------------------
The reliably garrulous Mr. Robinson clocks in again with over 2300 words of leftist agitprop.
The reliably garrulous Mr. Robinson clocks in again with over 2300 words of leftist agitprop.
After reading this screed, we must conclude that Mr. Robinson is envious of the Right. Its popularity is the basis for his plea for funding. Give us more money, he says, to compete with the eeevil right wing media complex.
Not content with the Left's dominance over the networks, every major newspaper, most every university, the public school system, and Hollywood, he begs us to pony up dough to support even more leftist media.
This in fact is just a giant fund raising letter.
And, we can answer the question contained in the title much more succinctly and dare we say, perceptively: The Left media needs support because it cannot provide the product necessary to support itself. The simple fact of the matter is, the Left's ideas are unpopular, unworkable, and frankly, evil. Marxism has caused more mayhem, murder, and destitution than any other system. No wonder no one wants to fund it.
-----------------------
The right-wing propaganda apparatus is absurdly well funded. (Mr. Robinson mistakes funding for revenue generation. The right markets their ideas and advertisers spend their money to sell their products. The Left begs for money and hopes it can connect with one of the Soros-funded organizations to get handouts.)
The right-wing propaganda apparatus is absurdly well funded. (Mr. Robinson mistakes funding for revenue generation. The right markets their ideas and advertisers spend their money to sell their products. The Left begs for money and hopes it can connect with one of the Soros-funded organizations to get handouts.)
Scrappy left outlets (like this one) are fighting hard to provide a counterpoint, but we need more resources.
Steven Crowder, a right-wing blowhard (As we noted, Mr. Robinson never met a word processor with which he couldn't spend hours typing out leftist propaganda. Yet he calls Crowder a blow-hard?)
Steven Crowder, a right-wing blowhard (As we noted, Mr. Robinson never met a word processor with which he couldn't spend hours typing out leftist propaganda. Yet he calls Crowder a blow-hard?)
with a YouTube show, was recently offered an astonishing $50 million to sign with Ben Shapiro’s company The Daily Wire for four years. Crowder rejected the offer, reportedly demanding even more money ($30 million a year) and likening it to a “slave contract.” A public spat then erupted between Shapiro and Crowder, with Shapiro calling Crowder “despicable,” Crowder accusing Shapiro of being in league with Big Tech, and so forth.
There is no reason you should care about this public fracas between these two loathsome, ignorant narcissists. (Then why mention it?)
There is no reason you should care about this public fracas between these two loathsome, ignorant narcissists. (Then why mention it?)
However, your thoughts may have been drawn, as mine were, to the financial aspect. (A leftist is always concerned with other peoples` money...)
You may be thinking, as I have been: Good lord, is there really so much money in right-wing YouTube videos? Tens of millions of dollars for a guy who just sits at a desk and tells people the left wants to take your kids away if you refuse to take them to drag shows? Is this real? This is the kind of money these loudmouths are hauling in? (Again we note the longing and envy. There has never been a dollar in someone's pocket that the Left hasn't wanted to tax, confiscate, or reallocate.)
Alas. There’s apparently a ton of money in conservative punditry. It’s very difficult to measure precisely. Ben Shapiro isn’t required to disclose his net worth, but we can assume that if a second-tier figure like Crowder can be offered more than $10 million a year, Shapiro himself is making considerably more. Last year, his Daily Wire reported bringing in $100 million annually. (A Vanity Fair profile describes how the Wire’s online shows have “meticulously designed and personalized sets … stuffed with enough high-end cameras, soundproofing, and lighting equipment to rival the best cable-news studios.”) PragerU’s annual report gives a useful glimpse of the kinds of money flowing into one conservative propaganda factory. In 2022, they raised $65,000,000, which they used to fund content from children’s books to explainer videos to talk shows to online courses to documentaries. PragerU reports having received 1.2 billion views for its material in a single year, with lifetime views of over 7 billion (Earth’s current population is 7.8 billion). PragerU says it has 105 employees in 8 locations across the country including a 44,000 square foot headquarters in Los Angeles.
