First of all he is not a journalist and never claimed to be. To claim he is ignoring some fictional obligation that others may follow means you haven't the slightest clue what he is doing. Traditional TV has this century long code of conduct that people are tuning out and are looking for alternative forms of entertainment which he provides. Some like the 3 stooges and some like Jackass.
"The notion that such fundamental concerns should be left to traditional television is frankly disgusting" You are combining 2 separate arguments. The fact he swears on his podcast is one(the actual start to all this) where the issue was he is not on traditional TV where there is no censorship. The other is that you believe he is not "vetting" people properly and thus doing a disservice to established journalism.
No one has ever stated he doesn't care about being responsible or not, that's you trying to justify a moral higher ground. He doesn't promote the ideas of his guests, he entertains them to understand them. If that changes his thought on subjects so be it but I think he is well aware of who he is and who he is truly accountable too, himself. He has never done or said anything that is at all controversial. He's never been racist, homophobic, you name it from the start.
You take him more serious than I think he takes himself.
First of all, nowhere in this thread did I comment on what I think about Rogan. The only thing I've argued is that your response was completely unreasonable, which it was. Stop resorting to strawmen and dismissive assumptions.
Anyone in a public space that conveys information to the public has that journalistic/moral obligation. Talk-show-hosts, Youtube personalities, streamers, everyone-- You don't have to be an actual professional journalist for this to be true. It's not your choice whether or not you want that responsibility, and in Rogan's case, informing the public of important subjects is definitely part of what he does. It's not something he can escape just by telling people he's a moron.
You responded to this:
Doesn't matter. Giving a large platform to McInness goes beyond giving a voice to all sides of the political spectrum. This is not having a run-of-the-mill Republican stooge on the show. I don't care where Rogan leans politically. He should vet his guests to make sure they at least have some credibility. If he can't do that, he deserves to be criticized for it. 'All sides are valid' is not always an honorable position and posturing like it is (not saying that this is what you're currently doing) is often a sign of vapidness and stupidity.
with this:
So no, you are actually the only one here arbitrarily combining two separate arguments. Nowhere did Amerika mention anything about bad language, so your response that he therefore must want traditional TV could only be strictly based on the idea of vetting guests responsibly and nothing else. This is the only thing I referred to as well.
The fact that his comment only suggests that "<Rogan> should make sure his guests have at least
some credibility" and the fact that you view even THAT as an expectation that should be reserved for television
does imply that Rogan should have zero responsibility unless he is on television. This is an insane position to take. If that's not your position (which hopefully is the case), then you logically shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion and made that response, and should own up to the strawman.
The fact that Rogan himself acknowledges this responsibility and cares about it was the point I brought up-- it actually hurts and contradicts your response, it doesn't help it.
You may reasonably disagree with the position that Rogan is or isn't acting responsibly (lots of people have and that should be fairly debated), but either way, that doesn't justify the wildly presumptuous and dismissive response you made.
Everything else you're mentioning here, defending his character and admirable traits, assigning questionable motivations to everyone that has an issue with it, is completely irrelevant to this point.
