Neil Young has removed his music from the platform of Spotify and
Joni Mitchell and apparently some other people want to as well.
I'm very sorry that they feel that way,
I most certainly don't want that, I'm a Neil Young fan.
>> Joe Rogan has officially responded to protests from several musical artists who
have asked to have their music pulled from Spotify in protest of Rogan's podcast.
And what they believe is misinformation about Covid,
that's typically part of his podcast episodes.
Now before we get to more of Rogan's statements, and I think he actually
had some good things to say, let me give you some more context into this.
He mentioned Neil Young, but following Neil Young's announcement that he
wanted his music pulled, other artists including Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren
who is a Springsteen guitarists also said that they wanted their music pulled.
Now in response, Spotify actually did end up pulling Young's music and
then agreed to issue a disclaimer on Rogan's content,
particularly content that has anything to do with coronavirus.
Spotify Ceo Daniel EK released a public statement defending the platforms need
to balance the creative freedom of their content creators with user safety.
Ek announced the release of Spotify's publishing rules on their website,
noting that quote, we are working to add a content advisory to any podcast
episode that includes a discussion about Covid-19.
This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated Covid-19 Hub,
a resource that provides easy access to data driven facts.
Up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and
public health authorities around the world as well as links to trusted sources.
The new effort to combat misinformation will roll out to countries around
the world in the coming days.
To our knowledge,
this content advisory is the first of its kind by a major podcast platform.
That last part, I don't think is true, I mean, various platforms have various
disclaimers when it comes to coronavirus related material and
other material as well.
But he didn't make any mention of Rogan's podcast specifically,
but clearly this was in response to the whole Rogan controversy.
And guess what,
Rogan says that he completely agrees with Spotify's decision to add a disclaimer.
And made clear that he was a huge fan of Neil Young's music,
had no ill will towards him or Joni Mitchell whose music he said he loves.
We've got more videos of Rogan in just a moment, but Jake you want to jump in?
>> Yeah, so I was actually pleasantly surprised by it, Rogan's video.
So there's still some misinformation in there, which I'll get to, but for those of
you who still don't get it, let me just clarify why Spotify had to do this.
Now from a business perspective, the real reason they did it is because
they don't want to lose more Neil Young and Joni Mitchell's and
they're really worried about that.
And that's part of the reason why Rogan is making his video, but
it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
They're also in this case happened to be correct, and look, Rogan's saying, hey,
I'm bringing on Rando, scientists and doctors.
But they're legit and very experienced doctors and
they have a different point of view.
Okay, but Joe, how about the 99% of other doctors who say that
they're completely wrong and endangering your lives.
And what Spotify is saying is we have a duty to at least let people know that,
it's like bringing on a scientist for Exxon mobil and
not clarifying that he works for Exxon mobil.
And that 99% of the world's scientists disagree with him on climate change and
just letting him spew propaganda.
So you could say you're doing a different point of view, but then you have to give
the context, otherwise it makes it seem as if that is the legitimate point of view.
So I think Spotify made the right decision, overall, Rogan made the right
decision and supporting it and doing this video, but there's nuance in the video.
>> Right, so let's get to that nuance and I agree with you,
I think that the way he handled it was pretty good.
So let's start off with an excerpt from the video where he defends his
decision to have Dr. McCullough and also Dr. Malone on his podcast.
Those are the two doctors in particular who have been the most controversial in
the messaging that they have out there in regard to Covid, let's watch.
>> The problem I have with the term misinformation, especially today,
is that many of the things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while
ago are now accepted as fact.
Like for instance, eight months ago, If you said, if you get vaccinated,
you can still catch Covid and you can still spread Covid.
You would be removed from social media,
they would ban you from certain platforms, now that's accepted as fact.
If you said, I don't think cloth masks work, you would be banned from
social media, now that's openly and repeatedly stated on CNN.
If you said, I think it's possible that Covid-19 came from a lab, you'd be
banned from many social media platforms, now that's on the cover of Newsweek.
All of those theories that at one point in time were banned were openly
discussed by those two men that I had on my podcast,
that have been accused of dangerous misinformation.
I do not know if they're right, I don't know because I'm not a doctor,
I'm not a scientist.
I'm just a person who sits down and talks to people and has conversations with them.
>> Okay, so I actually agree with him there and it's not, look,
there's two things happening.
So number one and that's the worst part about all of this,
is that our institutions have failed us, we have bungled Covid and
the response to Covid from the very beginning.
We have various government agencies that are not communicating with one another and
they don't have a united front in terms of their messaging in response to Covid.
Look and let me be clear, I have disagreed with a lot of what's been said
on Joe Rogan's podcast when it comes to Ivermectin, when it comes to the vaccine,
I don't agree with him on that, right?
However, what allows for podcasts like that to thrive, what allows for
misinformation to thrive is when you start the pandemic with Anthony Fauci
saying don't wear a mask.
You don't have to worry about a mask because there's a mask shortage.
And rather than being honest with Americans about how there's a mask
shortage and they should reserve the masks for nurses and
frontline healthcare workers.
He decides to lie and then he gets caught in that lie and people lose trust in him.