Even if PragerU and the Daily Wire were the only parts of the conservative propaganda apparatus, it would be formidable. But there’s plenty more. Fox News, of course, makes billions per year. Turning Point USA, which claims to have affiliated groups on 1,000 college campuses, brings in $50 million a year and has well over 350 staff. Its many divisions include a college branch with paid campus organizers, a high school outreach branch, a “faith” division with dozens of full-time staff who set up events at churches around the country, a massive event staff that puts on “6 National Summits and 8 Regional Conferences” every year, a marketing department to “saturate social and traditional media markets with the message of freedom and limited government through influencer-based and digital marketing initiatives,” an “advancement” department dedicated to finding donors, and a design department with an astonishing 17 full-time graphic designers. My colleague Ben Burgis, who debated Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk last year, went to their headquarters and says that it’s decidedly opulent, with custom carpeting that has the Turning Point USA logo woven into it. (That’s fine by me, incidentally, because any money they’re spending on fancy carpeting is money they’re not spending on filling young people’s heads with lies.) (Lies that the author will never identify.
Alas. There’s apparently a ton of money in conservative punditry. It’s very difficult to measure precisely. Ben Shapiro isn’t required to disclose his net worth, but we can assume that if a second-tier figure like Crowder can be offered more than $10 million a year, Shapiro himself is making considerably more. Last year, his Daily Wire reported bringing in $100 million annually. (A Vanity Fair profile describes how the Wire’s online shows have “meticulously designed and personalized sets … stuffed with enough high-end cameras, soundproofing, and lighting equipment to rival the best cable-news studios.”) PragerU’s annual report gives a useful glimpse of the kinds of money flowing into one conservative propaganda factory. In 2022, they raised $65,000,000, which they used to fund content from children’s books to explainer videos to talk shows to online courses to documentaries. PragerU reports having received 1.2 billion views for its material in a single year, with lifetime views of over 7 billion (Earth’s current population is 7.8 billion). PragerU says it has 105 employees in 8 locations across the country including a 44,000 square foot headquarters in Los Angeles.
Even if PragerU and the Daily Wire were the only parts of the conservative propaganda apparatus, it would be formidable. But there’s plenty more. Fox News, of course, makes billions per year. Turning Point USA, which claims to have affiliated groups on 1,000 college campuses, brings in $50 million a year and has well over 350 staff. Its many divisions include a college branch with paid campus organizers, a high school outreach branch, a “faith” division with dozens of full-time staff who set up events at churches around the country, a massive event staff that puts on “6 National Summits and 8 Regional Conferences” every year, a marketing department to “saturate social and traditional media markets with the message of freedom and limited government through influencer-based and digital marketing initiatives,” an “advancement” department dedicated to finding donors, and a design department with an astonishing 17 full-time graphic designers. My colleague Ben Burgis, who debated Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk last year, went to their headquarters and says that it’s decidedly opulent, with custom carpeting that has the Turning Point USA logo woven into it. (That’s fine by me, incidentally, because any money they’re spending on fancy carpeting is money they’re not spending on filling young people’s heads with lies.) (Lies that the author will never identify.
And by the way, the author is not actually ok with custom carpeting. A leftist is never fine with someone spending their own money, money that could be confiscated and redistributed.)
Of course, I understand why they need all this. The conservative political agenda is so transparently repugnant (A Link to another of Mr. Robinson's long-winded and unenlightening articles, where he enumerates what he sees as the agenda of the Right. It is composed largely of leftist talking points and fever dreams that have little basis in reality.
Of course, I understand why they need all this. The conservative political agenda is so transparently repugnant (A Link to another of Mr. Robinson's long-winded and unenlightening articles, where he enumerates what he sees as the agenda of the Right. It is composed largely of leftist talking points and fever dreams that have little basis in reality.
But the real question is, if the agenda of the Right is so repugnant, why can't the Left compete with it?)
that it cannot hope to “sell itself” and needs giant teams of full-time propagandists to develop and push new euphemisms for things like stripping basic workplace protections and wrecking the planet by pumping endless volumes of greenhouse gasses into the air. Still: it’s scary how many resources they have at their disposal. And I’ve only talked about a few institutions. There are many more, and there are also individuals like Dinesh D’Souza and the Tuttle Twins guy who sell millions of books. (Yes, sell. They sell people products that people like.)
