The shift right in traditional media has for sure been ongoing and picking up steam to the point where you wonder just how extreme it can get. That Bezos story where he stopped the WaPo endorsement was eye opening but I don’t know if it should surprise us. I mean look at him! He builds more wealth in a single day, than more than half of the population will see in the entire lives. So of course Bezos fears losing that by angering a full blown fascist who will have the power of the presidency to disrupt his growing fortune. And then ABC, already slanting right, actually pays him off! And then the LA Times with their similar moves. All of them are obviously scared. I have not followed TYTs. But I watched the excerpt from the interview with Morgan that you posted. She seems like she would be comfortable in that private suite with Trump, Vance, and their favorite killer.
As you laid out, the two party system has the Left screwed. The media has shifted right, the Democratic Party has shifted right. Meanwhile, this freaky fascist is about to walk into the WH. I get the sense that we, ALL of us, right, left,
and the unaware… all of us are about to try to live through very tough times. These events can create their own energy that then becomes a force just looking for ANY target. The hunters become the hunted. It seems like this will get worse before it gets better.
I think the media environment should alarm all of us, to be frank. At the time that WaPo pulled that endorsement — which had already been written and vetted, due to be published — it was seen as an omen, Bezos moving to protect other parts of his empire. The owner of the LAT also spiked an already written and vetted endorsement of Harris. These were painted by both men as preserving neutrality, but in fact they had the effect of putting a thumb on the scale, as both moves interfered with the regular tempo and influence the editorial board would have with its audience. We can’t measure how much the endorsements may have affected voting behavior — but if it would have had no effect, then the owners would have had no reason to intervene.
LAT is instituting a visual temperature gauge, except it’s not measuring heat but bias. The owner is pre-emptively accusing his own columnists and reporters of bias. I’ve never seen anything like it. And then, who determines the level of “bias”? Who watches the watchers?
WaPo, too, has simply moved right since pulling that endorsement. It’s actually unnerving, how quickly it has shifted (and how far!) in such a short amount of time. Regarding Jordan Neely, rather than focus on the verdict of Daniel Penny, which was clearly not in order, the editorial board said that the city failed Neely and that in the future we should consider retracting the rights of people and having a laxer standard by which we involuntarily institutionalize people. As Neely was without shelter and suffering from issues with mental health, this editorial clearly has implications as to who might be targeted under such a policy change. WaPo is advocating for taking away rights that people currently hold. That’s not a liberal stance.
TYT is not as much of a three-alarm fire as those mainstream press organs, but it’s important as it’s been a fixture in left-leaning spaces (particularly online) for more than a decade. There are details here that I left out, for the sake of space and because they seem more gossipy and in the weeds, but Ana Kasparian has truly abandoned progressivism (while still claiming to speak for progressives). She apparently was assaulted on the street by a homeless person and now she is all-in on the right-wing crime narrative (even though, nationally, violent crime has gone down).
There was a big brouhaha last year when both Kasparian and Uygur began squawking about transgender rights, each in their own regressive way — Uygur being ultra-transactional (advocating for trans participation in sports will cost us elections!) and Kasparian being personally offended at the reminder that she has a uterus and bleeds every month. It’s a saga that has cost them employees in terms of people packing it up and leaving. I personally stopped watching them not too much later after the Arbery trial, because Kasparian had said something where she was judging women either on their clothing or their sexual behavior, and that set off my feminist Spidey sense. I’m glad I got out when I did.
The problem is, they have such a reputation for being at the forefront of progressivism, when they mix in such reactionary takes, their audience will begin to be radicalized to these right-wing talking points that they’re sprinkling in, and the viewers won’t be the wiser as to that radicalization process.
I think we will see the LGBQT community be targeted right out of the gate. We already see schools trying to limit their visibility, isolate them by making it harder for them to reach out to teachers or counselors or just reading a book that might portray them as worthy. But this is only the beginning. The right has politicized healthcare and will move to outlaw procedures they don’t understand or approve of. It is just mind blowing that they put SO MUCH thought into issues around gender, sexuality, personal identity. Just mind blowing that this occupies so much of their attention. Why do they care SO much about who sleeps with who and which bathroom a person uses. I guess a lot of it comes from religion.
