Why Lex Fridman?
Questioning why anyone should take the man-o-verse podcasters seriously
Male podcasters are doing to Millennial and Gen Z audiences what Fox News did to Baby Boomers. They are controlling narratives and suppressing critical thinking. One of the worst offenders is Lex Fridman.
Lex seems innocent enough. He’s a computer scientist who is loosely affiliated with MIT, although he appears primarily dedicated to podcasting and lives full-time in Austin, Texas (not Cambridge). I first discovered Lex when he almost exclusively focused on artificial intelligence and other technology-related topics four-plus years ago.
The Lex Fridman of more recent years wades into anything and everything, from economics and health to politics and even an ayahuasca trip. He’s basically a more refined, subdued, and educated version of Joe Rogan.
But there’s a fundamental issue with his broad subject matter scope for the millions who listen to him. It’s the same issue that afflicts the massive audiences of Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and every other male comedian with a podcast.
There are no editors or producers with the power to fact-check or reasonably ensure accuracy and balanced perspectives. The result is a deluge of bias masquerading as, “We’re just having an open conversation” or “I’m just letting my guests talk.”
Publications like The New York Times or CNN certainly have biases, but the cure for that disease should not be worse than the disease itself. We’ve gone from questioning the credibility of entire newsrooms and experienced journalists to placing our trust in random dudes with microphones.
To be fair to these podcasters, they often invite guests from all parts of the political spectrum and from all corners of the various disciplines they discuss (academia, industry, finance, technology, etc.). The problem, however, is that none of them are trained or adequately equipped with their small teams to counter bias, misinformation, or blatant lies from guests. Their whole “let the guests talk” approach (to appear neutral and unbiased) is a breeding ground for spreading lies, which are then supercharged by social media.
It’s important to remember too that their small teams work at the pleasure of their hosts, making it highly unlikely that someone like Jamie (Joe Rogan’s long-time producer) would ever make aggressive efforts to check Rogan’s many ridiculous claims. Rogan’s long history of wild, baseless statements is evidence enough.
Lex Fridman suffers from similar challenges. There is nobody with enough power to check him, aside from the network of podcasters and technology elites whom he never criticizes. Look hard enough and you’ll find that all of these guys show up on each other’s podcasts, assist one another with marketing, and they all pray at the altar of Elon Musk.
For example, when Andrew Huberman, the well-known health podcaster, had a series of concerning allegations made against him by multiple women, Lex Fridman rushed to his defense immediately (without reserving any space for these women potentially having legitimate claims). Both men have been on each other’s podcasts numerous times.
Lex takes similar defensive actions for Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. I have never heard him say anything even slightly critical of either person. That’s despite his often-stated goals of finding truth and promoting love, aspirations that Musk in particular increasingly fails to achieve the more political he becomes.
It should therefore surprise nobody that all of these men were invited to Donald Trump’s inauguration and the parties thereafter. Or that Lex Fridman and others have applied for press passes to Trump’s new administration.
Trump should get all the credit for knowing who commands attention in the modern era. He appeared on countless podcasts and YouTube channels in the months leading up to the 2024 election; a point I raised multiple times and warned that if Kamala Harris didn’t do the same, she would lose.
Lex Fridman, of course, interviewed Trump and tossed softballs at the convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, and many times bankrupt presidential candidate (he asked about none of those topics). Joe Rogan did the same, ultimately endorsing Trump on a podcast Rogan had with Elon Musk the day before the election.
All of these guys rail against the “elites” in society, but the irony is that they are the new mainstream media. They are the new media “elites” who command the attention of millions and set the narratives and dialogues with their questions. Especially with young men who live online.
So how should we be thinking of Lex Fridman and his fellow man-o-verse podcasters in this brave new world? It starts by understanding who Lex Fridman is, including his limitations.
Who is Lex Fridman?
His website claims that he’s a Research Scientist who hosts a podcast. Although it doesn’t appear he’s posted anything for MIT since 2020. He has a one-line biography on the school’s website and that’s it.
Lex does have a PhD from Drexel University (where his father was and his brother currently is a professor), but his academic record is sparse for someone advertising themselves as a “Research Scientist.” He also does not appear to be part of a research group at MIT let alone leading one. Lex has given some lectures at MIT, but lecturer jobs are not necessarily difficult to get, although the MIT affiliation looks fancy to anyone not in the higher education world.
One notable study that Lex Fridman did conduct, but never had peer-reviewed, was on Tesla Autopilot. Lex concluded that drivers using semi-autonomous vehicles stayed focused, which countered the bulk of established research on how humans interact with automated systems. Lex’s study caught the attention of Elon Musk, who later appeared on an early Lex podcast in 2019 (to promote Lex’s findings).