Republicans barely squeaked into a majority in the House of Representatives in last year’s elections (again, because their agenda is so obviously vile that it’s hard to get Americans to sign on), (Um, yeah, what? Did Mr. Robinson actually just write that Republicans took control of the House with an agenda that is so vile people won't vote for them?
This can only mean that the loss of the House to the Republicans is a win and and a mandate for the leftist agenda, correct?
And by the way, Mr. Robinson substitutes terms. There is a large difference between Republicans and conservatives.)
and Trump’s initial victory was by a slim margin, (The results of the electoral college was 304/227 Trump/Clinton. That does not sound particularly slim to us.)
so it’s fair to say that this giant apparatus may be making a decisive difference between conservatives being politically successful and not. (Hmm. Back to conservatives.
In actual fact, the leftist agenda has been the governing factor in culture, government policy, and media for the past few decades, despite the unpopularity of Marxism. We've been overtaken by a small, well funded, vocal extremist group that controls the reigns of influence over large sectors of society. Politically, this influence has yielded $31 trillion in national debt, the fracturing of society, the oppression of dissent, the increase in racism, hate, and division, and the dissolution of major institutions. Yet Mr. Robinson is afraid of the Right, which hasn't had power in decades?)
One of the most disturbing studies I’ve ever read shows that just reading an op-ed avowing a particular position shifts a certain number of the readers toward that position. (Indeed. That is the purpose of expressing opinions.)
Conservatives know that their talking points don’t necessarily need to be right as long as they’re heard, (The conservative viewpoint is never heard outside of its own media outlets. And we note the irony of the leftist propaganda machine which issues its daily talking points to its various media outlets, repeated endlessly all over the media landscape.)
because when a given number of people hear unrefuted arguments, (Unrefuted? We have never read a leftist refutation that actually refutes. We would say that these "refutations" are mostly destroying straw men and demonizing adversaries.)
some will think the argument sounds persuasive and be persuaded. (PragerU cites its own studies showing that exposure to its content changes minds.)
FROM PRAGERU’S ANNUAL REPORT
So: conservatives are building a giant media machine that is designed to reach everyone from elementary school to old age. (Yes, they've decided to create their own media as a parallel economy in order to compete with the pervasive leftist viewpoint promulgated by the legacy media outlets.)
So: conservatives are building a giant media machine that is designed to reach everyone from elementary school to old age. (Yes, they've decided to create their own media as a parallel economy in order to compete with the pervasive leftist viewpoint promulgated by the legacy media outlets.)
And we know this media machine may well be decisive in determining whether the right’s horrible agenda carries the day. (The Left doesn't like competition, diversity, or other viewpoints.)
We are in critical times. If we are going to address colossal problems like the climate crisis, we need information sources that show ordinary people what is going on, why it matters, and what they can do about it. (There is near-perfect media conformity with this agenda. What in the world is he talking about?)
(And that cut through absurd right-wing talking points like global warming is good because it will make everything nice and tropical.) (He doesn't want to cut through right wing talking points, he wants dissenting opinions silenced, just like a true leftist.)
Right-wing media is trying to get everyone around you to believe in ideas that, while not presently popular, if successful will contribute to the destruction of Earth as we know it. Our job is to get people to believe in and organize toward an alternative. (No, his job is to indoctrinate, stifle, and control.)
Understanding these facts (Actually, unfocused opinions.)
Understanding these facts (Actually, unfocused opinions.)
is a big part of what led me to ditch my previous career plans (lawyer or academic) and start a leftist media organization. (Well, no. He wants yet another leftist media organization, right alongside hundreds of others all implementing the various leftist talking points of the day as they pursue The Agenda.)
I realized that if we’re going to counter this, we need to fight much harder than we have been. (That is, to work much harder at mocking, silencing, and eliminating differing views.)
And we desperately need independent left media organizations that tell the truth and expose lies. (If only he would mention one of those lies. One would do, along with a cogent rebuttal.)
Let me tell you a bit about leftist media, though: We are scrappy. (No, they're persistent, dogged, single minded, robotic, and completely lock-step.)
The right likes to present the radical left as some giant powerful force that has control over all institutions. (Well, yes. That's because it's certainly true. But of course, the Left likes to present itself as the overwhelmingly popular, and in fact, the only viewpoint.)
This is deranged. Socialist political power (Term-switching. Is "the radical left" synonymous with "Socialist political power?" We don't think so.)
in this country is negligible, and the reach of socialist media organizations is tiny. (Mr. Robinson does two things: One, he denies that the media, government, and culture are governed by leftist philosophy, and two that Socialism is on the margins. Neither assertion is true.)
I know this because I happen to run one. Current Affairs is probably the second-largest socialist magazine in the country, after the (considerably larger) Jacobin. (Um, no. Wikipedia lists these:
In addition, we would include The Nation, mediamatters, talkpoverty, Mother Jones, The ACLU, the SPLC, and thinkprogress. Not to mention the networks, most cable news, the major newspapers, Hollywood, co-opted corporations, and academe/public schools.
There's a lot of organizations spewing leftist propaganda. They represent a fairly small number of people, but their voices are loud and influential. Notice for example how quickly the word "equity" got adopted into the national lexicon. It's a nonsense word, appearing nearly over night as the leftist media implemented the bumper sticker slogan. And just as quickly, anyone who expressed dissent is shouted down and branded as being against justice, fairness, tolerance, and diversity.)
If one of the leading right-wing organizations has over 350 staff, how many do you think one of the leading left-wing media outlets has? Two. Right now, the Current Affairs full-time staff is myself and managing editor Lily Sánchez. (This must be because he fired the rest of his staff for organizing)
We have a part-time admin and freelance writers and artists. I’m the editor in chief, but I edit podcast episodes and do most of the graphic design for the magazine personally, because we can’t afford 10 people, let alone 300. We bring in a few hundred thousand dollars each year, all of which goes toward our shoestring expenses like printing the magazine, paying the rent, paying the salaries ($45k/year at the moment), and paying the writers and artists. We started off with a $16,000 Kickstarter campaign, and every month we have to hustle (and I am virtually glued to my desk) trying to make sure all of our modest expenses (like our two-room office) are paid for and we’re not going broke. (So sad. We really feel for him.)
For seven years now we’ve kept our heads above water. But it can be draining constantly trying to think of new ways to bring in small sums of money. I never regret forgoing a much more lucrative career in the law, because this work is so important (and because our subscribers send us such nice letters about what the magazine has meant to them). Money is a stupid thing to spend your life chasing, as every sensible person knows. (Ironic considering how diligently the Left pursues other peoples' money.)
But the point is that even those lucky few of us who are able to make a full-time living in left media are working on a shoestring. Nobody’s getting rich off this, despite what certain extremely wealthy pundits might allege.1 (Nobody's getting rich? What?? That's quite a claim, considering the multi-million dollar salaries pulled down by network talking heads, members of the View, community organizers, leftist politicians, so-called journalists, and people like John Oliver and Al Sharpton.)
Jacobin, the only larger socialist magazine, is considerably larger than we are, but still very tiny compared to the right-wing media outlets. It brings in a few million dollars each year. Its salaries are very modest. (Its highest listed salary in 2019 was around $60,000, compared with around $400,000 at libertarian magazine Reason and the right-wing National Review.)There’s an obvious reason for this: socialism advocates for those who have very little wealth against those who have nearly all of it. Of course there’s no money in socialist politics. How could there be? (Whoa, nellie. What? We nearly dropped our 44 ounce Mountain Dew. This howler of a statement is so perfectly agitprop that it makes our heads spin.
In Mr. Robinson's world of fluffy clouds and pink unicorns, "true" Socialists have no wealth, because everyone in a Socialist system has the same everything. But such a thing does not exist, has not existed, and will not exist.
Which means that there are many rich Socialists. It's not a category error. There is so much money in leftist circles that we cannot recount the number of multi-millionaires and billionaires that fund leftist initiatives. Rich Socialists are expected, even in the purest Socialism available. Because in any system there are always those who rise to the top, exert influence, and of course, enrich themselves.
