SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND REACTION: THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE AND MAKING

SENSE OF THE #METOO MOVEMENT WITH STANDUP COMEDIAN PODCASTERS

by

Daniel Russo

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

May 2021

ABSTRACT

SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND REACTION: THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE AND MAKING

Under the Supervision of Professor Xiaoxia Cao

This thesis explores standup comedian podcaster reactions to the #MeToo Movement

(2017-2020). The Joe Rogan Experience podcast is used as a database to explore commentary on

#MeToo from 12 standup comedian podcasters (SCPs). The exploration seeks to answer if and

how SCPs represent a dominant social group using discourse to pushback against, accept, or, at

the least, critically reflect on the #MeToo movement as it relates to appropriate sexual conduct

and appropriate reactions to inappropriate sexual conduct. With the understanding that frames

provide schema for making sense of issues, a rhetorical framing analysis was conducted to

looked at how standup comedian podcasters used rhetoric and techniques of argumentation

which—through repetition and pattern—ultimately culminated in frames for understanding

standup comedian podcasters may have led to similar resistance among their overwhelmingly

young adult male audiences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Origins and Scope of the Movement

1.2. Goals of the Movement

1.3. Reactions and Impact of the Movement

2. Social Movement and Backlash ..............................................................................................12

2.2. Social Identity and Reaction

3. Culture, Media, and Influence ................................................................................................20

3.2. Media and Framing the Discussion

3.3. The Celebrity

3.4. Persuasion and Social Influence

3.5. The Standup Comedian Podcaster

4. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................41

4.3.1. Database: The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) YouTube Catalog

5. Results .....................................................................................................................................50

5.1. Discourse Structure

5.2.1. On the Accused

5.2.2. On the Accuser

5.2.3. On Public Reaction

6. Discussion ...............................................................................................................................85

6.1. #MeToo Acceptance or #MeToo Backlash?

6.2. The Role of Social Identity in Social Movement Reaction

6.3. Conclusion

References .................................................................................................................................103

Appendix A: #MeToo JRE SCP YouTube Clips Under One Million Views

Appendix B: Simplified Timeline of #MeToo Events (from October 2017 – April 2020)

The Joe Rogan Experience and Making Sense of #MeToo with Standup Comedian

Podcasters

This study is interested in examining how American standup comedian podcasters came

to understand the #MeToo movement (late 2017 - early 2020), and it considers whether or not

their popular commentary can be labeled as acceptance or backlash to the movement. This

interest statement comes at the intersection of four rationalizations. First and foremost, standup

comedians play an important role in making sense of cultural phenomenon, for at least some of

study’s contextual framework.

Secondly, American standup comedians have been some of the highest profile celebrities

to be accused of sexual misconduct in the #MeToo Era, such as top-bill performers Aziz Ansari,

Bill Cosby, Chris D’Elia and Louis CK. This proximity to the accused, perhaps, helps further

explain the proliferation of standup comedian commentary on #MeToo. And, of course, the

popularity of these standup comedian commentators is why their prolific #MeToo commentary

matters.

Thirdly, the interest statement suggests a focus on standup comedians solely within the

podcast industry. This, in itself, is for two reasons. First, standup comedians are increasingly

crossing over to the podcast platform. This crossover is dynamic and may be for a variety of

reasons, such as increasing audience reach, experimenting with material for standup or other

performances, reflecting on current events within standup and general culture, bonding with

fellow standup comedians and other on-air guests, and most importantly, “authenticating”

themselves with their fans in a way that is less possible during their standup comedy or other

performances (Meserko, 2015; Symons, 2017). Secondly, the podcast platform has grown into a

valuable cultural industry. The number of listeners grow each year (104 million monthly

listeners; 68 million weekly listeners), and comedy podcasts in particular continue to maintain

course of a 24-hour cycle (Variety, 2019; Social Blade, 2020).

Fourthly, academic and mainstream media circles have known for decades that the on-

stage standup comedian has a place in American society as an amplifier of social criticism. Few

academic scholars, though, have paid close attention to the allure of the standup comedian while

they are off the stage.

material include podcasting speech, non-podcast interviews (like morning and late-night

TV/radio talk programs), and social media (especially Twitter and Instagram). This study

emphasizes standup comedian podcasters because it seeks to represent those standup comedian

voices which seem particularly loudest within the burgeoning podcast world. The study seeks to

look at whether and how these popular voices accept or resist the #MeToo movement.

Moving on from rationalizations for research, this study sees that theories of social

psychology and rhetoric can provide a critical orientation for interpretive, qualitative analysis.

For example, it is likely that various social identities, and the individual’s attachment to those

identities, play a role in the standup comedian podcaster’s reaction to celebrity #MeToo

standup comedian podcasters made sense of the #MeToo Movement. Chapter 1 reviews #MeToo

and its impact. Chapter 2 highlights relevant social movement, backlash and identity scholarship.

Chapter 3 continues with an examination of media and its influential role in culture. It also turns

to the role of the celebrity standup comedian in American society and the 21

of the standup comedian podcaster. After the literature review, original research methodology is

discussed in detail in Chapter 4, with a selection of primary texts for analysis. At the end of this

discussion, the reader should have a strong understanding of why it is socially and scientifically

relevant to research off-stage standup comedian discourse related to the #MeToo movement.

Chapter 5 then explores the findings from textual analysis, offering the central themes and

frames of standup comedian podcaster discourse on #MeToo. The thesis comes to a close in

Chapter 6, where the study enters a discussion exploring the implications of findings and the

relationship between social identity and social movement reactions.

contextualize rhetorical analysis with media, academic, and popular understandings of #MeToo.

The #MeToo movement proved to be a relatively successful method of dissent and progressive

advocacy for the contemporary feminist movement in terms of momentarily popularizing the

discussion of appropriate sexual behavior. Victims brought to social media their stories of

experiencing sexual assault, sexual harassment and/or other varying forms of sexual misconduct.

Millions of people supported them. Many men lost their positions of power as a response to

revelations of their inappropriate sexual behavior, ranging from coercion and harassment to

assault and rape. However, as you will see in this chapter, little progress has been made in the

changing of popular opinion. Confusion remains on understandings of appropriate sexual

behavior and appropriate reactions to inappropriate sexual behavior.

later, on October 15

Twitter and asked her followers to respond by commenting ‘Me Too’ or sharing a tweet with the

California, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington are among some of the American

states to place limits on nondisclosure agreements, improve testing of rape kits and extend the

statute of limitations “for victims who want to file civil lawsuits against their abusers” (Beitsch,

2018).

In summary, #MeToo has raised awareness about women’s issues regarding sexual

assault and harassment and has led to some policy changes. There are divisions on the overall

understanding and importance of the #MeToo Movement, though. These divisions generally

CHAPTER 2: Social Movement and Backlash

To begin contextualizing #MeToo and its reactionary discourse, social movement and

social identity theory acts as a good starting point. Social movement theory encompasses a wide

range of notions. When thinking of any socio-political movement, we may often imagine a sort

of collective resistance to power (in one of its many forms). Analyses of the underpinnings of

social movements are relevant and necessary, but it also remains necessary to analyze the

counter-movements posed against the initial social movement, too. This can otherwise be

system only to a limited degree, and in doing so, may hurt the minority position more. According

to the theory of intrusiveness (Krook, 2015), minority positions are tolerable—even

dismissible—when the volume of minority voices are low; but, when the volume rises and

becomes more salient, the majority may become threatened, and as such, attempt to reaffirm

their dominance. At this point, the likelihood of a backlash becomes higher.

2.1. Methods of Discursive Backlash

There are a variety of threats that may manifest, or trigger, a social backlash, and there

are a variety of ways in which the backlash may be expressed. One of the central reactionary

expressions is to increase performances of power and persuasion; performances of power and

persuasion can be achieved through coercive or noncoercive means (Mansbridge and Shames,

2008). Here, power may refer to the capacity to maintain “preferences and interests causing, or

raising the probability of [desired] outcomes” (Mansbridge and Shames, 2008, p. 624). We can

refer to this as ‘power as capacity,’ though it may also be called ‘power-to’ or ‘power-over’

(Mansbridge and Shames, 2008).

For those who partake in backlash, there may be an emotional sensitivity around the

phenomenon stemming from threat and fear (Mansbridge and Shames, 2008). This can make it

difficult for the individual or the collective to distinguish between acts of harmful, coercive

Goss and Heaney (2010) note one other method of backlash: to identify and to take

advantages of the weaknesses in opponent’s narratives in order to justify any perceived

inequality. As an example, Goss and Heaney remind us that when feminist initiatives become

more salient, socially conservative media and politicians have tended to critique calls for gender

equality as equivalent to calls for the “dismissal of motherhood, devolution of marriage, and the

rejection of femininity” (2010, p. 30). This method of persuasion frames gender equality as

destructive to the ‘natural’ gender dichotomy necessary for a thriving human culture.

2.2. Social Identity and Reaction

Amidst the dynamic acceptance and resistance to social movements like #MeToo, social

identity theories offer valuable perspectives for understanding social movement and backlash.

Specifically, critical social identity theorists argue that negative reactions (attitudes or behaviors)

to social movements might be based on perceived threats to an individual’s social group, identity

and/or way of life (Hogg and Reid, 2006). Under this theoretical frame, gender identity would

presumably play one of the central roles in one’s meaning-making and reaction to the #MeToo

movement (a movement overwhelmingly targeting the behavior of men). This study focuses on

gender identity and its intersection with the celebrity and comedian identity. However, other

aspects of the social identity of an individual may influence reactions as well, but that is beyond

Shames, 2008). Amidst the hostility and polarization of views both between and within social

groups, extreme positions may prosper and reinforce division (Moscovici, 1976). According to

Turner (1985), this is due to a motivation to distinguish oneself, or one’s ingroup, as both

positive and definitive.

According to social identity theory, when one’s social identity becomes salient, such as

amidst inter- or intragroup conflict, perceived group identity norms guide one’s attitudes and

behavior (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008). When this happens, individuals may

become ‘depersonalized’ (Turner, 1985; Turner and Reynolds, 2012). Here, the individual

chooses, consciously or subconsciously, to interact as “members of the same social category,”

rather than as autonomous individuals (Koudenburg et al., 2019).

Koudenburg et al. (2019) further found that polarizing effects between and within social

categories are especially likely when a negative group norm is made salient, such as amidst the

circulation of sexual misconduct allegations by one group toward another. Salient negative

norms “urge people to take a stance in the debate” (Koudenburg et al., 2019, p. 152). Therefore,

negative perceptions coming from society-at-large will typically result in some heightened

sensitivity within the ingroup being perceived negatively. The social disapproval acts as a threat,

and thus, a stimulant for group reaction. Depending on the observed reactions coming from the

individual well-being that may come from positive or negative social constructions and

understandings of one’s social identity group. She found that men who identified highly with

their social group made greater effort to justify controversial group behavior and fend off threats

coming from both within and outside the group (Branscombe, 1998). Further, she found that

efforts to fend off social group threats may also help in maintaining a positive group image, and

even, in legitimizing group superiority (Branscombe, 1998).

Men with lower attachment, in contrast, had “more difficulty justifying their group’s

privileges,” even choosing to “distance themselves from the in-group” (Branscombe, 1998, p.

181). While her research may not be generalizable for all social in-group/out-group relations, her

focus on the cis male and female social identity benefits this study’s research, exceptionally. She

notes that:

Structural disparities not only result in greater material wealth for one group

over another, but they also produce social institutions where dominant

accorded greater value than members of non-dominant groups (1998, p.

167).

It is for this reason that we often see individuals applying social identity maintenance

strategies. Many dominant group members do not want to see their privileges thwarted, even

when they do not support the structural relations that allow for such privileges. High-status

group individuals may also have privileges that are so institutionalized that they assume these

privileges to be of normalcy, and therefore, struggle to cope with the social intrusions on one’s

reality and way of life (Branscombe, 1998; Hogg and Reid, 2006).

As follows, one central strategy for dominant group members is to “de-emphasize the

extent to which their group is advantaged, or emphasize the extent to which their group is

disadvantaged,” in order to disguise institutional, morally corrupt natures of their

power/dominance (Branscombe, 1998, p. 168). When individuals do not make attempts to de-

highlighting an ‘unworthy’ nature to their privileges, and thus, decreasing perceptions of self and

well-being may, then, result in distancing oneself from their group.

the positive outcomes received” (p. 168). Group members who understand their dominance

might de-emphasize this privilege, because “thoughts of privileges may undermine personal

explanations for success” (Branscombe, 1998, p. 170). In this sense, an individual may choose

not to acknowledge the role of their social identity, playing up their personal qualities, such as

‘hard working,’ as explanations for their high-status longevity.

Dominant groups may also emphasize perceived disadvantage of their own group and

illegitimacy of any outgroup threats by “derogating the threatening out-group” (Branscombe,

psychological sense refers to protecting attitudes from change amidst counter-attitudinal

influences (Pfau, Ivanov, Houston, Haigh, Sims, Gilchrist, Russell, Wigley, Eckstein & Richert,

2005). When exposed to counterattitudinal arguments in the form of direct or indirect attacks,

individuals will often examine the information and determine it as strong or weak. When the

opposing argument is perceived as weak, the individual will then seek out supporting

information and refutations to further strengthen their threatened position against the (weak)

counterargument and counterattitude. It becomes a systematic refutation of a specific

counterargument and counterattitudinal challenge (McGuire, 1961; Pfau et al., 2005).

In this sense, arguments and counterarguments play “pivotal roles in the process of

resistance” (Pfau et al., 2005, p. 415). Furthermore, an individual relies on interpersonal and

mediated discourse when attempting to resist counterattitudinal influence and strengthen

individual attitudes against oppositional threat (Pfau et al., 2005). As Pfau et al. (2005) suggest,

we may refer to these accessible and reliable discourses as an individual’s associative network.

Based on the results of Pfau et al.’s (2005) laboratory research, we can also comfortably say that

the stronger—or, more connected—one’s associative network, the more difficult it should be to

change their attitudes.

Lastly, individuals in dominant groups may also yield to a “black sheep” line of

170).

Cumulatively, research finds that for men, “thinking about privileges resulted in less

pride and attachment to their gender group,” and, “thinking about [male] disadvantages resulted

in higher self-esteem” (Branscombe, 1998, p. 173). Further, individuals in dominant groups may

use a variety of strategies to maintain pride and resist perceived threats to their identity group.

Regarding #MeToo and male sexual dominance, men may justify controversial sexual behavior,

dispel controversial sexual behavior as deviant from the group norm, de-emphasize ingroup

sexual advantages, or emphasize outgroup sexual advantages. They may also seek to derogate or

attack outgroup members and initiatives, in some cases inoculating oneself with outgroup talking

points in order to better prepare oneself for arguments against them. Conversely, especially for

those individuals with lower attachment to their male identity, they may also choose to distance

themselves from the group. Indeed, attachment to one’s relevant identify generally dictates how

they choose to respond to social phenomena. Attachment to social identity defines you as a

person and guides perceptions, understandings and framing of one’s reality (Branscombe, 1998;

Kuypers, 2010).

In conclusion, amidst social controversy surrounding a dominant group, attached

individuals will often make efforts to justify group action and strengthen group solidarity, and

CHAPTER 3: Culture, Media, and Influence

A conceptualization of culture, and some of its key components, helps if this study hopes

to adequately contextualize #MeToo-related standup comedian podcast discourse (SCP

discourse) within the contemporary pop culture and countercultural understandings of gender

relations and sexual appropriateness. This study takes from social cognitive theorists Anthony

Lyons and Yoshihisa Kashima (2001) to define culture as “a process of dynamic production and

reproduction of meanings,” where a shared culture equates—but never becomes fixed—to

podcasters in regard to American #MeToo news. Further, in this definition of culture, discourse

acts a dynamic meaning-making instrument for the production and reproduction of shared

understanding (Lyons & Kashima, 2001). Moving on from culture as a dynamic meaning-

making process, or “culture-as-process” (Lyons and Kashima, 2001, p. 377), this review seeks to

further consider how culture is produced and reproduced. What role do stereotypes, or

generalizations play in the production and reproduction of culture, how might media play a role

in the process, and why does it matter for this thesis?

3.1. Culture, Stereotypes, and Group Think

When analyzing media discourse and determining reactions as stereotype-consistent (SC)

or stereotype-inconsistent (SI), we might first ask how and why stereotypes form in the first

factors (factors within personal control). For example, if an athlete on a New York baseball team

was confronted with news about an alcoholic teammate being accused of sexual harassment, he

may attribute his teammate’s behavior to external factors out of his control (i.e., he was an

alcoholic, and alcoholism is a disease that makes it hard for him to control his behavior). Now,

say that the NY baseball player was confronted with news about an alcoholic player on the rival

Boston team. Because of in-group/out-group problem-attribution bias, the NY player may blame

the Boston player’s alcoholism and sexual misconduct on personal factors completely within his

In this sense, someone who attributes their own group’s negative behavior to permanent

external factors (nature of man) might render the problem unsolvable, leading to a perception

that social action is not worthwhile or sensible. Meanwhile, someone who attributes their own

group’s negative behavior to internal factors (personal responsibility), or at least modifiable

external factors (social constructs), might be motivated towards “collective, participatory

behaviors aimed at pushing policy change and improving community well-being” (Sun et al.,

2015, p. 7). In conclusion, external attribution bias related to group members who were

“#MeToo’d” (i.e., accused of sexual misconduct allegations) may help other individuals within

the group stave off threats to their group identity. Internal attribution bias, on the other hand,

may motivate group individuals to confront the problem of male-female sexual misconduct with

possible solutions.

In summary, this section has helped in forming a critical analytical lens focused on

rhetoric, framing and persuasion. While the above rhetorical (public sense-making) devices and

their examples help conceptualize framing’s role in attempting to orient the audience towards a

particular understanding of a current event or issue, at best it is only a glimpse of the scholarship

on framing and rhetoric. However, this study does not see it fit to list and define every rhetorical

discourse can play a role in audience meaning-making processes, a review of potential celebrity

influence might further persuade. To begin, it should be understood that unless people have the

privilege of seeing their celebrity heroes in person, i.e., at some sort of public performance or

occurrence, the only way to access the celebrity is through mediated content (reality or fictional).

The celebrity appeal has been discussed as far back as 1956, on par with the rise of mass

media, generally. Sociologist C. Wright Mills famously proclaimed that “the professional

celebrity is the result of a society that makes a fetish out of competition” (1956, p. 74). A few

years later, historian Donnel Boorstin referred to the celebrity as a “person known for his or her

well-knownness,” or, a person known for being known (1961, p. 57). By 1972, journalist and

sociologist Franceso Alberoni was referring to celebrities as a powerless elite, due to their lack of

formal, institutional power. It remained clear that celebrities maintained social influence, but

there still was no overt, celebrity force creating institutional change.

Brown and Fraser (2003) examined celebrity appeal by comparing historical and modern

notions of hero. Successful leaders have traditionally been the cultural heroes, Brown and Fraser

note (2003); yet today, many heroes include entertainment celebrities. Therefore, we might

consider today’s celebrities as leaders, despite their lack of institutional leadership and power.

Still, institutionally powerful or not, celebrities can be serious champions of pro-social behaviors

or behaviors to reflect the celebrity’s attitudes or behaviors tends to occur when the individual

feels a strong identification or attachment to the celebrity (Brown, 2015). As such, it is important

to review the processes of audience involvement with celebrities and how this predicates the

celebrity message’s persuasive efficacy.

3.4. Persuasion and Social Influence

While the appeal of a celebrity media persona can lead to source liking, it often takes

more than liking and favorability to be persuaded by the celebrity’s message. Brown (2015)

posits that the persuasive efficacy of the celebrity’s message relies on the processes of

involvement the audience has with the celebrity, and in relation, their level of attachment or

identification to the celebrity. Today, communication scholars believe that source-liking is only

at the base level of audience involvement with media persona, and that it takes much more than

liking to attach or identify with a celebrity media persona (Horton & Wohl, 1956; Brown &

Fraser, 2003; Brown, 2015).

