My, the worm truly has turned — at least halfway. It wasn’t that long ago, really, that conservatives lamented how “mainstream” media “controlled the narrative.” Back in 2011, in fact, Professor Tim Groseclose estimated that “media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election.” Now, though, the erstwhile “mainstream” media isn’t so mainstream anymore. New media, epitomized by podcaster king Joe Rogan and English comedian Russel Brand, currently boast audiences dwarfing those of the alphabet network shows. So now the lament is different:
“The Right is controlling the narrative!” warn so many leftists.
But are they right? Perhaps even more significantly, are they right about what’s “right” (as opposed to left)?
For an example of the tooth-gnashing, consider an article authored by political strategist Waleed Shahid and commentator Francesca Fiorentini. Writing at Substack today, the pair states that a search for a Rogan of the Left is “misguided.” About that they’re correct, too. But…
Do We Know Our Lefts From Our Rights?
Waleed and Fiorentini (who I’ll henceforth called the “Stackers”) then write in their first paragraph:
A recent Media Matters study confirmed what many have long suspected: right-wing media has thoroughly colonized the digital entertainment ecosystem. Whether it’s comedy, sports, or long-form podcasts, conservative voices dominate. Nine of the ten most-followed online shows lean right, with figures like Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and Charlie Kirk commanding audiences that dwarf their progressive counterparts. The right isn’t just winning the media war — it’s setting the terrain of politics through it.
The Stackers then provide the following chart, which has been making the rounds on the internet.
Yet as the tweeter above essentially states, the analysis is tendentious. A few examples: Rogan was always a left-leaning libertarian; he endorsed socialist senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2020. Theo Von, a comedian, was a Democrat who also supported Sanders. And Jordan Peterson was a relatively unknown Canadian psychology professor until courageously defending against a pronoun-police attack made him famous. He was never “right-wing”; had he been, he likely wouldn’t have survived in Canadian academia.
The point is that none of these men had a Road to Damascus moment or even have been red-pilled. As with Elon Musk, they’ve simply been alienated by a now-radical Left that would destroy anyone rejecting its toxic Kool-Aid. Sure, a few of their views might have changed. But the real reason they’re currently more sympathetic toward the “Right” is that it presently has a large tent. In contrast, the Left has a large cancel-culture gulag.
What’s Right — or Right….
Really, though, the deeper issue is that the right/left paradigm is a poor way of defining matters. It’s a product of relativism. Moreover, the totalitarianism/anarchy spectrum, a proposed alternative, is also lacking. And let’s briefly clarify the issue.
The political senses of the terms “left” and “right” originated with the French Revolution (1789). They largely correspond to, respectively, “liberal” and “conservative” — and they’re all provisional terms in the way they’re generally used. The only consistent definition of “liberal” is “a desire to change the status quo.” “Conservative’s” consistent definition is “a desire to maintain the status quo.” Therefore, as the status quo changes, so does the political spectrum and hence the positions labeled “liberal” and “conservative.”
So in a land of Che Guevaras and Pol Pots, yes, Rogan, Von, and Peterson would be “right-wing” — very right-wing. But this isn’t too meaningful. What is? The only distinction that matters: Truth vs. falsehoods.
There is only Truth and everything else — and everything else is a lie. Understanding this is a prerequisite for much of what follows.
The Forest for the Trees
Now, the Stackers make an observation. “Right-wing media does not react to the Republican Party; it defines it,” they state. “Figures like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk don’t wait for RNC talking points — they create them.”
“Conservative media doesn’t spend its time defending the GOP establishment — it pressures it and drags it toward action,” they add. “Progressive media, by contrast, remains trapped in a reactive, defensive posture, often litigating GOP narratives rather than setting its own.”
In fact, “Too many progressive media projects function as de facto DNC surrogates, producing content that reinforces existing Democratic narratives,” the Stackers also complain. They often act “as a shield for Democratic elites, reluctant to criticize party leadership.”
This is where some may say, “Thank you, Captain Obvious.” The Stackers are describing the “hive mind” typically exhibited by the collectivist Left. Of course, we should also consider that some left-wing talking heads may actually be paid to tout the DNC line. Regardless, this phenomenon is contrasted with what many call the “individualism” of the RWM™ (Right-wing media. It’s thus stylized because the terminology is imprecise). Yet there’s a deeper phenomenon at work.
To echo G.K. Chesterton, there are two ways of governing oneself: by the rule or by the rulers. That is, first, you can judge matters relative to Truth. If, however, like Protagoras you believe “Man is the measure of all things,” you’ll judge matters relative to other people.
For example, when RWM™ buck the GOP poobahs and beat their own path, it’s often because it’s not their own.
It’s the Truth — which is of God.
That Divine Difference
Commentators thus disposed have no problem ignoring the Republican establishment because, though it wields worldly power, it pales in comparison to the highest power — their ultimate guide.
In contrast, media leftists, relativistic to the core, only have other people (society) as a frame of reference. So of course they spend time “litigating GOP narratives.” (And their own narratives, e.g., boys in girls sports, stink.) Remember, liberalism is about attacking the status quo, something upheld by other people. And of course media leftists spend time echoing DNC narratives, something propounded by other people — who happen to control the most powerful entity in the media types’ secular line of sight. It’s the closest thing they have to God and sometimes is their “god.” It’s hard, too, opposing a “god.”
Much more could be said. On a final note, however, the Stackers also portray conservatives as benefiting from some kind of establishment advantage. They even mention RWM™’s “billionaire donors.” First, though, note that most politically active billionaires are on the Left. Second, this dominant RWM™ rose to the fore during the last decade or so, a period of intense left-wing-orchestrated censorship. It has prospered for one reason, and one reason only.
It really is a media of the people, by the people, and for the people — and, in its purest form, is led by something far greater.
