Some rely on subscriptions, like the NYT or The Athletic, but in general yeah it’s pretty hard to stay afloat without selling ads or sponsored content.
Some rely on subscriptions, like the NYT or The Athletic, but in general yeah it’s pretty hard to stay afloat without selling ads or sponsored content.
I would argue that public radio hasn't been very successful for years - its' listener numbers have been steady over time and maybe increased with COVID but I wouldn't say it's truly successful....
I would argue that public radio hasn't been very successful for years - its' listener numbers have been steady over time and maybe increased with COVID but I wouldn't say it's truly successful. Outside of specific social circles, it's uncommon to find people who regularly listen to a public radio station. Also, unless you are in a country that has decent amounts of government funding for public radio, chances are there are incorporated advertisements. The rise of the internet/podcasts brought about the death of many crappy/underperforming radio stations which made the rest thrive (from sponsorship and some people moving to other existing stations). The problem for me is that advertising didn't disappear (it can't) but instead advertisers had to pay more to get in-show advertising because people didn't want to listen to overt advertising. Youtube moved the same way when youtube yanked out direct funding for channels and made all advertising revenue go directly to them. Look at how many big/smaller channels in the first 2 minutes will make a big post about 'and now it's time to thank our sponsor....' or 'you should really check out this...' or even worse 'this company didn't pay me, but they gave me this product for free to review....'
Radio just helped to evolve that sort of advertising. Some were overt, some less so (like in putting on contests/events that had their sponsors publicly advertising as 'having sponsored this event')
I listen to public radio all the time and they have nearly as many ads as any other commercial radio station. It's just that on public radio, they call them "sponsors" and then also ask you to...
I listen to public radio all the time and they have nearly as many ads as any other commercial radio station. It's just that on public radio, they call them "sponsors" and then also ask you to donate.
Public radio content still better than commercial radio content though.
What? No they don't. They spend two or three minutes an hour on those, and then proceed to identify any sponsor as a sponsor whenever they comment on them. That's transparency.
What?
No they don't. They spend two or three minutes an hour on those, and then proceed to identify any sponsor as a sponsor whenever they comment on them. That's transparency.
I made the same observation that @ZeroDarkRainbow did: it is extremely ironic and more than coincidental that a video warning us about the dark funding of certain media outlets... ends with a paid...
I made the same observation that @ZeroDarkRainbow did: it is extremely ironic and more than coincidental that a video warning us about the dark funding of certain media outlets... ends with a paid advertisement for a tool that promotes media literacy.
I wouldn't have batted an eye if this video about distorted media had contained a paid promotion for a new email client or a VPN service or a meal preparation company (which I saw in another video posted recently on Tildes). That's just necessary sponsorship, paying the bills.
But when the sponsor's interests exactly align with the message of the video they're sponsoring... well, let's just say that a paid media literacy tool like the one sponsoring this video would tell us to be suspicious about the motives of both the sponsor and the presenter.
Eh, paying a creator to make a video on a specific topic related to the sponsor is not that crazy. If the sponsorship was not disclosed, that would be a lot more troubling. At the end of the day,...
Eh, paying a creator to make a video on a specific topic related to the sponsor is not that crazy. If the sponsorship was not disclosed, that would be a lot more troubling. At the end of the day, content creators need to pay the bills, as long as sponsorships are disclosed I don't see a moral problem with it.
It might not be morally wrong to make a video about biassed news, and then promote a media literacy tool off the back of that. However, it does bring the integrity of the video and its presenter...
It might not be morally wrong to make a video about biassed news, and then promote a media literacy tool off the back of that. However, it does bring the integrity of the video and its presenter into question, and it raises legitimate concerns about the motives of the sponsor and the video producer.
I know I trust the video presenter a lot less, based on the fact that he was funded by a sponsor that benefited from what he said.
Disclaimer: I am a long-time viewer of this channel and am highly biased in their favor. This argument would hold more weight were it not for how well this video fits in with the author's existing...
Disclaimer: I am a long-time viewer of this channel and am highly biased in their favor.
This argument would hold more weight were it not for how well this video fits in with the author's existing views both past and present — they've had a long trend of anticapitalism, and this lines up perfectly with that. Combined with the fact that this video is largely just a deeper dive into something most people here likely already understand (i.e. right-wing outlets receive a lot of money from rich people), and I don't think we need to worry much about trustworthiness, as lying here would be very unlikely.
Personally, I think the important questions in scenarios like this are twofold: First, are the ideas being promoted harmful to society? Second, is there anything unethical about the sponsoring company itself, or any other issues with taking this particular sponsorship? Personally, I don't see any problems of that ilk in this at all – though, granted, I'm not familiar with the sponsoring company at all – so while the topical relevance of the sponsorship is certainly eye-catching, I don't think it's an issue.
