Plenty of questions remain around Democrats’ election loss. What seems beyond dispute, however, is that the Republican candidate got a big boost from appearing on—and being otherwise ">supported by—a loose network of simpatico podcasters.
According to a recent study from Pew Research Center, 37% of adults under 30 regularly get news from influencers, with slightly more news influencers explicitly identifying as conservative rather than liberal. But there’s nothing slight about the difference in impact between the two sides when it comes to podcasting. Trump’s &t=2906s">Joe Rogan appearance got 51 million views on YouTube; the most publicized of Harris’s pod visits, Alex Cooper’s "> Call Her Daddy, racked up a relatively paltry 893,000. Meanwhile, Spotify’s podcast charts are teeming with MAGA-friendly all-stars like Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk, with no equivalent cluster of popular counterpoints. (The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart and Pod Save America currently hover just outside the top 10, though.)
Is it possible for Democrats to build a level of influence in the podcast space to rival Trump’s? Fast Company put the question to six podcasters representing a wide spectrum of non-conservative views. (Some are, shall we say, more hopeful than others.)
David Pakman, host of The David Pakman Show, a daily progressive political talk show available both as a podcast and on YouTube:
One of the big advantages for the right is that they’ve infiltrated nonpolitical spaces which are now coded with reactionary views that lend themselves inherently to supporting Trump. Fitness influencers, entrepreneurship gurus, dating advice channels, gaming live streamers, and the “manosphere” often push right wing ideas less overtly. These are massive audiences that get coded with right-wing ideology without even realizing it.
So really, a lot of people just don’t listen to shows like mine—no matter what I say, it won’t convince people outside the slice of those that consume news and politics content. That means moving beyond just political commentary and tapping into the broader culture. Podcasts about health, personal growth, relationships, or even gaming—these could all carry progressive values without being overtly political.
The right packages ideology in entertaining, emotionally resonant ways. The left has the policies, but we don’t always connect them to people’s real lives. Also, the idea of a ‘liberal Joe Rogan’ has been floated a lot since the election and I don’t want to just parrot that since it’s not really what I mean, but the right operates like an ecosystem, amplifying each other and creating a sense of community. The left lacks this right now.
Sam Adler-Bell, cohost of Know Your Enemy, a weekly podcast that examines the conservative movement from a leftist perspective:
I have no idea how to “take back” podcasting for the left. And I don’t think I particularly care about it. Many fewer people listen to our show than Joe Rogan’s because Rogan’s is more fun. (We almost never talk about DMT on our show.) For what it’s worth—nothing—I think Kamala [Harris] could’ve done great on Rogan or Theo Von or another “bro podcast.” She’s a fun person! And she has implied that she used to smoke weed. Generally, I think Democrats should worry less about what podcasts people listen to. And anyway, I can’t help. Our audience is mostly non-tenure track faculty in the humanities; they’re all already voting Dem.
Brendan James, co-creator and co-host of Blowback, a deep-dive history podcast that analyzes global conflicts involving the United States:
I don’t really promote or identify my show as “leftwing,” or whatever, even if others do. The show is certainly about history and politics—and, like anyone, my co-host and I have our politics— but it’s not a political lecture or polemic. That would bore me, and I think it would bore the audience. We’re certainly not part of some network of shows doing battle each and every week over the issues of the day. As to the heart of the question: The right-wingers have always owned talk radio. For decades, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, and all of their bastard children ruled it like kings, and still do. And the right’s utter domination of the medium made those personalities quite powerful and influential within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, in the same way that I’m sure the Ben Shapiros or Joe Rogans are influential in the current moment. That in turn creates a feedback loop of influence.
The liberals—the center-left, if you like—have never matched that in radio. Their natural turf is Hollywood and, generally speaking, the music and culture industries. And that’s no small thing (the right remains jealous of it) but it’s a very different kind of influence than talk radio’s direct political messaging. And I don’t think any recent technological shifts to podcasts or streaming have changed these dynamics. It’s all still talk radio vs. entertainment.
It is true that new formats (streaming/podcasts) have provided more exposure for the more “radical” left, or “leftists” or whatever (loathe that term). But I would guess their turf remains even smaller than liberals’. And the standard explanation rings true enough: Moneyed interests are very unlikely to pour their ill-gotten gains into a powerful out-and-out “socialist” media network that spends all day railing against moneyed interests. So, there’s no real contest over the scale of influence, whatever the electoral situation in America.
I would be curious about a grubbier question: How will the next four years change the cottage industry of left-leaning podcasts and streamers, if at all? Some may decide to lean further into the politics, the idea being that another four years of Trump will “radicalize” people and thereby grow their audience. There could be attempts by some to get more sectarian, which can make listeners feel like they’re participating in some kind of politics, in a country with a rather powerless “left.” Still others may relax their political angle to appeal to the people exhausted by everything, which could of course be seen as an admission of defeat in this supposed turf war. Or maybe some executive will have a mental breakdown and suddenly fund “The Mao Tse-Tung Hour” from Network. Then we can all make some real money.
Molly Jong-Fast, host of Fast Politics, a thrice-weekly topical podcast with guests like The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz:
So, for Fast Politics, we’ll keep doing what we’re doing. I started podcasting in 2020 but I’m all about transparency: I got a lot wrong in this election cycle and now I’m kind of trying to figure out how I got so much wrong. We’ll still interview candidates. We’ll still cover the substitute policy stuff. We will not dwell on aesthetic problems with Trump.
Edward Oswego Jr., cohost of This Machine Kills, a weekly podcast about technology and the political economy:
It’s not clear to me how liberals can hope to win podcasts, let alone leftists. It’s even less clear to me why they should do so.
To the first point, Taylor Lorenz’s recent essay on this is pretty persuasive: The conservative media ecosystem is much better financed, constructed, and coordinated because it’s in the interest of those with wealth to do so. They’ve also created a lavish pipeline for conservative influencers that quickly discovers, develops, and elevates talent as part of an ongoing effort to shape public opinion and policy. Influencers cross-pollinate, collaborate, and when de-platformed are able to easily replicate previous networks on new alternative platforms because they’re backed by, again, incredibly wealthy individuals. A billionaire won’t do any of this for leftists, who are interested in immiserating that class. Lorenz’s essay ends on a dour note: Democrats not only have zero interest in building their own media infrastructure, but are insistent on shutting out leftists (and progressives) who challenge them.
To the second point, let’s assume that the left can convince the Democratic Party to provide infrastructure for a new influencer ecosystem that’ll overtake the right. Is that a good idea? Is it a good idea to make these digital platforms even more central to what passes for politics in this country? Is there any reason to believe why this won’t go the same way it always does when digital goods and services, singularly owned by corporations or individuals, are integrated into our daily lives?
The left need not abandon alternative media, but if there’s going to be an argument for a cultural war to take it over, then it behooves us to ask why. The answer cannot simply be because the right has won the war or that we need to win the hearts and minds of the youth. Blundering ahead with such a superficial analysis will leave us at the mercy of every other group that these platforms are catered to: namely conservatives, reactionaries, mega-donors, provocateurs. The structure and financing of these platforms is oriented towards them. The dynamics once you’re on these platforms are oriented towards them And these platforms are deployed to the end of onboarding as much of our daily lives as possible.
Why would you want to win a war for such a system and what would you do if you actually won it? Is there another way to address the lack of message discipline and cohesion, the lack of institutional support, and the litany of issues plaguing us without fighting on such disadvantaged terrain or trying to replicate the right’s own posture yet again?
Virgil Texas, co-host of Bad Faith, a political interview podcast:
There is absolutely no one on the anticapitalist left who is concerned about the prospect of the Democratic party winning the votes of podcast listeners. The notion is hilarious, though.
Autentifică-te pentru a adăuga comentarii
Alte posturi din acest grup
Over the past two years, generative AI has dominated tech conversations and media headlines. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Midjourney, and Sora captured imaginations with their ability to create tex
Was YouTube TV’s recent price increase the straw that broke the camel’s back for you? Wh
TikTok is the new doctor’s office, quickly becoming a go-to platform for medical advice. Unfortunately, much of that advice is pretty sketchy.
A new report by the healthcare software fi
Back in 1979, Sony cofounder Masaru Ibuka was looking for a way to listen to classical music on long-haul flights. In response, his company’s engineers dreamed up the Walkman, ordering 30,000 unit
Even as the latest phones and wearables tout speech recognition with unprecedented accuracy and spatial computing products flirt with replacing tablets and laptops, physical keyboards remain belov
One of the most pleasant surprises about this year’s best new apps have nothing to do with AI.
While AI tools are a frothy area for big tech companies and venture capitalists, ther
The world of enterprise tech is built on sturdy foundations. For decades, systems of record—the databases, customer relationship management (CRM), and enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms
