Mediaboss Marketing

Joe Rogan is one of the most influential people in media. That doesn't mean he's a good interviewer or a responsible communicator when speaking to a large and devoted audience, but it is a fact. It's hard to pinpoint the exact size of his podcast's audience, but Rogans official YouTube channel has 7.3 million subscribers and he recently claimed his podcast gets 190 million downloads a month.

When Elon Musk goes on Rogans show and smokes a blunt, Tesla stocks take a tumble (though as Rogan notes at every opportunity, they quickly bounced back). It was a big deal when Bernie Sanders sat down with Rogan for an hour-long interview in August, and an even bigger deal earlier this week when Rogan said that he would probably vote for Sanders in the upcoming election. Sanders is not the first presidential candidate to go on Rogan's podcastTulsi Gabbard has been on several timesnor is Sanders the first candidate to get something resembling an endorsement from Rogan. Rogan hosted and voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016.

On Thursday, Sanders tweeted a clip from Rogan's podcast highlighting his endorsement, in which Rogan said he likes Sanders for career-long consistency in his politics.

Rogan's endorsement of Sanders is notable because unlike Johnson, Sanders has an actual shot at taking the White House, and in a close race, gaining the support of even a portion of Rogans massive, loyal audience could be a difference maker. Whats less clear is why the Sanders campaign embraced and promoted the endorsement, knowing that Rogan is controversial and hated by parts of his base. Rogans endorsement is so influential, his audience so large, that its not even clear Sanders needed to acknowledge it because Rogans audience rivals (and is likely larger than) his own. Who is Sanders reaching with a Joe Rogan video clip that Rogan hasnt already reached?

Rogan's endorsement, and the video Sanders shared on Twitter in particular, has caused some controversy among people who argue that Rogan is a bigot who should be marginalized, ignored, or disavowed.

Rogan hasn't wielded his power with much responsibility: He's given people like Chuck Johnson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux, and Gavin McInnes access to his gigantic audience, and Rogan rarely challenges his guests on their views, allowing them to launder their bad ideas on his show. Data & Society researcher Becca Lewis has argued that Rogan giving a platform to these people has led his audience down more extremist rabbit holes on YouTube. Lewis describes Rogan as a "libertarian influencer with mainstream appeal."

"When [Rogan] hosts other members of the Intellectual Dark Web, it's easy to get drawn into that world," Lewis told Motherboard in 2018. That Rogan is an entry point to other YouTube and podcast influencers speaks to his own influence; whether Rogan's endorsement matters doesn't depend on whether Rogan himself is GOOD or BAD, it's whether his endorsement moves the needle. And given how much discussion there is about his endorsement and what we know about Rogan's overall influence, it almost certainly does.

A big part of Rogan's appeal is that he's an average Joe. Sitting down with him for an interview is not the same as doing a quick spot on CNN or Fox News. His interviews are long (often more than three hours), meandering, and silly. It gives subjects the chance to speak at length and often put their foot in their mouth. For his listeners, a recommendation from Rogan is like a recommendation from a friend, if your friend was talking to millions of people at once. It has the appearance of raw, emotional authenticity. It is the exact opposite of a measured, calculated endorsement from the

New York Times.

What seems to have made lots of people mad, however, is that Sanders has embraced the endorsement. Whats worth noting is that its not clear that Sanders sharing the video is actually going to earn him any more voters. Sanders, of course, has a huge audience, but Sanders reach is almost certainly smaller than Rogans. Sanders clip has 3.2 million views on Twitter. Rogans audience fluctuates and its notoriously difficult to get reliable podcast statistics (especially if you dont work for that podcast), but if Rogans 190 million downloads per month figure is accurate, we could conservatively estimate that each episode is getting far more than 3.2 million downloads.

This is why its impossible to amplify Joe Rogan: He has an audience bigger than nearly anyone in the country, and to ignore that he exists and that people like him is to remove yourself from reality. Theres little danger in Sanders tweeting this video and radicalizing people because Rogans audience is already huge. But sharing the video and tacitly accepting Rogans endorsement feels like an unforced error, or at least a risk Sanders didnt need to take: Hes opened himself up to criticism from parts of his base who care about social justice, marginalized people, and stand against the people and ideas Rogan has allowed to be laundered on his show, without really standing to gain anything.

"The goal of our campaign is to build a multi-racial, multi-generational movement that is large enough to defeat Donald Trump and the powerful special interests whose greed and corruption is the root cause of the outrageous inequality in America," the Sanders campaign told Motherboard in a statement. "Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs, while always making clear that we will never compromise our values. The truth is that by standing together in solidarity, we share the values of love and respect that will move us in the direction of a more humane, more equal world."