I figured he's sincere in his views. However, by taking that particular sponsorship for this particular video, he shows a massive lack of judgement, and he severely undermines his own credibility.
I figured he's sincere in his views. However, by taking that particular sponsorship for this particular video, he shows a massive lack of judgement, and he severely undermines his own credibility.
Anticapitalists typically still need to buy food and pay rent. You can (more) directly support the creator on Nebula or on Patreon to avoid seeing such sponsorships though.
Anticapitalists typically still need to buy food and pay rent. You can (more) directly support the creator on Nebula or on Patreon to avoid seeing such sponsorships though.
Right, but come on. It's unprincipled at best. There's no one forcing people to put food on the table by literally shilling for a concept they are publicly denouncing.
Right, but come on. It's unprincipled at best. There's no one forcing people to put food on the table by literally shilling for a concept they are publicly denouncing.
It's not possible to exist in the world today without participating in capitalism. It is everywhere, like it or not, so an anticapitalist participating in it is not hypocritical — they have no...
It's not possible to exist in the world today without participating in capitalism. It is everywhere, like it or not, so an anticapitalist participating in it is not hypocritical — they have no choice. Likewise, accepting a sponsorship is fine itself; saying something positive about a specific corporation is not the same as saying something positive about capitalism wholesale.
Besides, leftists do not receive huge grants of donor money from rich financiers, and so have far more limited options for acquiring the money necessary to support channels like this. Asking someone to create work like this author has, at the rate they have, with the quality and effort it takes, without the funding necessary to pay the people who do it, is ridiculous.
Could they try to reach people other ways? Sure, and many do, but obsessive devotion to principle in all things is not only untenable, but frequently suicidal to the efficacy of a cause. As I said, capitalism is everywhere, so if we wanted, we could argue the only way to be a true anticapitalist would be to disengage from society entirely. I shouldn't need to explain just how many ways that would kneecap someone even before considering the effect it would have on their attempts to spread their ideas.
I‘m just responding to the comment you wrote. I wasn’t aware of this sponsor when I watched the video because I saw the sponsor-free cut, but especially if the sponsor is disclosed at the end of...
I‘m just responding to the comment you wrote. I wasn’t aware of this sponsor when I watched the video because I saw the sponsor-free cut, but especially if the sponsor is disclosed at the end of the video I do still think it’s in poor taste. At the beginning, I don’t particularly mind since you know what you’re getting yourself into.
My response was more towards the “no true scotsman” part of your comment though, obviously anticapitalists living in a capitalist society have to play the game to some degree. If your job as an anticapitalist is making free video content, you’re gonna wind up promoting corporations.
I was definitely not making a No True Scotsman argument. I was saying that there are other jobs you can do if you feel so strongly about it that you're going to make it your persona.
I was definitely not making a No True Scotsman argument. I was saying that there are other jobs you can do if you feel so strongly about it that you're going to make it your persona.
I just made a comment questioning an anticapitalist's motives for promoting a corporation, but would you have this same response if a media literacy tool made their own video about this topic? How...
I just made a comment questioning an anticapitalist's motives for promoting a corporation, but would you have this same response if a media literacy tool made their own video about this topic? How is it significantly different to essentially hire a contractor to do it for you?
This seems, to me, one of the most important topics we face in modern society. I would love to see more posts and discussions on the people behind these organizations and those who are organizing...
spending millions to create shell media companies and astroturf organizations, to shape public beliefs and animosity, to influence public policy, to make billions
This seems, to me, one of the most important topics we face in modern society. I would love to see more posts and discussions on the people behind these organizations and those who are organizing resistance to the problem. Not surprisingly, resistance is not profitable, but I would think (hope) that there are a lot of people motivated by the common good who would be willing to support a well organized resistance.
Because conservative values are highly correlated with religiosity, and in the US particularly evangelical Christianity, a main feature of which is evangelizing, i.e., spreading the 'word.' Check...
Because conservative values are highly correlated with religiosity, and in the US particularly evangelical Christianity, a main feature of which is evangelizing, i.e., spreading the 'word.'
Check out the Divided Dial podcast series, it does a really good job breaking down the history of right wing talk radio in America.
There is an audience that is willing to have money removed from their pockets. Possibly not entirely on topic, but Alex Goldman (of Reply All fame) wrote something about the future of news and...
There is an audience that is willing to have money removed from their pockets.
Possibly not entirely on topic, but Alex Goldman (of Reply All fame) wrote something about the future of news and near the end of his article he mentions something that Matt Yglacias gave as advice for aspiring writers (start out as a heterodox conservative, build an audience, then pivot to something else).
I'm sure that part of it is similar to flat earth vs round earth media. People just accept that the earth is round so there isn't a need to beat drums about it constantly. There is no need to go...
I'm sure that part of it is similar to flat earth vs round earth media.
