> BIG conflict of interest… if someone goes on his show stating something like “brushing actually destroys your teeth, you should take X supplement which I developed and read my book” he gets money and viewers interested in this “no brushing” thing. If the conclusion is that you should brush and use toothpaste he doesn’t have a podcast.
This seems to be equally valid for basically any media (using brush and toothpaste is not news). Would you say that all media is in BIG conflict of interest? Or how is Joe Rogan fundamentally different?
It's different because that's the niche he's focusing on. He's not the only one... Oprah? (to a less sensationalistic extent), Gwyneth Paltrow? Malcom Gladwell also had huge success with books that cherry-pick scientific publications to "prove" things that go against conventional notions in various fields.
We know that traditional media has analogous biases towards celebrity scandals, and towards FUD and polarization in politics, and that bottom feeder broadcasters with no ethics thrive on those.
... He does it with lifestyle / well-being specifically, inviting people that peddle diets, supplements, etc.
This seems to be equally valid for basically any media (using brush and toothpaste is not news). Would you say that all media is in BIG conflict of interest? Or how is Joe Rogan fundamentally different?