The messaging has been bungled and that is a problem, and
it is a little difficult for people who don't have the time.
We sit here, we read the reports, we're trying to understand the fluidity of
this pandemic and get the up to date information on it.
But most people don't have that luxury, so when they're getting conflicting
messaging, they lose their trust or their faith in these institutions.
>> Yeah, there's tons of nuance here, so look,
when it comes to things like Fauci comment about the mask, that's totally wrong.
And so you can say, hey, Fauci is correct on the science,
on 95% of the issues that he's discussed,
you don't have to pretend he was right about things he wasn't right about.
So the Wuhan lab is his best, best example because there,
that was a little verboten to discuss whether it was from the lab.
We did it anyway, we talked about, I don't know that it's definitely natural,
a lot of scientists say that, okay.
But man, there's a Wuhan lab that deals in this kind of virus,
>> Kind of function
>> Right,
>> Research
>> Yeah, and so
that is a very legitimate issue that should be discussed, but note,
we were not banned because that actually is a legitimate thing to discuss, right?
Now the other two examples he gave were terrible, that's not like, cloth masks,
everybody told you that they work, that's not true.
I remember from day one, I was like, these cloth masks don't really work.
I know scientist doctors, etcetera that have said they don't really work.
I just didn't wanna be rude to everybody and be like, take off your cloth mask and
put on a mask I've approved of, right?
But it's not true that you would be banned for saying cloth masks don't work.
A lot of people were saying that, and
he says, you can't get Covid if you're vaccinated.
And you would have been banned if you said that, that's not ever been true,
we all get the flu shot.
A lot of us still get the flu anyway, we know that it helps for certain percentage
of cases and it makes the disease is weaker when you get the vaccine.
Nobody ever said you can never get it, so you're just making some stuff up, okay,
to make your case better.
Now overall, I like to tender the message but he can't,
he doesn't know anything in that regard, which he's honest about, and so
he just says things that are wrong again.
Now look, the larger point is more important,
should there be an outlet for dissenting voices?
And the answer is yes, but
remember the Exxon mobil scientists is also a dissenting voice.
So a lot of times, propaganda is wrapped up in dissenting voices and
it does a lot of damage.
So I think the correct answer is actually what Spotify is
doing ,here is a dissenting voice, we are not taking it off.
But the context of it is that all other rational people don't agree, right?
So look at this information, look at what this Rando is saying, and
then make up your own mind.
>> Yes, and I want to get to the final video because I think
this was his strongest moment in the video.
And I just want you guys to juxtapose how he's handling this compared to his,
he really dug his heels when it came to Ivermectin.
And that was really frustrating because there was a lack of humility,
unwillingness to hear people out.
In this case he seems to have a little more humility and
I think that's important, let's watch.
>> One of the things that Spotify wants to do,
that I agree with is that at the beginning of these controversial podcasts,
specifically ones about Covid is to put a disclaimer.
And say that you should speak with your physician and
that these people and the opinions that they express are contrary to
the opinions of the consensus of experts, which I think is very important.
Sure have that on there, I'm very happy with that.
Also I think if there's anything that I've done,
that I could do better is have more experts with differing
opinions right after I have the controversial ones.
>> That last part is so critical and I'm happy to hear him say that
because when I used to listen to his podcast regularly,
of course he's always had people on his podcast that I disagreed with.
I still listen to those episodes, but
lately it's just been a parade of right wingers, conspiracy theorists.
There hasn't been much in terms of a countering narrative or
encountering perspective.
There was one example that we gave recently,
the name of the individual he had on.
But it was someone who was fighting back against some of the misinformation in
regard to Covid.
But that was an exception, which is why I got some news attention,
other than that it's mostly been naysayers in regard to the vaccine.
Promotion of Ivermectin which has not been proven to treat coronavirus or
serve as a prophylactic.
>> So look, I've been pretty harsh against Rogan recently and I was right.
He had gone into a right wing echo chamber and
he's only repeating the nutjobs, right.
Well, that's not an interesting show but
at the same time when someone has humility and says, hey, you know what?
I made some mistakes and one of the things I learned is I'll give him credit and
say go back to presenting both sides or different sides.
Good take the win and say, we appreciate it, and guys,
I know everybody's cloud chasing in the world and so I get people's skepticism.
He could ban me from here to eternity,
I couldn't care less I'm banned by several networks.
But for God's sake, have real progressives on,
have real doctors and have real scientists on, right?
And Tulsi Gabbard and the Jimmy and Glenn Greenwald are not real progressives,
you could tell, they come on and they agree with every right wing talking point.
That's not diversity of opinion,
that's the same opinion in more clever packaging, so that's propaganda.
If he keeps going with the meathead propaganda and only that it's dull,
it's uninteresting, and I'll go back to saying it's awful, right?
But if he actually switches it up and goes,
all right, here's a right wing idiot, here's a progressive,
here's someone who doesn't agree with either position.
Well, then it can go back to being an interesting show that could be worthwhile.
But he's got to get out of that echo chamber, he's stuck in because it's
filled with complete misinformation lunacy and it's boring.