Just like other forms of personal identification, celebrity identification operates on the

principles of social psychology. Socio-psychological theories of identification date as far back as

Freud (1922), who recalled identification as the earliest expression of an emotional tie with

another person. Laswell (1965) highlighted mass identifications, such as nationalistic and

ethnicity, culture, and shared or desired personality attributes.

Modern celebrities maintain unique and loyal fanbases with supporters in the millions,

whether that fanbase is quantitatively measured through a million content subscribers, a million

content views, or a million content likes. Access to millions of supporters is not access to the

entire public sphere, but it can be enough to mobilize individuals and build social movement or

social backlash infrastructure (Thrall et al., 2008). Some celebrities hold much more social

influence than others.

Indeed, the rhetorical practices of the celebrity—intended or otherwise—play a role in

how influential their messages can be to audiences. Celebrities who engage in long-form

discussion and debate, such as in podcasting, are likely more persuasive on the related issue than

the celebrity who simply brings attention with a mere endorsement or statement of support

(Brown, 2015).

Other scholars see the entertainment value of the celebrity’s message equally as

important as the critical value of their discussion and debate. In 2008, political scientist David

Jackson highlighted what he saw as an increase in influential entertainment figures, stemming

from the “increasing mixture of entertainment and politics” (p. 72). Thrall et al. (2008) similarly

believed that modern celebrities are “central players in driving political messages home through

social issues. In other words, a key mechanism of celebrity influence should be seen as the

availability of and exposure to issue-relevant information that comes with the celebrity’s

attention. By following your favorite celebrity, you may be exposed to information related to

current events, such as social movements.

While exposure to new information can influence individuals to shift or reinforce

attitudes and behaviors, the framing of such information may be equally as important to how

audience individuals choose to react. It could be the celebrity’s novel interpretation of old

information, rather than exposure to new information, that influences the audience member’s

perspective on the relevant cultural issue or phenomenon and how they choose to react to it.

Regardless of the information being new or old to the audience, the celebrity persona’s framing

of the information may shift or reinforce audience understandings of the relevant issue. As such,

I expect that the framing and rhetorical methods used by celebrity standup comedian podcasters

play an important role in how their audiences make sense of the #MeToo movement, especially

for the avid/fanatical factions of the audiences. While there may be a variety of factors leading to

the celebrity’s social influence on making sense of current events, such as their relation to

entertainment or merely their celebrity appeal, this study will largely focus on the factors of

framing and rhetoric. Some of the key methods of framing and rhetoric were spotlighted in the

standup comedian discourse coming out of the podcast industry, for a variety of reasons. For one,

although it may be easy to write off opinionated standup comedian podcasters as outlier or

alternative voices, the reality is that these podcasters draw in millions of listeners a week

worldwide (Nielsen, 2018). Because of the rise in standup comedian-hosted podcasting, this

study hopes to contribute to the recognition of standup comedian-hosted podcasts as a serious

force of cultural influence.

A proper definition of the standup comedian podcaster would help in understanding the

group of persons whose discourse I plan to analyze. A standup comedian podcaster is someone

who’s known as a standup comedian to the public, and someone who also hosts or appears on

podcasts frequently. For instance, Marc Maron has been performing standup in America since

the 1980s, and has since created a widely successful podcast, known as WTF w/ Marc Maron.

Likewise, Joe Rogan began hosting his podcast program, Joe Rogan Experience, around 2010;

he started his career as a standup comedian in the 1990s. Furthermore, Chris D’Elia, who began

standup around 2005, now hosts a podcast titled Congratulations with Chris D’Elia.

their widespread podcast success, the three American comedians listed above are typically seen

today, across America, performing standup at stadiums and arenas.

Standup comedians represent a special type of celebrity in that they become famous and

we see journalists, scholars, activists and other citizens increasingly calling attention to what

they perceive as inappropriate (i.e., culturally harmful) celebrity rhetoric.

On top of the general celebrity’s influence, standup comedians themselves have long

maintained scholarly and public respect for being critical social observers, or “conduits of the

sociological perspectives” (Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). Scholarly respect has been maintained

since at least 1985, when Lawrence Mintz published his article, “Standup Comedy as Social and

Cultural Mediation.” The American public has been aware of the standup comedian’s charm as

photos or sexual meetups. D’Elia’s allegations brought #MeToo and narratives of predatorial standup comedians

early as the 1800s, with monologists who performed solo humorous speeches during variety

programs like minstrel, vaudeville, and burlesque (Mintz, 1985). The monologist, today referred

to as the standup comedian, began gaining widespread popularity with performers like Jack

Benny and Frank Fay, who transitioned from the vaudeville scene. It was not until acts by

comedians like Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce and Joan Rivers, however, that standup comedy truly

began testing the boundaries of public speech (Mintz, 1985). These comedians publicly offered

social views that were either fringe, taboo, frowned upon, or simply outrageous and a profitable

their own opinions on the relevant matter (Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). For example, in my

previous work on humor (Russo, 2020), I noted that in 2018, Indian standup comedian Vir Das

was performing in San Francisco and asked his audience, “What is a religion?”, proceeding to

suggest:

It’s a really old comic book. It’s a really old superhero story. Muslims,

by relating scriptures and gods to comic books and superheroes. The San Francisco audience

exploded in laughter, hinting at the success of humorous and satirical methods in criticizing

philosophical subject matters.

Indeed, sociologists of the 1980’s began asking about the inner workings of humor’s

appeal, why humor was able to transcend notions of acceptable speech, why many people were

quite moved by the comedic views and social criticisms offered, and most importantly, how

things people laugh at inform us about our culture. Sociologist Lawrence Mintz thought of the

humorous dialogue between performer and audience as a public affirmation, or examination, of

positive or negative vocal reactions (Mintz, 1985; Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). But there are

also instances in standup comedy where group affirmation and mutual understanding is not the

goal for the performer or audience.

Sometimes, people who choose to listen to a standup comedian make that choice because

they are taking part in the “ritual violation of taboos,” in which the comedian offers “staged

antagonism” (Mintz, 1985). This staged antagonism is possible, according to humor theorists,

because the comedian is granted a “comedic license” from the audience (Mintz, 1985, p. 79;

Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). According to these theorists, for whom I find myself in

agreement with, the comedic license has historically granted the standup comedian permission to

deviate from socially acceptable thoughts and behaviors (Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). It has

been shown that some audience members laugh and enjoy the comedic performance because the

standup comedian acts as a “negative exemplar” (Mintz, 1985, p. 74; Nabi, Moyer-Guise and

Byrnes, 2007). In this case, the negative exemplar deviates from acceptable behavior, but the

audience member is not necessarily in favor of the comedian’s reflection. Rather, the audience

member may just be laughing as a form of ridicule or pity. Again, in this case, the standup

comedian is ‘funny’ because of absurdity and undesirable nature of their character (Nabi, Moyer-

Guise & Byrnes, 2007). The audience member’s laughter here, as Nabi, Moyer-Guise and Byrne

least a supplement, to traditional news. She was interested in the phenomenon surrounding a

growing youth culture in which comedy news programs offered “politics, personal expression

and entertainment all fused together” (Feldman, 2007, p. 408). While she was mostly focused on

the journalistic differences between TV’s traditional news and The Daily Show, I believe it is

appropriate to also consider comedian-hosted podcasting as an alternative source for news, or, as

a supplement for making sense of news. For Feldman, these alternatives rise within our culture

because people cringe at the “illusion of objectivity” that traditional news attempts to create

(2007, p. 409). Similarly, for Bloom & Bloom (1979), humorous mediated discourse can act as

an attack on the status quo reality, by attending to “instances of failure in human behavior and

institutions” in a comedic, or mocking, fashion (p. 33). Indeed, many public speakers use humor

of the discourse. Here, the objective is to emphasize discursive strategies used to convey

ideological standpoints. To make any cases for the ideological standpoints of standup comedian

podcasters, the discourse analyst must understand that ideology is “embedded in the selection

and representation of objects and actors, and in the language and discursive strategies employed

in a text.” (Carvalho, 2008, p. 171). As such, “the analyst has to learn to identify ideological

standpoints from subtle mechanisms and device” (Carvalho, 2008, p. 170-71).

Linguistic and rhetorical analysis of text is typically crucial for the step of identifying

analysis (Carvalho, 2008). Finally, I stand firmly by the decree that discourse analysts offer a

fundamental perspective to the scientific community. As Carvalho makes clear, “it is important

to make ideologies manifest because they involve fundamental motivations and justifications for

keeping or changing a certain status quo” (2008, p. 171). And as Storm Villadsen made clear

recently at her 2018 keynote presentation on rhetoric, analysts should evaluate “reactions to

social justice issues…because they are public morality in the making,” circulating in a “climate

increasingly characterized by partisanship and eristic.”

I refer to this discourse analysis as a rhetorical framing analysis as well, in the sense that

it seeks to explore the rhetorical framing strategies of the SCP discourse in order to answer its

central research questions. Kuypers (2010) describes rhetorical framing analysis as contingent

upon “allow[ing] the rhetors being studied to express themselves in their own terminology and

context as fully as possible” (p. 294), and further, as critical in nature. In this sense, as a framing

analyst focused on rhetoric, I must give room for the standup comedian podcaster’s subjective

expression to be heard objectively. Then, the analysis can move to its critical nature, where

criticisms are backed by existing rhetorical and social scientific theory, and the incorporation of

other perspectives (Kuypers, 2010). As Kuyper further notes, “Ultimately…those operating from

within this paradigm look for how news frames act to affect the political consciousness of news

group’s reaction to the #MeToo phenomenon. This study does maintain the intention, though, to

critically highlight some of the most popular standup comedian voices with the understanding

that podcasts are a rising platform for them and their audiences.

The statistics of their popularity illuminates the importance of critical review. According

to Backtracks Podcast Analytics, as of May 1

podcast in the world. The list does not operate on total listenership history, rather, it operates on

a ‘top trending’ algorithm. Other standup comedian-hosted podcasts on Backtracks’ consistently

updated Top 250 list include Duncan Trussell Family Hour (#35), 2 Bears 1 Cave with Tom

Segura & Bert Kreischer (#68), Monday Morning Podcast (Bill Burr, #102), Your Mom’s House

with Christine P. and Tom Segura (#138), WTF with Marc Maron (#145), Congratulations with

Chris D’Elia (#164), Good For You (Whitney Cummings, #169), This Past Weekend w/ Theo

Von (#201), The Church of What’s Happening Now: With Joey Coco Diaz (#207), The All New

Dennis Miller Option (#213), and The Dollop with Dave Anthony and Gareth Reynolds (#247)

(Backtracks Podcast Analytics, May 2020).