People just accept that the earth is round so there isn't a need to beat drums about it constantly. There is no need to go tilting at windmills. What money is to be made from a headling like 'Scientists still believe the earth is round!"?
Flat earthers, on the other hand, need to rail against "the system" and talk about how oppressed they are to anyone and everyone. This is something that can be monetized. People will read an article with a headline like "10 Ways to Prove the Earth is Flat". Whether the eyes belong to a believer or someone scoffing at the flat earth media doesn't matter--an ad impression is an ad impression.
It's the same with right wing media and media in general. I could never get over how many outlets gave time to right wingers complaining about how they were being silenced. Yes, please tell me AGAIN how you're being silenced while you're are giving no less than 10+ different interviews to 6 different major TV channels, radio stations, newspaper articles as well as online news outlets and social media accounts all while holding press conferences and public speaking engagements about it..
I suppose the difference in that reporting was that right wing media beat that drum significantly more than a left leaning source. A left leaning source might have aired a clip about it a few times a day while a right wing outlet would have had it every hour on the hour.
I'm sure another part of it is orginization. I hear the same right wing talking points from my Trumper co-worker, my parents and my fiance's mom and dad--and none of them talk or interact with each other.
Outraged people have a commonality that can be directed and harnessed and the right wing media uses this to their advantage. Compare the COVID lockdown protests where they went into state capitols with their AR-15s vs Occupy Wall Street. If you asked 15 people at a COVID protest what solutions they were seeking they had relatively common answers (We want hair cuts! We want our freedom back!) but if you asked 15 different Occupy Wall Street protestors the same question you'd likely get 10 different answers (everything from full socialism to tighter banking regulations). Even BLM protestors had different answers and motivations. (Ironically, it isn't lost on me that media bias could have played a part in that.) A splintered cause is easier to pick apart by marginalizing the more outlandish supporters and/or put factions against each other like a crab bucket.
Who is easier to market to: the unified faction or the bucket of crabs? Who is easier to make money off of, influence and therefor gain power from when money=more power and more power=more money?
Yes - you can equally well ask "why do people believe in astrology" or "why do people believe that they have been abducted by aliens". I think something that is missed on the left is that (most)...
Yes - you can equally well ask "why do people believe in astrology" or "why do people believe that they have been abducted by aliens".
I think something that is missed on the left is that (most) humans have emotions and do want to feel things. Rejecting right-wing ideas (e.g. white nationalism, sexism, etc.) as "bUt ItS noT RATioNAL" – although technically true – doesn't really address the underlying problem. This is not to say that we should indulge people in their fantasies, but that it is necessary to offer them a compelling alternative.
I think the quote goes something like "you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into". I can't help but think that offering them a compelling alternative won't...
I think the quote goes something like "you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".
I can't help but think that offering them a compelling alternative won't budge someone who is not operating on logic or critical thinking. So, as you say, that's not rational to me at all. How else are you supposed to address the underlying problem without logic or reason other than emotional manipulation?
My soon to be mother in law is an election denier. Not hardcore but enough. I've tried to logic with her and her response is "It just feels like something 'they' would do.." She doesn't know who 'they' are or how they did it.
She agrees with me when I pointed out that 2 people couldn't keep a blowjob a secret in arguably one of the most secure rooms in the world. She agrees that people like to talk. Yet "it just feels like something 'they' would do.." when asked how potentially thousands of people in this conspiracy have all kept quiet.
She agrees that their lawyers provided no proof in front of judges (judges that their side selected and put on the bench mind you) yet they also crowed constantly about how much proof they have in interviews and could never produced any of these open and shut proof claims. She agrees when I point out that if you have the facts on your side you argue in a courtroom and when you don't have facts on your side you argue in the court of public opinion. Yet "it just feels like something 'they' would do.."
There is one thing I can think that might make a difference: travel and interacting with more people. I believe Mark Twain put it best:
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.
However, I would add that traveling young is key. That is the reason that people who go to college/universities tend to come back more liberal. They have classes with, party with and maybe even room with "those" people they were always told about. Come to find out, people are just people. On the whole most just want a hassle free day and are pretty giving. They learn that assholes are assholes--regardless of race or economical status or any other factor.
Thing is, it is hard to reason with some one who wants to believe the lie. But... they have shown that if you want to change some one's mind who is hard set on believing something, first of all it...
Thing is, it is hard to reason with some one who wants to believe the lie. But... they have shown that if you want to change some one's mind who is hard set on believing something, first of all it will not be an instant change. But what you want to do is empathize with them and at least appear to look to try to be wanting to understand their opinion. Then you gotta ask questions that will lead them to have to think about their own position (but without them realizing what you are doing. People who want to believe in something will instantly get defensive soon as they realize you don't agree and are trying to change them). You have to get them to start actually truly thinking about their position (and leading them to better logic by letting them come up with it themselves) without realizing that you don't agree with their position cause soon as you do that, they'll double down on their position and refuse to actually think about it.
But it's a slow process and not something you are going to do with a stranger. Then again, I can't do it with my parents cause they know I completely disagree with them so they'd see through me acting like I was interested in their POV. But I did see my cousin's fiance do this with my dad (who didn't know him well enough at the time) and get my dad to at least admit that we need to take care of the environment (my dad definitely thinks global warming is a hoax and will just change his position if there is no way he can argue one.... like now he says we have no proof it was humans doing it where as before he outright would deny it was even happening). He didn't get him to accept global warming but at least to accept we need to take care of the environment... which is still something. But that was hours of him questioning my dad and acting interested in what my dad had to say without letting on his own opinion (and my dad is stubbern... once he decides he is right he will find any sort of logic to keep insisting he is right even if you outright prove him wrong). And now that my dad knows him better I don't think it would work.
And I admit, I can't do this. I don't have the patience nor can I keep my face from showing when I think some one is speaking bonkers. It's not something everyone can do. But it's been shown the best way to lead people who are believing in a lie (especially one they want to believe in) to question it and get out of it. And in general people who are invested in their beliefs will not change overnight... it happens over time with them starting to question their own beliefs and maybe seeing more and more evidence over time that maybe that belief is wrong. But you have to get them to question it first. If they won't do that they won't listen to any sort of logic or facts, we are very good at lieing to ourselves.
The thing is that my parents agree with me on everything but the conclusion. They'll agree that the problem is "What is 1+2" but that the solution is "=5" I was talking to my mom and she started...
But it's a slow process and not something you are going to do with a stranger. Then again, I can't do it with my parents cause they know I completely disagree with them so they'd see through me acting like I was interested in their POV.
The thing is that my parents agree with me on everything but the conclusion. They'll agree that the problem is "What is 1+2" but that the solution is "=5"
I was talking to my mom and she started talking about how dangerous it is to go shopping anymore in our area. I asked if she, or anyone she knows, has ever been mugged, been shot/shot at, had an altercation or even cross words with someone in a store? She said no. I asked if there have been any local articles about anyone she doesn't know having any such issues? She said no. So, in her mind, "Nobody she knows having an issue + nobody she doesn't know having an issue = totally dangerous to shop"
"Mom, I worry about my kid's being able to afford to live on their own."
"Yeah, everything is so expensive anymore!"
"I know, it's worse because every place gives part time hours but wants full time availability so its harder to get a second job."
"Yeah, people can't afford to live and that's unsustainable."
"I know, right? No wonder they don't want to have their own kids. They can't even afford themselves!"
"No OnE WaNtS tO wOrK aNyMoRe!!"
"Mom, we never had job openings for more than a day or two in our kitchen in Florida in the summer. People want to work but why would they if they still can't afford to live?"
"Well, we paid them above minimum wage, let them work full time if they wanted and let them take food home every night.."
"..."
If she wasn't so consistant in her beliefs I'd almost think she's trolling me.
To be fair I think we're also going to haev to accept some people are really lost. Like my dad and stepmom (but it's hard to accept, isn't it? Inside I'm so frustrated cause I want them to see...
To be fair I think we're also going to haev to accept some people are really lost. Like my dad and stepmom (but it's hard to accept, isn't it? Inside I'm so frustrated cause I want them to see what is really happening).
It's okayish. The guy comes off rather silly and the message gets muddled by a kind of "trust me bro" note near the end. While I agree that there is time and place for comedy, this wasn't the one...
It's okayish. The guy comes off rather silly and the message gets muddled by a kind of "trust me bro" note near the end. While I agree that there is time and place for comedy, this wasn't the one for it, and any slips give dissenters any chance to discredit the overall message.
If you're gonna make a video explaining how deep the rabbit hole goes and who exactly is responsible for what, you must plant your feet firmly and say it like it is.
Tangential to this is the how algorithms radicalize impressionable people. I highly recommend NYT podcast series, Rabbit Hole. It was done by Kevin Roose who now hosts NYT's "Hard Fork" podcast. I...
Tangential to this is the how algorithms radicalize impressionable people. I highly recommend NYT podcast series, Rabbit Hole. It was done by Kevin Roose who now hosts NYT's "Hard Fork" podcast. I found it to be a really great look into online radicalization via algorithm.
Not related to this topic, I do also recommend his two early books , Young Money and The Unlikely Disciple, as just fascinating pieces of journalism about fundy Christian education and the financial industry.
I've been working through the Rabbit Hole since yesterday. It's been quite eye-opening and has allowed me to find an opportunity for introspection. Thank you for posting about it.
I've been working through the Rabbit Hole since yesterday. It's been quite eye-opening and has allowed me to find an opportunity for introspection. Thank you for posting about it.