Continued here:
Joe Rogans Endorsement Is One of the Most Influential in America - VICE

Rush drummer Neil Peart during a performance at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas in 2002. (Ethan Miller/Reuters)

Neil Peart, the Canadian drummer and leader of the Seventies hard-rock band Rush, has died. Peart had battled brain cancer for three years.

I saw Peart and his band perform at the now-demolished New Haven Coliseum during Rushs Power Windows tour in 1985 (I think), and he was even more phenomenal in person than he was on the records. Fan polls routinely agreed he was the greatest rock drummer of his time (or indeed of all time, I would argue, though some would go with Keith Moon). Im not sure any rock track boasts drumming that can match Pearts breathtaking work on the 1981 song Tom Sawyer

Unusually for a drummer, Peart also wrote the big majority of his bands lyrics, which were among the most ambitious ever attempted in the hard-rock space. Like many other rock lyricists (Roger Waters, Pete Townshend), Peart was a genius at tapping into the restless alienation of late-teen boys who think theyre smarter than everyone around them. It occurred to me many years later that its an odd kind of gift, to keep your mind stuck in that mode of detachment, anger and frustration as you advance into middle age and accumulate mansions and supermodel girlfriends. Peart told Rolling Stone four years ago, I set out to never betray the values that 16-year-old had, to never sell out, to never bow to the man. A compromise is what I can never accept. Well, no one wants to hear rock lyrics about property taxes and the failings of the kitchen staff.

He also labeled himself a libertarian and in youth dabbled in Ayn Randism, naming Rushs 1975 song Anthem for her1937 novel Anthem, which was among George Orwells influences for 1984, and crediting Rand in the liner notes for her influence on the 1976 Rush album 2112.What teen boy didnt also flirt with Rand? To persist with a Rand fixation is not the mark of a healthy mind, though. When asked in 2012 (again in Rolling Stone) if Rands words still spoke to him, he said, Oh, no. That was 40 years ago.Peart did retain his libertarianism, after a fashion. He explained:

In that 2112 album, again, I was in my early twenties. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of Libertarianism as an ideal because Im an idealist. Paul Therouxs definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your twenties, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, Ive brought my view and also Ive just realized this Libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and were all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And thats when I evolve now into . . . a bleeding heart Libertarian. Thatll do.

Peart died in Santa Monica on January 7. R.I.P.

Link:
Farewell to Rocks Greatest Drummer (and Randian) - National Review

Libertarians have been among the most vocal critics of President Trump's decision to order the killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani. But there was actually a time when there were prominent libertarians who advocated assassination as an alternative to war.

It's worth noting that the libertarian objections to the Soleimani killing fall into two broad categories. One has to do with the question of whether Trump had the legal authority to order the attack without Congress. But the other is the substantive criticism of whether it's a good idea to take out a prominent foreign leader.

In the past, however, there has been a strand of libertarian thought that actually saw targeted killings of America's enemies as a way to eliminate threats without the need for major military engagements that killed civilians. To be clear, this doesn't mean it was a universally accepted position among libertarians (as if such a thing exists), but it was a prominent one.

Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000, explicitly argued that the United States should offer a bounty on the heads of our enemies. In Why Government Doesn't Work, the manifesto for his 1996 campaign, he made the case against the first Iraq War for its toll on innocent victims. "Assume Saddam Hussein really was a threat," he posited. "Is that a reason to kill innocent people and expose thousands of Americans to danger? Isnt there a better way for a President to deal with a potential enemy?"

As an alternative, he argued that the president could publicly deliver a message to Hussein, explaining the U.S. meant no harm to the Iraqi people and proposing $20 million be given as a reward to the person who assassinates him. "Everyone in the world is eligible for the reward: American citizens, citizens of other countries, Iraqi citizens, members of your Palace Guard, your cabinet even your wives."

Browne went on to explain: "There are brave, daring, ingenious, ambitious people in the world who would love to try for such a reward. At least one of them would probably be successful. But, what is more important, the potential for such success should dissuade anyone from threatening us."

He wrote: "Would the President be condoning cold-blooded killing? Yes but of just one guilty person, rather than of the thousands of innocents who die in bombing raids."

In the wake of Sept. 11 and as a presidential candidate, Ron Paul advocated that the U.S. enlist the help of private individuals to capture terrorists by issuing "letters of marque and reprisal." He proposed a bill that would have allowed "Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the [United States].

