politics

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.

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

Broprah is a tool, in every definition of the word.

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.

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?

Yes, we need more attempts to "reason" with the horse paste people.

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.

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 "

joe rogan, fox news. cult of idiocracy. cult of idiocracy. cult. of. idiocraccccyyyyyy....

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.

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."

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:

https://youtu.be/_TQLDygbI-s