Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
President Donald Trump rewrote the campaign playbook in various ways during his 2024 run for the presidency, but how he dominated alternative media and spent hours chatting on podcasts instead of appearing on primetime shows might be the most remarkable way he changed the game. Legacy outlets were an afterthought. He continues to leverage new media to his advantage while traditional sources struggle to figure out how to compete with influencers and podcasts, how not only to survive but to thrive. For them to remain contenders, though, is proving to be more complicated than just playing follow the leader.
This White House is likely the most accessible of any administration. The president’s first Cabinet meeting was live-streamed and acquired around six million views – for a Cabinet meeting! Press rooms now include X users, podcast hosts, and YouTubers, influencers with millions of followers. Top officials like FBI Director Kash Patel and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have appeared on podcasts and engaged in casual conversations with hosts like Joe Rogan and Bari Weiss, often unveiling new plans and insider information. Back in March, the administration unveiled Podcast Row, a new section of the White House where podcasters can stream and record on-site with Cabinet members. The White House is even using email newsletters with video segments called “MAGA Minute,” narrated by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, to keep Americans informed. Meanwhile, the administration’s Rapid Response team is constantly online blasting out talking points, boasting new policies, setting the record straight, or countering attacks from critics and elected Democrats. The goal is “FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE,” said communications director Steven Cheung on X, and it appears to be working.
If those numbers persist, staff cuts could be necessary again. In 2024, more than “500 journalists were laid off from media outlets in January,” explained The Week, “and they kept coming as the year went on. CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Vox Media, Time magazine,” and other big-box news sources have had to cast off employees.
What are these outlets doing wrong?
What draws people to podcasters like Joe Rogan and Theo Von is that their shows give guests “a more casual environment, enabling them to relax more,” explained Liberty Nation News on Election Day 2024. “Unlike interviews on CNN or NBC, where the interviewer is limited to editorial guidelines and must stick to a strict schedule and time limit, genuine discussions happen.” Editing is unnecessary and frowned upon. There are no rules. “A sort of stream-of-consciousness takes place,” and listeners feel they’re a part of something unfolding in real time. “Trump [has] appeared on multiple podcasts and discussed a variety of topics, including UFOs, professional fighting, golf, lakes, forestry management, electric cars, and whale psychiatry.” What is said is less important than how it is said. “Conversations like these break away from the usual political façade and humanize” politicians.
Can legacy media do that? Can the press as we once knew it have a normal, unscripted conversation? Even if it could, would it matter? People want to listen to humans, not journalists subservient to corporate greed and political agendas. Plus, with Americans’ record-low level of trust in the Fourth Estate, it might take some serious maneuvering to get people to believe any such discussions could be sincere and without obfuscation, especially after the disastrous coverage – or lack thereof – by the establishment press of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline during his presidency.
Simply imitating Rogan and others probably won’t work. Authenticity is a big reason people love podcasts so much, but it can’t be manufactured or simulated. There’s also a level of intimacy involved that makes listeners feel like a part of the conversation. It’s about forming a connection with the audience, whether in video, audio, or print. But these news organizations might not want outsiders to be a part of a conversation – then it would be more difficult to control.
Establishment news outlets have the physical tools to succeed and are already using them. Most have several podcasts with different hosts covering various topics and genres. It’s as if they think the more shows they have, the better their chances will be of appealing to new demographics. That concept might work if the quality of the programs were better. But the hosts can often sound as though they’re reading an op-ed, and the interviews can come off as heavily edited, rigid, and formal, with enough condescension to nauseate all of Middle America. That’s not to say some publications aren’t stepping outside their safety bubble and making an effort.
About six months ago, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen went on a podcast published by The New York Times and hosted by Ross Douthat, just weeks after Andreessen appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, which acquired nearly three million views. The Times barely topped 30,000. Soon after, it branched out even further and hosted Curtis Yarvin, a philosopher well-known in right-wing circles. The conversation derailed, though, and “interviewer David Marchese pushed back aggressively,” said cultural critic Ted Gioia on his Substack, The Honest Broker. “[T]heir dialogue soon resembled more a debate than an interview. The conversation was testy and in-your-face.” Nothing wrong with that. People want to be entertained. They’re not interested in just the news.
Between layoffs and resignations, many network hosts and legacy media journalists have given up on mainstream outlets and opted for independence. Veteran opinion columnist Jennifer Rubin left The Washington Post earlier this year and started a Substack with former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen. It amassed more than 300,000 subscribers in ten days and now tops half a million with tens of thousands of paid subscribers. Opinion writer Paul Krugman retired from The New York Times around six months ago and started a newsletter there, too. Former CNN staples Jim Acosta and Chris Cillizza are also making a handsome living on the platform. The list is seemingly endless and will likely continue to grow.
What’s so special about Substack? For starters, “news readers want analysis,” said Noah Smith, a former opinion writer for Bloomberg, in his Substack Noahpinion. “They don’t want to just read the reporting from the Associated Press or some investigative journalists and then have to put it all together and decide what it all means. They want writers to explain those facts, to identify the salient implications, to make predictions, and to recommend courses of action.”
Many news outlets have dabbled in analysis, but they blend it into opinion pieces, which mostly turn into polemics with loose theories based on distorted facts and hyperbole. The problem with opinions, though, is that people tire of them easily. Countless pundits and armchair journalists are out there repeating whatever talking points their political party supports and posting them hourly. Not to mention, “[l]egacy publications,” said Noah, “stunt their analysis by forcing it into a short bland format optimized for conveying opinions.” Editing can be the death of writing, too, especially when it’s overdone or governed by strict procedures. It can subtract value and prevent “writers from developing their own distinctive voice, their own loyal audience, and their own organizational skills.”
Now that online tools are available for journalists to reach audiences on their own terms and charge a subscription fee, the number of reporters and talking heads parting ways with old establishments is growing by the week. Those who have name recognition are often taking viewers and readers with them, too, furthering the decline of big-box news organizations.
These outlets are struggling with more than just adapting to new media. Their antiquated publication processes seem to stifle them as their elitist brand clings like skin to their image, welcoming a few while pushing away many – and there doesn’t seem to be an easy solution to that problem.