The top richest US politicians:
- J.B. Pritzger, Democrat
- Jim Justice, Democrat
- Jared Polis, Democrat
- Greg Gianforte, Republican
- Nancy Pelosi, Democrat
- Chuck Schumer, Democrat
- Michael McCaul, Republican
- Mitt Romney, RINO
- Mark Warner, Democrat
- Rick Scott, Republican
- Dianne Feinstein, Democrat
- Richard Blumenthal, Democrat
It's certainly ironic how the Left complains about poverty, equity, and un-level playing fields while simultaneously sit at the top of the heap. And we note for the reocrd that the only self-avowed socialist in elected office is Bernie Sanders, a multi-millionaire.
Socialism both violates and overlooks human nature, and that's why it doesn't work. Rich Socialists prove that Socialism doesn't work. People are greedy, no matter the system. Others are ambitious, no matter the system. Still others are productive and innovative, no matter the system. So in the workers' paradise, some will excel and some will fail. It's inevitable.
Further, Mr. Robinson previously admitted there was money in his organization, just not very much. So it isn't true there's "no money" in socialist politics.
This is the thing about agitprop. It allows the purveyor to write the most absurdly false things with a straight face. Agitprop just gets endlessly repeated until people start to believe it. In fact, it's quite possible that Mr. Robinson is not just cynically spouting talking points. He might really believe them.)
Here’s the upshot: independent left media needs your support. We are working with very limited resources against a colossal propaganda machine that is able to hire legions of highly skilled people. In our favor, we have the fact that leftist politics are sensible and humane, and thus massive propaganda onslaughts against ideas like Medicare For All have failed to erode public support for them. But conservatives are regrouping. They are writing children’s books, in the hopes that the next generation of young people won’t be as socialist as millennials are. (Millennials are socialist? Well, apparently socialism is a bit more popular than Mr. Robinson is letting on.
Millennials are a product of the leftist media, entertainment, and public educational system, so it's no surprise that they lean Left. It's all they've been fed. And being young like Mr. Robinson, they don't have the life experience necessary to truly ascertain the deathly flaws of Marxism.)
(Current Affairs has at least one 11-year-old subscriber, which gives me hope that they will fail.)
There are plenty of good left media projects to support. (I list a few of them in the “Left Media Diet” section of Why You Should Be a Socialist). I am thrilled when others succeed, and despite the left’s notorious tendency toward schisms and factions, there’s a comradely relationship between most of us in left media, because we understand that we have to stick together if we are to have any hope. People at Jacobin have always been very supportive of Current Affairs. Choose which left media project you think is valuable to support. But do support them if you can. They cannot survive without subscriptions and donations. (How unpopular must one be for people to not want to give money to you? This is probably why the Left is so intent on extracting money from people using the strong arm of government. It requires the irresistible force of government to fund socialism, because no one wants it otherwise.)
For our part, I’m proud of how well Current Affairs uses its donors’ and subscribers’ money. Nobody makes a profit around here, we try to pay as much as we can for writing and art, and we keep salaries equal. (If he gets paid a salary, he is personally profiting.)
There are plenty of good left media projects to support. (I list a few of them in the “Left Media Diet” section of Why You Should Be a Socialist). I am thrilled when others succeed, and despite the left’s notorious tendency toward schisms and factions, there’s a comradely relationship between most of us in left media, because we understand that we have to stick together if we are to have any hope. People at Jacobin have always been very supportive of Current Affairs. Choose which left media project you think is valuable to support. But do support them if you can. They cannot survive without subscriptions and donations. (How unpopular must one be for people to not want to give money to you? This is probably why the Left is so intent on extracting money from people using the strong arm of government. It requires the irresistible force of government to fund socialism, because no one wants it otherwise.)
For our part, I’m proud of how well Current Affairs uses its donors’ and subscribers’ money. Nobody makes a profit around here, we try to pay as much as we can for writing and art, and we keep salaries equal. (If he gets paid a salary, he is personally profiting.)
When you support Current Affairs, your money is used to make a better publication that covers more important topics and provides a vital counterweight to both the right-wing noise machine and the mainstream media. (And of course so that he can personally profit with a salary.)
(I haven’t even discussed why we need an alternative to the New York Times, but we do.) (The heavily Left NT times is just not Left enough.)
please consider subscribing and/or donating (you can make a one-time or recurring donation, including a small-dollar monthly donation on Patreon to support our work). Our subscriptions are a bit pricey, but it’s not because we’re trying to gouge you. It’s because we’re trying to put out the best quality print magazine we can, with zero advertising or corporate sponsorship, overflowing with excellent writing and artwork. (If you don’t believe me, listen to Michael Moore, (Wooo, there's a sober, objective source...