But he later criticized the raid that killed bin Laden, arguing that the U.S. should have worked with Pakistan.

There are specific circumstances surrounding the Soleimani killing that may make it particularly objectionable to libertarians. But the idea of targeting bad actors as an alternative to large-scale bombing raids is not incompatible with noninterventionist foreign policy sentiments.

View post:
Prominent libertarians once advocated assassination as an alternative to war - Washington Examiner

What is wrong with Fox News? A few months ago when Todd Starnes left Fox Radio to launch his own talk radio show and media company, you could see things changing at Fox. Todd Starnes provided a daily one-minute commentary on a hot political topic. Fox Radio replaced Starnes with three rotating anchors. One of the anchors is Guy Benson.

Fox News Radio promoted a gay, Never Trump Libertarian to replace a conservative, Pro-Trump evangelical Christian.

Of course, most stations that carried Starnes dont seem to be airing the Fox commentary. But it is still a fascinating and troubling move from Fox.

Benson came out as gay on Megyn Kellys Show back in 2015. Remember back then? When Kelly was anchoring on Fox News? Kelly remains on good terms with Benson, and according to the Daily Mail, attended Bensons gay marriage ceremony in September 2019 along with other notable libertarian and conservatives like Hugh Hewitt and Katie Pavlich.

Of course, Benson claims to have moderated his approach on Trump. In a column at Town Hall he wrote, My path forward has involved a different, more agnostic posture: Supporting and praising the president when warranted, and criticizing him as necessary.

Thats laudable. President Donald Trump isnt perfect. There are things to cheer and things to critique.

However, the appointment of another libertarian voice to the growing number of Culture War libertarians on Fox raises some serious questions.

Why would Fox News replace one of the few evangelical voices with someone who holds Culture War views so fundamentally different than Starnes?

Is there a place for evangelical Christians in the mainstream press?

Also, Is Fox trying to shift conservatives into a more libertarian view on issues like gay marriage?

Whatever the motive, this is an opportunity to encourage conservative, evangelical Christians to support conservative media outlets. We need real conservative voices.

Continued here:
Fox replaced conservative, Christian Pro-Trump host with gay, Libertarian Never Trumper - Capstone Report

By Libby Palanza | January 10, 2020

On November 8, 2016, Americans were glued to their televisions, watching as the election results rolled in and waiting to find out who their next president would be. No matter which news station they turned on, they undoubtedly heard news anchors going back and forth about Donald Trump and Hillary Clintons respective chances of winning the election. But there was something missing from the coverage that night. Two names were left out of the conversation: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

Although 22 percent of Americans do not identify with either of the two major parties, the third-party option is rarely taken seriously. Outsiders have occasionally managed to gain traction on the national stage, but more often than not, they struggle to gain even a percentage point or two in national elections. Since the beginning of the 20th century, only four third-party candidates have managed to win any electoral votes in a presidential election; the last time was in 1968, over 50 years ago.

Instead, third parties typically receive little attention on the national stage. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, 2016s third-party presidential candidates, only managed to scrape together a combined 6 percent of the popular vote. Furthermore, there are currently only two senators and two representatives from third parties serving in Congress.

Third-party candidates struggle to gain traction in American elections for a variety of reasons, but they are not out of the game altogether. These outsiders work tirelessly to challenge the ways in which people think about the problems facing our country, and they have not given up the hope that one day one of them will sit in the Oval Office.

Logistical Struggles

Ironically, it is during presidential election years that Americans hear the most about third-party candidates, as the media rushes to cover anyone who even vaguely hints at the possibility of a third-party run. These outside bids, however, are usually short lived. In the 2020 cycle, one potential third-party candidate, Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, entered the race only to drop out about nine months later.

Third-party candidates often find themselves falling behind in the race for the presidency due to logistical struggles. Running a political campaign, especially on the presidential level, is difficult and complicated. In an interview with the HPR, Alice Stewart, the communications director for a number of Republican presidential campaigns, explained that the party system is critical for campaigns because of the infrastructure that [the parties] provide, the network of people, and the resources If you are running in an independent or a third-party campaign the many years of built up infrastructure is just not there.

The two major parties have established such significant campaign infrastructures and funding bases that it is nearly impossible for a third party to be competitive in a national election. Stewart explained that all the money in the world is still not going to help you with the logistical challenges that any candidate will have to do what needs to be done to run for president.

Another significant barrier to success for third-party candidates that Stewart identified was ballot access. One of the biggest challenges that these third-party candidates face is in regards to ballot access, which is so hard. It is a state-by-state process Sometimes it is about money, sometimes it is about polling, sometimes it is about getting names on a list to support you. These third-party candidates rarely make it on the ballot in all 50 states It is impossible to get the delegates if you are not even on the ballot.

Searching for Acceptance

Despite their electoral shortcomings, third parties provide a space for those who have alternative worldviews to collaborate and align themselves with like-minded individuals. Marc Mercier, current chairman of the Massachusetts Libertarain Party and former Libertarian candidate for the Massachusetts Governors Council, recounted his own journey towards becoming a Libertarian in an interview with the HPR. For a long time I was always part of one of the major parties, one or the other, and I probably joined the Libertarian party maybe five years ago. I was just tired of interacting with people who were not aligned with my vision of how society should be, explained Mercier. At some point I just decided that if I was going to continue to be politically involved, I was going to have to be politically committed.

Although third parties can be a great space for those with unique worldviews to find community, there are many people who have a hard time taking them seriously simply because they lie outside of the mainstream. Americans are so used to the two-party system that it becomes difficult for many to accept an alternative.

Mercier explained that the biggest challenge [for third parties] is that as an instinct or by nature, humans are not accepting of anything different or out of the ordinary because it introduces uncertainty into their life. Any third party who expresses views that are not of the broad accepted norm on a physiological level, on an emotional level, their message will be rejected. Thus, simply because third-party candidates do not identify themselves within the established two-party system, human psychology hinders their ability to win elections.

An Ideological Mission

According to Mercier, running as a third-party candidate is less about winning the race than getting out the partys message and representing its principles. I went into [my campaign for the Governors Council] with eyes wide, knowing that it was not very likely that I was going to convert voters to my view and win that race, he recounted. The purpose of my race was to spread the message of Libertarianism and to offer an alternative point of view and to best represent the principles so that the people who heard them might consider an alternative sometime down the road. Although third-party candidates do not currently have a realistic chance of winning major elections, the mere act of running helps the partys message reach audiences that they otherwise might not.

In an interview with the HPR, John Aldrich, a professor of political science at Pfizer-Pratt University, identified messaging as one of the major goals of third-party campaigns. He explained that if third-party candidates keep plugging away, they will lose over and over again, but their message will get across and they will slowly build support, and in the long run [they will] be able to win. And for that, you need people who are effective campaigners who do not mind losing and never holding office.

He explained that third parties efforts are focused on affecting policy on the part of one or both of the current major parties or on being on the right side of history and eventually being able to win office. While Democrats and Republicans work towards short-term goals, third parties are focused on making gains both ideologically and practically in the long term.

Paths to Victory

Although the electoral landscape often seems bleak, third parties have not yet given up hope, and Mercier discussed strategies that would help the Libertarian party to get ahead politically. One idea for immediate results is to get somebody that people already trust and are already familiar with, somebody who does not present all that much uncertainty because their views are already known And what I think that would do is get people comfortable with the candidate to the point where they can ignore the unfamiliarity of the party and just focus on that one candidate so that they trust that person rather [than] the party they are affiliated with.

But this is not the only way for the Libertarian party, or any third party, to secure a foothold. By running candidates in local elections, third parties are able to build a strong foundation of support. Mercier explained that in local elections, voters are more focused on who the person on the ballot is than what letter is next to their name.

Mercier said that the Libertarian party encourages candidates to run for the local level offices so that you are running and winning based off of your personal relationships in your community, and people trust you for who you are And then the fact that you happen to be Libertarian might just be an introduction to them to that party and their comfort level allows them to be more accepting of what you have to say from the Libertarian perspective. By using those personal relationships as a foundation, third-party candidates are able to gain the traction they need to win on a small scale. If enough third-party candidates are able to do this, then there is potential for them to seek office at a higher level and actually have a chance of succeeding in the future.

Political Outsiders in America

Third-party candidates are some of the countrys most visible political outsiders. Almost everyone knows that they exist, but they face a variety of electoral challenges from a lack of party infrastructure and a struggle for ballot access to a need to battle the electorates aversion to someone outside the accepted two-party system. Any effort by a third-party candidate to run for a major office is almost inevitably futile at this point in time. This is not to say, however, that the efforts of these outside parties are without merit.

Winning is not their main goal, at least for the time being. Spreading their messaging, raising awareness about issues that are important to them, and affecting the policies adopted by the two major parties are all far more significant and realistic goals that third parties aim to achieve. By slowly acclimating the American public to their views and their existence, they hope to one day break into the system and succeed electorally. Third parties are playing the long game.

Continue reading here:
The Third Party Mystery - Harvard Political Review