I apologize but I have to comment on another story in the New York Times over the holiday weekend.

The Times took on the popular podcaster Joe Rogan suggesting that he is invincible to the woke crowd. Here is a the writer’s nut graph on Rogan, which has more switch backs than an alpine road.

Mr. Rogan, 53, is one of the most consumed media products on the planet — with the power to shape tastes, politics, medical decisions — a fact well-known to legions of men under 40, nonsensical to the many Rogan-unaware over 50 and befuddling, by his own admission, to the man himself. His podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” is effectively a series of wandering conversations, often over whiskey and weed, on topics including but not limited to: comedy, cage-fighting, psychedelics, quantum mechanics and the political excesses of the left. The show was licensed to Spotify last year in an estimated $100 million deal, boosted by a conceit that can at times seem self-fulfilling: The host is dangerous, at least in the way that comedians like to be dangerous. He should probably not be taken at face value, except when he should, and the discerning listener should be trusted to tell the difference. And if the establishment had its way, Mr. Rogan would surely be chastened, “canceled,” reeled in.

While Rogan — like many Americans — considers himself liberal on many social issues, he is also pro Second Amendment and staunchly against “woke culture”, which probably provoked this scorching bio in the Times.

Rogan reportedly netted $100 million licensing contract with Spotify for his 12-year-old podcast that started in his home interviewing fellow comedians, but is now a much valued venue for little-know authors and scientists.

The profile by Matt Flegenheimer attempts take Rogan down a couple of notches, but falls very short of succeeding in the endeavor since no one close to Rogan would talk critically with the writer.

After reading the piece and also being a long-time listener to Rogan’s podcast, it’s my opinion that this article did not come from a place where the writer wanted to inform readers about Rogan. It was more of a warning about dealing with most Americans who don’t fit into the left/right paradigm.

What the writer — and the Times by extension — fail to see is that Rogan’s 100 million monthly viewers have little faith in the mainstream media and are attracted to unbiased long-form discussions on the events of the day.

What is new with Rogan’s podcast is that it would not surprise me to see Flegenheimer being invited on as a guest to discuss the piece.