But yeah, the early targets will be trans people, immigrants, and the disabled. I predict the main threats to immigrants will be carried out by the state. I think the big talkers will outsource the violence against LGBQTs. They will dial up the hateful rhetoric and there will then be attacks on them out on the streets. I am old. I remember when Matthew Shepard was killed. I lived in Houston for many years and frequented many clubs in the Montrose district. Which at that time was the go to hang out for gays. Lots of gay bars and restaurants. Now I think it has been overtaken by the upscale, higher income, professional class. But anyway, there was a gay couple coming out of one of the gay bars, maybe JR’s?, can’t recall now, but anyway this group of guys beat and stabbed Paul Broussard to death.
I had a close friend who enjoyed dressing up in drag, going out to gay clubs, dancing. He was attacked in a parking lot, beaten severely, stripped naked, and left in a small public park. He survived. But since I am older, I remember these events. They were COMMON. I think those days will return.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. I too remember Matthew Shepard's murder. That wasn't that long ago.
Dr. Steven Hassan (among others, I'm sure) recently noted that the current anti-trans panic seems to be a stand-in for anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, primarily because it's no longer normative to be homophobic. Transphobia is in vogue, though, so that seems to be a wedge or Trojan horse to bash LGBTQ+ folks soon enough.
As for outsourcing violence, I think we're already seeing some of that. When Trump made his ridiculous claim about migrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, we then saw KKK groups descend on the town and march. In a more volatile environment, I fully would expect such activity to turn violent. We saw the same during the first months of Covid, when Trump told people to "liberate Michigan" and other areas. He's going to be a de facto leader of militia groups all across the country, and they will respond to his suggestions as though they were commands. How quickly this may happen, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you and I are on the right track about this.
So brilliant as always. You should be getting paid for these reports. I find it all nauseating and can only take in current events in small doses. That Penny was invited by those two devils to join them is beyond appalling. Effing dumpster family are very recent immigrants to our country, unlike the human beings forced into slavery and their descendants, who continue to be horrifically abused.
Thanks for reading and for the feedback, F/C. I appreciate the vote of confidence :)
I was dismayed when I heard the verdict and felt I should follow up from my previous writing about Neely, but I was quite discouraged. When I heard that Trump was honoring Penny, though, I knew I had to respond.
I can’t tell you how I felt when I came across that comment thread on WaPo. It’s so clear that those commenters were engaged in a flex. It’s incredibly disturbing to think that this is the era that we’re entering.
I only started following politics in 2020 and only became aware of TYT because of Michael and Ana's short-lived project with Jacobin. In the few segments I did see I never really vibed with Cenk and Ana despite having similar politics, and until recently I thought some of critiques of them might be overblown. This past couple weeks has been really eye-opening though. I saw the clip of Cenk telling Hasan that Sam Seder is a "grifter" and that is an accusation so unfounded as to be laughable, especially in light of what Cenk himself is accused of doing. I also saw the episode of Clickbaity when Mondale decided to shun TYT, some Vanguard clips, Ben Dixon's video (all of which you linked to here), a couple responses from Emma and Matt Lech, and a piece by Mike Figueredo and yeah, definitely seems like all bridges to TYT are burning.
I was unaware of TYT’s stint with Jacobin. I might go back and see if I can peruse any of that (I only recently realized how much I jell with Jacobin’s POV).
In terms of the drama, normally I would avoid that type of thing. At the same time, when there is crossover in the left mediasphere, that kind of perks up the ears, and Majority Report had put out a clip of Sam saying about Cenk’s comments, “I don’t care.” So, that really was my introduction to this current round of bridges on fire.
Seder is clearly sincere in the depth of his involvement in liberal and left-leaning causes. In light of that, I would categorize Cenk’s accusation as projection. It also strikes me as noteworthy that Seder & crew have extended an invitation to discuss & debate twice to Cenk and Ana, without reply but with continued venom directed at TMR crew. So, that’s pretty telling. TYT’s vitriol seems to be a marketing ploy.
I saw those other clips you mentioned — they fell to the cutting room floor in terms of this essay, but they do provide deep background information. Again, I was trying to avoid a gossipy feel to this essay. (I will say that Matt Lech is SOUR! Oh my goodness. He is thoroughly disgusted with everything that is and has been going on.)
Mike Figueredo of the Humanist Report had a fascinating take, which I appreciated. He really drilled down to the psychological underpinnings of what may be driving Cenk and Ana. The fact that he along with so many others who directly worked with TYT are now coming out and slagging them is a remarkable window into the dynamics of what’s currently going on. Cenk and Ana are selling out on their very principles, and everyone sees it.
The show with Michael and Ana was called "Weekends w/ Ana Kasparian and Michael Brooks". And yeah, I try not to get drawn in by the interpersonal drama either but I agree with those who are concerned that TYT is perceived as the definitive source for progressive politics when it clearly is not (if it ever was). In any case thanks for writing about it!
