dumbest person's dumb news-style product
The sad thing about Rogan is that I don't think he's a bad guy at heart. He's a once pretty bright guy with an inquisitive mind that is utterly drug addled at this point.
He asks good questions. Curiosity killed the cat, though.
He's just smart enough to ask a good question and have an engaging interview, he's not smart enough to ever be duly informed by the answers.
and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas
Oh shit, it's almost as if there are more dimensions to politics than just the single axis the Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge.
And then they wonder why they lose.
You know what other sorts of figures that sort of conversation could "normalize" for "for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men?" Left-wing populists!
But the Democrats would rather have Trump.
Oh shit, it's almost as if there are more dimensions to politics than just the single axis the Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge.
Shit leftie go on and tell us what that single axis is. Make sure to use "libs" a lot.
I’m a 42 year old Democrat and I don’t mind his show at all. You really don’t have to agree with things you disagree with. AMA
Ya’ll are going to downvote which is fine. You can make the choice to live in your own echo chamber. Turned out well this election cycle.
His show used to be great and he used to be middle of the road. Guests were fantastic: Graham Hancock, Rhonda Patrick, Duncan Trussel, - I learned a lot and it caused me to look into things I would have never dreamt of.
Then as the Spotify deal came closer, there was a shift in the show. Less middle of the road, less interesting guests. COVID happened and made things even worse to the point where I stopped watching. That used to be my favorite podcast.
Thanks for a real response. I agree that the show did used to be better like when he used to have Rob Zombie and the like on. Seemed like for a bit he was becoming more moderate again until right before the election.
Welcome to .world where everything is black or white and there are only two opinions - one of which is wrong. I’m not sure they (well, some of them) can even spell nuance.
It's crazy to me how honesty and truth are downvoted here. It truly is just reddit 2.0. I'm not a loyal Rogan watcher but from what I have watched he seems like a true middle of the road kinda guy. Talks about the benifits of weed and psychodelics and then also talks about hunting and other things. Sure he's had crazy conspiracy folks on. But he's always seemed to just let people talk.
Yeah I’ve only seen less than 20 of his videos, usually when it’s a guest he has on that I like (rob zombie, bill burr etc). One episode I watched he was even calling out Trump and saying he didn’t want him on the show.
You are exactly right, he lets people talk and he is great at keeping the interview feel organic and moving.
People downvoting because they prob never even listened to him and are just doing the echo chamber nonsense.
