The Public and the Pandemic: Revisiting "The Joe Rogan Experience" Amid Misinformation

Before diving into Tyson's reaction to Howard, it’s vital to examine the significance of "The Joe Rogan Experience" as the platform Howard chose to present his theories. Joe Rogan, a prominent comedian, has gained notoriety not just for his stand-up but also for his extensive network within the entertainment industry. Although his podcast has been recognized as a comedy platform for over a decade, it has recently garnered a reputation for harboring conspiracy theories and spreading misinformation.

In 2020, "The Joe Rogan Experience" transitioned to Spotify, quickly becoming one of the platform's top podcasts with millions of listeners. However, during the early pandemic period, Rogan faced backlash for hosting guests who propagated false information about COVID-19 and vaccines. This prompted medical professionals to petition against the show, arguing that it posed a risk to public health. In response, academic podcasters like Brene Brown chose to boycott Rogan's Spotify show.

Faced with criticism, Spotify established an advisory board and added content warnings to its podcasts instead of taking direct action against Rogan's show. Despite the ongoing scrutiny, "The Joe Rogan Experience" has persisted, with Rogan securing lucrative multi-million dollar contracts with Spotify, although the podcast is no longer exclusive to the platform. While many listeners tune in for comedy, numerous others seek out Rogan's interviews for controversial viewpoints.

Given this context, it was no surprise to see Terrence Howard featured on the podcast. Known for his unconventional views on science and holistic health, Howard proved to be a compelling guest, as Rogan's interview style encourages a learning atmosphere through active listening and inquisitive questioning. This approach allows guests to voice their opinions freely, treating them as experts.

However, this format contrasts sharply with traditional academic discourse, where challenging questions and critical feedback are standard. Howard mentioned that Tyson reacted to his theories with "vitriol" and critiqued notable inventors like Nikola Tesla. Tyson's response, however, suggests a need for clarity on the nature of research and critique in various contexts.

A Time for Peer-Review: Understanding Research Beyond Writing

The conversational style on Tyson's "StarTalk Radio" differs markedly from that of "The Joe Rogan Experience." This reflects a broader distinction between research and writing. Many perceive research as a solitary endeavor, where hypotheses are developed and materials compiled to support conclusions. In reality, academic research demands rigorous diligence and extensive validation. The outcomes of research are not merely personal opinions but the result of years of study, experimentation, and collaboration.

Research adheres to specific disciplinary guidelines that dictate methodologies and argument construction. Conversely, writing often allows for individual expression, fostering creativity and personal insights. In today's digital landscape, self-publishing and various platforms have minimized traditional barriers, making it easier to share one’s work.

Thus, while research necessitates a community for critical feedback, writing typically requires only a platform for presentation.

On "StarTalk Radio," Tyson endeavored to clarify the distinction between research and writing to Howard, who felt disrespected by Tyson's critique of his work and the theories of cited inventors. Tyson emphasized that his feedback stemmed from a genuine investment in academic rigor. Instead of passively absorbing Howard's ideas, Tyson treated the work as research, offering the same level of critique he would extend to a peer. This method transcends mere affirmation of thoughts.

Having navigated both research and writing through peer review processes, I empathize with Tyson's perspective, while also understanding Howard's frustration. Tyson remarked on his ability to socialize with colleagues after disagreements, yet the reality of academic critique can often involve pettiness and personal grudges. It’s a common jest in academia that one reviewer can be excessively harsh, making it easy to take critiques personally, even when the reviewer is unaware of the identity of the author.

Tyson's critique may have been particularly tough for someone like Howard, who is unaccustomed to the rigorous standards of peer review common in academia. When I review academic writing, I differentiate between whether the author seeks feedback on writing or research. If it’s about writing, I focus on editing and presentation. For research, I hold it to a higher standard. Thus, Tyson's approach may be viewed as constructive if Howard was serious about his work, yet potentially damaging if he merely sought validation.

Bearing the Weight of Public Intellectualism

This podcast dialogue has led me to reflect on the responsibilities of being a Black public intellectual. Tyson, who has established a career outside of entertainment, chose to engage with Howard to support a fellow thinker. His initial critique of Howard’s paper and his thoughtful responses to being called out during the podcast illustrate his commitment to public intellectualism and the weight that often accompanies such a role.

In academia, researchers and professors can sometimes appear disconnected from the general public. However, within the Black intellectual tradition, there’s a strong focus on public engagement. Over a decade ago, I authored a blog post titled "The New Public Intellectual: Utilizing Social Media at Black Thought 2.0," exploring the legacy of scholars like W.E.B. Dubois and Marc Lamont Hill, who serve their communities through scholarly work and activism. While scholar-activism can manifest in various ways, I am particularly interested in those who bridge academia and public engagement by making research accessible to a broader audience.

Despite the care that goes into this public service, intellectual efforts often meet criticism from those they aim to assist. The rising cost of college education and the emergence of influential pundits have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism, suggesting that experts possess no more knowledge than the average person. Many advocate that anyone can learn anything simply by reading or attending "YouTube University," equating expertise with elitism and dismissing it as a means of controlling thought—a sentiment that has gained traction since the pandemic began.

However, the sharing of knowledge rooted in expertise seldom aims to achieve such outcomes. The exchange between Howard and Tyson exemplifies the distinction between acquiring knowledge and possessing genuine expertise. Higher education offers more than mere information gathering; it emphasizes the evaluation of primary sources and the ability to critically assess research quality.

Listening to Howard and other self-proclaimed experts online, I frequently observe how they present their opinions as groundbreaking, often due to their limited exposure to diverse disciplines, schools of thought, and the historical critique of scientific theories. Engaging with information outside an intellectual community can easily lead to misinformation and echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs.

Rather than recognizing the possibility that their views could be flawed or susceptible to conspiracy theories, many push back against intellectuals and experts. This is not to claim that experts possess all the answers or that their views should be accepted without question. Still, it is crucial to acknowledge that most academics operate within institutions that grant them access to rigorous critique and continual questioning of their research and ideas. Therefore, when they share insights, they stem from more than just personal opinions.

The cultivation of an intellectual community is one reason I appreciate podcasts like "Armchair Expert." This show features experts from various fields who engage in meaningful discussions grounded in extensive experience as researchers, scientists, and scholars. While it has faced challenges, it illustrates the importance of balancing listening with critique, fostering a community of open-minded participants eager to broaden their understanding. If you seek thoughtful discussions on intellectual matters rather than lengthy interviews, consider tuning in to refresh your perspective amidst the current podcast disputes!