I’ve never really watched TYT, since I had always considered it to be too conservative (hah) and opportunistic. Everything that’s been going down with them this last year backs up view. What I would really leftist media only exists in the form of niche podcasts, blogs, and online media platforms that reach a relatively small number of people. And even that small media footprint can be suppressed by the government at will. To me, an outlet like the TYT is trying to have it both ways by trying to present itself as somewhat of an outsider program, telling hard truths, while also craving the kind of mainstream success that requires their content to be inoffensive. As it stands, I think liberalism as a political philosophy and a public policy framework has hit a wall, unable to conceive of new futures, causing many adherents to adopt reactionary positions.
Well, the founder of TYT, Cenk Uygur, originally identified as conservative. In fact, he held rather retrograde ideas, including sexist ideas, for which he made a public mea culpa later. I liked Cenk at MSNBC back in the day (when Keith Olbermann was still on the air and Rachel Maddow was his understudy), and when he migrated online I kept up here and there. I would have kept watching, probably, had Kasparian not made disparaging, judgmental remarks about women and their clothing and/or sexual choices.
There's a whole conversation about the need for independent media that is crucial to have but which I barely touched upon here. Elsewhere in the world, there was this channel called African Stream that had heavily criticized US involvement in Somalia, I believe. The US accused the channel of spreading disinformation (when, if you were to look at the copy, you'd see that it was merely a slant of publicly available information, not maliciously spread lies). Incidentally, AS had also criticized Israel's assault on Gaza. The US lobbied YouTube to remove the channel in its entirety. That happened just this year. One of the hosts, remarking on the situation from his own personal YouTube channel, exclaimed that Africans, but also Black media in general, need to be able to control their own infrastructure. You don't want just a channel but the platform (i.e., the means of production), so that it can't be snatched away on a whim or by someone with an axe to grind or an ulterior motive.
Here in the States, the call for Black media as well as independent media of all types is gaining ground. I don't know what avenues will open up in that space. I do find it the height of hilarity that TYT thinks it can still call itself indie media when it's being sponsored by one of the most extremist right-wing billionaires in the world. There are all sorts of strings attached to that money.
If TYT is an "outsider," I think that's more a reflection of Uygur's contrariness. This current business of his, declaring that he is against the "establishment" and that he's for "populism" (which, for some strange reason, he thinks means being for policies that are popular -- that's NOT the meaning of that term), is his way of being a maverick. In reality, he's just trying to -- as you say -- remain on the perimeter so as to be able to claim to have some sort of unbiased perspective.
As for liberalism, well, that's a broad subject, one which requires its own analysis. Flipping through Robert Paxton's book on the subject, though, I keep coming across his small but needling critiques about faltering liberalism being the fertile ground of fascism's opportunity. I'd been meaning for some time to string together some of these cultural critiques offered by Paxton, as well as Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Robert Jay Lifton (who brings up the weakness of liberalism in the face of totalitarianism). Hannah Arendt probably had something to say about the topic, too. The problem is, if conservatives are deadset on mucking up the works in their quest to prove that government is ineffective, far-rightists can take advantage of the situation and hawk extremist reforms. In other words, it's a perverse incentive.
Thank you for your reply. I’ve noticed that too many people seem to mistake being a contrarian or being anti-establishment to being some flavor of leftist. Part of the problem, I suppose, is that political discourse is so far to the right now that even unrepentant Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton is considered a “leftist” by many, as well as Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden. At the very least, being a leftist should entail being against MLK’s triple evils of racism, militarism, and materialism. While there are some who would purport to be against racism, the consensus is that being against militarism or materialism is fundamentally un-American.
The establishment has different moving parts with different ideologies, so it’s possible to be against some aspects and not others. Here I’m thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins, who ostensibly rails against religion and theism, but has recently decided that “wokeism” is more dangerous at the moment, thus deciding to team up with the conservative Christian clergy he should theoretically be mocking. Even as religious as the US is, Dawkins’ views aren’t a threat to the status quo. Indeed, his Islamophobia provided a seemingly “rational” justification for continued Anglo-American meddling in the Middle East among those who would otherwise look down on someone like GWB’s crass crusader rhetoric.
Simply put, if your views are really threatening to the status quo, you aren’t going to get access to the mainstream media. This is why there were plenty of AIPAC-influenced talking heads berating student protesters on TV, but the protesters themselves were not allowed to speak (you can correct me if I’m wrong about this). Phil Donahue was cancelled for real for expressing very mild anti-war views during the first GWB administration. As Noam Chomsky said, our Overton window is quite narrow, but the media creates the illusion of a diversity of ideas by having lots of debate within this limited framework.
For all the optimism that the Internet would be a sphere of open access to information that would take down autocracy, the opposite has turned out to be true. As the example of Africa Stream shows, even a website or podcast can be repressed if it’s deemed to be a threat to the powers that be, regardless of where it exists in the world.
More and more, I lament the loss of the independent Black press, newspapers like the Chicago Defender, the Pittsburgh Courier, and even Jet and Ebony as an incalculable loss. They weren’t leftist per se and often carried dubious ads for skin lighteners. However, they had a reach and a mission that just doesn’t exist anymore, and they didn’t cater to white interests. Similarly, there also used to be socialist and communist newspapers with a substantial reach. People lamenting that there isn’t a counterbalance to the right-wing media ecology ignore the fact that such a thing did exist not too long ago, but it wasn’t in the form of mainstream liberalism. The fact that people are seriously wondering why “leftist billionaires” can’t start a new cable news channel (a dying medium if there every was one) illustrates how little the term leftist means and how out of touch many Democrats are.
Liberalism has no problem working with fascism. Fascism is often referred to as liberalism in decay. Given how many fascist/authoritarian governments that the US has supported “for freedom,” it should be obvious that our country doesn’t have a problem with fascism per se, unlike socialism. If the US already believes that fascism isn’t inherently bad, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the chickens would come home to roast in that regard.
I find your statement about MLK, Jr.'s trio of what leftists should be against interesting, because I think we're in a moment where categories are fluid. Not only is what the Democratic Party will stand for up for discussion but also just what a Democrat / liberal is (and, thus, what a leftist is). Everything's in flux. I think that's one of the reasons why I find this brouhaha at TYT so fascinating, because it's an exercise in redefinition. I think that's a function of this sea change that we're undergoing.
Folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are disappointing, not just because of their retrograde views but the fact that they're giving folks with otherwise rational ideas a black eye. People who have agreed with them in terms of dissenting against the mainstream on very specific issues (namely atheism) have now had to distance themselves from this embrace by such figures of blatant bigotry. I don't know what the two get out of their advocacy of hate. I suppose it's a form of chauvinism (which, I must admit, is really hard for me to get my mind around, as the stance seems so clearly facetious).
You bring up the Overton window as a function of mainstream media access. Well, with ABC News capitulating to Trump on this defamation lawsuit -- a suit that most observers predicted that ABC News would have won in a walk -- along with similar moves by WaPo and Joe Scarborough indicate that that the Overton window is about to become very narrow indeed. Trump, with just the threat of a lawsuit, will be able to determine what viewpoints actually are able to surface into the public sphere. That really does not bode well.
I would say that there are some who have noted that there simply isn't the same ecosystem of funding in left spaces to counteract this cannibalization of the public square by right-wing sources. Part of that is a derivative of ideology, certainly: leftists can't court billionaires if we say that we don't want billionaires to exist. Some may still come to the cause of leftism, but that person will be principled and rare. Meanwhile, on the right, form and function come together.
I think, as far as our opinion of liberalism is concerned, we have differing views on how it plays a part in the advent of fascism. Clearly, fascism is a strategy of defeating liberalism. Thus, liberalism is always going to be in the equation. Liberalism must be "in decay" (I would say in decline or deadlocked, more specifically) in order for fascism to seem like an attractive alternative. This is why I say that there's a perverse incentive for fascists to infiltrate government and muck with the machinery so as to then turn around and offer a poison apple to the public -- they're rewarded for sabotage. Mainly, though, it's conservatism that cooperates with fascism to give it the foothold necessary to launch itself into various sectors of society. That's my understanding, that liberals are somewhat cowed (especially when live violence comes into play), while conservatives, according to Paxton, simply prefer the right leanings of fascism over any inklings of leftism and will turn to the former if the latter appears to be making any gains. (This, too, is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as leftism will undoubtedly attempt to make a comeback whenever fascism becomes a threat. Conservatives see that and partner with the ascendent fascists. Liberals, observing this dynamic, back down. It's a vicious cycle.)
The shift right in traditional media has for sure been ongoing and picking up steam to the point where you wonder just how extreme it can get. That Bezos story where he stopped the WaPo endorsement was eye opening but I don’t know if it should surprise us. I mean look at him! He builds more wealth in a single day, than more than half of the population will see in the entire lives. So of course Bezos fears losing that by angering a full blown fascist who will have the power of the presidency to disrupt his growing fortune. And then ABC, already slanting right, actually pays him off! And then the LA Times with their similar moves. All of them are obviously scared. I have not followed TYTs. But I watched the excerpt from the interview with Morgan that you posted. She seems like she would be comfortable in that private suite with Trump, Vance, and their favorite killer.
As you laid out, the two party system has the Left screwed. The media has shifted right, the Democratic Party has shifted right. Meanwhile, this freaky fascist is about to walk into the WH. I get the sense that we, ALL of us, right, left,
and the unaware… all of us are about to try to live through very tough times. These events can create their own energy that then becomes a force just looking for ANY target. The hunters become the hunted. It seems like this will get worse before it gets better.
Thanks for your voice. I appreciate your writing.
Thanks, FC, for stopping by and reading.
I think the media environment should alarm all of us, to be frank. At the time that WaPo pulled that endorsement — which had already been written and vetted, due to be published — it was seen as an omen, Bezos moving to protect other parts of his empire. The owner of the LAT also spiked an already written and vetted endorsement of Harris. These were painted by both men as preserving neutrality, but in fact they had the effect of putting a thumb on the scale, as both moves interfered with the regular tempo and influence the editorial board would have with its audience. We can’t measure how much the endorsements may have affected voting behavior — but if it would have had no effect, then the owners would have had no reason to intervene.
LAT is instituting a visual temperature gauge, except it’s not measuring heat but bias. The owner is pre-emptively accusing his own columnists and reporters of bias. I’ve never seen anything like it. And then, who determines the level of “bias”? Who watches the watchers?
WaPo, too, has simply moved right since pulling that endorsement. It’s actually unnerving, how quickly it has shifted (and how far!) in such a short amount of time. Regarding Jordan Neely, rather than focus on the verdict of Daniel Penny, which was clearly not in order, the editorial board said that the city failed Neely and that in the future we should consider retracting the rights of people and having a laxer standard by which we involuntarily institutionalize people. As Neely was without shelter and suffering from issues with mental health, this editorial clearly has implications as to who might be targeted under such a policy change. WaPo is advocating for taking away rights that people currently hold. That’s not a liberal stance.
TYT is not as much of a three-alarm fire as those mainstream press organs, but it’s important as it’s been a fixture in left-leaning spaces (particularly online) for more than a decade. There are details here that I left out, for the sake of space and because they seem more gossipy and in the weeds, but Ana Kasparian has truly abandoned progressivism (while still claiming to speak for progressives). She apparently was assaulted on the street by a homeless person and now she is all-in on the right-wing crime narrative (even though, nationally, violent crime has gone down).
There was a big brouhaha last year when both Kasparian and Uygur began squawking about transgender rights, each in their own regressive way — Uygur being ultra-transactional (advocating for trans participation in sports will cost us elections!) and Kasparian being personally offended at the reminder that she has a uterus and bleeds every month. It’s a saga that has cost them employees in terms of people packing it up and leaving. I personally stopped watching them not too much later after the Arbery trial, because Kasparian had said something where she was judging women either on their clothing or their sexual behavior, and that set off my feminist Spidey sense. I’m glad I got out when I did.
The problem is, they have such a reputation for being at the forefront of progressivism, when they mix in such reactionary takes, their audience will begin to be radicalized to these right-wing talking points that they’re sprinkling in, and the viewers won’t be the wiser as to that radicalization process.
I think we will see the LGBQT community be targeted right out of the gate. We already see schools trying to limit their visibility, isolate them by making it harder for them to reach out to teachers or counselors or just reading a book that might portray them as worthy. But this is only the beginning. The right has politicized healthcare and will move to outlaw procedures they don’t understand or approve of. It is just mind blowing that they put SO MUCH thought into issues around gender, sexuality, personal identity. Just mind blowing that this occupies so much of their attention. Why do they care SO much about who sleeps with who and which bathroom a person uses. I guess a lot of it comes from religion.
But yeah, the early targets will be trans people, immigrants, and the disabled. I predict the main threats to immigrants will be carried out by the state. I think the big talkers will outsource the violence against LGBQTs. They will dial up the hateful rhetoric and there will then be attacks on them out on the streets. I am old. I remember when Matthew Shepard was killed. I lived in Houston for many years and frequented many clubs in the Montrose district. Which at that time was the go to hang out for gays. Lots of gay bars and restaurants. Now I think it has been overtaken by the upscale, higher income, professional class. But anyway, there was a gay couple coming out of one of the gay bars, maybe JR’s?, can’t recall now, but anyway this group of guys beat and stabbed Paul Broussard to death.
I had a close friend who enjoyed dressing up in drag, going out to gay clubs, dancing. He was attacked in a parking lot, beaten severely, stripped naked, and left in a small public park. He survived. But since I am older, I remember these events. They were COMMON. I think those days will return.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. I too remember Matthew Shepard's murder. That wasn't that long ago.
Dr. Steven Hassan (among others, I'm sure) recently noted that the current anti-trans panic seems to be a stand-in for anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, primarily because it's no longer normative to be homophobic. Transphobia is in vogue, though, so that seems to be a wedge or Trojan horse to bash LGBTQ+ folks soon enough.
As for outsourcing violence, I think we're already seeing some of that. When Trump made his ridiculous claim about migrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, we then saw KKK groups descend on the town and march. In a more volatile environment, I fully would expect such activity to turn violent. We saw the same during the first months of Covid, when Trump told people to "liberate Michigan" and other areas. He's going to be a de facto leader of militia groups all across the country, and they will respond to his suggestions as though they were commands. How quickly this may happen, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you and I are on the right track about this.
So brilliant as always. You should be getting paid for these reports. I find it all nauseating and can only take in current events in small doses. That Penny was invited by those two devils to join them is beyond appalling. Effing dumpster family are very recent immigrants to our country, unlike the human beings forced into slavery and their descendants, who continue to be horrifically abused.
Thanks for reading and for the feedback, F/C. I appreciate the vote of confidence :)
I was dismayed when I heard the verdict and felt I should follow up from my previous writing about Neely, but I was quite discouraged. When I heard that Trump was honoring Penny, though, I knew I had to respond.
I can’t tell you how I felt when I came across that comment thread on WaPo. It’s so clear that those commenters were engaged in a flex. It’s incredibly disturbing to think that this is the era that we’re entering.
It truly is.
I only started following politics in 2020 and only became aware of TYT because of Michael and Ana's short-lived project with Jacobin. In the few segments I did see I never really vibed with Cenk and Ana despite having similar politics, and until recently I thought some of critiques of them might be overblown. This past couple weeks has been really eye-opening though. I saw the clip of Cenk telling Hasan that Sam Seder is a "grifter" and that is an accusation so unfounded as to be laughable, especially in light of what Cenk himself is accused of doing. I also saw the episode of Clickbaity when Mondale decided to shun TYT, some Vanguard clips, Ben Dixon's video (all of which you linked to here), a couple responses from Emma and Matt Lech, and a piece by Mike Figueredo and yeah, definitely seems like all bridges to TYT are burning.
Hi, Tom! Thanks for stopping by.
I was unaware of TYT’s stint with Jacobin. I might go back and see if I can peruse any of that (I only recently realized how much I jell with Jacobin’s POV).
In terms of the drama, normally I would avoid that type of thing. At the same time, when there is crossover in the left mediasphere, that kind of perks up the ears, and Majority Report had put out a clip of Sam saying about Cenk’s comments, “I don’t care.” So, that really was my introduction to this current round of bridges on fire.
Seder is clearly sincere in the depth of his involvement in liberal and left-leaning causes. In light of that, I would categorize Cenk’s accusation as projection. It also strikes me as noteworthy that Seder & crew have extended an invitation to discuss & debate twice to Cenk and Ana, without reply but with continued venom directed at TMR crew. So, that’s pretty telling. TYT’s vitriol seems to be a marketing ploy.
I saw those other clips you mentioned — they fell to the cutting room floor in terms of this essay, but they do provide deep background information. Again, I was trying to avoid a gossipy feel to this essay. (I will say that Matt Lech is SOUR! Oh my goodness. He is thoroughly disgusted with everything that is and has been going on.)
Mike Figueredo of the Humanist Report had a fascinating take, which I appreciated. He really drilled down to the psychological underpinnings of what may be driving Cenk and Ana. The fact that he along with so many others who directly worked with TYT are now coming out and slagging them is a remarkable window into the dynamics of what’s currently going on. Cenk and Ana are selling out on their very principles, and everyone sees it.
The show with Michael and Ana was called "Weekends w/ Ana Kasparian and Michael Brooks". And yeah, I try not to get drawn in by the interpersonal drama either but I agree with those who are concerned that TYT is perceived as the definitive source for progressive politics when it clearly is not (if it ever was). In any case thanks for writing about it!
https://jacobin.com/2020/04/weekends-with-ana-kasparian-and-michael-brooks
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxlNhP2f0kUJHo-rlI51lkgtKIHdshplh&si=e6IAawgKnBtKTNMi
I’ve never really watched TYT, since I had always considered it to be too conservative (hah) and opportunistic. Everything that’s been going down with them this last year backs up view. What I would really leftist media only exists in the form of niche podcasts, blogs, and online media platforms that reach a relatively small number of people. And even that small media footprint can be suppressed by the government at will. To me, an outlet like the TYT is trying to have it both ways by trying to present itself as somewhat of an outsider program, telling hard truths, while also craving the kind of mainstream success that requires their content to be inoffensive. As it stands, I think liberalism as a political philosophy and a public policy framework has hit a wall, unable to conceive of new futures, causing many adherents to adopt reactionary positions.
Well, the founder of TYT, Cenk Uygur, originally identified as conservative. In fact, he held rather retrograde ideas, including sexist ideas, for which he made a public mea culpa later. I liked Cenk at MSNBC back in the day (when Keith Olbermann was still on the air and Rachel Maddow was his understudy), and when he migrated online I kept up here and there. I would have kept watching, probably, had Kasparian not made disparaging, judgmental remarks about women and their clothing and/or sexual choices.
There's a whole conversation about the need for independent media that is crucial to have but which I barely touched upon here. Elsewhere in the world, there was this channel called African Stream that had heavily criticized US involvement in Somalia, I believe. The US accused the channel of spreading disinformation (when, if you were to look at the copy, you'd see that it was merely a slant of publicly available information, not maliciously spread lies). Incidentally, AS had also criticized Israel's assault on Gaza. The US lobbied YouTube to remove the channel in its entirety. That happened just this year. One of the hosts, remarking on the situation from his own personal YouTube channel, exclaimed that Africans, but also Black media in general, need to be able to control their own infrastructure. You don't want just a channel but the platform (i.e., the means of production), so that it can't be snatched away on a whim or by someone with an axe to grind or an ulterior motive.
Here in the States, the call for Black media as well as independent media of all types is gaining ground. I don't know what avenues will open up in that space. I do find it the height of hilarity that TYT thinks it can still call itself indie media when it's being sponsored by one of the most extremist right-wing billionaires in the world. There are all sorts of strings attached to that money.
If TYT is an "outsider," I think that's more a reflection of Uygur's contrariness. This current business of his, declaring that he is against the "establishment" and that he's for "populism" (which, for some strange reason, he thinks means being for policies that are popular -- that's NOT the meaning of that term), is his way of being a maverick. In reality, he's just trying to -- as you say -- remain on the perimeter so as to be able to claim to have some sort of unbiased perspective.
As for liberalism, well, that's a broad subject, one which requires its own analysis. Flipping through Robert Paxton's book on the subject, though, I keep coming across his small but needling critiques about faltering liberalism being the fertile ground of fascism's opportunity. I'd been meaning for some time to string together some of these cultural critiques offered by Paxton, as well as Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Robert Jay Lifton (who brings up the weakness of liberalism in the face of totalitarianism). Hannah Arendt probably had something to say about the topic, too. The problem is, if conservatives are deadset on mucking up the works in their quest to prove that government is ineffective, far-rightists can take advantage of the situation and hawk extremist reforms. In other words, it's a perverse incentive.
Thank you for your reply. I’ve noticed that too many people seem to mistake being a contrarian or being anti-establishment to being some flavor of leftist. Part of the problem, I suppose, is that political discourse is so far to the right now that even unrepentant Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton is considered a “leftist” by many, as well as Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden. At the very least, being a leftist should entail being against MLK’s triple evils of racism, militarism, and materialism. While there are some who would purport to be against racism, the consensus is that being against militarism or materialism is fundamentally un-American.
The establishment has different moving parts with different ideologies, so it’s possible to be against some aspects and not others. Here I’m thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins, who ostensibly rails against religion and theism, but has recently decided that “wokeism” is more dangerous at the moment, thus deciding to team up with the conservative Christian clergy he should theoretically be mocking. Even as religious as the US is, Dawkins’ views aren’t a threat to the status quo. Indeed, his Islamophobia provided a seemingly “rational” justification for continued Anglo-American meddling in the Middle East among those who would otherwise look down on someone like GWB’s crass crusader rhetoric.
Simply put, if your views are really threatening to the status quo, you aren’t going to get access to the mainstream media. This is why there were plenty of AIPAC-influenced talking heads berating student protesters on TV, but the protesters themselves were not allowed to speak (you can correct me if I’m wrong about this). Phil Donahue was cancelled for real for expressing very mild anti-war views during the first GWB administration. As Noam Chomsky said, our Overton window is quite narrow, but the media creates the illusion of a diversity of ideas by having lots of debate within this limited framework.
For all the optimism that the Internet would be a sphere of open access to information that would take down autocracy, the opposite has turned out to be true. As the example of Africa Stream shows, even a website or podcast can be repressed if it’s deemed to be a threat to the powers that be, regardless of where it exists in the world.
More and more, I lament the loss of the independent Black press, newspapers like the Chicago Defender, the Pittsburgh Courier, and even Jet and Ebony as an incalculable loss. They weren’t leftist per se and often carried dubious ads for skin lighteners. However, they had a reach and a mission that just doesn’t exist anymore, and they didn’t cater to white interests. Similarly, there also used to be socialist and communist newspapers with a substantial reach. People lamenting that there isn’t a counterbalance to the right-wing media ecology ignore the fact that such a thing did exist not too long ago, but it wasn’t in the form of mainstream liberalism. The fact that people are seriously wondering why “leftist billionaires” can’t start a new cable news channel (a dying medium if there every was one) illustrates how little the term leftist means and how out of touch many Democrats are.
Liberalism has no problem working with fascism. Fascism is often referred to as liberalism in decay. Given how many fascist/authoritarian governments that the US has supported “for freedom,” it should be obvious that our country doesn’t have a problem with fascism per se, unlike socialism. If the US already believes that fascism isn’t inherently bad, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the chickens would come home to roast in that regard.
Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply, LM.
I find your statement about MLK, Jr.'s trio of what leftists should be against interesting, because I think we're in a moment where categories are fluid. Not only is what the Democratic Party will stand for up for discussion but also just what a Democrat / liberal is (and, thus, what a leftist is). Everything's in flux. I think that's one of the reasons why I find this brouhaha at TYT so fascinating, because it's an exercise in redefinition. I think that's a function of this sea change that we're undergoing.
Folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are disappointing, not just because of their retrograde views but the fact that they're giving folks with otherwise rational ideas a black eye. People who have agreed with them in terms of dissenting against the mainstream on very specific issues (namely atheism) have now had to distance themselves from this embrace by such figures of blatant bigotry. I don't know what the two get out of their advocacy of hate. I suppose it's a form of chauvinism (which, I must admit, is really hard for me to get my mind around, as the stance seems so clearly facetious).
You bring up the Overton window as a function of mainstream media access. Well, with ABC News capitulating to Trump on this defamation lawsuit -- a suit that most observers predicted that ABC News would have won in a walk -- along with similar moves by WaPo and Joe Scarborough indicate that that the Overton window is about to become very narrow indeed. Trump, with just the threat of a lawsuit, will be able to determine what viewpoints actually are able to surface into the public sphere. That really does not bode well.
I would say that there are some who have noted that there simply isn't the same ecosystem of funding in left spaces to counteract this cannibalization of the public square by right-wing sources. Part of that is a derivative of ideology, certainly: leftists can't court billionaires if we say that we don't want billionaires to exist. Some may still come to the cause of leftism, but that person will be principled and rare. Meanwhile, on the right, form and function come together.
I think, as far as our opinion of liberalism is concerned, we have differing views on how it plays a part in the advent of fascism. Clearly, fascism is a strategy of defeating liberalism. Thus, liberalism is always going to be in the equation. Liberalism must be "in decay" (I would say in decline or deadlocked, more specifically) in order for fascism to seem like an attractive alternative. This is why I say that there's a perverse incentive for fascists to infiltrate government and muck with the machinery so as to then turn around and offer a poison apple to the public -- they're rewarded for sabotage. Mainly, though, it's conservatism that cooperates with fascism to give it the foothold necessary to launch itself into various sectors of society. That's my understanding, that liberals are somewhat cowed (especially when live violence comes into play), while conservatives, according to Paxton, simply prefer the right leanings of fascism over any inklings of leftism and will turn to the former if the latter appears to be making any gains. (This, too, is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as leftism will undoubtedly attempt to make a comeback whenever fascism becomes a threat. Conservatives see that and partner with the ascendent fascists. Liberals, observing this dynamic, back down. It's a vicious cycle.)