A lot of it (most of it?) exists purely due to no strings attached cash injections from billionaires. By no strings attached I mean they don't expect a direct monetary return. Of course they...
A lot of it (most of it?) exists purely due to no strings attached cash injections from billionaires. By no strings attached I mean they don't expect a direct monetary return. Of course they expect them to create favorable content to their ideology, but that's just assumed from the start, not enshrined in any sort of legal contract.
This is the answer (or at least the biggest reason). Billionaires know one thing that everybody else denies: propaganda works. And they're willing to pay a tiny fraction of their net worth to...
This is the answer (or at least the biggest reason). Billionaires know one thing that everybody else denies: propaganda works. And they're willing to pay a tiny fraction of their net worth to convince the rubes to act against their own best interests.
One fact that's been memory-holed is that Faux News lost money for nearly a decade after starting out. But Rupert Murdoch didn't care, b/c he knew that he was making an investment that would pay off in spades, and he was right. The vast majority of right-wing hate media operates at a loss, but their funders 1) are fascist true-believers who want to spread their poisonous ideas, and 2) know that it's an investment that pays dividends.
There is no countervailing leftist media b/c leftists generally don't have the cash to support it, and even those that do have been propagandized to not recognize at all how propaganda works and to believe in the capitalist claptrap that everything must earn a profit to be considered "successful."
I think Paul Graham answers this well (below) - not exactly your question (what's the future of journalism?) but the underlying drivers are the same. Essentially the internet expanded every media...
I think Paul Graham answers this well (below) - not exactly your question (what's the future of journalism?) but the underlying drivers are the same. Essentially the internet expanded every media player's reach - so it suddenly became viable to address very small/specific niches, instead of trying to cater to the average. That and the increased competition/noise (because everyone has this almost infinite reach) just pushed media to try harder to stand out - often by getting more and more extreme (in both directions).
Q: What's the future of what we now call journalism? Is it all Substack (a YC company)? Can we run the global-scale world with that model?
A: I worry about that. I worry that the kind of journalism I took for granted growing up was actually the result of specific conditions that have now disappeared. In particular, the "newspaper of record" that couldn't stray too far from politically neutral because they wanted to reach all the people in a particular region, both liberal and conservative, but which made so much from it that they could afford to support a thorough search for the truth.
We've got some things now that we didn't have then, like individual domain experts writing very deep explanations of things under their own names. But I worry there are some stories that might not get written now. Or that if they do, they'll be written in such a partisan way that they'll have no effect.
Is there any reliable way for current day news sources to make money without sponsors?
Some rely on subscriptions, like the NYT or The Athletic, but in general yeah it’s pretty hard to stay afloat without selling ads or sponsored content.
Public radio has done this very successfully for years.
I would argue that public radio hasn't been very successful for years - its' listener numbers have been steady over time and maybe increased with COVID but I wouldn't say it's truly successful. Outside of specific social circles, it's uncommon to find people who regularly listen to a public radio station. Also, unless you are in a country that has decent amounts of government funding for public radio, chances are there are incorporated advertisements. The rise of the internet/podcasts brought about the death of many crappy/underperforming radio stations which made the rest thrive (from sponsorship and some people moving to other existing stations). The problem for me is that advertising didn't disappear (it can't) but instead advertisers had to pay more to get in-show advertising because people didn't want to listen to overt advertising. Youtube moved the same way when youtube yanked out direct funding for channels and made all advertising revenue go directly to them. Look at how many big/smaller channels in the first 2 minutes will make a big post about 'and now it's time to thank our sponsor....' or 'you should really check out this...' or even worse 'this company didn't pay me, but they gave me this product for free to review....'
Radio just helped to evolve that sort of advertising. Some were overt, some less so (like in putting on contests/events that had their sponsors publicly advertising as 'having sponsored this event')
It’s been a minute since I’ve listened to public radio. They don’t have ads? That doesn’t sound right to me.
I listen to public radio all the time and they have nearly as many ads as any other commercial radio station. It's just that on public radio, they call them "sponsors" and then also ask you to donate.
Public radio content still better than commercial radio content though.
What?
No they don't. They spend two or three minutes an hour on those, and then proceed to identify any sponsor as a sponsor whenever they comment on them. That's transparency.
Technically they are "underwriters" and not "advertisers". But that's a pointless distinction as the relationship is essentially the same.
I made the same observation that @ZeroDarkRainbow did: it is extremely ironic and more than coincidental that a video warning us about the dark funding of certain media outlets... ends with a paid advertisement for a tool that promotes media literacy.
I wouldn't have batted an eye if this video about distorted media had contained a paid promotion for a new email client or a VPN service or a meal preparation company (which I saw in another video posted recently on Tildes). That's just necessary sponsorship, paying the bills.
But when the sponsor's interests exactly align with the message of the video they're sponsoring... well, let's just say that a paid media literacy tool like the one sponsoring this video would tell us to be suspicious about the motives of both the sponsor and the presenter.
