#progressive media

Parker Molloy at The Present Age:

A new Media Matters report confirms what many of us have suspected for years: the right absolutely dominates online media. And it's not even close. According to their analysis, nine of the top ten online shows are right-leaning, with a total following of more than 197 million subscribers and viewers across platforms. The only left-leaning show to crack the top ten? Trevor Noah's "What Now?" with 21.1 million followers.

Overall, right-leaning online shows have amassed nearly 481 million followers across platforms — almost five times more than the 104 million followers for left-leaning shows. On YouTube alone, right-wing channels have racked up 65 billion views compared to 31.5 billion for left-leaning content. These numbers are staggering, but they're not an accident. They're the result of a deliberate, well-funded strategy to colonize the digital media landscape with conservative voices. While left-leaning creators struggle to cobble together sustainable business models through Patreon donations and merchandise sales, right-wing personalities are frequently backed by billionaire money that allows them to build sophisticated media operations with professional production values and massive marketing budgets.

This isn't just about politics — it's about money, power, and the future of our information ecosystem. The Kochs, the Mercers, the Thiels, the Murdochs, the Uihleins — these aren't just wealthy families; they're kingmakers who understand that investing in media is investing in political power.

[...] Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this takeover is how right-wing content has seeped into supposedly non-political spaces. The Media Matters analysis found that 72% of online shows with an ideological bent that self-identify as non-political are actually right-leaning.

[...]

This infiltration of supposedly non-political spaces works precisely because it doesn't present itself as political propaganda. It's just bros talking about life, making jokes, and occasionally hosting a presidential candidate or anti-trans activist. And behind many of these seemingly independent creators? You guessed it — conservative money.

In contrast, progressive online media operates in a funding desert. While right-wing creators enjoy the backing of ideologically motivated billionaires, left-leaning voices must navigate a fragmented landscape of smaller donors, subscriptions, and advertising — all while competing against the right's well-oiled promotion machine.

Major progressive donors simply haven't prioritized building a comparable media ecosystem. George Soros, the right's favorite boogeyman, has primarily focused his giving on policy organizations and civil society groups, not media entities that could counter the Shapiros and Rogans of the world. Similarly, other wealthy liberal donors have directed their resources toward traditional political campaigns, issue advocacy, and established nonprofit journalism rather than investing in the creator economy.

Even when progressive funders do support media, they often impose restrictions and expectations that make it difficult to build large, sustainable audiences. While conservative backers give their content creators freedom to be entertaining, provocative, and commercially viable first, progressive funding often comes with strings attached around messaging, issue focus, and measurable policy impacts.

The approach means left-leaning creators are forced to prioritize substance over style, nuance over engagement, and education over entertainment — all while operating with a fraction of the resources available to their right-wing counterparts.

[...]

If progressives want to compete in the digital information space, they need to get serious about building and funding an ecosystem that can rival the right's dominance.

This doesn't mean mimicking the dishonesty and extremism that characterizes much of right-wing media. But it does require acknowledging some uncomfortable truths: entertainment values matter, production quality matters, marketing matters, and yes, money matters. Progressive donors need to take a page from the conservative playbook by making long-term, substantial investments in digital media with fewer strings attached. They need to fund not just serious policy content but also entertainment, comedy, sports, and lifestyle content that can reach beyond the already converted. More importantly, they need to recognize that building media power is not secondary to political organizing — it's an essential prerequisite. In an era when a single podcast host can reach more people than all the major cable news networks combined, media isn't just about informing people about progressive policies; it's about creating the cultural and informational environment where those policies can even be considered.

The right understood this decades ago when they began building their media apparatus. They knew that owning the megaphones was just as important as having something to say into them. It's long past time for progressives to learn the same lesson. The alternative is accepting a future where the digital public square is permanently tilted toward conservative voices — not because their ideas are more popular, but because they were willing to pay for the microphones.

Orange blossom and strawberry shortcake might just have one of the most politically charged friendships in all children’s media.

Like making a whole big deal about a white main character of a pre-existing all white cast meeting a brand new dark skinned black cast member?

Specifically introduced to add diversity to the cast?

To which she instantly feels a connection too and they sing a whole song about how inseparable they already are?

Who then becomes her best friend for the rest of the franchise?

In the early 80s!?!?!

