What just happened on Rogan?
A breakdown of Douglas Murray’s clash with Dave Smith, and the deeper fight over free speech, platforms, and accountability
This is now my third attempt to write out my thoughts on last week's podcast conversation between Douglas Murray, Dave Smith, and Joe Rogan. Each time I sat down to start, I realized I was either diving too deep into context, losing the plot in rhetorical tangents, or getting swamped in layers of analysis that require more space and more clarity than I could manage on the fly.
So this time, no promises. But here's one more go—structured, sharpened, and hopefully more digestible.
The Context: Who Said What and Why It Matters
I won’t introduce the speakers in detail—you probably know who they are if you're reading this—but for quick framing: Douglas Murray came into the discussion visibly frustrated. His core argument? That influential figures on the populist right have been drifting into conspiratorial and revisionist positions, and that this drift is being platformed—unchallenged—by people like Rogan and Smith, who either pretend neutrality or invoke "free speech" to dodge responsibility.
Murray didn’t name the phenomenon outright, but he clearly gestured toward what some have called the "woke right": a growing segment of the populist conservative ecosystem that mimics the ideological pathologies of the left (revisionist history, conspiratorial thinking, moral self-righteousness) while flipping the ideological polarity.
He took aim at a bundle of ideas: pro-Russian propaganda, anti-Israel sentiment, casual historical revisionism (e.g., Churchill worse than Hitler), and the normalization of these views in spaces that once prided themselves on sanity and balance.
And Murray was frustrated not just by the ideas, but by the tone in which they were being delivered—smuggled in through humor, cloaked in casualness, and too often left unchallenged by hosts who ought to know better.
The Arguments: What Was Said vs. What Should've Been Said
Structurally, this wasn't a formal debate, which partly explains the scattered flow. But still—Murray, who is typically sharp and surgical, stumbled a bit here. His core points were (roughly) the following:
Influential voices like Rogan and Smith are giving platforms to fringe views without adequate pushback, which is, in effect, pushing an agenda—however unintentional it may be.
The specific positions being aired—on Ukraine, on Israel, on Churchill, etc.—are not just controversial, but fundamentally corrosive to liberal democratic values.
But here's the issue: neither point was argued with the clarity Murray usually brings. Point #2, in particular, was barely spelled out, even though it's central to his new book, On Democracies and Death Cults. Instead, Murray seemed caught between trying to challenge ideas and trying to challenge how those ideas were being treated—with the result that both critiques got muddled.
Take his criticism of Rogan’s guest selection: he accused Joe of inviting a disproportionate number of anti-Ukraine voices without balancing them with pro-Ukraine experts. He also cited Daryl Cooper as another example of ideological imbalance—a Holocaust revisionist, in Murray’s view—who was given airtime without counterpoint.
But the moment got messy. At times, Murray seemed like he was advocating for de-platforming, or censorship, or worse—that only credentialed experts should be allowed to speak on complex topics. Even though that’s not quite what he was saying.
What he meant (or should have said more directly) was this:
Free speech doesn’t mean free from accountability.
If you have a microphone, a massive platform, and the ability to shape public opinion, you bear responsibility for doing your homework—and for being open to challenge. It’s not that comedians or non-experts can’t speak. It’s that they can’t also claim the “just a guy with a mic” defense when their ideas are taken seriously by millions.
This is the gap Murray is trying to highlight: between the expert with institutional backing, and the influencer with mass reach and no checks. And it's fair to say that people like Rogan, Smith, and Cooper (among others) occupy that grey area—leveraging the authority of a public voice while hiding behind the deniability of being entertainers, commentators, or “just asking questions.”
The ‘Expert’ question: what was missing
The conversation also grapples with the question of expertise. Douglas Murray, while advocating for intellectual accountability, doesn't always handle the "expert" question with complete consistency. He exposes the contradiction in figures like Daryl Cooper, who is presented as an expert when quoting history but dismisses scrutiny when challenged on his own controversial views. “You can’t have it both ways,” Murray argues. However, Dave Smith does score a point here, pressing Douglas on this inconsistency, a moment where Douglas appears slightly off-balance.
Had Murray sharpened his rhetoric, he might have used a better term than "expert." What he's really asking for isn't a PhD per se, but a kind of intellectual accountability. Murray's frustration might have been more effectively conveyed by emphasizing the need for intellectual accountability rather than relying on the somewhat loaded term "expert." His core concern wasn't necessarily about formal credentials or advanced degrees – a point underscored by the fallibility of some credentialed voices, such as those initially dismissing the Covid lab leak theory. Instead, what Murray seemed to be advocating for was a fundamental responsibility to engage with ideas rigorously, defend one's positions thoughtfully, and address opposing viewpoints with intellectual honesty, rather than resorting to dismissal or deflection.