And by the way, doesn't Moore have oodles of money? That seems like a pretty obvious irony. And why doesn't he toss a couple hundred grand into the Socialist kitty? He can afford it.
Probably like most leftists, it's socialism for thee and my money for me...)
who said:
“This is one of the best magazines in this country, I encourage you to read it. I’m a big fan of it, I learn things I don’t know and I read their analysis and it’s very enlightening… I couldn’t believe it when I read the first issue of it, both the subjects that were being covered or being written about are being said in a very different way than what you’re used to… [N]ot only highly readable, it’s inspiring… I will continue to be a reader and a subscriber and I bought a subscription for all my crew on my last movie. It’s a real gift to have Current Affairs…”) The more you support us, the more we can do to give people a reliable and humane alternative information source.
I’ve written before about what can be called the “political economy of knowledge,” or how the structure of wealth and power affects what information people end up knowing. In today’s media, it’s sadly often the case that the truth is paywalled and the lies are free. I often think about Karl Marx’s life in London. The insights that Marx gifted to the public in Capital (The devastation he caused humanity is untold, pervasive, and continues to this day.)
“This is one of the best magazines in this country, I encourage you to read it. I’m a big fan of it, I learn things I don’t know and I read their analysis and it’s very enlightening… I couldn’t believe it when I read the first issue of it, both the subjects that were being covered or being written about are being said in a very different way than what you’re used to… [N]ot only highly readable, it’s inspiring… I will continue to be a reader and a subscriber and I bought a subscription for all my crew on my last movie. It’s a real gift to have Current Affairs…”) The more you support us, the more we can do to give people a reliable and humane alternative information source.
I’ve written before about what can be called the “political economy of knowledge,” or how the structure of wealth and power affects what information people end up knowing. In today’s media, it’s sadly often the case that the truth is paywalled and the lies are free. I often think about Karl Marx’s life in London. The insights that Marx gifted to the public in Capital (The devastation he caused humanity is untold, pervasive, and continues to this day.)
depended on the economic conditions of Marx himself. He was so poor that he had to pawn his overcoat sometimes. (No wonder he hated the rich and devised an economic system based on class envy and bloody revolution.)
When he didn’t have his overcoat, he couldn’t go out in the cold to the British museum to research and write Capital. Thus, when Marx had money, his theories were written. When he didn’t, they weren’t. This story from his life is a valuable illustration of Marx’s own point that the structure of an economy determines the dominant ideas that emerge in the society.
Likewise, if left media has funding, left ideas will be heard. If the capitalists are the only ones with the money to buy megaphones, they are the ones who will be heard. PragerU gets huge numbers of donations, which means it can offer much of its content free for viewers. If we had similar levels of funding, we could make our subscriptions much cheaper, taking down a financial barrier to hearing progressive ideas. The internet has, fortunately, made it much cheaper for us to compete without having much in the way of resources. Left media is flourishing in part because you don’t need to buy a radio station these days in order to reach people, you can just start a podcast..
Persuading people that an agenda of broad social uplift (and human survival on a warming planet) is in their best interest is one of our top priorities at this publication. If we can’t persuade the public of our ideas, we can’t build a political and social movement in that direction. (Another tacit admission that his ideas are unpopular.)
Likewise, if left media has funding, left ideas will be heard. If the capitalists are the only ones with the money to buy megaphones, they are the ones who will be heard. PragerU gets huge numbers of donations, which means it can offer much of its content free for viewers. If we had similar levels of funding, we could make our subscriptions much cheaper, taking down a financial barrier to hearing progressive ideas. The internet has, fortunately, made it much cheaper for us to compete without having much in the way of resources. Left media is flourishing in part because you don’t need to buy a radio station these days in order to reach people, you can just start a podcast..
Persuading people that an agenda of broad social uplift (and human survival on a warming planet) is in their best interest is one of our top priorities at this publication. If we can’t persuade the public of our ideas, we can’t build a political and social movement in that direction. (Another tacit admission that his ideas are unpopular.)
We need your help to do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment