Thoughts on a couple Kamala media appearances (one of those not being confirmed) for next week:
My guess is the Joe Rogan interview doesn't end up happening. While Rogan's own political views are a little more idiosyncratic than they are often portrayed as, that is far less true of his audience. I think he likely sees major risk to taking…
Thoughts on a couple Kamala media appearances (one of those not being confirmed) for next week:
My guess is the Joe Rogan interview doesn't end up happening. While Rogan's own political views are a little more idiosyncratic than they are often portrayed as, that is far less true of his audience. I think he likely sees major risk to taking that interview and being even slightly cordial and how he could lose some of his regular audience as a result.
The CNN Townhall next week, I think there's a less than 5% chance of this happening, but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump makes a last second decision that he wants to join the townhall. Since its already scheduled, I'm guessing CNN would be willing to oblige, but if some of the non-cable networks would decide that its too late to dump their previously scheduled programming.
I try not to follow the major parasocial internet personalities, but wouldn't the appearance of a sitting VP and possible future president be a large bump to Rogan's projected image of being smart and important? I would expect that to outweigh any risks of his audience not liking him doing it in the first place. If the audience wasn't receptive enough to Harris then she wouldn't see any benefit from trying to do so in the first place, after all.
Unless he decides to completely change the direction of his show the idea of being smart and important has limited utility to him. Even if the interview happens, it'll be a one-off or two-off if he interviews Trump as well and the vast majority of his interview subjects will continue to be MMA fighters and comedians.
If 20% of Rogan's audience is receptive to Harris, 60% hates her and 20% doesn't care either way, his audience is big enough that it makes sense for her to do his show. But its risky for him to do it.
If anything it's going to be Kamala nixing the Rogan interview given the non-standard format and topics of his show. Personally I don't think it's worth the risk for her do it but the campaign seems to be dead-set on reaching out to Republicans and more traditionally right-leaning groups.
It's not necessarily right leaning audiences, it's young men. She is trying to reach young men. Trump has been talking directly to these young men for a long time, and Harris must be seeing weakness with Gen Z men to justify the strategy change. I am not opposed to her going on Rogan, as it's an audience Harris has never spoken to before.
Rogan's audience is large (something like 14 million) and I think a fair percentage of them are, to be kind, dummies without strong political beliefs. The guy who cuts my hair is a Joe Rogan fan and I don't think he's a Republican, just, well, a dummy. And some dummies vote. If she were able to get .005% of his audience to vote for her, that could be very helpful.
She should do the Rogan interview if offered, even if it were to be hostile, which i doubt, she can more than handle herself and i do think it helps that voters see her going on unfriendly platforms.
Putting aside Joe Rogan's views and audience, he's actually good at interviewing and doesn't do the Fox News dance when it comes to acting like a dick in interrupting Kamala Harris and being combative. From Rogan's interviewing style, he's got more in common with Howard Stern in that he's generally interested in learning about those whom he interviews (especially celebrities). I've seen some interviews he's done, and I admit I actually get entertained watching them, even if I'm not a Rogan guy.
That said, if Rogan doesn't interview Harris I don't think at this point she really needs to interview with him. The Fox News interview though is supposed to enable Harris to get ownership over the border issue and throw it against the GOP.
I saw it. Harris was remarkably confident and comfortable interviewing even amid the interview itself being contentious at times. When she was talking about her prosecuting experience, it was a good idea for her to give that information out.
I don't know if for sure it's moved the needle as of yet for Democrats on the border issue. However, it's an opportunity for the Democratic Party to get a better shot at taking charge on the issue than it did before.
I disagree with you that Rogan is good at interviewing because his interviews often veer into topics that he and/or his guest don't have the greatest factual grasp of and so it can often lead to him saying wildly untrue things and/or his guest saying wildly untrue things with minimal fact checking. I will agree that his interviews aren't combative and he does try to learn about his guest and their views and perspectives.
It may just be the interviews I am watching but I don't see the interviews Rogan does with the guests I care nothing about and don't want to even listen to (including the conspiracy theorist-type of guests). It's generally the celebrities.
In Rogan's standards he's able to extract information from guests. Good interviewing from my standpoint means that someone like Rogan is able to get the truth out, even if he does show he doesn't have much understanding of certain things and goes off in tangents.
Howard Stern on the other hand I will say is a far better interviewer and more professional, even more inquisitive.
That's one part of good interviewing, and I agree that Rogan is good in that area, I certainly don't think its the entirety of it and depending on who the person is and what they say not the most important part of it. And where Rogan fails miserably is that the subjects his interviews often veer into him and/or his guest don't have a great factual grasp of and him or them will wind up saying wildly untrue things. A better interviewer would have a better grasp of the subject matter he's talking about so that he doesn't say untrue things and doesn't allow the person he's talking to to say untrue things unchecked.
You make valid points. I'll just say that when I'm looking for the best kind of interviews, I typically don't go to Rogan. But there are entertaining ones he's done, especially with comedians like Pauly Shore with discussion about Nicolas Cage.
I think those are good examples where his interview style is at its best, people who are pretty interesting but also not particularly controversial (I wouldn't say Kamala is a controversial person, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make). Its when he delves outside of those types of people or outside of trying to understand a person's life and general perspective that it can start to get rough.
