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.
Great job, keep talking shit about the most popular podcast and alienating people. Sure worked out great for us during the election.
Rogan ain’t gonna stool fuck you bro.
Removed by mod
Did you even read the article or are you reddit-jerking over the headline?
Removed by mod
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.
Not a Rogan fan, but to call him stupid makes you look extra stupid. I shouldn’t need to elaborate on this, but let me know if you can’t figure it out.
You sound like a “Rogan fan”. How much Rogan do you consume?
Zero. I have friends who are Rogan fans so I consume vicariously you could say.
Well, I was wrong then. But, I also know people who listen to him. In fact most people I know listen to him. I have heard him speak and declare him “stupid” as the previous poster said. His success in terms of reach, money, popularity, influence… is not challenged. But I see him and think “that guy is stupid”. I admit I really liked Newsradio… Rogan can be stupid and successful, right? So, please elaborate. Why is that a wild opinion?
Rogan, love or hate the guy, is successful. Whatever I think about the guy, or what you think about the guy, he’s managed to navigate a vast gauntlet of unsuccessful endeavors. To me, that is success. One could argue luck, but (to me) luck is nothing more than opportunity meeting preparation.
And while I’ve only listened to a few snippets from his show, I have listened to him commentate on whatever MMA circuit he commentates on and he has never sounded stupid.
I do not love or hate the guy. I do not dispute that he is “successful” (in the he makes money sort of way). But that is totally unrelated to being him being stupid. I don’t think one has any relation to the other. You can be stupid AND successful.
Yes, we need more attempts to “reason” with the horse paste people.
Oh, you still think ivermectin is only for horses?
Bot, you’re stuck in a loop.
Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes.
A mod deleted my other one
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.
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.
Regardless, the rhetoric is aggressive and alienating, the opposite of what a candidate who wants votes should be.
I would agree that it was aggressive and alienating. Another issue is that it was extremely easy to take out of context, which it widely has been. It’s so it of context that people who didn’t know the context proudly labeled themselves as “deplorable” showing solidarity with David Duke. Never realizing that’s who the original context was about. But it’s hard to speak in a way that will never be taken out of context. “You didn’t build that” for another example.
Did Hilary ever actually clear up the ambiguity though or did we have to give her the benefit of the doubt to a degree?
I dont quite understand what she had to gain from making the statement even if it was said different. She had a strange way of carrying herself thats for sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
There wasn’t ambiguity to clear up in context, but she did regret saying “half” of his supporters. She was clearly never saying all of them. Unless you remove the context.
Okay well how about I say I want to murder someone and later take it back and say I only want to murder their bad half. It still sounds sorta like I feel the same either way right?
You can’t say words like clearly unless you know her intent. She was happy to say it at the time, she liked the reaction in the room. Saying later she regretted it could just be an acknowledgement that it caused more trouble than it was worth.
Conversely, she could say, “It was wrong for me to call any group of americans deplorables.” If she wanted to be a leader, take responsibility for your mistakes. Using clever words to make it sound like you might have maybe made a mistake but not really, and then acting like the victim of the story isnt a good look.
Edit: after reading the quote, it was delivered as a joke, very similar to the Puerto Rico joke that got bipartisan condemnation in this election.
Lol you aren’t ever going to win that voter base, the fact that you keep trying is why you keep losing.
Quit your bullshit. Dems have never gone after this segment and you know it. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Yeah this thinking right here is what won you that election.
You need to go to bed. You’re not making sense.
Riddle me this what is making sense to you in the country currently
You’re a bad faith actor. I would never give you the sincerity of real engagement. You would take it as an opportunity to spread your poison. You’re not a Riddler.
YoUr tHe pOisoNer. Better to drink what’s bitter and accept the truth then dance like a fool for clowns.
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.
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:
This… comment… its not a meme or a trope. I feel… l dont know what to feel or what to say. Can you please convert this to an image with text or at least make your comment seem like you are 100% certain about who needs to die??
If you don’t use /s people just think you’re stupid fyi.
I refuse to believe people are that dumb
Is this dumb denialism?
Are you being sarcastic?
Sort of I guess. It was stated humorously.
You have hope for the intelligence of mankind; you refuse to believe they could be so dumb. I’m saying like, “it sounds like round-earth denialism, just look around you at all the evidence of how dumb people are that you can see with your own eyes!”
I hope you’re 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.”
Also worth mentioning that Harris declined to be on Rogan
Other way around
Harris will not appear on Joe Rogan podcast, her campaign says - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-will-not-appear-joe-rogan-podcast-her-campaign-says-2024-10-25/
Rogan says he rejected Harris campaign interview conditions https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/29/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/joe-rogan-kamala-harris-interview-conditions-00186008
Okay… that doesn’t mean I’m wrong lol. The point is she had an opportunity to come on to the show. Her schedule was busy and they couldn’t make it work. I don’t see why he should have to fly to her and only do an hour instead of the usual three. It’s not like Rogan flew out to Trump.
Well, if her people asked for her to be on his show but they had to fly him out and it had to be an hour, and he said no, that she had to go there, like trump, then they declined. That isn’t, in any way the same as her declining to be on his show. Or are you saying you think rogan is lying? If that’s the case I have no argument but I’d question your reasons.
You’re saying Joe Rogan refused to have Kamala Harris on, remember?
https://x.com/joerogan/status/1851118464447971595
I don’t know what to tell you, but Kamala didn’t want to go to Austin and also didn’t want to do the normal three hour show. You can argue with me all you want but all the information is available so you’re just wasting your time.
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.
And the people bankrolling these podcasts, or at least sponsoring them to push a slant to the right, are fully aware of the similarities. It’s why they do it, they already did the math.
Podcasters are self employed.
No, if they run ads, they are sponsored. A handyman is self employed. I don’t stop working to thank DeWalt or Snap-on for providing my tools, I bought them myself.
The ads a handyman chooses to run on the side of their truck are their responsibility. Noone is forced to sell out.
You are missing the point of my original comment, there are podcasts that do get sponsored by conservative or hard right/religious right money that are filling the same niche that AM radio used to, and they are being sponsored because the right knows that it works because they already did the same thing with AM radio.
As an aside, I have never seen a handyman with an ad for a sponsor on their vehicle, ever. Maybe an ad for their own business, but that’s how a service industry works, you need to advertise yourself. Podcasters are entertainers or influencers, and in our economic system, if your income isn’t directly generated by the work you do (service), then it is given to you to perform or advertise (entertainment). An entertainer doesn’t work for their audience. They put in work to gain and keep an audience, but no one person in the audience has the ability to tell an entertainer what to do or say, that power solely covers from the group that pays that entertainer to entertain. The owner of a venue pays a comedian or band, you pay the venue to be allowed to be entertained at that venue. The venue decides what content they put on stage because it can become associated with their brand. Patreon does allow people to directly support podcasters, yes, but if you run ads at all, you are beholden to their terms in order to continue receiving payment. It is statistically improbable that the vast majority of conservative leaning podcasters are either self funded or entirely crowd funded, just like most influencers. Those cross country Van-Lifers are largely either independently wealthy or sponsored by the brands they showcase, serving as an advertisement to their viewers, many of whom are also wealthier. Podcast hosting has a similar barrier to entry as being a SoundCloud hip-hop artist or maybe a country singer, a computer and maybe a camera, so anybody can do for extra income if there are brands or causes willing to actually make it worth the effort to do
Thats an awfully long winded way of saying its not the podcasters responsibility or fault for what is included in their content.
Sorry I disagree.