The rest is history. Musk has been on Lex’s podcast multiple times since, helping it reach millions of listeners per episode. So it’s easy to forget the fact that many respected academics, most notably Missy Cummings, criticized Lex’s Tesla study and argued it wouldn’t withstand peer review. And to forget the fact that MIT eventually removed Lex’s study from its website in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
None of that mattered because Lex Fridman was off to the races with his podcast. Joe Rogan was soon promoting him. They still go on each other’s podcasts regularly.
Tech CEOs and other business leaders followed. It was likely viewed as a less adversarial forum than any interview hosted by traditional journalists.
But as we’ve seen lately with Lex Fridman’s podcast, that’s precisely the problem. His veneer of neutrality and his nonstop promotion of “love”, hide a darker imbalance. They shield people from directly seeing someone more obsessed with his fame than the truth.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the series of podcasts Lex Fridman has done on the Ukraine War.
Why do people listen to Lex Fridman’s podcast on topics like politics and history?
I get why technologists might listen to Lex Fridman. As I stated earlier, I was first drawn to his podcast because I was trying to learn more about artificial intelligence and technological innovation. While he may not be a leading academic in the field, he has led helpful discussions with guests who have those accolades.
But why people don’t question Lex Fridman and other man-o-verse podcasters like him on non-science and technology topics is baffling to me. A while back I wrote a reaction piece to Lex’s interview with John Mearsheimer, one of the few academics in the West who has criticized practically everyone for the Ukraine War except Putin and Russia. It was the first time I noticed that Lex might have an agenda.
He failed to counter Mearsheimer’s two main points: (i) Putin was not interested in conquering all of Ukraine, and (ii) NATO expansionism was the cause of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Defenders of Lex (and the Rogan style of podcasting) will argue that Mearsheimer and other guests would never agree to a podcast where they face “gotcha” questions. They go on Lex, Rogan, and similar podcasts because they don’t want adversarial forums. They want to have an open “conversation.”
But as I argued at the time, there’s a big difference between “gotcha” questions and simply asking controversial guests like Mearsheimer to clarify their positions in the context of common criticism. “What would you say to your critics, Professor Mearsheimer, who argue that NATO expansionism was not the reason for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?”
By avoiding “gotcha” questions and any critical questions whatsoever, Lex tried to convey an aura of neutrality, when in reality Mearsheimer dictated the terms of the discussion. Contrast that interview with the more recent discussion Lex had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Lex was critical of Zelensky from the start, all the while fawning over the likes of Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and even Vladimir Putin (who he’s stated he also hopes to interview). Where he held back on Mearsheimer, he pressed hard on Zelensky, even asking about security guarantees he could give to Putin.
This eventually led Zelensky to say: “There’s only one country that violated international law and the sovereignty of their neighbor: Russia.”
It should be clear to anyone listening to Lex Fridman and other man-o-verse podcasters, that these guys have limitations. They can find themselves out of their depth especially when it comes to complex geopolitical conflicts with deep historical roots.
Understand the limitations of Lex Fridman and others
We are in the midst of a critical-thinking crisis. Generations of young people in particular are handing the keys to their thought processes over to men with microphones. Traditional media may struggle with its own set of biases, but it’s incredible to think some would prefer the opinions and worldviews of one person who has practically nobody checking their work.
This is especially true in matters of foreign policy and geopolitics. Public opinion matters on these topics, and when those opinions are being shaped by questions from the likes of Lex Fridman, it’s a recipe for trouble.
I’m not advocating for cancel culture. Listen to Lex Fridman, Joe Rogan, and others if you so choose, but understand what you’re signing up for. Don’t let the promotion of neutrality and “love” fool you.
These podcasts are businesses after all. They need business and political support to thrive. Imagine where Lex Fridman would be had Elon Musk not appeared on his artificial intelligence podcast in 2019.
A classic illustration of the famous Charlie Munger quote: “Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.”
We must be more vigilant than ever before in the modern-day media environment. If someone like Lex Fridman is not challenging a guest—especially when we know he has it in him with the likes of Zelensky—we should ask why. If he’s never criticizing or questioning people like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Andrew Huberman, or Donald Trump, we should ask why.
Podcasts may be an alternative to traditional media. But that doesn’t guarantee it is always better, more informed, or free from malincentives. If anything, Lex Fridman has proven it.
On a lighter note…
Food can be political. But also comforting and nourishing. It’s freezing here in NYC, so I made Ukrainian Borscht. So satisfying and delicious.