Media Matters, a media watchdog organization, recently decided to take a hard look at one of the most influential media platforms in America: The Joe Rogan Experience. For years, Rogan’s podcast has been a place where long, unscripted conversations unfold over three hours, often with a mix of scientists, comedians, authors, athletes, and controversial figures. That format can make listeners feel like they’re sitting at the table. But because the show reaches millions of people, what is said at that table matters. In the summer of 2026, with an election cycle heating up, Media Matters took on the task of reviewing every regular episode of the podcast that appeared on its official YouTube playlist between July 1 and September 14, 2026. There were 33 episodes in total. The review excluded episodes labeled JRE MMA Show, which are a separate series and generally focused on fighting sports rather than politics or public affairs. The goal was not to check whether guests were too liberal or too conservative. The goal was to see whether the show was spreading election misinformation—claims about cheating, rigged systems, mail-in voting, registration fraud, or conspiracy theories about how elections actually work. To do that, researchers did not just skim headlines or watch a few clips. They went through full transcripts, reading the exact words of each conversation. Two researchers did this independently, so that no single person’s interpretation could quietly decide the outcome. The project reflects a simple but important belief: in a democracy, what influential people say about elections is not just entertainment. It can shape whether millions of people trust the results, and whether they even bother to vote.
Once the transcripts were in place, the researchers needed a way to find every potentially relevant moment. That meant using a keyword search, and casting a very wide net. The transcript pages on YouTube and on Fight.fudgie.org, a separate transcript archive, were searched for a collection of terms: “harvest,” “ballot,” “election,” “vote,” “voting,” “cheat,” “registration,” “fraud,” “stole,” “steal,” “mail,” “rig,” “poll,” “noncitizen,” “CCP,” and “illegals.” At first glance, some of these words are neutral and obvious. “Vote” and “election” are going to show up in any political conversation. But the list also captured the language of false narratives. “Harvest” often appears in claims about ballot harvesting, a practice where private individuals collect ballots from voters; in reality, rules vary by state, but the phrase is frequently used in exaggerated stories about fraud. “Mail” points to mail-in voting, which has become one of the most common targets of conspiracy theories. “Noncitizen” and “illegals” often appear in false claims that undocumented immigrants are voting by the millions. “CCP” is shorthand for the Chinese Communist Party and appears in baseless theories about election interference. “Rig,” “stole,” and “cheat” are words that frequently show up in claims about stolen elections and rigged machines. By searching for all of these terms, the researchers made sure they would not miss a conversation just because it used unexpected language. The keyword search was never meant to be the final judgment. It was a first filter, a way of saying: “Look here, because something important might be going on.” It is also worth noting that both researchers searched the transcripts independently. That matters because language can be tricky. Sarcasm, insinuation, and context can change the meaning of a sentence, and having two sets of eyes helped ensure that nothing was missed.
After the keyword searches flagged specific sections, the real work began. The researchers read every flagged passage in context, including the surrounding dialogue, to understand what was actually being said. They did not treat every mention of a keyword as misinformation. That would have been lazy and unfair. Instead, they applied a clear definition. Election misinformation was understood to include claims or allusions to cheating in elections, statements that undermine election processes such as mail-in voting or voter registration, and conspiracy theories about elections or voting. The word “allusions” is crucial, because not all misinformation arrives in the form of a direct accusation. A guest might say, “I’m not saying the election was stolen, but a lot of people are suspicious.” A host might reply, “Interesting. Why would they think that?” That kind of exchange can put an idea into the audience’s head without ever stating it as fact. The researchers were trying to capture those moments too, while still allowing for normal political commentary. There is a difference between saying, “I don’t support a certain voting law” and saying, “That voting law is designed to rig the election.” The first is an opinion. The second is an accusation with no evidence. The researchers also had to make judgment calls about guests who rambled, changed topics, or used vague language. That’s why a third researcher was brought in to resolve any disagreements between the two independent reviewers. This three-step process—search, review, and reconciliation—was designed to protect the integrity of the findings. It would have been easy to cherry-pick a few outrageous moments and build a narrative around them. Instead, the review tried to be methodical, transparent, and fair. In a media landscape where a scandalous ten-second clip can go viral and misrepresent a two-hour conversation, that kind of patient reading is essential.
