For Whom The Bell Tolls
I’ve been silently working on a few other articles over the past week on topics ranging from the myth of Democratic Socialism to the issues of unionizing in the age of hyper-automation. But, then I got distracted by this little article The Rise of the Internet’s Creative Middle Class in the New Yorker Magazine [ New Yorker ] by Cal Newport. I must confess, I don’t usually read The New Yorker Magazine. I find it to be one of the most bourgie pretentious magazines in existence. It is just full of feel good articles for the champagne Neo-liberal loving Liberals of Manhattan’s upper Westside and all those who wish to be those rare few in the future.. The type of people that feel good about themselves as they hire immigrant labor to watch their offspring in an almost indentured servant type manner while they fritter about the city crying about their existential despair. All while complaining that they just cannot find good help any more. Now that even these immigrants want to be treated as real humans. The hypocrisy is too much for me personally—but, these types on either coast sure do love the New Yorker Magazine.
Since its conception by Harold and Jane (Grant) Ross in 1925 The New Yorker has always been a magazine for the Cosmopolitan New Yorker—the sophistics of the New York Cultural Elite. The sort of people that desire the appearance of sophistication in both there cultural appetites and their political leanings. According to mediamaxnetwork.com the New Yorker Magazine in 2019 (The New Yorker Demographics) claimed to have the following a readership of 1.2 million of which 98% being subscribers falling into the following demographic categories:
18-24: 8%
25-34: 17%
35-54: 28%
55+: 48%
Avg. Household Income: $129,631.00
Female/Male Readers: 55%/45%
Readers Per Copy: 4.5
Subscribers:
Nearly 2.5 times as likely to be influentials
1.8 times as like to be CEO’s/C-Level Execs
Nearly 2 times as likely to be affluent millennials.
88% is outside of NY—Expansive Readership.
So, you can see my basic point is very well illustrated this magazine is written for and by the cultural elites that scorn the very idea of real socialism. The author of this article Cal Newport is not a social scientist but a computer scientist professor. Which is also odd since this is clearly more a sociological issue than one of raw computer science. But, even ignoring that fact and pushing on to the primary thesis of the article is that essentially now finally the internet is ready for a true independent creative class. Supported by fans! I have to ask— what does he think Kickstarter in 2009 was about ? Or any of the other half dozen or more crowd funding companies that have sprung up over the last 13 years or so actually do? In Newport’s vision like that of Kevin Kelly author of the 1,000 True Fans an article in Wire magazine from 2008 (1000 true fans) the key to success on the internet is finding 1,000 true fans to milk. Kelly defines a true fan as the following:
A true fan is defined as a fan that will buy anything you produce. These diehard fans will drive 200 miles to see you sing; they will buy the hardback and paperback and audible versions of your book; they will purchase your next figurine sight unseen; they will pay for the “best-of” DVD version of your free youtube channel; they will come to your chef’s table once a month. If you have roughly a thousand of true fans like this (also known as super fans), you can make a living — if you are content to make a living but not a fortune. (1,000 True Fans, KK.Org)
It’s a telling description of the fanbase that Kelly believes is necessary to create a living as he puts it. I would call it almost sycophantic devotion that Kelly advocates as being necessary to find a viable customer base for an independent content creator to find monetary success. Which of course is sort of odd considering how Kelly is seen as a technology optimist to want to create a culture of absolute devotion bordering on obsession is far from optimistic if you ask me. It is the sort of cultish behavior that makes one wonder about people’s mental health. And the fact that Newport instead pretends that Kelly’s vision is more about well crafted marketing than that of creating a cult of personality is a bit off putting to me. Here is how Newport describes the core tenant of Kelly’s absolute devotion to a creator; “This question might seem fatalistic, but Kelly had a solution. If your creative work exists in the long tail [non mainstream material], generating a small but consistent number of sales, then it’s probably sufficiently good to support a small but serious fan base, assuming you’re willing to put in the work required to cultivate this community. “ ( The Rise of the Internet’s Creative Middle Class, The New Yorker ). Newport simply states that Kelly just wants the creator to create a stable loyal community of fans that will sustain your creative endeavors. Newport steers very far from any idea that the fanbase of these new creators should look like some modern day version of the Deadheads of old or cult followers. Instead the entire process is boiled down to this anodyne procedure of finding how to capture your creative outputs so it harnesses the imagination of the audience you attempt to capture. It is clearly gig-speak for the new disruptive economy of the future. The one where AirBnB and DoorDash liberate both the user and supplier through a disruptive anti-establishment mentality. Which oddly seems to mean exploit the employee anyway.
And that gets us to the second part of this essay— some how Newport thinks that there is a vast difference between what a show like “Breaking Points” and an influencer like Kim Kardashian is. The only difference is that scope of the model they are using. Newport declares that Breaking Points with its $1500 dollar life time membership level was so successful that it allowed the show to sustain itself self for one entire year. Newport also states that Breaking Points according to Enjet: “[“Breaking Points”] is currently supported by around ten thousand paying subscribers spread over the various payment tiers.” The fact that in a time of great economic upheaval a show like this could find enough investors at the $1500 level to support a budget of at least $1,000,000.00 is rather amazing. And clearly indicates that this show’s primary audience isn’t exactly a working class base like the Bernie Sanders campaigns of 2016 or 2020… Clearly, there is a hardcore element of viewers who are antithetical to the thin veneer of working class politics that “Breaking Points” pretends to push. Instead it is a series created by Corporate Elites for Anti-Establishment affluent Millennials trying to steer clear from the perceived pit falls of turning into their boomer parents!
And nothing states this thesis of mine better than Breaking Points very mottos: 1) “Join at any level to say SCREW YOU to CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC”; Or 2) the newly ironic gig-speak motto of: “CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are ripping us apart and making millions of dollars doing it. We don't have soulless billionaires or corporations backing our high end TV production, but we do have YOU.” The very nature of the program is designed as anti-corporate media platform that just happens to be a media company in its own right. This is the same model that worked very well for The Young Turks for so long. Cenk Uygur of the The Young Turks essentially created the cookie cutter mold for this type of business for leftist media. It’s simple you first create the illusion that some how your corporate aspiration is antithetical to the big media model. Then you brand yourself as the one and only source of true information. Finally, the content you create turns out to be just simplistic reporting on reporting. It’s the perfect meta-journalistic project where information is merely filtered between layers of reporters until it fits the narrative of the desired audience. It reminds me of the warnings that [Jean] Francois Lyotard wrote in 1974 about the Post-Modernist Condition. [Not that I’m some major adherent to the Post-Modernist movement but all young philosophers get entangled with the possibilities of Post-Modernism. Myself, I found that the analytic school was more to my liking ultimately.]. One of the key features of Lyotard’s work in The Postmodern Condition: A Report On Knowledge (1979) [this title does have issues with Lyotard’s research and assumptions but that is a discussion for only the truly most dedicated of people interested in Philosophical Inquiry] is that of meta-narrative or the overarching narrative that binds or holds together a society. And in a way Lyotard was correct the meta-narratives that use to bind a society together are getting more and more fractured as information itself becomes more accessible.
For our purposes here a meta-narrative in media will be the the system of beliefs that give creditability to the organization[s] or individual[s] that transmit information that we call the News. What exactly constitutes Newsworthiness is also critical to this endeavor and it determines the entire concept of viewership. With the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the need to create news programs that are not only informative but also profitable. However, as the years have passed from the 1980’s and the first 24 hours News Channel CNN was launched to the present; information has taken a back seat to the more important “profitability” of the news program. The best way to turn a news program from informational only to a source of profitability isn’t to have better information or better scoops on new stories but to populate your news program with a series of highly popular analysts that give insight into the events of the day. This is where the meta-narrative of television journalism as a source of unbiased information becomes fractured and replaced with a television journalist that is a source of analysis only . News programs become carefully curated panel shows that discuss topics with a central theme that connects them together. Audiences are parsed into the smallest groups that will sustain profits and finally they become ideologues of their preferred news analyst organization. In an Orwellian sense their favorite news programs become their own world view. And this is exactly what “Breaking Points” , sadly Enjeti and Ball are and thus no different than their counterparts in traditional media.
The only difference between “Breaking Points” and MSNBC , CNN or FOX is the budget. Breaking Points lacks the budget to pay themselves the over-bloated salaries. The information is all the same. In fact most of Breaking Points news comes form the very sources they claim to be fighting against. This information is then filtered by Ball and Enjeti through their anti-establishment media lens for consumption of their audience. This certainly isn’t a new tactic in the news industry— Tucker Carlson founder of the Daily Caller and former boss of Enjeti described the Daily Caller in 2010 to the Columbia Journalism Review as appealing to “people who are distrustful of conventional news organizations”. Which is right in line with Breaking Points’ tagline as well or CNN’s attempt to regain creditability with a series of commercials about propaganda in the news media in 2017-19. The Swirling new meta-narrative in media isn’t that one truth exists—but that in fact only one source of truth exists. Of course one universal truth means that all sources must conform to this reality. While one source of truth exists means that that ultimately the truth you seek is defined by the source of it. That is a very problematic issue for entire project of truth in society—however, it is an amazing win fall for the creation of sycophantic followers.
And let’s face it that is the goal of this entire economic project that Kelly puts forth as a way to elevate the small creative types into a middle class lifestyle on the web is about uncritical followers. A small legion of followers with that will literally purchase any and all content from the creative personalities they support. Usually, this sort of support is grown from the fact that a special connection is created between Author and Audience. For “Breaking Points” this means creating special Q&A sessions, extra content, and of course at the peak level of donation “actual recognition as being a life time donor” and “VIP status at live events”. Newport, claims that while this part of the equation meaning special access might not exactly be necessary giving the example of Maria Popova , an author of essays on literature, art, and science with a strong caveat—there is no special access to the author or the content after giving. In Popova’s own words: “If this labor has made your life more livable in the past year (or the past decade),” she writes, “please consider aiding its sustenance with a one-time or loyal donation.” This sort of patronage becomes more like a tip. But, in the case of Breaking Points it is designed to give access to the creators. And that too has some strong issues of entanglement between the monetary sources and the audience.
Now, some will say no conflict can possible exist because the source of monetary income and audience are from the same pool of people. But, is that true? There is most certainly a class division in this model that “Breaking Points” has set up. The lower tiers of members at the $10 monthly and $100 per year are not recognized in the same manner nor given the same access as life time members are [those who have given $1,500.00]; and with that lack of recognization is there not also a lack of importance? A class antagonism is formed between the members just like in corporate media where large donors and supporters with ads get special consideration when compared to the lowly viewer that merely fills out the demographics! No one is worried about what an individual viewer in Spokane, Washington cares exactly; but, they care about the big demographic category said viewer falls into. In a way these viewers are fungible quantities. What matters isn’t that you’re down nation wide in viewers 18-49, not that viewers in this demographic in Spokane, Washington are down. To a national media corporation they can be replaced with viewers from Seattle, WA or Portland, OR and the ratings will stay the same. And in many ways this is also true for alternative media sources like “Breaking Points” a loss of viewers in the $10 and $100 brackets in America can be made up with Canadian or even European viewers. These are the people that make up the Fungible Viewership that are not important to the message of the show. It’s the people at the $1,500 level that matter. Those are the real audience for “Breaking Points”. The bigger question is just how many of these elite members make up the 10,000 or so paying members that Enjeti boasted about to Newport at the time of the article’s writing?
These elite membership people are the ones with VIP passes to future “Breaking Points"[breaking points] Live events— what does that mean? Well, it must mean getting the ability to talk to the Hosts. It is the ability have your personal face to face with the hosts that changes this entire dynamic. In away it is like having a seat at the board of directors and having a voting share of stock. While numerically these members of the audience will be the minority when compared to the other members of the audience; but, their individual and group influence will far out strip the masses. Like the New Yorker Magazine that boasts that their audience is 1.8 times more like to be CEO/C-Level Executive the life time memberships are too more likely to be affluent people. The type of audience is not the sycophantic followers that Kelly thought a creative type would need. These are not the people that go to Comic Book Conventions to hang on every word of the creator of a cult tv-show or listen to an over the hill actor tell the same stories about being on the set for 10 minutes in 1980. No, these are investors. They are investing in their type of news programing. They are creating the vision of the world they demand— Ball and Enjeti are making it possible for them to do so through special access.
As we all know Ball has always made the pragmatic choice when it comes to either engaging with the masses or trying to get a few well connected donors. In 2010 when Ball ran for congress she easily turned to fund raising from well connected and monied sources. Ball describes the process as following in here 2015 Huffington Post article “Why Unions”:
There is an increasing sense in the country (one that I share) that political power is no longer held by the people but rather by those with the money to buy access. In my own campaign, it was impossible to deny the cost-benefit analysis. I could either spend an hour of my time meeting with voters where, if it was an extraordinarily productive hour, I could probably meet 50 voters. Or I could spend an hour on the phone talking to large donors nationwide in order to fund mail or TV advertisements that would reach tens or hundreds of thousands of voters. It wasn't hard to figure out the most efficient use of my time. (Krystal Ball, [Why, Unions?]
In 2017-2018. Krystal Ball operated the People’s House Project which was touted as a grassroots operation to the masses to get non-conventional candidates in the House of Representatives. Instead of actually being an grassroots organization Ball turned it into a Super-Pac and decided that she would fund raise in Silicon Valley—and Fund Raise she did getting nearly $550,000 from some of the most elite members of Silicon Valley according to opensecrets.org (Donors List PHP), then paid herself $279,333.00 leaving less than $96,000 in the coffers to support grassroots candidates. So, I ask you doesn’t “Breaking Points” sound a lot similar to this scheme?
Newport notes in his article that Enejti is very proud that “Breaking Points” has a budget of over a million dollars, operates in a rented studio, employs eight hourly contractors, and can out pace its direct rival “Rising” every day of the week. Newport also notes that Enjeti claims their old show had 30 full time staffers to produce the same content that “Breaking Points” is now doing with just 8 hourly contractors! Which is also odd since Ball claims her real focus in on people’s labor policies especially in a potential partner. ( 6.50-7.00 minutes is the quote).
So, if labor policy is so important to Krystal Ball it hard to see why she has a company that isn’t hiring more full time Union Employees? Or even better why isn’t the company a cooperative? The answers are simple. Ball admitted to the fact that deep down inside she is a capitalist through and through in her first book. And that ethos colors most of the things Ball does. We know Enjeti is a capitalist wannabe—but Ball is the one with the dual allegiances that gets herself in trouble by always being not exactly what she claims to be as a media presence. The only problem is that no one is willing to question Ball’s true beliefs. The very fact that Ball and Enjeti created a class system within the tiers of the membership scheme indicates her willingness to accept or condone the idea of meritocracy within the viewership of the show. Some viewers are just better and those people will have access to more of the hosts and thus create a potential avenue of influence. And the fact that the lift time membership is $1,500 certainly puts a great many of the potential viewership into the lower class of affordability is also telling. It is rather clear that like the New Yorker Magazine Ball and Enjeti would prefer a class of more affluent millennials to have access to them as hosts. But they need a group of absolute devotees to make this a profitable adventure.
And let’s face it profitability is the name of the game in this business of alternative media and that means numbers. While Newport is touting that “Breaking Points” isn’t about mass appeal like a cosmetics influencer needs to be the numbers paint a very different picture. As of June, 2022 one year after debuting “Breaking Points” has 818, 000 viewers basically on Youtube— which translates into an amazing amount of revenue from advertisers on their clips. Then you have the Applepod Cast with commercials which is ranking in the top-5 on the service. On Spotify they are at number 83 but, the competition is very hard on Spotify. So being in the top 100 on that service means a lot of additional revenue too. Newport some how doesn’t see this as being directly correlated to the state of “Breaking Points” being a mass media creator. I’m not clear on how this works exactly but, that is Newport’s claim not mine. I would make the exact opposite claim that “Breaking Points” is in fact a mass media operation. And that “Breaking Points” is in fact nothing more than an attempt to create a highly profitable Media Company.
The fact is “Breaking Points” is just a company nothing more. Its operators are driven by the profit motive and they really don’t want the unclean masses to interact with them. Otherwise why wouldn’t they model this operation after a more inclusive model? The people at the $10 to $100 tiers are simply consumers of their product. Where as the $1,500 tier they are elite stockholders. And it is clear from my perspective that essentially this type of company in the end is subject to all the nasty pressures of any other capitalist type company. The viewers of the “Breaking Points” who are at the very bottom of the barrel—given the pitiful hope at access to the hosts with a meaningless Q&A session—where as the $1,500 Life Time Members get free VIP tickets at all future live events. VIP is the key concept here— this entails some sort of access usually to a little mixer at the end of the event. Hence the ability to directly and unabashedly lobby one’s own perspective to the hosts of the show is far more empowering than to just merely ask a question submitted via the internet.
In the end it is simply clear that Ball and Enjeti are playing the time honored role of being anti-establishment pundits full of righteous indignation and scorn for their mainstream media counterparts-while oddly enough doing all the same tricks that they claim the mainstream media is guilty of. They have tailored this entire project to build a media presence that is focused on a specific type of demographic— the pod-cast left leaning groups of America that are now often very affluent thanks to following the likes of Sam Seder from Air America to MSNBC. These are type of true fans that Newport is really describing the type that can cut a check for $1,500.00 to their favorite podcast. The type that are not so needy in that they will not be purchasing the creators 45th boxset but they will be there next time around you need to do a seed funding drive! Sure, you’ll have to give away a little more than VIP tickets—you’ll actually have to give up some control of your content—tailor it to the people with means that are able to make your imagined realties manifest. But, is that so bad?
I will leave that to you do decide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU6v_6-BfpI