If they did her introduction the exact same way nowadays people would have a HISSYFIT.

Strawberry shortcakes been woke. Even before it acknowledged that gay and trans people existed.

Passing this along in support of an organization we admire, Syracuse Cultural Workers. It's now officially time to grab their must-have calendar at a reduced price. Once you have one of these calendars. you'll want a new one each year:

"Now that they're on sale, buy extra for friends, colleagues, family, neighbors... The 2023 Peace Calendar features 12 months of dynamic, uplifting images to support our collective work for peace and justice for all beings."

I am not a person of colour nor would i ever claim to be an expert on the issues and hardships faced by people of colour, but i hold personally deeply socialist views having been raised in predominantly "lower class" poor suburban areas a majority of my life while intermingling with the comfortably rich in my education, and as such this show speaks to me and my voice in a way not many others have, by landing expressly on the side of the people and in particular the repressed and minority. Its a show about black voices, queer voices, religious voices, female voices, neurodivergent voices,latin-american voices and pride in community and lifestyles, its a show about the importance of community, and its all in a god damn marvel show. Its so unlike anything to have come out in years, all while being fun, with fantastically choreographed action scenes and incredible visuals, its bright and colourful and yet knows when to pull its punches, slow down and convey the importance of the themes and messages of the episodes.

So many episodes as well speak to issues that i have never faced in my life, and yet the show and its characters are so charming, and so expressive and fun that anyone can come to understand and empathise with the issues it presents. A highlight to me is the episode on black hair, again as someone whiter than the milk in your coffee i have never experienced the struggles and discrimination associated with black hair, and yet. The episode inspired me to learn about it, all the gorgeous ways it can be styled, the different hair types, which has not only been huge for my creative character designs but inspired an even deeper appreciation than before for a form of art i didn't even know existed (and trust me. Hair styling is an art form when done well). The show introduces new [most likely, predominantly white] audiences to these facets of black life and culture that previous childrens media never quite tackled before, while equally remaining relatable and friendly towards the People of Colour who watch these shows two, never talking down to them about black issues but rather treating them as the experts and authorities, its honestly incredible and i just cant go back to watching most other shows with how respectful and mature Moongirl is, its brilliant.

Overall, i know im just one silly little guy, rambling about a show he thinks deserves far more love than its getting, but in a post Owl House disney TV world, i really think Moongirl and Devil Dinosaur deserves equally as much love and attention as that show got, perhaps even more for just having relatively better POC representation (from what i understand hearing from other voices, anyway, if I've gotten that wrong please feel free to correct!)

Someone: Have you heard of (movie, character, series, etc)

Me: Yeah. It’s not my thing. (genre, personality type, etc) isn’t something i enjoy.

Someone: But it’s progressive!

Me: Awesome. What i said still applies tho.

It’s ok not to like things. Weather it’s ‘progressive’ or ‘popular’ doesn’t matter.

This is something i personally have a lot of issues with. I don’t like certain genres and character types and storylines. I just don’t enjoy them. but i feel a pressure inside, like disliking them when they are ‘progressive’ is extremely morally wrong. For example: when a show has good representation, say has cast POC, LGBT+ or disabled actors. i feel like I’m not allowed to say “I don’t enjoy that genre” or "I didn’t enjoy the storyline” or “I didn’t find the characters appealing”. Or if a show i love has come under fire for some failing or other i sometimes feel . . .  - Guilty? I think that’s the right word? - I sometimes feel guilty for continuing to enjoy it. and then i start to feel like i need to defend my stance on things when it’s simply “I like X” or “I don’t like Y”.

So just a reminder for myself:

It’s okay.

It’s okay not to like progressive things.

It’s okay to like unpopular things.

You're not a bad person for not enjoying something or continuing to enjoy something.

The Young Turks 7/20/2020

Remembering Michael Brooks

We love and miss you, Michael. 