Thoughts on a couple Kamala media appearances (one of those not being confirmed) for next week:
My guess is the Joe Rogan interview doesn't end up happening. While Rogan's own political views are a little more idiosyncratic than they are often portrayed as, that is far less true of his audience. I think he likely sees major risk to taking that interview and being even slightly cordial and how he could lose some of his regular audience as a result.
The CNN Townhall next week, I think there's a less than 5% chance of this happening, but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump makes a last second decision that he wants to join the townhall. Since its already scheduled, I'm guessing CNN would be willing to oblige, but if some of the non-cable networks would decide that its too late to dump their previously scheduled programming.
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. Because he was afraid to debate Kamala Harris again.
.
Q. Why did the other chicken decline to interview Kamala Harris?
A. Because he was afraid to lose his audience.
I try not to follow the major parasocial internet personalities, but wouldn't the appearance of a sitting VP and possible future president be a large bump to Rogan's projected image of being smart and important? I would expect that to outweigh any risks of his audience not liking him doing it in the first place. If the audience wasn't receptive enough to Harris then she wouldn't see any benefit from trying to do so in the first place, after all.
Unless he decides to completely change the direction of his show the idea of being smart and important has limited utility to him. Even if the interview happens, it'll be a one-off or two-off if he interviews Trump as well and the vast majority of his interview subjects will continue to be MMA fighters and comedians.
If 20% of Rogan's audience is receptive to Harris, 60% hates her and 20% doesn't care either way, his audience is big enough that it makes sense for her to do his show. But its risky for him to do it.
If anything it's going to be Kamala nixing the Rogan interview given the non-standard format and topics of his show. Personally I don't think it's worth the risk for her do it but the campaign seems to be dead-set on reaching out to Republicans and more traditionally right-leaning groups.
It's not necessarily right leaning audiences, it's young men. She is trying to reach young men. Trump has been talking directly to these young men for a long time, and Harris must be seeing weakness with Gen Z men to justify the strategy change. I am not opposed to her going on Rogan, as it's an audience Harris has never spoken to before.
Rogan's audience is large (something like 14 million) and I think a fair percentage of them are, to be kind, dummies without strong political beliefs. The guy who cuts my hair is a Joe Rogan fan and I don't think he's a Republican, just, well, a dummy. And some dummies vote. If she were able to get .005% of his audience to vote for her, that could be very helpful.
This basically describes my acquaintances who love Rogan and his schtick
She should do the Rogan interview if offered, even if it were to be hostile, which i doubt, she can more than handle herself and i do think it helps that voters see her going on unfriendly platforms.
Putting aside Joe Rogan's views and audience, he's actually good at interviewing and doesn't do the Fox News dance when it comes to acting like a dick in interrupting Kamala Harris and being combative. From Rogan's interviewing style, he's got more in common with Howard Stern in that he's generally interested in learning about those whom he interviews (especially celebrities). I've seen some interviews he's done, and I admit I actually get entertained watching them, even if I'm not a Rogan guy.
That said, if Rogan doesn't interview Harris I don't think at this point she really needs to interview with him. The Fox News interview though is supposed to enable Harris to get ownership over the border issue and throw it against the GOP.
Did you watch it, and do you think it did?
I saw it. Harris was remarkably confident and comfortable interviewing even amid the interview itself being contentious at times. When she was talking about her prosecuting experience, it was a good idea for her to give that information out.
I don't know if for sure it's moved the needle as of yet for Democrats on the border issue. However, it's an opportunity for the Democratic Party to get a better shot at taking charge on the issue than it did before.
I disagree with you that Rogan is good at interviewing because his interviews often veer into topics that he and/or his guest don't have the greatest factual grasp of and so it can often lead to him saying wildly untrue things and/or his guest saying wildly untrue things with minimal fact checking. I will agree that his interviews aren't combative and he does try to learn about his guest and their views and perspectives.
It may just be the interviews I am watching but I don't see the interviews Rogan does with the guests I care nothing about and don't want to even listen to (including the conspiracy theorist-type of guests). It's generally the celebrities.
In Rogan's standards he's able to extract information from guests. Good interviewing from my standpoint means that someone like Rogan is able to get the truth out, even if he does show he doesn't have much understanding of certain things and goes off in tangents.
Howard Stern on the other hand I will say is a far better interviewer and more professional, even more inquisitive.
That's one part of good interviewing, and I agree that Rogan is good in that area, I certainly don't think its the entirety of it and depending on who the person is and what they say not the most important part of it. And where Rogan fails miserably is that the subjects his interviews often veer into him and/or his guest don't have a great factual grasp of and him or them will wind up saying wildly untrue things. A better interviewer would have a better grasp of the subject matter he's talking about so that he doesn't say untrue things and doesn't allow the person he's talking to to say untrue things unchecked.
You make valid points. I'll just say that when I'm looking for the best kind of interviews, I typically don't go to Rogan. But there are entertaining ones he's done, especially with comedians like Pauly Shore with discussion about Nicolas Cage.
I think those are good examples where his interview style is at its best, people who are pretty interesting but also not particularly controversial (I wouldn't say Kamala is a controversial person, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make). Its when he delves outside of those types of people or outside of trying to understand a person's life and general perspective that it can start to get rough.