Douglas Murray responds: A defense of discernment in the age of podcasts 

In the days following his explosive appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience on April 10, 2025, Douglas Murray found himself at the center of a cultural maelstrom. The British author and neoconservative commentator had used the platform to challenge what he called the “shapeshifting Right” and the unchecked influence of podcasters like Joe Rogan, sparking a viral debate that reverberated across social media and traditional outlets alike.

Yesterday (Tuesday), Murray sat down with Freddie Sayers of UnHerd to reflect on the controversy, offering a nuanced defense of his position while doubling down on his call for greater discernment in public discourse. The interview, combined with his subsequent writings, provides a window into Murray’s thinking and his unwavering commitment to combating misinformation in an increasingly fractured media landscape.

The Context of the Clash

Murray’s appearance on Rogan’s podcast came at a pivotal moment for the 45-year-old intellectual. His latest book, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, had just been released on April 10, 2025, and was already climbing bestseller lists, buoyed by an endorsement from former President Donald Trump on Truth Social.

The book, a defense of Israel and Western democracies against what Murray sees as existential threats from groups like Hamas, drew heavily on his firsthand reporting from the Middle East, including his experiences during the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, attacks. But it was his critique of Rogan’s platform and the broader “podcast-bro ecosystem” that thrust him into the spotlight.

During the episode, Murray accused Rogan of mainstreaming “counter-historical” and “dangerous” views by platforming figures like Darryl Cooper, who claimed Winston Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II, and Ian Carroll, a YouTuber known for antisemitic conspiracy theories. He also challenged Rogan’s guest selection on the Israel-Hamas conflict, noting a tilt toward anti-war voices like Dave Smith, who compared Gaza to a concentration camp, and questioning why Rogan hadn’t featured more pro-Israel perspectives.

Murray’s call for more experts and his insistence that one must visit a conflict zone to speak authoritatively on it, Smith had never been to Israel or Gaza, drew sharp criticism, with some labeling him elitist and out of touch.

Murray’s Response: A Call for Discernment

In his UnHerd interview, Murray began by addressing the backlash to his experience-based knowledge argument, which had been widely ridiculed. Critics, including OutKick’s David Hookstead, argued that one doesn’t need to visit a place to have an opinion on it, with Hookstead quipping, “I’ve never been to prison, but I can confidently say I wouldn’t like it.” Rogan and Smith had echoed this sentiment on the podcast, with Rogan asking if someone must “go and touch the ground” of a location to discuss it.

Murray conceded that his point had been misinterpreted, clarifying that he wasn’t suggesting a literal ban on speaking about places one hasn’t visited. “Of course you can have an opinion,” he told Sayers. “But there’s a difference between having an opinion and presenting yourself as an authority on a conflict you’ve never witnessed firsthand. I’ve been to Gaza. I’ve been to Israel. I’ve seen the aftermath of October 7 with my own eyes. That shapes my perspective in ways that reading about it from afar cannot.”

Murray stood firm on his broader critique, however, arguing that the unchecked influence of podcasters like Rogan poses a real danger to public discourse. He acknowledged that “experts have got things wrong” in the past, citing examples like the Iraq War, where intelligence failures led to catastrophic decisions, but insisted that this doesn’t negate the need for expertise. “The answer isn’t to throw out expertise altogether,” he said. “It’s to demand better expertise. And it’s to ensure that when you have a platform as large as Joe Rogan’s, you’re not just spreading voices that are counter-historical or outright dangerous.”

He elaborated on his concern about the “shapeshifting Right,” a term he used to describe a segment of the political Right that, in reaction to left-wing overreach, has embraced fringe ideas like Holocaust denial and historical revisionism. “For years, the Left downplayed its own evils, Mao, Lenin, Stalin,” Murray said.

“Now, the Right is doing the same by platforming figures who minimize Nazi atrocities or vilify Churchill. That’s not progress; it’s regression.” He cited Cooper’s claim about Churchill as an example, calling it “not just wrong, but morally indefensible,” and reiterated his worry that Rogan’s audience, 11 million strong per episode, might take such views as credible without proper pushback.

On the Israel-Hamas Debate: A Defense of Empathy

Murray also addressed the heated Israel-Hamas debate that dominated much of the podcast. He had clashed with Smith, an anti-war libertarian who argued that the October 7 attacks were a result of Israel’s efforts to “prevent a Palestinian state.” Murray had countered that the war was “a result of Hamas deciding to start another war with Israel,” and decried the lack of global sympathy for Israeli victims, particularly the young festivalgoers killed on October 7.

In the UnHerd interview, he doubled down on this point, arguing that the narrative around Israel has been skewed by decades of misinformation. “Young people today are taught that Israel is especially wicked,” he said. “They’re not taught the history of the region, the repeated attempts at peace, or the fact that Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel. They see Israel as the aggressor, and that’s a failure of education and media.”

He also responded to Smith’s accusation of “selective empathy” toward Israelis, which had struck a nerve during the podcast. “I don’t lack empathy for Palestinians,” Murray said. “I’ve seen the suffering in Gaza firsthand. But empathy cannot come at the expense of truth. Hamas initiated this war, and they bear responsibility for the consequences. To suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.”

He expressed frustration at what he sees as a double standard in global discourse, noting, “Only in the case of the young Israelis dancing on October 7 do the victims become victimized again and not believed. That’s a unique form of cruelty.”

Reflecting on Rogan’s Role: A Plea for Responsibility

Murray was careful not to demonize Rogan personally, acknowledging the host’s appeal and the value of his platform. “Joe has created something remarkable,” he said. “He’s given a voice to perspectives that mainstream media often ignores, and that’s a good thing. But with that power comes a responsibility to discern between what’s worth amplifying and what’s not.”

He reiterated his concern about Rogan’s “just asking questions” philosophy, which he had challenged on the podcast by saying, “You’re not asking questions. You’re telling people something.” In the interview, he expanded on this, arguing that Rogan’s curiosity, while genuine, doesn’t absolve him of the consequences of platforming figures like Cooper and Carroll. “When you give a million-person audience to someone who says Churchill was worse than Hitler, you’re not just asking a question,” Murray said. “You’re legitimizing a narrative that can lead people down a very dark path.”

He also addressed the broader “podcast-bro ecosystem,” a term used by UnHerd to describe the bubble of podcasters and YouTubers who often treat pseudoscience, junk history, and conspiracy theories as “forbidden knowledge.”

Murray agreed with this characterization, noting that such platforms create an echo chamber where fringe ideas are celebrated as rebellious truths. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I’m just a comedian,’ or ‘I’m just asking questions,’” he said. “If you have the kind of influence Joe has, you have to think about the impact of your choices. Ferreting out truth requires discernment, not just curiosity.”

Murray’s Vision: A Path Forward

Looking ahead, Murray called for a more balanced approach to public discourse, one that respects free speech but prioritizes responsibility. He suggested that platforms like Rogan’s could benefit from featuring a wider range of voices, not just anti-establishment ones, but also those with deep expertise and firsthand experience.

“I’m not saying Joe should only have PhDs on his show,” he said with a laugh. “But if you’re going to talk about the Israel-Hamas conflict, why not have someone who’s been there, who’s seen it, alongside someone who hasn’t? Let the audience hear both perspectives and decide for themselves.”

Murray also reflected on his own role in the debate, acknowledging that his tone on the podcast may have come across as overly combative. “I’m passionate about these issues because I’ve seen the consequences of misinformation firsthand,” he said. “I’ve been in war zones. I’ve interviewed survivors of atrocities. When I hear someone say Churchill was the bad guy, or that the Holocaust didn’t happen the way we know it did, it’s not just an academic debate for me, it’s personal.”

He expressed hope that the controversy would spark a broader conversation about the role of media in the digital age, urging both creators and consumers to approach information with a critical eye.

A Legacy of Confrontation

Murray’s response to the Rogan controversy is consistent with his career-long commitment to challenging what he sees as dangerous narratives. From his early work on immigration and Islam in The Strange Death of Europe to his recent defense of Israel in On Democracies and Death Cults, Murray has never shied away from controversy.

His appearance on Rogan’s podcast, and his subsequent reflections, cement his reputation as a polarizing yet principled figure, one who believes that truth requires not just the freedom to speak, but the courage to confront falsehoods, even at the risk of backlash. He's a force for good, and it's both easy and convenient to paint him as elitist and out of touch, when he defends Israel.