Rebel HQ Jul 21, 2020 

RIP Michael Brooks: 1983 - 2020

The Rational National 7/21/2020

RIP Michael Brooks: 1983 - 2020

Secular Talk 7/20/20

RIP Michael Brooks

The Hill 7/21/2020

Krystal Ball Remembers Michael Brooks

WAIT ITS C O N F I R M E D ??? IS IT TJ????????

and AHHHH YES I HEARD ABOUT THE PREMISE OF THE SHOW AND WAS LIKE “they’re tackling teen pregnancy AND mom not being your mom in an asian family, and her best friends are jewish and black, and neither her mom or her sister mom die and in fact have relationships of their own????? WOW DISNEY I LIKE YOU WHEN YOURE PROGRESSIVE”

When I was in Britain recently, I picked up a copy of the New Statesman, a left-ish political weekly, to check in on the competition. (I always want to know what other magazines are up to, so that I can lift their techniques and hasten the ascendance of Current Affairs to a position of market dominance.) I have respect for any lefty who can make print work in 2019, so I was surprised and horrified when the first thing I saw in the New Statesman was an advertorial sponsored by Cigna, the American health insurance company.

The article was part of a pull-out “spotlight” section called “Mental Health: The Quiet Crisis.” It looks like the rest of the magazine, but printed on the first page of the supplement are the logos of Aviva Insurance, Cigna, BUPA (a private health insurer in the U.K.), and a site called BeGambleAware.org. Inside are articles on different aspects of mental health, including “what role technology can play in the mental health debate,” “the need for mental health first aiders,” gambling addiction, and “the perils of purchasing pills online.” There is also a sympathetic interview with infamous spin doctor (and abettor of war crimes) Alastair Campbell about his struggles with depression. (The interview does not discuss Iraq but does mention that Campbell was unhappy while in government and now enjoys running.)

The different corporate supporters of the spotlight section have each sponsored individual articles, and Cigna’s is called “Why health and happiness matter at work.” It is an interview with Cigna’s own medical director, answering questions like “What are the top stress triggers for poor mental health in the workplace?” and “How can workplace wellness programmes help reduce stress?” (If you are wondering whether capitalism’s role in making everyone tired and depressed is touched on, it is not.) The interview is stupefyingly boring, and the New Statesman did not choose to ask any critical questions about Cigna.

This is a shame, because Cigna has engaged in some pretty reprehensible conduct before! In 2007, the company denied 17-year-old leukemia patient Nataline Sarkisyana liver transplant, leading to massive public outcry. Over the protest of Sarkisyan’s doctors, Cigna insisted the transplant was “experimental” and therefore uncovered. Pressure led the company to reverse its decision a few hours before Sarkisyan died. When Sarkisyan’s parents went to Cigna headquarters to protest after their daughter’s death, employees heckled them and gave them the finger. An extreme case, to be sure, and one from a while back, but the company’s 1.5 star rating on Consumer Affairs suggests that its customers are still pretty unsatisfied with their coverage.

Here’s the New Statesman interviewer’s only question about Cigna itself:

Q: How does Cigna support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)?

A: With an ageing population and a health service that’s struggling like never before, there’s a growing demand for health insurance in the UK. The NHS is a fantastic institution. There’s not much else like it in the world. But if there are patient needs that aren’t so acute—especially mental health needs—the service is stretched to provide all but the most urgent care… Many employers are thinking they need something extra, and the services we provide like teleheath and online self-help are ideal for tech-savvy generations who expect flexibility.

That’s the end of the interview. There’s no follow-up. And I’m sure you noticed the Cigna executive’s message: Oh, of course we love the NHS, the NHS is wonderful and we would never slowly conspire to destroy it. However, the NHS is “stretched” and private enterprise can help those who want more “flexible” healthcare. There is no discussion of the fact that the NHS is stretched because Conservative governments have failed to increase its budget adequately. As with public education and Social Security in the United States, the idea of a “crisis” (actually just a failure to properly fund and manage a public service) is used to push for privatization.

Elsewhere in the New Statesman, the CEO of BUPA UK is treated to a similar uncritical interview, and asked “what role can government play” in improving mental health. His answer: lower taxes on private insurance premiums. These interviews are totally indefensible from a journalistic perspective. They are sponsored by a company, promote the interests of the company, and passed off as part of the New Statesman.The magazine has made zero effort to preserve its independence and critical stance. Worse, they’re laced with dangerous corporate propaganda. The New Statesman contains a promotion for its healthcare features, telling readers “You want to know where the NHS is going. We ask the people in the driving seat.” In reality, that means: We let corporations pay to tell us, and you, what should happen to the NHS.