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…
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.
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.