Yesterday’s much-discussed debate between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith, hosted by Joe Rogan, almost perfectly epitomises the divide on the political Right. Murray is a neoconservative intellectual and one of the most prominent public defenders of Israel; Smith is an anti-war libertarian comedian and firm anti-Zionist. The conflict in Gaza has provided a clear fault line for their differences to be exposed.

A recurring motif in the early portion of the Rogan episode concerned the question of who should be permitted to debate a given issue. Murray called out the host for platforming figures who claim expertise on subjects ranging from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza to Covid-19, only for them to then hide behind the defence of “I’m a comedian” when challenged. He also highlighted the cases of supposed “armchair experts” such as Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll, both of whom have appeared on Rogan’s show to discuss revisionist interpretations of history. Smith, for his part, insisted: “I’m not an expert but that doesn’t mean I can’t have my take.”

Without being too dialectical about it, both sides are at once correct and wrong. Smith is right in saying that you don’t need to be an “expert” or have credentials to speak or write about a particular topic, especially given how politics affects the broader public. On this score, Murray comes off as somewhat elitist and gatekeeping in his appeals to authority. At the same time, he also raises legitimate criticisms of Rogan’s amplification of conspiracists without any serious pushback or interrogation of their arguments: by appearing on the most popular podcast in the world, they are automatically afforded credibility.

The size of Rogan’s podcast has only exacerbated this issue. The show might once have been considered a harmless source of entertainment, featuring meandering, weed-fuelled conversations with eccentrics such as Alex Jones. Now, however, it is a cultural juggernaut with outsized political influence, and a place where tens of millions of listeners come for information.

This has produced a curious paradox. As Rogan’s podcast has grown, the circle has become narrower and he has become increasingly credulous in his treatment of guests such as Elon Musk and Graham Hancock, who has been accused of spreading pseudoscientific theories about archaeology. The natural response is to suggest, as Murray did yesterday, that Rogan should feature more “establishment” voices to provide “balance”.

But if he did this, ironically, it would likely taint his credibility among a large part of his audience, given that his appeal stems from his anti-establishment stance and willingness to amplify perspectives which contradict “official” narratives. Rogan, a comedian and UFC commentator by trade, is less obviously political than, say, a journalist like Tucker Carlson, and has an eclectic range of interests reflected in his broad range of guests. He can therefore attract a wider group of listeners who treat his show as a genuine educational resource.

An endemic feature of the current podcast-bro ecosystem of which Rogan is a part is that its stars are doomed to occupy a bubble of their own making, with a perspective just as narrow as the establishment they oppose. Pseudoscience, junk history and conspiracy theories therefore come to be treated as forbidden knowledge.

However, these are merely the exhaust fumes of a free and open public sphere. There is no simple solution tied up in a bow to this problem. By featuring debates such as the one pitting Smith against Murray, Rogan is providing a valuable service, especially when it comes to issues as contentious as Israel-Palestine. It might not provide solutions, but it at least gives both sides an opportunity to test their arguments and challenge the other. After that, it’s left to the audience to make up their own minds.

---

Ralph Leonard is a British-Nigerian writer on international politics, religion, culture and humanism.

buffsoldier_96

---