I’d say we should handle it with more speech. All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation. Make each episode at least an hour, and have an actual discussion. They don’t need to smoke weed or anything, but people like rogan because he does still feel like just some guy with a podcast, and mainstream media is less popular than ever because people are sick of being told what to think and not to question things.
That would be infinitely more engaging than a clickbait headline and 3 minutes from an “expert” on CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
> All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation.
Sounds like something an expert in a field would a) not have enough time to do, b) usually lack the charisma to do and c) draw them away from arguably more pertinent tasks, such as research?
I think a better course of action would be to stop believing one can be educated on topics they know nothing about, and without context, purely by passively absorbing information from podcasts.
I don't know if that's feasible. Joe Rogan can have hour-long podcasts because hour-long podcasts are his job. It is not the job of experts to have hour-long podcasts dissecting another podcast-- their jobs are to be experts in whatever their field is in. Dissecting a wrong person may not be helpful if they don't have the equipment, the same following, the polish, the time, or the presentation skill... because its not their job.
That would be infinitely more engaging than a clickbait headline and 3 minutes from an “expert” on CNN/MSNBC/Fox.