Overall, #MeToo discourse coming out of celebrity standup comedian-hosted podcasts

seems particularly relevant. The #MeToo movement as a cultural phenomenon has notably

targeted celebrities, and, in some of the highest profile cases, celebrity standup comedians. There

but also, in various charts at any given time, the most-listened-to podcast in general, regardless

of genre. Rogan has always been ahead of the curve in the podcast industry. As early as 2003, he

began livestreaming conversations between him and his standup comedian friends in the green

room of various Los Angeles standup venues, especially the historic Comedy Store. By late

2009, Rogan and his producer transitioned into a makeshift home studio, with comedian Ari

Shaffir as the first ever guest of the official JRE podcast. While Rogan has stayed committed to

conversations with LA comic buddies, his podcast soon became a place for people of various

professions and relations to Rogan to have long-form, open-ended discussions. By 2016, JRE

was reaching as many as 16 million monthly downloads on its central video platform, YouTube

(ONE37pm, 2019).

By late 2017, during the height of #MeToo, other SCPs were frequent guests of the JRE,

providing viewers and researchers a large database to explore SCP takes on the movement.

Therefore, this study sees analysis of JRE discourse as appropriate for generally understanding

how SCPs have discussed #MeToo. Of the twelve other standup comedian podcasters listed in

Backtracks’ Top 250 Podcasts, ten of them have appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. There are

also many popular standup comedian podcasters not listed in the Top 250 chart, but that maintain

loyal followings (high subscription count and video views). Some of these comedians and their

1000 podcast listeners found that JRE was the most listened-to podcast, that 71% of JRE

listeners were male, and that the average age of JRE listeners was 24 years old (Media Monitors,

2020). Based on the popularity of JRE for young adult males, the podcast provides an excellent

opportunity to critically examine celebrity comedian reactions. Young adult male exposure to

JRE #MeToo reactions may impact not only their beliefs and attitudes regarding appropriate

sexual relations, but also their own behaviors in such relations.

The rise of Rogan as an influential figure became further solidified through his latest

media strategy. Starting in January 2021, JRE moved exclusively to Spotify, with Rogan signing

a $100 million contract—the largest in podcast history. Before the transition to Spotify, Rogan

released his video episodes on YouTube and audio episodes on platforms such as Apple

Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and his personal website, podcasts.joerogan.net. Episodes have since

been removed from Apple, Google, and all other platforms, but an archive remained on the

official YouTube channel, PowerfulJRE, until December 30, 2020. Episodes are free on Spotify,

like they have been elsewhere since he first began production in 2009. Interview segment clips

are still posted to the YouTube channel, a practice that has been in place since at least 2017. This

is presumably to advertise the full episodes and highlight the moments that Rogan’s producer

(Jamie Vernon) feel are most memorable or worthwhile for audiences.

that can be feasibly reviewed. YouTube clips, then, serve as the most appropriate content for

multi-text analysis.

On top of this, when compared to Spotify, Apple, and Google, YouTube is the platform

most similar to a social network. This is important to consider, and provides a reason for fixed

attention on YouTube discourse, if we accept that social networks tend user’s toward

reinforcement of media selectivity and subsequent attitude reinforcement (through algorithmic

processes such as recommendations based on subscriptions and “likes”, or group processes such

as commenting, discussion, and sharing) (Feldman et al., 2014).

In regard to selecting the most appropriate JRE YouTube clips for analysis, I should first

note that comedian commentary on #MeToo appears to be generally popular on YouTube, and

more specifically, JRE is the most frequent comedian commentary platform to come up in

#MeToo YouTube searches. Indeed, when a user searches “#MeToo” on YouTube

(with a

filter for most viewed videos from top-to-bottom), twelve of the top 50 videos are of comedian

commentary on the #MeToo movement. Five of those twelve are specifically of SCP

commentary. Further, three of those five SCP clips are from JRE. The three JRE clips are from

full-length episodes of Joe Rogan interviewing standup comedians Erik Griffin, Bill Maher (now

the host of Real Time w/ Bill Maher on HBO, but career began in standup), and Neal Brennan

“Top 10” because two additional clips are added for contextual reasons: One clip adds a second

female comedian perspective (Whitney Cummings; clip #4); A second clip from Neal Brennan’s

Dec. 14 interview is also included to ensure his fuller #MeToo perspective was given.

take effect and drastically alter results, pushing “similar” videos to the top of the list. When searching on YouTube, I

Below is the list, ordered chronologically by clip release date to capture any evolution in thought

from the host, Joe Rogan, and any reoccurring guests. The list includes discourse from Rogan and

ten other popular American standup comedians.

1. “Joe Rogan on Louis CK,” featuring Iliza Shlesinger (~1.84 million views

2. “Joe Rogan on Potential #MeToo Backlash,” featuring Neal Brennan

3. “Joe Rogan – Neal Brennan Gives His Take on Louis CK,” featuring Neal

Brennan (~1.04 million; Dec 14, 2017)

4. “Joe Rogan on the Aziz Ansari Story,” featuring Whitney Cummings

(~869,000; Jan 23, 2018).

(~1.74 million; June 4, 2018).

Diaz (~2.05 million; July 4, 2018).

(~1.1 million; Oct 21, 2018).

million; Dec 20, 2018).

Schultz (~1.64 million; March 14, 2019).

White (~2.9 million; March 19, 2019).

11. “No, It’s Not ‘All Men’,” featuring Iliza Shlesinger (~2.4 million; Dec 16,

2019).

12. “Bill Maher on Louis C.K. and the #metoo Movement,” featuring Bill

Maher (~1.3 million; Jan 17, 2020).

have shared their #MeToo views on Rogan’s podcast. I suggest maintaining the chronological order of analysis, to

best explore the evolution of Rogan and his reoccurring guest’s opinions.

CHAPTER 5: Results

The goal of this research was to analyze reactions to #MeToo, an ongoing discursive,

cultural phenomenon. More specifically, the goal of this research was to analyze reactions to

#MeToo accusations or movement discourse supporting those #MeToo accusations. At the

height of the #MeToo era (October 2017 – 2019), we can safely say there was plenty of

commentary and reaction in the media, and more generally, in public discourse. As a critical

discourse moment, #MeToo renewed the debate of appropriate sexual conduct and appropriate

response to) a previous person or group’s speech-act. We can consider the words of sexual

misconduct accusers (and their supporter’s words) the original, #MeToo movement speech-acts.

We can then consider commentary on these words the reaction. If we were to look at this from

another angle, we might say that the original speech-act of an accuser is itself a reaction to

perceiving an experience of sexual misconduct. This is true, but let’s not confuse what kind of

reaction this study is looking at. To reiterate, we are looking at a discursive reaction to a

discursive act; a speech-reaction to a speech-act. In this sense, a reaction is not necessarily

reactionary (in the politically or ideologically resistant sense).

Finally, this thesis hopes to examine #MeToo reactions and make sense of it, keeping in

mind the question of whether or not the reactor’s commentary to #MeToo should be considered a

discursive backlash or a discursive attempt to accept #MeToo’s calls for action (listen, reflect,

change). When a given reactor to the #MeToo movement offers negative commentary on a

media platform (i.e., for an audience), there may be better argument for calling their commentary

a discursive backlash, or at the least, as having the potential to contribute to a backlash

(Mansbridge and Shames, 2008).

5.1. Discourse Structure and Themes

Between late 2017 and early 2020, SCPs discussed the #MeToo movement on many

behest of legal teams, employers, and/or #MeToo activists. In other words, the JRE discussions

tended to center around whether sexually violent actors deserve to be ‘cancelled’ (i.e., having

their professional careers and personal lives tarnished due to their sexual behavior). This is their

discursive holy grail when suggesting that “#MeToo has gone too far,” and it appears to be their

frame of mind when confronted with new #MeToo allegations to comment on. Here, victimhood

shifts from the accuser to the accused. If the accused gets ostracized without due process, they

become the victims of #MeToo, of Cancel Culture. In doing so, popular discussion shifts from

celebrating #MeToo to condemning it as hasty and misguided. The comedians are not alone in

their belief; 51% of men and 36% of women in the U.S. believed that the movement had gone

too far (Pew Research Center, 2018). The comedians are also not alone in their confusion over

what deserved to be called sexual assault or harassment, or further, what legal or social

punishments are deserved. In another poll, 56% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats found it

difficult to know what is considered sexual assault (Ipsos, 2018).

Interpretive analysis of clip transcripts further showed three central themes, or topics, that

the SCPs discussed as a way to respond to their broader question of whether or not the

movement went too far: 1. On the accused/perpetrator (and predatorial men in general); 2. On the

accuser/victim (and the plight of women in general); and 3. On the public reactions to the

and activism, of the legal system, and whether or not such social and legal reactions are

appropriate relative to the accusation and/or conviction.

A rhetorical frame analysis of these three themes answers the questions of whether and

how the standup comedian podcasters aggressively resisted #MeToo calls for action. Along the

way, it explores in what ways the accused, the accuser, and the public reactions were framed,

what framing strategies were used, and how various frames compete, contradict, or complement

each other. After responding to inquiries such as these, the study can then move into critical

discussion of the relationship between SCP reactions, social identity, and social movement

In the most recent JRE standup comedian podcaster discussion of #MeToo (January

2020), Rogan talks with Bill Maher, standup comedian and host of HBO’s political talk show,

Real Time with Bill Maher. A large proportion of the clip focuses on the plight of CK. Regarding

the idea that CK could come out in public and defend himself against “lies”, Maher says that

“What’s unfair is that he cannot say it…If you engage and defend yourself and correct the

record, then you make it worse.” Rogan agrees, saying, “They’ll come at you harder.” Here,

Maher and Rogan are presumably referring to the #MeToo activists in the media, whether social

and contrast, external attributions, buzzwords, and exemplification. By comparing C.K. and

Ansari’s cases to Weinstein and Cosby, SCPs make the behavior of CK and Ansari seem less

negative and consequential, leading to a conclusion that they deserve less scrutiny and social

repercussion. As a result, CK and Ansari are considered victims of #MeToo and Cancel Culture,

given the heavy scrutiny and repercussions they have face.

