[save_ferris]

> Doesn't the popularity of his content suggest that Americans are very interested in higher level discourse, but have long been denied it?

This is probably true to degree, although Rogan specifically is a pretty polarizing example due to his proclivity for hosting guests that aren't always welcome elsewhere. It's hard to say how much of his popularity is due to his interview style versus his politics. I also expect that the demographic breakdown of podcast listeners aren't reflective of the country as a whole, it probably skews a bit younger.

Long-form interviews with political leaders aren't a new genre, I suspect they just don't get as much attention as the more soundbite-y forms of news, but I could be wrong.

[jessaustin]

Boring-ass long-form interviews with nonagenarians like Charlie Rose or the 60 Minutes gang don't get much attention because they are without substance. Rogan isn't necessarily trying to embarrass his guests, but neither is he desperate to support the status quo. So, occasionally, something true gets said. Like, once an hour. Still better than the nonagenarians.

[Chris2048]

> Rogan specifically is a pretty polarizing

I'd flip this; Rogan isn't polarizing, so much as a section of society is intolerant of "the marketplace of ideas".

It's not Rogan who has to change, it's his critics.

Put simply, they don't trust fellow Americans to form their own opinions, so feel entitled to control their influences.

Ok, there are also some guests that might make false claims, or misrepresentations. Exposure and open discussion is the prescribed cure for this too.

[lacker]

Rogan seems like one of the most un-polarizing forces in media right now. He can support Bernie Sanders, a left wing position, and oppose trans rights, a right wing position. Almost everyone else is more pushed into either the left or right pole.

[reillyse]

You've touched on a huge problem I see with the US political system. Everyone is bucketed into one of two buckets. Everyone in each bucket must have all of the beliefs of the other people in the bucket. If you are in one bucket, you support Trump, think border walls are a good thing, support blue lives matter are anti LGBT and are anti-abortion. If you are in the other bucket you take the opposite views on all of the those topics and more.

For me it shows that the tribalism has completely overtaken US politics. If everyone was making up their mind independently or even semi-independently the odds of everyone in the same bucket having the same beliefs would be close to 0.

[serial_dev]

I don't think it's fair to say that he opposes trans rights. I saw him talk about recently transitioned people in MMA. I'm not a big follower of his, but I think his views are more nuanced than a blanket "he opposes trans rights like right wing people".

[BlueTemplar]

The problem is classifying "trans rights" as left wing, while those have (almost) nothing to do with the left/right spectrum.

Another example, on that spectrum this time : Trump's anti-immigration stance is a very typical leftist position. If this sounds preposterous, see this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_A...