You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with.
When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.
People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog:
I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.
I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see that kind of change on his side. He had many controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify. He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700 episodes.
The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure to point at and demonize.
When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.