In an episode of the Brilliant Idiots podcast, hosts Charlamagne Tha God and Andrew Schulz found themselves deep in conversation about media criticism, hypocrisy, and the way public figures are judged—often without fair consideration of the facts
While the podcast covered numerous topics, one particular thread stood out: their defense of Joe Rogan against critics who condemn him without actually listening to his content.
The discussion emerged organically as the hosts dissected the broader media landscape and the tendency of corporate outlets to label dissenting voices as “radioactive” or spreading “Russian propaganda.” Charlamagne reflected on his own experience being criticized by MSNBC and other liberal media outlets simply for pointing out what he considered obvious truths about President Biden’s age and fitness for office.
“When all of us were saying these things about Biden, we were saying these things about the current administration. We were sharing our frustrations with the administration. You got labeled radioactive Russian propagandists,” he noted.
This pattern of attacking messengers rather than engaging with their actual arguments became the foundation for discussing Joe Rogan’s similar treatment. Both hosts have observed that Rogan faces relentless criticism from media establishments and political commentators who seem to have never actually listened to full episodes of his podcast.
Instead, they rely on cherry-picked clips, out-of-context soundbites, and second-hand characterizations to form their opinions.
Schulz emphasized that this represents a fundamental failure of journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty. “Aren’t you a journalist to do some research?” he asked rhetorically, pointing out that media professionals have a responsibility to actually consume and understand the content they’re critiquing.
The irony, both hosts agreed, is that these same critics demand that others “follow the science” or “listen to experts,” yet they refuse to do the basic work of listening to the person they’re attacking.
The conversation highlighted a broader cultural problem: the replacement of genuine engagement with performative outrage. In an era dominated by social media algorithms and tribal politics, nuanced discussion has given way to knee-jerk reactions based on team loyalty rather than truth.
Charlamagne stressed that this approach damages everyone’s credibility and undermines productive discourse. “If you see something, say something,” he declared, advocating for intellectual consistency regardless of political affiliation.
What makes the Rogan situation particularly frustrating, according to Schulz, is that his podcast represents exactly the kind of long-form, in-depth conversation that should be celebrated in our soundbite-driven culture. Rogan’s willingness to have three-hour conversations with guests from across the political and cultural spectrum offers something increasingly rare: the opportunity to hear ideas develop and be challenged in real time.
Both hosts acknowledged that they don’t agree with everything Rogan says or every guest he platforms—nor should they. But they argued that disagreement shouldn’t lead to dismissal without engagement. The principle of actually listening before criticizing seems obvious, yet it’s consistently violated by those who position themselves as arbiters of acceptable discourse.
Charlamagne and Schulz noted that Donald Trump and Republicans have proven more adept at understanding cultural currents, even when their policies might not serve regular people’s interests. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberal media outlets have alienated potential allies by attacking anyone who strays from approved narratives—including people like Rogan who hold many traditionally liberal positions on issues like d**g legalization, healthcare, and corporate regulation.
Ultimately, Charlamagne and Schulz’s defense of Rogan isn’t about agreeing with him on every issue. It’s about defending a basic principle: judge people based on what they actually say and do, not on caricatures created by their opponents.
As Schulz put it when discussing the importance of accountability in journalism: “You got eyes. You got ears.” The same standard should apply to anyone critiquing Joe Rogan or any other public figure.