Another central framing strategy for instilling the Male Victim frame was through

external attribution strategies. External attribution strategies will be further explored in the

following section, but it is notable now for assisting, or complimenting, the Male Victim Frame.

For instance, Joey Diaz sees that he, Sizemore, and others in similar positions should not be

persecuted for actions that took place under the influence of drugs many years ago. Instead of

personal responsibility, Diaz argues to an amiable Rogan that drug use—and the personal and

social violence that can come from it—is to be blamed as an environmental factor out of one’s

control (White, 1990; Sun et al., 2015).

Lastly, through repeated emphasis on examples of the accused as victims of #MeToo

(i.e., as getting ‘#MeToo’d), SCPs took part in a resistance to interpretations of #MeToo as a

time for feminist hope and justice in gender relations. This resistance manifested in an

exemplification effect where examples of the accused as victims of deceit became the central

This analysis has so far discussed how the standup comedian podcasters frames

themselves as respectful and unwilling to talk negatively about friends or colleagues accused of

predatorial behavior of accused men. In a sense, it soon became one of the central frames on The

Joe Rogan Experience for SCPs talking about #MeToo. Why do sexual assaults, harassment, and

coercions take place? This is the implicit, or explicit, question of causality behind the dominant

SCP framing of #MeToo as a phenomenon resulting from male’s predatorial (natural or

environmental) condition. As natural and environmental conditions are seen as external factors

influencing individual behavior, reference to such conditions as an explanation for perpetuated

sexual violence against women serves as an external causal attribution frame. In other instances,

SCPs engaged in internal causal attribution, like when emphasizing personal agency or

responsibility, but such framing happened less often.

get angry at Saudi Arabians because “they won’t give us the f*cking oil! They don’t want to give

it to you. But that doesn’t mean their shitty.” He goes on to make the connection to women: “She

probably didn’t want [sex], but it makes guys—it hurts their feelings—and it makes them crazy.”

Rogan then responds by explaining that “it deals with these evolutionary mechanisms that are

designed to make sure we bread,” to which Brennan agrees. The two reasons—that males

become bitter and sexually violent over time due to female rejection over the same time

(environmental attribution), and that through natural evolution males have treated females as

opponents or objects to conquer—together serve as external causal frames for making sense of

the phenomenon of aggressive male behavior.

Similar to the notion of “conquering” women, the SCPs on Rogan’s program also frame

#MeToo as a problem related to male’s conquest for power. Why do people like power? To the

podcasters, it’s natural that power-hungry people like Harvey Weinstein have existed and will

continue to exist; people want power and control and the capacity to do what they please. The

argument further goes that certain people, for whatever reason, feed on their power cravings: “If

you like power, why do you like that power? What are you getting out of that power…? You’re

getting p*ssy. That’s what you’re getting” (Rogan). Comedian Andrew Schultz responds that,

environment fails to constrain predatorial behavior. For Cummings, sexual abuses of power in

the workplace won’t stop or go away “until dating people you work with is illegal.” Further,

when Rogan says that the workplace “becomes your entire eco-system,” Brennan agrees and

suggests that it’s one of the only places to meet people, and as such, there is bound to be sexual

tension in the environment.

In a later conversation with comedian Ari Shaffir in October 2018, Rogan builds off the

eco-system argument: “The real sexism, especially for women, is having to work with a bunch of

people who are trying to f*ck you all time.” Here, Rogan suggests a nature of barbarism in many

men; they cannot turn off their sexual fervor and in turn they may revert to predatorial behavior,

especially when they originally do not get what they want. He goes on to also blame the time and

space of the work environment:

You think about how many hours are in a day. You have 24 hours, 8 of them

you’re sleeping. Most of your day is at work. So, your life is not with your

way.

Comedian Whitney Cummings contrasts this, seeing sexual misconduct not only as the product

of workplace environment or men’s natural need/desire for conquest but also as the product of

of read, like, oh, is she frustrated or angry?....A lot of guys can’t understand

that there’s a discrepancy between what I’m saying and how I’m saying it.

Regardless of the environment of the workplace or the biology of men, the arguments fall

in line with Rogan’s rationale that men and women have a difficult time working together

the standup comedian podcasters normalize predatorial behavior as an effect of evolution. Or, in

same space for long periods of time, the existing dominant structure of workplace

In the above instances, standup comedian podcasters are making ontological claims about

the male sex to—as Section 3.2. anticipates—argue that sexual misconduct, while morally

deplorably, will remain unavoidable in society as part of the human condition. It is a frame that

attributes the cause of sexual misconducts to external factors (i.e., natural or environmental

factors outside of the male sex’s control; White, 1990). Unfortunately, as Sun et al. (2015) and

Weiner (2006) note, repetitive externalization of problematic male group behavior in

interpersonal or public discourse can also tend towards rendering the problem of sexual

misconduct perceivably unsolvable, and thus, unworthy of critical attention. On top of this, when

external factors are perceived to be the greatest cause for cruelty or violence, the perceived

solution(s). One solution, according to Rogan, is that men need to stop being “bitches.” At this

point, then, Rogan shifts to internal attribution. He sees rapists and impulsively violent men as

“weak” and “insecure,” and that the antidote to men being “bitches” is “to be a strong man.”

With his previous framing of the problem highlighting his ontological beliefs about the male

sex’s desire for sexual conquest, and with his solution highlighting his ontological beliefs about

men as a gender needing to be emotionally strong and secure, there appears a contradiction in

that Rogan is attributing external causes to sexual misconduct by way of naturalizing male sex’s

predatorial behavior, while also attributing personal causes by way of blaming the weak and

insecure—but malleable—characters of predatorial men. As White (1990) notes though,

sometimes neither “internal [n]or external causes [can] be sufficient alone,” rather, it’s possible

“they interact in the production of effect” (p. 15).

The second theme that emerged from transcript analysis focused on the (female) accuser.

In this theme, two frames emerged. In the first frame, discussion on women who accused men of

sexual misconduct in the #MeToo era created a sense for the JRE audience that despite important

victories for many women who suffered from sexual violence, too many women in the #MeToo

Scrutiny frame: The accusers as vengeful, deceptive, and deserving of suspicion

The first noteworthy frame of the SCP’s discussion on sexual misconduct accusers, the

Scrutiny frame, regards the notion that some accusers of sexual misconduct are deceptive and

vengeful, and therefore, new allegations must be heavily scrutinized. Once again, SCPs are seen

interpreting #MeToo through the articulation of rare examples—credible or otherwise—of

female deception and vengeance. Exemplification, as previously noted, potentially creates a

distorted understanding of current events for both the people sharing the examples and the people

consuming them (Bigsby et al., 2019; Zillmann, 1999).

Comedian Aziz Ansari’s case, as well as a number of college campus cases, became the

basis for Rogan’s speculation of deceptive women in gender relations (see Appendix B for more

detail on Ansari’s #MeToo case). In the previous section, this study noted that comedian Erik

Griffin sees Ansari’s behavior as a matter of being perverted and ungentlemanly, but not

deserving of scrutinization to the point of cancellation. Rogan agrees with this sentiment, but

takes it further in his discussion with comedian Whitney Cummings, turning the spotlight onto

his perceptions of the accuser’s cruel behavior.

For instance, to Rogan, the anonymous woman who wrote the blog post detailing her

experience with Ansari acted in poor judgement and tried to ruin Ansari’s career simply because

beings that are deceptive,” lying that they were raped in order to get money, attention, or carry

out a “vendetta.” This is a line of thought that Rogan has kept since at least January 2018; the

idea that some women are out to take down any men who make them feel uncomfortable.

In addition to using Ansari’s celebrity case as a basis for understanding the #MeToo

movement more generally, Rogan introduces a number of college campus cases to the

discussion, becoming another basis for his general suspicion of alleged victims. Through

proliferation on JRE, these examples may have further resulted in an exemplification effect as

JRE audiences attempt to make sense of #MeToo themselves. The college campus cases used are

Title IX-related cases from both before and during the #MeToo era (2017-2020). These cases are

used to explain how in instances of young adult sex where alcohol is involved, some accusers of

rape lie or are persuaded by their friends to change their perceptions of reality (i.e., of what

really happened). In this process of persuasion, Rogan sees that the female’s friends pressure her

into victimizing herself and coming forward with an accusation. The central case driving this

viewpoint of Rogan’s is the Occidental College story, a story Rogan has been reiterating on his

podcast since at least May 16, 2015 (JRE #553), where:

[A] boy and girl get drunk. Text each other back and forth: ‘I’m coming over.

Do you have condoms?’ She comes over. They have sex with each other, and

then her friends convince her that because she was drunk, she could not

consent, and that it’s rape…You remember that was a big thing for a while?

tried to push that. Until they realized, oh my god, that makes everyone a rapist.

or severely suspends students instantly, upon being accused of sexual misconduct by another

student. Rogan highlights that the writer of the article claims a legal backlash is expected and

already playing out on some college campuses.

Another proliferated example of such backlash is the Columbia University story where a

female student was sexting with a male student and told him to “bring condoms” when he said he

was coming over. The next morning, after a night of sex, she accused him of rape, and he was

quickly expelled. Similar to the Occidental College case, the male student’s family sued the

school and won, putting a sour reputation on the implementation of Title IX. By spending

extended time on relaying these cases though, Rogan creates a sense for the JRE audience that

people should not “believe all women” in the #MeToo era. It further creates the sense that

#MeToo and Title IX is overwhelmingly bad for the country because it allows for women to

manipulate the law in their favor, whether it be for attention or exacting revenge.

On this notion that people should not believe all women, Rogan quotes his talk-radio

friend Anthony Cumia as saying, “Calling all women liars is just as crazy as saying that all

women tell the truth.” The line of thinking hints at a quest for scrutinization and nuanced

consideration of #MeToo-era allegations—hence the Scrutiny frame label—rather than taking an

extremist position of all women as honest or all women as lairs. Similarly, Comedian Neal

which is just f*cking not—they’re the outliers!” Brennan, here, appears to acknowledge the

exemplification effect that this study already noted throughout to be a central part of the SCP

framing strategy (Bigsby et al., 2019; Zillmann, 1999). The exemplification effect of Rogan’s

and others’ repeated stories may lead audiences to generalize the untruthfulness of the accuser in

these cases to the accusers in all cases.