The review also paid close attention to the size of the show’s audience. On October 10, 2026, Media Matters collected the view counts for all 33 episodes in the review. But those numbers do not mean exactly what they did a few months earlier. On August 24, 2026, YouTube changed how it counts public views. Under the new system, a view is counted the moment a video begins to play, from the very first frame. This applies to every format on the platform, including Shorts, long-form videos, podcasts, and live streams. Before that change, YouTube counted what it now calls “engaged views.” In other words, a view used to be recorded only when someone clicked to watch or watched past the initial seconds of the video. The practical difference is enormous. Imagine accidentally opening a video on your phone and closing it right away. Under the old rules, that probably wouldn’t have counted as a view. Under the new rules, it does. The same is true for autoplay, where one video rolls into the next while you try to find the pause button. That moment of contact with the first frame now counts as a view. This change has big implications for anyone trying to measure the reach of a podcast. It means that view counts from episodes published before August 24 and episodes published after that date are not directly comparable. It also means the total number of views for a viral episode will likely be higher than it would have been under the old system. The researchers collected their numbers knowing this, but the shift is a useful reminder that platform metrics are not stable. They change as companies update their formulas. A view is not simply a view; it’s a definition chosen by the platform. For this review, the important thing was to record the numbers as they appeared on October 10, while understanding the context of how YouTube arrived at them.
It is also worth being clear about what the review did not include and why. The researchers excluded episodes labeled “JRE MMA Show.” Those episodes are part of a separate series, and while they might sometimes touch on politics, they are generally built around guests from the world of fighting sports. Mixing them in with regular episodes would have made the results less clear. The review also did not attempt to catalog every false or questionable claim on the show. Joe Rogan and his guests talk about health, science, history, culture, comedy, and a thousand other topics. The researchers focused narrowly on election misinformation, as defined by the methods described earlier. For each episode, they also looked at the episode’s description to see whether any guests were listed as politicians. That information is valuable because it helps explain where misinformation comes from. A politician might use the podcast as a stage to repeat a talking point that they have been using on the campaign trail. A nonpolitical guest might bring up an election conspiracy out of nowhere. Rogan himself might raise it or encourage a guest to elaborate. Knowing who said what matters when an audience is trying to figure out who deserves blame, or credit, for a false statement. The keyword list itself was designed to capture a broad range of language. “Rig,” “poll,” “registration,” and “steal” were included because they often appear in discussions of rigged elections and stolen votes. “Harvest” and “mail” were included because mail-in voting and ballot collection have become flashpoints. “CCP” and “illegals” were included because conspiracy theories about Chinese Communist Party interference and immigrant voting have worked their way into mainstream political talk. By casting this wide net, the researchers could be confident that they were not missing a conversation simply because it used coded or technical language.
At the end of the day, this review is about more than one podcast or one media watchdog. It is about the relationship between influence and truth in an election year. The Joe Rogan Experience has become something like a public square for long-form conversation. Its host has a rare talent for making guests feel comfortable enough to say what they really think. That can be powerful and even refreshing. But it also carries risk. When a guest makes a false claim about voting machines or mail-in ballots, the response is not always a rigorous fact-check. Sometimes it’s a nod, a shrug, or a question that invites the idea further into the room. Millions of people listen, and many of them trust what they hear because the conversation feels real, unvarnished, and honest. That is precisely why misinformation on such a platform is so dangerous. It can make people believe that participating in democracy is useless, that their vote will be thrown away, that the public records of their participation are part of some wide plot. All of those beliefs have consequences. They suppress turnout, deepen cynicism, and make it harder for people to accept the results of an election, even when the results are clear. Media Matters published this review not to silence Rogan or to attack his audience, but to provide a documented record of what was said. That record belongs to the public. It can be checked, challenged, and discussed. If listeners disagree with the findings, they are free to look at the same transcripts. If they agree, they might think more carefully next time they hear a shocking claim. In a world where YouTube changes its view-count rules overnight, and where every podcast is competing for attention, the most valuable thing we can do is slow down, read the actual words, and ask whether the story being told is true.