Eh, paying a creator to make a video on a specific topic related to the sponsor is not that crazy. If the sponsorship was not disclosed, that would be a lot more troubling. At the end of the day, content creators need to pay the bills, as long as sponsorships are disclosed I don't see a moral problem with it.
It might not be morally wrong to make a video about biassed news, and then promote a media literacy tool off the back of that. However, it does bring the integrity of the video and its presenter into question, and it raises legitimate concerns about the motives of the sponsor and the video producer.
I know I trust the video presenter a lot less, based on the fact that he was funded by a sponsor that benefited from what he said.
Disclaimer: I am a long-time viewer of this channel and am highly biased in their favor.
This argument would hold more weight were it not for how well this video fits in with the author's existing views both past and present — they've had a long trend of anticapitalism, and this lines up perfectly with that. Combined with the fact that this video is largely just a deeper dive into something most people here likely already understand (i.e. right-wing outlets receive a lot of money from rich people), and I don't think we need to worry much about trustworthiness, as lying here would be very unlikely.
Personally, I think the important questions in scenarios like this are twofold: First, are the ideas being promoted harmful to society? Second, is there anything unethical about the sponsoring company itself, or any other issues with taking this particular sponsorship? Personally, I don't see any problems of that ilk in this at all – though, granted, I'm not familiar with the sponsoring company at all – so while the topical relevance of the sponsorship is certainly eye-catching, I don't think it's an issue.
I figured he's sincere in his views. However, by taking that particular sponsorship for this particular video, he shows a massive lack of judgement, and he severely undermines his own credibility.
Shouldn't that make you question their motives even more? If they're anticapitalist, why are they promoting a corporation?
Anticapitalists typically still need to buy food and pay rent. You can (more) directly support the creator on Nebula or on Patreon to avoid seeing such sponsorships though.
Right, but come on. It's unprincipled at best. There's no one forcing people to put food on the table by literally shilling for a concept they are publicly denouncing.
It's not possible to exist in the world today without participating in capitalism. It is everywhere, like it or not, so an anticapitalist participating in it is not hypocritical — they have no choice. Likewise, accepting a sponsorship is fine itself; saying something positive about a specific corporation is not the same as saying something positive about capitalism wholesale.
Besides, leftists do not receive huge grants of donor money from rich financiers, and so have far more limited options for acquiring the money necessary to support channels like this. Asking someone to create work like this author has, at the rate they have, with the quality and effort it takes, without the funding necessary to pay the people who do it, is ridiculous.
Could they try to reach people other ways? Sure, and many do, but obsessive devotion to principle in all things is not only untenable, but frequently suicidal to the efficacy of a cause. As I said, capitalism is everywhere, so if we wanted, we could argue the only way to be a true anticapitalist would be to disengage from society entirely. I shouldn't need to explain just how many ways that would kneecap someone even before considering the effect it would have on their attempts to spread their ideas.
I‘m just responding to the comment you wrote. I wasn’t aware of this sponsor when I watched the video because I saw the sponsor-free cut, but especially if the sponsor is disclosed at the end of the video I do still think it’s in poor taste. At the beginning, I don’t particularly mind since you know what you’re getting yourself into.
My response was more towards the “no true scotsman” part of your comment though, obviously anticapitalists living in a capitalist society have to play the game to some degree. If your job as an anticapitalist is making free video content, you’re gonna wind up promoting corporations.
I was definitely not making a No True Scotsman argument. I was saying that there are other jobs you can do if you feel so strongly about it that you're going to make it your persona.
I just made a comment questioning an anticapitalist's motives for promoting a corporation, but would you have this same response if a media literacy tool made their own video about this topic? How is it significantly different to essentially hire a contractor to do it for you?
No, because that would be an obvious advertisement, not a random YouTuber purporting to be independent.
This seems, to me, one of the most important topics we face in modern society. I would love to see more posts and discussions on the people behind these organizations and those who are organizing resistance to the problem. Not surprisingly, resistance is not profitable, but I would think (hope) that there are a lot of people motivated by the common good who would be willing to support a well organized resistance.
This is dangerous to our democracy
Because conservative values are highly correlated with religiosity, and in the US particularly evangelical Christianity, a main feature of which is evangelizing, i.e., spreading the 'word.'
Check out the Divided Dial podcast series, it does a really good job breaking down the history of right wing talk radio in America.
There is an audience that is willing to have money removed from their pockets.
Possibly not entirely on topic, but Alex Goldman (of Reply All fame) wrote something about the future of news and near the end of his article he mentions something that Matt Yglacias gave as advice for aspiring writers (start out as a heterodox conservative, build an audience, then pivot to something else).
I'm sure that part of it is similar to flat earth vs round earth media.
People just accept that the earth is round so there isn't a need to beat drums about it constantly. There is no need to go tilting at windmills. What money is to be made from a headling like 'Scientists still believe the earth is round!"?
Flat earthers, on the other hand, need to rail against "the system" and talk about how oppressed they are to anyone and everyone. This is something that can be monetized. People will read an article with a headline like "10 Ways to Prove the Earth is Flat". Whether the eyes belong to a believer or someone scoffing at the flat earth media doesn't matter--an ad impression is an ad impression.
It's the same with right wing media and media in general. I could never get over how many outlets gave time to right wingers complaining about how they were being silenced. Yes, please tell me AGAIN how you're being silenced while you're are giving no less than 10+ different interviews to 6 different major TV channels, radio stations, newspaper articles as well as online news outlets and social media accounts all while holding press conferences and public speaking engagements about it..
I suppose the difference in that reporting was that right wing media beat that drum significantly more than a left leaning source. A left leaning source might have aired a clip about it a few times a day while a right wing outlet would have had it every hour on the hour.
I'm sure another part of it is orginization. I hear the same right wing talking points from my Trumper co-worker, my parents and my fiance's mom and dad--and none of them talk or interact with each other.
Outraged people have a commonality that can be directed and harnessed and the right wing media uses this to their advantage. Compare the COVID lockdown protests where they went into state capitols with their AR-15s vs Occupy Wall Street. If you asked 15 people at a COVID protest what solutions they were seeking they had relatively common answers (We want hair cuts! We want our freedom back!) but if you asked 15 different Occupy Wall Street protestors the same question you'd likely get 10 different answers (everything from full socialism to tighter banking regulations). Even BLM protestors had different answers and motivations. (Ironically, it isn't lost on me that media bias could have played a part in that.) A splintered cause is easier to pick apart by marginalizing the more outlandish supporters and/or put factions against each other like a crab bucket.
Who is easier to market to: the unified faction or the bucket of crabs? Who is easier to make money off of, influence and therefor gain power from when money=more power and more power=more money?
Yes - you can equally well ask "why do people believe in astrology" or "why do people believe that they have been abducted by aliens".
I think something that is missed on the left is that (most) humans have emotions and do want to feel things. Rejecting right-wing ideas (e.g. white nationalism, sexism, etc.) as "bUt ItS noT RATioNAL" – although technically true – doesn't really address the underlying problem. This is not to say that we should indulge people in their fantasies, but that it is necessary to offer them a compelling alternative.
I think the quote goes something like "you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".
I can't help but think that offering them a compelling alternative won't budge someone who is not operating on logic or critical thinking. So, as you say, that's not rational to me at all. How else are you supposed to address the underlying problem without logic or reason other than emotional manipulation?
My soon to be mother in law is an election denier. Not hardcore but enough. I've tried to logic with her and her response is "It just feels like something 'they' would do.." She doesn't know who 'they' are or how they did it.
She agrees with me when I pointed out that 2 people couldn't keep a blowjob a secret in arguably one of the most secure rooms in the world. She agrees that people like to talk. Yet "it just feels like something 'they' would do.." when asked how potentially thousands of people in this conspiracy have all kept quiet.
She agrees that their lawyers provided no proof in front of judges (judges that their side selected and put on the bench mind you) yet they also crowed constantly about how much proof they have in interviews and could never produced any of these open and shut proof claims. She agrees when I point out that if you have the facts on your side you argue in a courtroom and when you don't have facts on your side you argue in the court of public opinion. Yet "it just feels like something 'they' would do.."
There is one thing I can think that might make a difference: travel and interacting with more people. I believe Mark Twain put it best:
However, I would add that traveling young is key. That is the reason that people who go to college/universities tend to come back more liberal. They have classes with, party with and maybe even room with "those" people they were always told about. Come to find out, people are just people. On the whole most just want a hassle free day and are pretty giving. They learn that assholes are assholes--regardless of race or economical status or any other factor.
Thing is, it is hard to reason with some one who wants to believe the lie. But... they have shown that if you want to change some one's mind who is hard set on believing something, first of all it will not be an instant change. But what you want to do is empathize with them and at least appear to look to try to be wanting to understand their opinion. Then you gotta ask questions that will lead them to have to think about their own position (but without them realizing what you are doing. People who want to believe in something will instantly get defensive soon as they realize you don't agree and are trying to change them). You have to get them to start actually truly thinking about their position (and leading them to better logic by letting them come up with it themselves) without realizing that you don't agree with their position cause soon as you do that, they'll double down on their position and refuse to actually think about it.
But it's a slow process and not something you are going to do with a stranger. Then again, I can't do it with my parents cause they know I completely disagree with them so they'd see through me acting like I was interested in their POV. But I did see my cousin's fiance do this with my dad (who didn't know him well enough at the time) and get my dad to at least admit that we need to take care of the environment (my dad definitely thinks global warming is a hoax and will just change his position if there is no way he can argue one.... like now he says we have no proof it was humans doing it where as before he outright would deny it was even happening). He didn't get him to accept global warming but at least to accept we need to take care of the environment... which is still something. But that was hours of him questioning my dad and acting interested in what my dad had to say without letting on his own opinion (and my dad is stubbern... once he decides he is right he will find any sort of logic to keep insisting he is right even if you outright prove him wrong). And now that my dad knows him better I don't think it would work.
And I admit, I can't do this. I don't have the patience nor can I keep my face from showing when I think some one is speaking bonkers. It's not something everyone can do. But it's been shown the best way to lead people who are believing in a lie (especially one they want to believe in) to question it and get out of it. And in general people who are invested in their beliefs will not change overnight... it happens over time with them starting to question their own beliefs and maybe seeing more and more evidence over time that maybe that belief is wrong. But you have to get them to question it first. If they won't do that they won't listen to any sort of logic or facts, we are very good at lieing to ourselves.
The thing is that my parents agree with me on everything but the conclusion. They'll agree that the problem is "What is 1+2" but that the solution is "=5"
I was talking to my mom and she started talking about how dangerous it is to go shopping anymore in our area. I asked if she, or anyone she knows, has ever been mugged, been shot/shot at, had an altercation or even cross words with someone in a store? She said no. I asked if there have been any local articles about anyone she doesn't know having any such issues? She said no. So, in her mind, "Nobody she knows having an issue + nobody she doesn't know having an issue = totally dangerous to shop"
"Mom, I worry about my kid's being able to afford to live on their own."
"Yeah, everything is so expensive anymore!"
"I know, it's worse because every place gives part time hours but wants full time availability so its harder to get a second job."
"Yeah, people can't afford to live and that's unsustainable."
"I know, right? No wonder they don't want to have their own kids. They can't even afford themselves!"
"No OnE WaNtS tO wOrK aNyMoRe!!"
"Mom, we never had job openings for more than a day or two in our kitchen in Florida in the summer. People want to work but why would they if they still can't afford to live?"
"Well, we paid them above minimum wage, let them work full time if they wanted and let them take food home every night.."
"..."
If she wasn't so consistant in her beliefs I'd almost think she's trolling me.
To be fair I think we're also going to haev to accept some people are really lost. Like my dad and stepmom (but it's hard to accept, isn't it? Inside I'm so frustrated cause I want them to see what is really happening).
It's okayish. The guy comes off rather silly and the message gets muddled by a kind of "trust me bro" note near the end. While I agree that there is time and place for comedy, this wasn't the one for it, and any slips give dissenters any chance to discredit the overall message.
If you're gonna make a video explaining how deep the rabbit hole goes and who exactly is responsible for what, you must plant your feet firmly and say it like it is.
Tangential to this is the how algorithms radicalize impressionable people. I highly recommend NYT podcast series, Rabbit Hole. It was done by Kevin Roose who now hosts NYT's "Hard Fork" podcast. I found it to be a really great look into online radicalization via algorithm.
Not related to this topic, I do also recommend his two early books , Young Money and The Unlikely Disciple, as just fascinating pieces of journalism about fundy Christian education and the financial industry.
I've been working through the Rabbit Hole since yesterday. It's been quite eye-opening and has allowed me to find an opportunity for introspection. Thank you for posting about it.
A lot of it (most of it?) exists purely due to no strings attached cash injections from billionaires. By no strings attached I mean they don't expect a direct monetary return. Of course they expect them to create favorable content to their ideology, but that's just assumed from the start, not enshrined in any sort of legal contract.
This is the answer (or at least the biggest reason). Billionaires know one thing that everybody else denies: propaganda works. And they're willing to pay a tiny fraction of their net worth to convince the rubes to act against their own best interests.
One fact that's been memory-holed is that Faux News lost money for nearly a decade after starting out. But Rupert Murdoch didn't care, b/c he knew that he was making an investment that would pay off in spades, and he was right. The vast majority of right-wing hate media operates at a loss, but their funders 1) are fascist true-believers who want to spread their poisonous ideas, and 2) know that it's an investment that pays dividends.
There is no countervailing leftist media b/c leftists generally don't have the cash to support it, and even those that do have been propagandized to not recognize at all how propaganda works and to believe in the capitalist claptrap that everything must earn a profit to be considered "successful."
I think Paul Graham answers this well (below) - not exactly your question (what's the future of journalism?) but the underlying drivers are the same. Essentially the internet expanded every media player's reach - so it suddenly became viable to address very small/specific niches, instead of trying to cater to the average. That and the increased competition/noise (because everyone has this almost infinite reach) just pushed media to try harder to stand out - often by getting more and more extreme (in both directions).
original interview: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/pr-interviews-paul-graham