Empathy frame: The plight of women from hegemony (or, In defense of #MeToo)

Brennan’s response above marks a crucial intervention by some of the standup comedian

podcasters on JRE to reframe the #MeToo movement as appropriate, necessary, and overdue.

Despite Rogan and some of his SCP guests’ fervent attempts at framing #MeToo as a movement

deserving of suspicion, as unfair, or as going ‘too far,’ Rogan and guests can also be seen

suggests, “I think women are sort of, like, I don’t want to have that kind of transactional sex

other victims of sexual misconduct comfortable sharing their stories. Erik Griffin, in a later clip,

wishes that, “Maybe now, people will have the courage to, like, come out,” because of the support

of activists, and especially, other survivors. Rogan, similarly, says that previous sexual misconduct

victims throughout Hollywood and the entertainment industries failed to speak out about their

experience because they were “worried about getting blackballed” (i.e., banished from show-

Cumming notes, “Never before have 10 women all assaulted by the same man been able to meet

each other…we’re [now] able to find each other online.” And as Shlesinger notes, “There’s

safety in numbers and no one would listen before.”

Cummings also suggests that circulation of high-profile sexual misconduct allegations

reveals the hegemony of present standards on appropriate (or at the least, overlooked) sexual

behavior. A changing or movement of standards becomes noticeable to Cummings specifically

through the way culture has reacted to the high-profile allegations. She remarks, “Look, we’re

just going to have to start talking to each other I guess, and, like, setting expectations… I know.

That sounds like a nightmare, doesn’t it?”. She hints at the belief that its quite uncomfortable to

have these discussions on sexual behavior, but absolutely necessary in order to solve “murky”

ambiguities between appropriate and inappropriate encounters.

Cancel Culture frame: On mob mentality and Cancel Culture versus due process and nuanced

appears closely related to the Scrutiny frame on the accuser and the Male Victim frame on the

accused. Under the Scrutiny frame, SCPs noted that allegations should be heavily scrutinized

before making judgements with social and legal repercussions. Under the Male Victim frame, if

sexual misconduct allegations were not heavily scrutinized before judgement, then the accused

male may be considered a victim of #MeToo and/or Cancel Culture. As previously stated, nearly

all of the JRE SCPs described #MeToo in terms of its hastiness, its mob mentality, and its lack of

due process and nuanced consideration of sexual misconduct allegations.

Such frames are potentially guided by a pre-existing anti-social justice framework

common among YouTube podcasters and alternative media personalities (Lewis, 2018). It’s a

framework related to an anti-political correctness ideology (anti-PC) that was circulating on

contrast this position of rationality with what they see as SJW irrationality and mob rule. For

example, related to extreme black/white opinions on whether or not someone’s actions are

deserving of condemnation based on the given details of an allegation, Neal Brennan says that

people are “not allowed to have a nuanced opinion anymore.” Related to extremist attacks on

both the accused and the accuser, Brennan suggests that Americans have a problem with “mob

mentality,” even though it is “not in the spirit of American” (i.e., justice and individualism). The

comedian podcasters, especially Brennan, Rogan, Shlesinger, Griffin, Burr, Diaz and Maher,

resist the “hastiness” of ruining a professional’s career at the knock of a sexual misconduct

accusation. They remind the audience of an American tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

weird shit that he shouldn’t have done for sure, and I think he knows that—I

know he knows that—but what is the proper punishment…and who decides it?

Here, Maher expresses concern that a mob mentality is misguidedly ruling the future of accused

men rather than a proper court of law. To construct this frame for the audience, he uses rhetorical

questions that, although hyperbolic, act to elicit disdain for overreaching legal and social

judgements. He explicitly refers to the need for “some sort of #MeToo court that will hand down

another five years before you can have a [standup comedy] special.” Rogan, showing disdain for

the details of a sexual misconduct accusation, #MeToo supporters will overwhelmingly attack

You know, when the #MeToo stuff first starting coming out…you had to tweet

the right f*cking thing...And if you said anything that’s sort of, ‘Oh, let’s look

this whole— ‘You’re a part of the problem!...

well, not just that. How about more serious shit? Like drone strikes…More innocent civilians

were killed with drone strikes during Obama’s administration—.”

Similarly, when talking with comedian Andrew Schultz, Rogan suggests there is a war of

ideas between feminist and traditional views of sexual violence. Rogan says that, “women feel

like it’s—they’ve got momentum in this little war of ideas, with the #MeToo movement.” Yet

Rogan mocks the Future is Feminine agenda. According to him, people who are spearheading

Future is Feminism propaganda do not care about inclusivity. He sees the feminist activism as

bullying, and he sees the bullying as a sign that they are just after cultural power: “What drives

me most crazy is this bullying...It doesn’t work!” Comparably, when talking with Burr (who

American, delineating their psychology and morality, in contrast, as fair-minded and modest (or

calm). These arguments were heavily supplemented by both emotional, passionate speech (in

some cases) and, especially, the use of buzzwords, or ideographs, that appealed to cultural

tradition and ritual. Through positive utterances of phrases like ‘American spirit,’ ‘due process,’

and ‘nuanced consideration,’ and negative utterances and correlations of phrases like ‘mob

mentality,’ ‘feminism,’ and ‘Cancel Culture,’ SCPs like Rogan, Burr, Brennan, Griffin, Maher

and Schwartz argued for protecting the American legal tradition, without commenting much on

metaphors used to better explain their meaning of Cancel Culture. Comedian Erik Griffin, while

interweaving the Cancel Culture frame with both the Empathy (for women) frame and the Male

Victim frame, represents how frames like Empathy or Digital-Critical Mass, while utilized,

typically get relegated to the side to make room for the dominant Cancel Culture and Male

Victim frames:

It sucks that we live in a culture where some people are getting caught in the

crossfire so we can obliterate this sort of behavior and attitude from our

be…some people that are going to get caught in the crossfire.

cancelled. Similar to this metaphor of getting “caught in the crossfire,” Rogan and Griffin refer

to the social environment spurred on by #MeToo as a swinging “pendulum,” or, a “wave of

outrage” from passionate #MeToo supporters, that will lead to “collateral damage.” Collateral

damage here, for Rogan and Griffin, refers to those instances when “good men” lose their career

and reputation amidst the swinging of the pendulum. They hope that the pendulum, i.e., the

dialectic, will balance out to a place where men can “have interpersonal relationships with

women at work and in a setting and make it professional.”

This section has explored the framing of the public reaction theme throughout JRE

discourse on #MeToo. In discussing this theme, two central frames emerged in discussing this

theme. Positively, the standup comedian podcasters framed public #MeToo activism as a

justified reaction to horrific sexual violence that takes place in a variety of professional

industries. They saw that the popularity of #MeToo, and the liberation it provided for many

survivors, was made possible because of the interconnectivity and security of social media and

the internet (Digital-Critical Mass frame). Negatively, the standup comedian podcasters framed

the public reaction as inappropriate and histrionic (Cancel Culture frame). This frame appeared

explicitly contribute to a discursive backlash against #MeToo, comedian Bill Burr appeals to

moderation and ‘laying low’ in times of chaos. But Rogan, in response, argues that it’s the

comedian’s job to call out hypocrisy and to be social commentators. For this reason, he does not

want to stay silent when he perceives #MeToo as disastrous:

But I think more mocking and laughing than yelling, for sure. When you see

enough of those The Future is Feminine t-shirts and you see enough hypocrisy

sexist and racist and trying to get people fired—like, it’s a time of outrage,

across the board. And you have to respond, a little bit. You have to let people

know, ‘Hey, this is f*cking ridiculous’…There’s a certain obligation,

especially comedians have, as a social commentator.

Often times, when framing their understanding of #MeToo for themselves and their

audiences, the standup comedian podcasters pre-emptively responded to criticisms by pleading

ignorance. Under all themes of #MeToo discussion, the SCPs can be seen proclaiming ignorance

and uncertainty, unable to make a definitive conclusion despite their intuitions. This may create a

central frame of mind for the audience that the commentators do not have all the information on

#MeToo or any one specific case, and as such, that their commentary should itself be taken with

Rogan, for example, admits that in those instances of women lying when accusing men of

stance. The stance is accompanied by another stance; the announcement that he doesn’t want to

[news] version.” However, whether Rogan confesses uncertainty or not, the dominant sense he

and other SCPs create for audiences still remains; the sense that #MeToo is a misguided

movement unless it takes scrutinization and nuanced consideration of female allegations more

seriously.

As an example, regarding the SCPs typical lack of experience in office culture and their

lack of knowledge on how to fix the phenomenon of sexual misconduct in office spaces, Ari

Shaffir notes, “I don’t know how to correct this [predatorial behavior].” This prompts Rogan to

realize, “We are lucky we don’t have to work with people all day…We’re so removed from

it…Us talking about office politics in office environments—it’s f*cking ridiculous...We’re

summed up by Rogan’s post-argument proclamation, “Don’t listen to me. I’m a f*cking idiot.

Why are you listening to me?” Research notes that this performance of ignorance can actually be

quite persuasive, forging an intimacy between the audience and podcaster; ignorance, through its

humility, may lend a persuasive affinity to the speaker’s speculative reasoning (Grano, 2007).

an “obligation” to “call out” hypocrisy when they see it, much like Bingham and Hernandez

(2009) note in their list of nine sociological perspectives of the standup comedian. I’m not sure if

Rogan has since made the connection to the double standard; calling someone or something out

is eerily adjacent to the impetus behind Cancel Culture, which is why people also designate it as

‘Callout Culture’ (Finley and Johnson, 2019).

