‘Unpolished’ Rogan’s style wins the popular vote

Jordan Baker’s article on Joe Rogan started off strong and nuanced, but ultimately fell short in a few areas (“Joe Rogan is unpolished. So why do men idolise him?” June 15). At least three times Baker calls Joe Rogan a vaccine sceptic, yet does not include any evidence for this (such as a quote) other than just saying he is mates with RFK Jr. I’m a long-time listener of Joe Rogan and I thought this was a bit unfair. Baker also claims that Rogan declined an interview with Kamala Harris, yet the only evidence relating to this actually points to the opposite. Rogan has said he reached out to Harris, as well as Tim Walz, JD Vance and Donald Trump. I consider myself very left-wing, yet appreciate Rogan’s generous and accommodating approach to conservatives and people who don’t fit into mainstream politics, media and science. What journalists like Baker fail to consider is that to get three hours of unfiltered commentary from these people, you can’t hammer them with questions Laura Tingle-style. I believe if a podcast is good enough for Bono and Bernie Sanders to appear on, then it’s good enough for me to listen to.
Wesley Thomas, Lilyfield

Motley mobs

Parnell Palme McGuinness is right, of course, about the loathsomeness of online mobs, and some of the treatment she received after appearing on the ABC’s Q+A is truly disgusting (“I loved confronting the lefties on Q+A”, June 15), but these extremists aren’t the only online group guilty of “lazy thinking”. If you’ve ever been on the sewer that is X, formerly Twitter, and engaged with those challenging the Australian election result, the provision of social welfare, the plight of Ukraine, the championing of diversity in all its forms, the human rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and refugees, or the benefits of sunscreen (yes, I kid you not) and the efficacy of vaccines, you’d know what I mean. Idiots, zealots and trolls who subscribe to “maxi-hatreds” come in all stripes, from far left to far right.
Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown

Palme McGuinness suggests that the ABC’s Q+A audiences didn’t reflect the spectrum of community opinion as evenly as they were purported to. She seems not to have considered that they may have been representative of public opinion. Perhaps those representatives of social conservatism, to whom she refers as feeling intimidated and outnumbered when they go on such discussion panels, should consider why their contributions often meet such resistance from an audience that may, in fact, represent a fair balance of Australian social opinion.
Alynn Pratt, Grenfell

Parnell, since you are at the extreme right of opinions, those with views to the left of you aren’t the “left-wing mob”, rather they are in the sensible centre.
Peter Kamenyitzky, Castle Hill

Young at heart

The joy and exuberance exhibited in Sam Mooy’s photo is simply wonderful (“Want to be bright? Talk to a 90-year-old”, June 15). The regular experience of the youthful meeting of young and old minds raises us all up as a community. Our public schools and our aged care facilities should all be commended for their deep links. It is a very special program and should be widened where possible around the state.
Janice Creenaune, Austinmer

AI fails the test

I don’t get it. As a retired teacher, I cannot understand why teachers give students take-home assessment tasks (“HSC cheating doubles with AI’s rise”, June 15). The teacher has no control over who does the task or the sources of information. In the era of AI, surely all assessments should be conducted under teacher supervision at school. Take-home is lazy teaching and assessment.
Shane Nunan, Finley