Dave Smith: The Comedian Who Craves the Megaphone
Dave Smith often adopts a posture of bemused innocence, deflecting criticism with a "Who, me?" persona. This was evident when Douglas Murray raised the danger of fringe ideas becoming mainstream, and Smith feigned confusion, forcing Murray to patiently reiterate his point. This rhetorical maneuver, a kind of feigned ignorance, allowed Murray to expose Smith's incoherence. Smith's tendency to deflect in this way masks a clear desire to express extreme views without engaging in the rigorous defense they demand. While he invokes the shield of comedy when challenged, his positions carry significant weight, amplified by his large audience and considerable influence.
Smith's brand of libertarianism leans heavily towards isolationism, and his skepticism regarding US foreign policy frequently veers into moral equivalency, often portraying the actions of liberal democracies like the US and Israel as not only comparable to, but even more reprehensible than, those of authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations. For instance, his claims that "Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion" and that "Israel 'created' Hamas" simplify complex geopolitical realities, minimizing the agency of authoritarian actors and absolving them of responsibility. These statements also echo and amplify pro-Kremlin talking points. This is compounded by a dismissive attitude towards expertise, except when it suits his arguments. As Douglas Murray pointed out, Smith is openly dismissive of "experts" yet readily spins sweeping conspiracies based on isolated comments, ironically adopting the mantle of an expert only when convenient.
Similarly, the assertion that "Gaza is a concentration camp" and "Churchill was worse than Hitler" are not merely contrarian provocations. They form part of a broader worldview that casts liberal democracies as the primary antagonists on the world stage. This perspective, which is gaining traction on both the populist left and right –manifesting in the "woke right" –shares a common instinct: to reflexively condemn Western institutions and narratives, often while minimizing the culpability of their adversaries.
The Bigger Questions: Free Speech, Accountability, and Moral Urgency
At the core of this conversation is a philosophical tension that deserves more than one podcast episode:
Is criticizing fringe speech the same as being anti–free speech?
Does having a platform imply moral responsibility?
What happens when “just letting people talk” becomes a shield for laundering dangerous ideas?
Free speech absolutists like Gad Saad argue that any criticism of speech is a slippery slope to censorship. But that misses Murray’s deeper point: criticism is speech. And if figures like Rogan and Smith want the right to air controversial ideas, Murray has every right to challenge them—and to demand they take seriously the consequences of what they amplify. This is especially important considering the reach of their platforms. As Douglas argues, those with a microphone bear responsibility for how their words might be used by bad-faith actors, a point Dave Smith acknowledges. However, Smith simultaneously claims to be “just a comedian,” exempt from accountability, while insisting he’s doing serious, impactful commentary—a clear contradiction.
Moreover, the very nature of their platforms demands a degree of intellectual curiosity, a quality that sometimes seems to be lacking. Take, for instance, the argument that you have to go somewhere to have an opinion about it. While that notion can be rejected on principle, the fact that Dave Smith isn’t even curious enough to visit the places he frequently speculates about speaks volumes about the depth of his engagement with these complex issues.
The dynamics of the conversation itself also reveal some interesting rhetorical undercurrents. At one point, Joe Rogan interrupts to complain that Douglas is “interrupting so much,” a comment that comes off as somewhat partisan, reflecting the inherent challenge of a 1-on-2 debate.
When Dave Smith pulls the “emotional argument” card—for example, invoking the thousands of dead children in Gaza—it’s a classic rhetorical fallacy, a move that Douglas Murray unfortunately misses the chance to call out explicitly.
Joe Rogan, while professing neutrality, also demonstrated some rhetorical tendencies that warrant scrutiny. When he claimed to have no agenda in choosing his guests, Douglas responded with a heavy silence—a loaded, unimpressed “hmm” that spoke volumes. This nonverbal rebuttal effectively conveyed Douglas’s skepticism about Joe’s claim.
Final Thoughts
Even if you think Murray’s delivery was scattered, or his tone too sharp, the heart of his critique is worth taking seriously:
Platforming isn’t neutral.
And if you’ve got the reach of Rogan or the bite of Smith, you don’t get to play dumb when people start repeating your talking points in the wild.
The real question isn't whether Joe or Dave should have an opinion.
It’s whether they’re ready to stand behind it—and whether they understand the weight of the mic in their hands.