Further, the manifestation of the comedian’s contrarian tendencies can be seen in the

Scrutiny frame on the accuser, Male Victim frame on the accused, and Cancel Culture frame on

perhaps served as a precedent for viewing popular opinion as akin to herd mentality, and thus, as

necessary to criticize. For example, if, as Fileborn and Phillips (2018) note, “the mainstream,

public debate dedicated toward the Ansari case represents a moment in which dominant

understandings of sexual violence were contested, the boundaries of inclusion shifting, perhaps

ever so slightly” (p. 105), then the SCP response was mostly against the grain, resistant to the

demand for change. When going against the grain becomes a fixed frame of mind, such as it may

be for comedians, then it makes sense that one would jump at the opportunity to criticize popular

social movements. As Symons (2017) notes, comedians often like to label themselves as free-

thinking, ‘authentic outsiders.’

Further, the comedian identity is apparent in the SCPs’ removal of themselves from

accountability of their rhetoric through pleading ignorance and uncertainty after critical

utterances (Ignorance frame). Grano (2007), Nabi et al. (2007), and Symons (2017) each note

this as a common technique among comedians for evading criticisms. Lewis (2019) also notes

this as a common technique among alternative influencers, generally. The Ignorance frame is

particularly noticeable in conversations between Rogan and Shlesinger (“I don’t know CK”),

Rogan and Brennan (“Just so you know. We’re talking in theory, about misogyny. These are not

comedians reviewed in this discourse analysis, Rogan, Burr, Brennan, Cummings, Griffin,

Shlesinger, and Shaffir (as well as Louis CK) have had residencies or frequent spots at the

Comedy Store. That’s not to say Comedy Store comedians represent a hive mind, but its worth

noting that many of the SCPs on JRE have come up together. Future research might do well to

compare Comedy Store (LA) comedian #MeToo reactions with Comedy Cellar (NY) comedian

#MeToo reactions, with the understanding that there is occasional overlap in comedians who

frequent both coasts of American comedy. Such research could help distinguish whether or not,

and to what extent, different ideologies circulate among different comedian networks.

Fileborn and Phillips also note that, “Debate around #MeToo having gone ‘too far’ can

be understood as a site of power struggle and contestation” (2018, p. 106). As such, there is also

the strong possibility that the celebrity identity, or the celebrity position of power, played a

critical role in JRE standup comedian podcaster reaction. This was most apparent in those

instances where the podcasters expressed fear over #MeToo “ruining” someone’s career and

public image. They shared stories, disapprovingly, of celebrities like CK and Sizemore

(comedians), and Keillor (radio personality), who faced backlash and career jeopardization for

“old” actions (10+ years old). They also grieved over stories of celebrities, like Matt Damon

(actor) and David Pakman (YouTube personality), who faced a public backlash and career

2019). This freedom of speech is certainly essential to their comedian and podcaster profession,

the professions which made them celebrities in the first place (Mintz, 1985; Guenther et al.,

2015).

Bingham and Hernandez (2009) also argue that standup comedians seek to “deconstruct,

unmask and debunk status quo social expectations, organizations, rules, and people” (2009, p.

336-7). In SCP #MeToo discourse, though, the SCPs were not necessarily deconstructing,

unmasking and debunking the status quo. More so, they sought to deconstruct, unmask and

debunk rising progressive thought that seeks to become the new status quo through activism like

the #MeToo movement. In this sense, it is possible that they were reactionary in the politically

resistant sense. As noted in Chapter 1, political partisanship was a large indicator in 2018

#MeToo public opinion polling. For instance, 75% of Republicans and Republican-leaning

independents thought the movement went too far, compared to only 21% of Democrats (Ipsos,

2018). Further, while 60% of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents felt that women’s

claims not being believed is a major problem, only 28% of Republicans felt the same (Pew

Research Center, 2018). This study does not attempt to label any SCP as either Democrat or

Republican (or liberal or conservative), but the relationship between Republicans’ and Rep-

leaning independents’ higher likelihood of #MeToo suspicion and the SCPs’ tendency towards

all, in a social movement targeting the sexual hegemony of men. For example, thoughts of

manhood and maleness influenced SCP discourse in those instances of essentializing the male

and female dichotomy (external Causal frame). For example, Rogan saying, “It [the phenomenon

of sexual misconduct] deals with these evolutionary mechanisms that are designed to make sure

we bread,” and Shaffir saying, “We’re monkeys.” There was also the emphasis of ingroup

privileges and advantages in that dichotomy (Branscombe, 1998). For example, Rogan saying,

“You can’t leave your drink alone…That’s a reality for a lot of women. That’s not a reality for

you and me.” Here, the male SCPs can be seen operating in the Empathy frame, aware and

remorseful of their privilege.

Yet, crucially, SCPs often failed to empathize with female discomfort in ‘gray area’

sexual encounters (Fileborn & Phillips, 2019). As the literature review notes, people tend to

make external attributions of negative behavior for in-group members (natural or environmental

causes), while making internal attributions for out-group members (free will and personal

responsibility). For example, Rogan saying, “She was just grossed out about by it and decided to

go after him,” and “You don’t have to try to tank the guy’s life from a bad date…It sounds like it

sucked, but…this is, like, poor judgement, and cruelty!” Lastly, as noted in this study’s literature

political identities within the individual SCP resulted in a dynamic reaction to #MeToo,

consisting of some acceptance and much resistance to the movement, and potentially contributing

to the audience’s own acceptance and resistance. The podcaster, because of their multiple social

identities, perceived many threats from the #MeToo movement. Each social group’s (males,

comedians, celebrities) power-as-capacity appeared at stake. The male’s capacity was threatened

by potential changes to sexual and gender relation norms, the comedian’s capacity was

threatened by potential changes to speech norms, and the celebrity’s capacity was threatened by

potential changes to their accountability and the role of public opinion in dictating their career

success. Importantly, attachment to one’s relevant social identities likely mediates one’s reaction

(Branscombe, 1998; Mansbridge and Shames, 2008). That is to say, the podcaster who’s least

attached to their male, comedian, celebrity and political identity likely had the weakest path of

resistance to #MeToo. Notable examples include Cummings and Shlesinger, the two SCP

women who did not nominally face attachment to a male identity and often empathized with both

the accusers and the broader social movement. They did, however, both express concern over

changes to speech norms in politically correct environments. Brennan and Griffin also appeared

less attached to their male identity. They seemed to be the two SCP males least threatened by

#MeToo and more often empathized with female accusers of harassment and gray-area

the accuser-victim-woman, on the accused-perpetrator-man, and on the public and/or legal

reactions to sexual misconduct accusations. 2) Standup comedian podcasters showed instances of

both acceptance and resistance to #MeToo’s three calls for action (listen, reflect, change), but

mostly, instances of resistance.

and in part because of the Joe Rogan Experience’s existing influence, they potentially

contributed to the audience’s own acceptance or resistance. 3) The most relevant social identities

for the comedian reacting to #MeToo was their male identity, their comedian identity, their

celebrity identity, and/or their political identity, with the first three seeming to face clear identity

threat, perhaps guiding their discursive reaction.

The implications for this research are three-fold. First, social movements have more than

one theme or issue. Issue-relevant social identities may be guiding the discourse surrounding the

sense-making of social movements. The issue-relevant social identity can dictate which issues

are most worthy of discussion and how those issues should be framed. Second, reaction to social

movement is dynamic. The same person can accept some aspects of a social movement while

resisting others. People have multiple social identities, which may lead to cognitive dissonance,

and ultimately, multiple perspectives or judgements of a social phenomenon. For example,

comedian Neal Brennan appeared to switch between an Empathy frame on the accuser (“The

only thing that bothers me about even talking about [the college cases] is it makes the story about

lying women, which is just f*cking not—they’re the outliers!”) and a Cancel Culture frame on

because, as Earp says, portrayal of sexual harm as “something that [must be physically] ‘heinous’ in all its

common plight of women, but a high attachment to the comedian identity, criticizing the popular

opinion of online #MeToo support and activism. Third, attachment to one’s issue-relevant

identities and existing way of life may guide how strongly a person feels threatened or welcomed

by social movement and change. If someone perceives a threat to their existing way of life, they

often feel more inclined to participate in the debate (Hogg and Reid, 2006), likely as an attempt

for self-preservation. So, in the above example on Brennan’s potentially lower attachment to

male identity and higher attachment to comedian identity, Brennan appears more inclined to

negligent exemplifications. Also, Koudenburg et al. (2019) expected that when negative norms

or characters of a social group become salient, there is a stronger desire to take a stance in

debate. Koudenburg (2019) further notes that repeated like-minded reactions may validate and

reinforce their positions.

On top of that, reinforced positions often reinforce media selectivity (Feldman et al.,

2014). Reinforced media selectivity may, in return, further reinforce those positions, thus

resulting in a reinforcement spiral of both media selectivity and belief that is harder and harder to

remove oneself from in the age of algorithmic recommendations and niche, associative online

networks (Lewis, 2019). Iyenga and Hahn also found that many partisan individuals attribute

bias to mainstream media, choosing to gravitate towards “alternative sources perceived as more

congenial to their preferences” (2009, p. 22). Thus, the reinforcing spirals framework might have

an even stronger effect on consumer’s who use alternative, more often algorithmic, media

platforms—such as YouTube, podcasting, and Twitter—to consume their news. This reminds us

of the need for further examination of non-traditional and alternative news discourse. New media

information sources, such as podcasting, continue contributing to the media and attitude

reinforcement spirals that polarize American society today.

If members of a social group are typically consuming media discourse that reinforces

In the spirit of Feldman et al.’s 2014 work on polarization related to climate change

policy, this study sees that consensus on appropriate sexual conduct and appropriate reactions to

inappropriate sexual misconduct will remain difficult to achieve because our information

environments are increasingly polarizing.

existing hegemonic attitudes related to appropriate sexual conduct, it’s possible that SCPs played

a role in both their own group reinforcement as well as a broader reinforcement of social division

surrounding #MeToo (for their audiences and any transitively effected individuals). Social

counting as sexual violence, is deeply implicated in the language available to us…The language that has

fragmentation and polarizing attitudes will continue to gradually increase unless there are shifts

in public communications policy that adjust for reinforcement spiral effects (Feldman et al.,

2014).

In conclusion, critical discourse moments like those surrounding #MeToo tend to provide

an example “of the process through which our language and understandings of sexual violence

expand and evolve…[but] also illustrates the ways in which this process is resisted and

contested—our ways of understanding sexual violence simultaneously expanding and

6.4. Limitations

#MeToo is a movement that is part of a broader trend of social media-fueled feminist and

social justice activism. Although its peak may be over (October 2017-October 2018), the hashtag

often returns alongside renewed spotlights of high-profile sexual misconduct allegations, like

standup comedian Chris D’Elia’s 2020 allegations of coercing and breeding teenage women, as

well as recently-inaugurated President Joe Biden’s allegations from Tara Reade that surfaced

during his 2020 run for presidency. As such, this study should not be interpreted as a definitive

understanding of reactions to the movement, standup comedian podcaster reactions or otherwise.

Indeed, because of the movement’s recency, I suggest referring to other #MeToo scholarship as

Hutchby, I. (2003). ‘Conversation analysis and the study of broadcast talk’, in Sanders, R. and

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Imai, M., Kanero, J., and Masuda, T. (2016). The relation between language, culture, and

Ipsos (2018). “Ipsos/NPR examine views on sexual harassment and assault.” Accessed May 6,

2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/NPR-Sexual-Harassment-

and-Assault.

media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.

Jackson, D.J. (2008) Selling politics. Journal of Political Marketing, 6(4), 67-83.

Jamieson, K.H., & Cappella, J.N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative

Communication, Politics & Culture, 42(2), 116-135.

Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

JRE Clips. (2020). Home [YouTube Channel]. Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnxGkOGNMqQEUMvroOWps6Q.

Violence Against Women, 16 (12), 1345–1355.

Khalid, A. (April 19, 2020). "On The Record: A Former Biden Staffer's Sexual Assault

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/837966525/on-the-record-a-former-biden-staffers-sexual-

discussion in a negative normative context: Integrating societal‐, group‐, and individual‐

level factors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 150-174.

Krook, M.L. (2015) Empowerment versus backlash: gender quotas and critical mass theory.

Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. D’Angelo, P. and Kuypers, J. (eds). New York:

D’Elia’s alleged sexual improprieties. The Los Angeles Times. Accessed June 20, 2020.

Retrieved from: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-20/chris-delia-

accusations-sexual-improprieties-twitter

cases." The Los Angeles Times. Accessed October 15, 2020. Retrieved from

story.html

Lasswell, H. D. (1965). World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: Free Press.

Lewis, B. (2019). Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the reactionary right on YouTube. Data &

to maintain cultural stereotypes. Social Cognition, 19(1), 372-394.

Macnamara, J.R. (2005). Media content analysis: its uses, benefits and best practice

methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1-34.

Mansbridge, J., & Shames, S.L. (2008). Toward a theory of backlash: Dynamic resistance and

breaks loose online. Here's what we know". Salon. Retrieved January 21, 2021 from

hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/

Marketing Charts (2018). Nielsen top podcast genres in US households. Retrieved from

households/attachment/nielsen-top-podcast-genres-in-us-households-aug2018.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.

of Speech, 66, 1-16.

refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social

persuasive communications. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public Communication

individual podcasts. Retrieved from: https://www.mediamonitors.com/audience-

demographic-variations-specific-to-genre/

Meserko, V.M. (2015). The pursuit of authenticity on Marc Maron’s WTF

Sociological Inquiry, 65, 181-206.

Mills, C.W. (1956). The Power Elite. London UK: Oxford University Press.

Mintz, L.E. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation. American

Moy, P., Xenos, M.A., and Hess, V.K., (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the

political effects of infotainment, Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111-131.

Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Gusé, E., and Byrne, S. (2007) All joking aside: A serious investigation into

the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication

Retrieved from: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/stock-alert%3A-spotify-shares-up-7-2020-

“Louis C.K. is accused by 5 women of sexual misconduct.” Accessed October 15, 2020.

misconduct.html

The Nielsen Company US LLC. (2018). Nielsen podcast insights: A marketer's guide to

podcasting. New York, NY. Accessed May 6, 2020. Retrieved from

https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/marketers-guide-to-

podcasting-q3-2018.pdf.

ONE37pm. (November 26, 2019). Holt, B. (author). “A Look at Joe Rogan’s Resume.” Accessed

resume

Pew Research Center (August 1, 2014). Anderson, M. (author). “As new businesses take a hit,

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/01/as-news-business-takes-a-hit-the-

#MeToo. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-

at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/

Pew Research Center (July 31, 2018). Beitsch, R. (author). #MeToo has changed our culture.

analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/07/31/metoo-has-changed-our-culture-now-its-changing-our-

media users have discussed sexual harassment since #MeToo went viral. Retrieved from:

sexual-harassment-since-metoo-went-viral/

Pfau, M., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M.M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., Russell, J., Wigley, S.,

of associate networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence.

Communication Monographs, 72(4), 414-441.

Potter, W. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64,

1015-1036.

white male thing.” Accessed May 6, 2020. Retrieved from: https://qz.com/591440/data-

diversity. Allyn & Bacon.

Refinery29 (October 5, 2019). Nicolaou, E. and Smith, C.E. (authors). “A #MeToo timeline to

Retrieved from https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/10/212801/me-too-movement-

Rodino-Colocino, M. (2018). Me too, #MeToo: countering cruelty with empathy.

Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 15, 96-100.

Rosenfeld, L. B. (1969). Set theory: Key to understanding of Kenneth Burke’s use of the term

Advances in Backlash Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 167–227.

Russo, D. (2020). Comedy and tolerance: Vir Das, standup comedy and religious tolerance in

Have Something in Common.” Medium. Accessed October 15, 2020. Retrieved from

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/cancel-culture-and-political-correctness-have-something-

in-common-e82850d20da3

effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory

Accessed November 9, 2020. Retrieved from

frames shape attributions and behavioral responses. Journal of Health Communication, 1-9.

Symons, A. (2017). Podcast comedy and ‘Authentic Outsiders’: How new media is challenging

the owners of industry. Celebrity Studies, 8, 104-118.

Statistica (July 2018). Duffin, E. (author). Population of the United States by sex and age 2018.

age/

Statistica (April 2020). Clement, J. (author). Countries with most Twitter users 2020. Retrieved

countries/

Storm Villadsen, L. (2018). “Rhetorical citizenship and public moral argument: Too quaint an

retrieved from http://www.internationalrhetoric.com/keynotes-2/

Thrall, A. T., Lollio-Fakhreddine, J., Berent, J., Donnelly, L., Herrin, W., Paquette, Z., Wyatt, A.

(2008). Star power: Celebrity advocacy and the evolution of the public sphere. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 362–385.

Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group

Press.

Kruglanski, A.W., and Higgins, T.E. (ed), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 399-

bests Hannity in key demo.” Variety Media. Retrieved from

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/cable-news-q1-ratings-fox-news-msnbc-1203178758/

Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional

108(1), 3-18.

Zelizer, B. (1992a). CNN, the Gulf War, and Journalistic Practice. Journal of Communication

Psychology, 1, 69-94.

Appendix A

#MeToo JRE SCP YouTube Clips Under One Million Views

Below is a list of less popular JRE SCP clips this study has chosen to leave out of analysis.

research.

1. “Joe Rogan Reacts to #MeToo, Latest Harvey Weinstein News,”

2. “Joe Rogan talks to Doug Stanhope About Louis CK,” featuring Doug

4. “Joe Rogan - I'd Have Louis CK on the Podcast,” featuring Dom

6. “Joe Rogan | Louis CK is NOT Like Bill Cosby,” featuring Joe List

7. “What Joe Rogan Hopes Happens Because of the #MeToo

8. “Nikki Glaser I Can Empathize with Louis CK's Situation,” featuring

9. “Joey Diaz ‘We've All MeToo'd Somebody’ | Joe Rogan,” featuring

Appendix B

October 5, 2017: “Along with other actresses and former Weinstein Company

record — in Jodi Kantor and Meghan Twohey's incriminating New York Times

public apologies the year would hold. The first sentence of Weinstein’s statement

workplace and behavior were different,” and insisted the encounters were

consensual. In the ensuing days, over 100 women would come forward with

allegations against Weinstein.” (Nicolaou and Smith, 2019).

utilized for anyone who has experienced sexual violence.

October 29, 2017: Acclaimed actor Kevin Spacey faces allegations of sexually

sexual misconduct. Specifically, he was accused of coercively masturbating in front

statement shortly after, saying, “the power I had over these women is that they

Republican candidate for Senate Roy Moore is accused by nine women of sexual

misconduct while they were teenagers.

November 17, 2017: Democrat Senator and former comedian Al Franken accused of

inappropriate groping or gesturing by multiple women. Franken resigns on

December 7

.

November 29, 2017: Journalist Matt Lauer is fired by NBC after being accused of

victims of sexual misconduct willing to share their experiences despite personal

accused by at least five women of inappropriate sexual behavior. He appears on

think it’s a good thing and I support it.”

January 13, 2018: An anonymous woman shares an article on Babe.net explaining

an uncomfortable sexual experience she had with standup comedian Aziz Ansari

after their date. The anonymous woman never says she was physically forced to do

felt coerced into certain sexual acts because of existing gender-power dynamics and

experiences of young women, the anonymous piece spurs “a conversation about the

references.

September 25, 2018: 83-year-old Comedian Bill Cosby is the first celebrity in the

He was convicted for drugging multiple women over the span of his career and then

having sex with their unconscious or half-conscious bodies, a phenomenon known as

date raping.

Over 20 million people watched the congressional hearings the prior week, in which

school. Two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, also come forward

narrow vote along party lines.

July 9, 2019: Aziz Ansari returns with his first Netflix special since being pushed

against his sexually coercive behavior (from January 2018). In the special, he

and treatment towards women.

April 4, 2020: Louis CK returns with a self-produced and self-released special. It is

his first published material since November 2017, when he faced #MeToo backlash

for his sexually coercive and harassing behavior towards female comedians and

actresses on and off set in the 2000s.

January 20, 2021: former Vice President Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46

criticism backed by Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against him. The media

made dismissive claims such as: “Some details of Reade’s account have been

breaking reporter of the story, Katie Halper of Current Affairs, noting that “Reade

sexual assault” (April 2020). Other reporters, such as Amanda Marcotte of Salon,

when the rigorous standards espoused by mainstream publications are sidestepped

for a more credulous politicized approach” (March 2020).