Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
joe rogan, fox news. cult of idiocracy. cult of idiocracy. cult. of. idiocraccccyyyyyy....
I like Galloway's analysis here: https://www.profgalloway.com/the-podcast-election/
I am going on AC360/MSNBC/Smerconish to discuss the male vote — this election gave us the opposite of the expected referendum on bodily autonomy; it was the Testosterone Election. The only thing I’m (fairly) certain of is what medium played a pivotal role, for the first time, in young people’s decision to violently pivot to Trump: podcasts.
Almost half of adult Americans, 136 million people, listen to at least one podcast a month. The global audience is now 505 million, a quarter of the internet’s reach.
Rogan has 16 million Spotify subscribers and can reach many more people across a variety of other platforms: In just three days after the live podcast, his three-hour-long conversation with Trump was viewed 40 million times on YouTube.
By comparison, when Trump appeared on Fox News’ Gutfeld!, which averages about 3 million viewers, he reached 5 million people, and the full episode has been viewed 2.3 million times on YouTube.
Among Fox’s 3.5 million regular viewers, 70% are 50 and over and 45% are women. The No. 2 cable network, MSNBC, reaches 1.5 million viewers most days; its median viewer is a 70-year-old woman. So: a big audience of young men vs. a small audience of older women. People listen to pods to learn; they watch cable TV to sanctify what they already believe. The former is (much) more appealing to candidates and advertisers.
Rogan’s demographic is 80% male, 93% under 54, and 56% under 34. Men under 34 are the Great White Rhinos of advertising, the most valuable beast in the consumer jungle, and they’re increasingly difficult to find.
He also mentioned in a CNN interview: "Look at the top 10 podcasts. 8 of them lean right, and Trump went on 6 of them."
Don't a lot of people who listen to podcasts do so while driving? If so, this is eerily similar to how conservative AM radio brainwashed people who drove a lot, especially in remote areas where FM radio with music wasn't available.
Also similar: Spotify puts podcasts and music side-by-side the same way the radio dial used to. Sick of that top 10 hit? Check out what the worst people in the world are thinking today!
And the people bankrolling these podcasts, or at least sponsoring them to push a slant to the right, are fully aware of the similarities. It's why they do it, they already did the math.
Personally, i don't like joe rogan. He does a horrible job at making sure he isn't spreading misinformation and he is indeed contributing to influencing people in a bad way
That being said, i think acually challanging and approaching these mindset is valuable to show that the left is present in politics, not just the one we agree with all the time. If we dont open up discource on platforms that the right accually watches, more left wing discource, ideas and topics gets lost in the echo chamber of "we don't want to talk to anyone on the right". We cannot think people on the right and people alienated by the democrats will suddenly start consuming leftist idea if we wont bring that to their turf. I think a lot of people supporting the right are accually in agreement with the left such as economic reform etc , just that the right have much better platforms and charismatic people that accually adress their concerns.
Im not saying we should consider rasist, misogynistic and hatefull speech to be okay at all, and we are not part of the problem if we are present on platforms trying to challenge them. But we need to show that we are here for everyone, not just ourselves. The people we disagree with don't vanish because we dont want to talk with them, because they will find other people who want to talk, and they might be encouraging their already damaging viewpoints.
I came across this video a few days ago and i was intrigued, i reccomend watching, it gave me an idea on why we are stuggeling to reach more people:
I find this frustrating. Yes, many of those podcasters are conservative and have participated in spreading misinformation, but there is a huge difference between a private cable news company that is designed to manipulate the electorate, and a bunch of loosely connected yahoos on YouTube who share similar opinions.
Trump gained ground with nearly every demographic out there. They weren’t all watching Kill Tony. Working class people, comedians who rely on unrestricted speech, and a whole lot of other demographics have legitimate grievances that the Democrats have either ignored or shamed them for. They either need to lean how to address these people’s needs, or they will continue to suffer the consequences.
And when you aren’t trying to form a political opinion about it, Kill Tony is actually a pretty funny show. That is why it is the number one comedy podcast, not because of Tony’s political opinions.
loosely connected yahoos
This particular yahoo has a $100 million deal with Spotify.
He may not have the multi-billion dollar revenue of Fox News Media. But he does only have a fraction of their staff and operating expenses. That is certainly no pittance.
The rest of the yahoos are emulating him. Together they have a huge impact.
I agree with everything you said, except Kill Tony being funny. I have not heard anything from him that made me laugh.
I am genuinely still waiting.
Kill Tony is the name of a show that has featured hundreds of comedians—that is what I was endorsing as funny, and that is what most viewers come to see. Tony Hinchcliffe is a person, and he serves primarily as a judge on the show, not a featured entertainer.
This exact misunderstanding—that enjoying the product is an endorsement of the political opinions of the creator—is a good example of what I’m talking about. If Democrats want that audience to watch a Democratic comedian’s show, then all they have to do is make a better comedy podcast than he did.
I saw him on tour earlier this year (or maybe last year, I can't keep up with time anymore). Had never heard of him but we had free tickets. There were 3 or 4 openers, all people part of the Kill Tony family or whatever. His openers were hilarious, he was....very not funny.
His influence is gigantic.
Like these young Trump voters. TikTok is where they get their news and Rogan is who they listen to: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/politics/video/ufc-trump-fans-digvid
and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas
Oh shit, it's almost as if there are more dimensions to politics than just the single axis the Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge.
And then they wonder why they lose.
You know what other sorts of figures that sort of conversation could "normalize" for "for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men?" Left-wing populists!
But the Democrats would rather have Trump.
Oh shit, it's almost as if there are more dimensions to politics than just the single axis the Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge.
Shit leftie go on and tell us what that single axis is. Make sure to use "libs" a lot.
