Joe Rogan and the Descent from Reality

Joe Rogan and the Descent from Reality: When Opinion Outweighs Expertise

What began as a conversation about free speech quickly turned into a sobering diagnosis of a digital culture in decline. In his recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s eponymous podcast, Douglas Murray demonstrated how poorly balanced podcasts can become a vehicle for historical revisionism and the amplification of antisemitic tropes—and how little space remains for expertise, nuance, and accountability. 

Over the past several years, debates have repeatedly surfaced over Joe Rogan’s stance on antisemitism. As the host of The Joe Rogan Experience—the world’s most-listened-to podcast—his influence is difficult to overstate. That’s precisely why these debates are no minor matter and deserve serious public examination.

To contextualize a bit: On February 4, 2023, Rogan defended US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar against allegations of antisemitism stemming from her 2019 tweet that US support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby”—a reference to $100 bills. Rogan added: “the idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous. That’s like saying Italians aren’t into pizza.” The backlash was swift. Author David Baddiel (Jews Don’t Count) noted how hard it is to avoid invoking antisemitic tropes when such remarks are made on one of the world’s largest platforms. Rogan never publicly addressed the controversy—nor did he appear to reflect on its implications.

Fast-forward to March 2025: Rogan hosted researcher, entrepreneur, and YouTuber Ian Carroll. During the episode, Carroll expressed antisemitic conspiracy myths—including the claim that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. Rogan offered no challenge to these statements, allowing Carroll to present his views without interruption.

Later that month, Rogan welcomed Darryl Cooper, a podcaster known for Holocaust revisionism and antisemitic rhetoric. Cooper asserted, among other things, that Adolf Hitler had opposed Kristallnacht—a statement that distorts the historical record and downplays the ideological and systematic nature of Nazi antisemitism. Rogan praised Cooper for his “nuanced and comprehensive views” and referred to Jewish critics as “paranoid,” prompting a new wave of criticism.

On April 10, 2025, an episode aired that continues to make waves to this day. Following individual interviews by Lex Fridman with Jewish-American comedian Dave Smith and the British journalist Douglas Murray, Rogan brought both public figures together for a joint episode—and, commendably, facilitated a face-to-face confrontation.

Right from the outset, the discussion was turbulent. Murray openly criticized Rogan for repeatedly providing a platform to revisionist and conspiratorial voices. He accused the host of lacking balance, inviting figures like Carroll and Cooper without offering informed counterarguments. His critique reignited a long-simmering question: What responsibility does a figure like Rogan bear when his podcast serves as a primary source of political information for millions?

This key issue has captivated our attention over recent months. In January 2025, one of us addressed in The Jewish Chronicle the responsibilities of public figures such as Piers Morgan to properly inform their audiences. The argument then—and one that remains pressing—was that talk shows and podcasts wield significant political influence and require greater scrutiny.

The term “podcast election” emerged during the 2024 US presidential race, describing how candidates increasingly relied on the expansive reach and intimate format of podcasts to shape political discourse and engage voters.

While Kamala Harris declined an invitation from Rogan’s team and focused her campaign efforts on other formats, Donald Trump utilized the capabilities of podcasts, appearing on both The Joe Rogan Experience and the Lex Fridman Podcast. By hosting Trump, Rogan offered a platform for thorough discussion of policies and personal narratives, fostering a sense of authenticity and trust that traditional media soundbites often fail to provide.

Long-form podcasting proved especially influential among younger audiences and those disengaged from conventional news, highlighting the broader transformation in political communication and the growing power of podcasts to shape public opinion and mobilize voters.

These dynamics underscore why the thematic focus, tone of interaction, and emotional impact of podcasts matter so deeply. Compared to hosts like Piers Morgan—whose programs, as discussed in The Jewish Chronicle, often devolve into combative spectacles lacking informative value, while encouraging polarization—Rogan has cultivated a format that makes space for opposing perspectives discussed at length and in quiet. The episode with Douglas Murray and Dave Smith, for example, engaged with both individuals’ perspectives. Nevertheless, a lingering sense of unease was present.

Not just visually—with Rogan and Smith seated side by side, facing Murray—but also in the overall dynamic, a certain imbalance was palpable. As the conversation progressed, Murray increasingly directed his criticism at the second guest, Smith. Time and again, Rogan stepped in to support the comedian, particularly when Smith seemed to struggle to respond to Murray’s arguments. The exchange felt like a lopsided debate between a rhetorically adept critic and a somewhat unsteady counterpart, whose weaker position the host repeatedly sought to reinforce, rather than a facilitated discussion. Arguably, this was also a way of shielding both his platform and his personal views from indirect critique.

Murray’s core argument—one seemingly lost on his counterparts—was straightforward: complex geopolitical issues, such as the conflict in the Middle East or the war in Ukraine, require informed and experienced voices. He lamented a public discourse where gut feeling, historical revisionism, and provocation trump expertise. He likened the phenomenon to algorithm-driven polarization, accelerated by the short-term profit motives of social media companies. The critique was aimed squarely at Rogan, who, in Murray’s view, enables the coarsening and deregulation of public conversation.

Despite never having visited the region, Smith spoke with sweeping certainty, calling Israel an apartheid state and comparing Gaza to a concentration camp. Such claims go far beyond legitimate or constructive criticism, veering into historical distortion and a blanket condemnation of the Jewish state. When challenged, both Smith and Rogan insisted that one need not be an expert to comment on such matters. Murray’s reply was pointed: if that’s the case, why invite non-experts at all?

The dynamic Murray challenged is a familiar one: invite incendiary guests to boost visibility, and when criticism arises, retreat behind the excuse that “it’s just a comedian”—or accuse detractors of elitism, intellectualism, and gatekeeping. It’s a well-worn script—and a dangerous one. As mentioned, podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience shape worldviews. There’s hardly a younger generation today that is unfamiliar with him. To suggest that language and opinion broadcasted via these digital channels are somehow detached from real-world events is not only naïve—it borders on denial. This is evident in campus protests, in the polarization of electoral politics and mainstream discourse, and in the tragedies of Pittsburgh, Christchurch, and Halle. These—among many other acts of violence—have shown how easily ideas incubated online can spill over into real-world harm.

A case study we conducted shows that in the US dataset, Rogan’s audience expresses the highest levels of agreement with antisemitic content among major podcast communities. While several variables must be considered, the trend is stark.

To explore this further, the Decoding Antisemitism US team qualitatively analyzed over 1,000 user comments on the Rogan episode featuring Smith and Murray. Nearly 96%—an overwhelming majority—were emotionally charged and sharply dismissive not of Smith, but of Murray, often in the form of ad hominem attacks. While Smith emerged virtually unscathed, Murray’s appeal to expertise was ridiculed. He was accused of lacking real authority, with many commenters suggesting that his perceived credibility stemmed only from his British accent, which they associated with “smugness” and a patronizing European stance toward indigenous Middle Eastern perspectives. In their eyes, he was nothing more than “a mouthpiece of the Zionists.”

Very few commenters engaged with Murray’s actual argument: that complex issues demand informed discussion. Murray’s call for a fact-based discourse was openly mocked. Anti-intellectualism and conspiracism dominated.

Moreover, some commenters drew false equivalencies to scientific theories that were once fringe but later validated in history. One responded to Murray’s insistence that historians, not comedians, should lead public discourse on current conflicts: “Plate tectonics was originally considered a fringe view… It seems that Murray isn’t confident in both the thoroughness and reach of the views he considers undebatable.”

This was quickly followed by overt forms of antisemitic hatred and historical revisionism—precisely the dangers Murray had warned about, and which flourish on platforms like Rogan’s. Nearly 34% included direct or indirect antisemitic content. One commenter wrote: “Here’s a crazy thought, what if the reason Jake Shields is questioning the 6 million is because it’s not true. Never address that option. Just question why he is asking the question.” Another added: “Hey Douglas, the Holocaust numbers have been revised to under a million; we aren’t just saying this out of the blue. The official numbers have been lowered greatly. Also, how come the ‘death’ camps had maternity wards, theaters and swimming pools lol. Douglas is a clown.”

Next came a rapid barrage of conspiracy myths (“Did Murray just admit the tiny hats killed JFK?”) and casual dismissals of any knowledge about antisemitic tropes (“Kowtowing on the Rothschilds—his cowardice lol. We need to stop letting clowns like Murray say calling out the Rothschilds is an antisemitic trope. So bullshit”).

And, inevitably, the delegitimization of the so-called “satanic state” of Israel was not far behind — with chilling implications for the more than eight million Jews living in the region: “Dude, it’s never gonna end if Israel stays. They already have plans of expanding—look up the Greater Israel map. The only solution is Polish, German Jews go back to where they came from, and the Arab Jews that were there before ’48 get to stay.”

This isn’t fringe noise anymore — it’s become an intellectual wildfire at the heart of mainstream discourse. We are witnessing, in real time, the erosion of boundaries between the influence of major podcasters and the viral outrage of anonymous audiences — all unfolding within a vast communication sphere where bottom-up dynamics and audience capture (the tendency to shape content in response to audience approval) increasingly shape the future of public discourse. Amid a transfer of intellectual authority, we are drifting toward a society ever more unmoored from humanism and truth — drawn instead to the loudest conflict, the sharpest edge. Joe Rogan is not merely a bystander to this shift. He is one of its most visible accelerants.

In discussions about the failure of public discourse, it is critical to interrogate why such a significant number of people are accepting the alternative narratives offered by armchair experts, and why the situation is particularly difficult to address. The present moment seems to be especially volatile, and picking a “side” runs the risk of alienating entire audiences. Placing blame disproportionately on the creators and consumers without addressing the systemic defects at play treats just one side of the problem.

Jacques Ellul, in outlining the conditions needed for the successful dissemination of propaganda, describes a simultaneously individualist and mass society, cut off from the organic groupings and structures of society and becoming a group of isolated, yet equal individuals, reliant on mass media to form opinions. It has never been easier to proliferate and consume information than it is now. Is it possible that our society has become so unbalanced, we have reproduced the conditions that make large-scale manipulation more attainable? In recent years, there has been a clear trend of distrust in the government and general feelings of betrayal prompted by the social structures people had once identified with. This, along with the exclusionary nature of academia and the general sentiment that mainstream media has become so polarized, one cannot rely on any of the available institutions to provide accurate, unbiased information, has fomented a mass that rejects a system which rejects them.

Joe Rogan, along with other figures, whom many would consider to be catering to the fringes of society, has successfully become a source of information sharing, opinion forming, and community building. These figures have actively contributed to the decline of digital culture by providing a platform for historical revisionism and alternative narratives, which often have no standing in reality, tailoring their content to a vulnerable, pliant audience manufactured by our society.

Unfortunately, responses of opposition to this abuse of informational power, as we see with Murray and the comment engagement following the aforementioned interview, are likely to bolster Joe Rogan and Co., and dogmatism from all sides will continue to contribute to the deterioration of public discourse. Perhaps what is necessary is a deeper probe into our existing social structure.

—

Dr. Matthias J. Becker

University of Cambridge, Lead Decoding Antisemitism

Liora Sabra

New York University