Conservative Media vs. Progressive Media

The NY Post is run by Rupert Murdoch to further his conservative agenda. It loses $50 million a year. The Washington Times is run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon to further his conservative agenda. By some estimates Rev. Moon has sunk $2 to $3 billion into it and it has never been profitable. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is run by Richard Mellon Scaife to further his conservative agenda. It loses $20 to $30 million a year.

The Weekly Standard used to be owned by Murdoch to further his conservative agenda but is now owned by Philip Anschutz to further his conservative agenda. Either way, it loses $5 million a year.

Do you know how many people read The Weekly Standard? They have a circulation of 80,000. To put it bluntly, that's pathetic. That means almost no one reads it. Its main purpose is not to turn a profit but to spread Republican propaganda in the guise of news. Conservative billionaires use these publications to give legitimacy to their political opinions, but don't actually expect to make any money for them. They're an investment, in propaganda. But without their wealthy benefactors, these publications would immediately go bankrupt and cease to exist.

On the other hand, progressive media has now built a self-sustaining business model on the web that makes money because people actually read the websites or watch the shows. I can't speak for other progressive outlets (Huffington Post for one seems to have a very healthy valuation). But I can speak for us. The Young Turks is a progressive web show that is popular and profitable all on its own. The Young Turks now has numbers that make conservative outlets look like a joke by comparison.

In fact, today the show crossed the 100 million views barrier on YouTube. The Young Turks now has 100,106,994 views on our You Tube channel alone. This doesn't count views on our own website and the dozens of other outlets we're on, including Sirius XM Radio. Last month we had 7,289,549 views on our YouTube channel. Now think about The Weekly Standard's sad, little 80,000 number (and how many of those people actually read the magazine?). And these clowns lose $5 million a year to run that operation. Spending over $5 million a year to reach 80,000 people? That amuses me.

Let me give you one last stat. The Young Turks is now averaging over 350,000 views a day on You Tube. That is more than four times The Weekly Standard's circulation. And we get that in just one day! And we do all of this at just a fraction of what they spend. How can they possibly compete with us in the long term?

The bottom line is that most of these conservative media outlets don't stand a chance. Sure, some will have staying power in representing a certain percentage of the population. Those are the ones that focus on opinions. But no one is taking their "news" operations seriously. On the other hand, a progressive colossus is rising on the web and the conservatives are powerless to stop it. That is not a future that bodes well for the Republican Party or the conservative movement in this country. We're coming for them. They're standing in front of a steamroller and they don't even know it.

Watch The Young Turks on You Tube Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[raker]

The so-called liberal New York Times had a story today, July 5, about Al Franken. For some reason, the huge photo that accompanied the story was placed side-by-side with a same-size photo of Palin to accompany a Palin story. Even in print, in the paper of record, we get that staple of right wing radio like NPR -- the false equivalency. They even threw in a lie for good measure, saying the Franken/Coleman race ended in a "deadlock." The election, in fact, ended with Franken leading by over 300 votes.

It's like an immutable law in media: every story about a liberal must be diluted by comparing the subject unfavorably to a neocon.

[raker]

I remember reading a story about huge corporate Clear Channel advertisers who demanded that their ads not run on Air America programs. Apparently it's safe and profitable to advertise on shows where the host asks if there are any crazy listeners out there willing to commit murder for the cause, but they mustn't advertise on shows that promote civil liberties and human decency and responsible citizenship.

There's your problem, lady. It's us against them, the people against mammoth corporate (i.e., Republican) interests, David against Goliath.

[pfc1369]

The purpose of the Standard isn't even to spread propaganda.

Its purpose is to have a label to stick on neo-con conservative talkers when they appear on the tube..."Now, from the Washington Standard, here's......"

[UNLVGOP]

Has "liberal" become such a bad word now, they they call themselves "progressive".

What does it mean to be progressive? And how is it different from being Liberal?

[larry278]

Try using HP & the Daily Beast. You will see how progressives differ from liberals. While liberal may be a bad word to neo-cons, WTF, cares? The neo-cons are going the way of lemmings or polar bears. The lemmings have a unique way to deal with over population. The world's polar bears are on their way to extinction; some say the polar bear's situation is related global warming.

[fbr79]

Cenk, I love you men. But, you are comparing the dying print media with the new web based media. Faux news still beats all the other channels put together, their radio stations (I thought a few years ago that would be a dying media too) still have millions of listeners. They certainly don't have a vehicle like HP. Their websites are simply bad aesthetically and confusing; with all kinds of subjects put together with no apparent order. I don't think progressive media can yell out victory yet.

[tfoley]

yeah progressive media is doing so much better, msnbc vs. foxnews, air america vs. rush, ny times is in great financial shape, the nation is a real powerhouse of a magazine, newsweek is bleeding subscribers. Comparing apples to oranges when you compare youtube hits to magazines.

[kps888]

I'm not certain if you actually read this post. He was referring to progressive media on the internet, not newspapers and television. You actually made his point for him without realizing it: that conservatives are ignoring online media to their detriment.

[fbr79]

actually, he starts the article by talking about conservative print media and it's loosing revenues.

[OneTruePatriot]

aaaaand ... WHAT website did you just post this insightful point on? you lose dude!

[-0013]

"Spending over $5 million a year to reach 80,000 people? That amuses me."

I'd wager the net worth and societal and political influence of the 80,000 people The Weekly Standard reaches dwarfs that of your 350K Youtube viewers each day.

Perhaps those at the Weekly Standard know what they are doing? How's that new liberal agenda that Obama promised working out?

[ConfuciusSay-]

You're suggesting that somehow 350 is less than 80?

[pkohan]

But if you assume that those conservative media outlets exist to spread propaganda and their owners don't care about turning a profit as they represent minor outlays of cash for major media empire, then no matter what your profitability or trafic numbers are - those propagandists will still look to get their message across to drive their narrow special interests through whatever media channel they can.

Does Fox News Channel lose money? Whe they lose money, then you may have an argument.

It's great that progressive media have self-sustaining busines models. But that doesn't mean they will always have unfettered growth. What happens when the growth is not as exponential?

[brovold]

But Fox News DID lose money, at first. Cenk's point, I think, is that these organs are going to be around whether they turn a profit or not, as they're sole INTENT is to churn out righty billionaire propaganda (not unlike any number of think tanks that at least don't pretend otherwise.) This is perhaps a rebuttal to those who criticize liberal media's legitimacy when it flounders in the so-called marketplace.

As per usual, Mr. Uygur's other point is to blow his own horn. That's fine too.

[Balzac]

Libs rule!

[gs425]

You seemed to be more wrapped up the virtual world instead of the real one. We (conservatives) are not a small and irrelevant as you like to portray us….you just don’t know it. People still actually talk to each other face to face and not by “twitting with your tweeples”.

You can come for us all you want. Mash the peddle of that steamroller down to the floor if you like. When it runs into the immovable wall of reality and you and 'your movement' realizes that the path this country is currently on cannot be sustained, we will be here to help you pick yourselves up off the ground. However by the time that actually does happen, I suspect most of the movement will have grown up, moved out of mom and dads house and had a good does of reality. Speaking from experience, I had to learn that very lesson to get me out of dreamland.

Good luck with that BTW.

[Buddy McCue]

The world is bigger than just the few people that you talk to face to face. A LOT bigger.

[gs425]

Point made....thanks.

[bayman]

Yet the Weekly Standard and National Review are often represented on the Sunday and cable talkies. How often do we see someone from the Nation or Mother Jones?

[baddadd49]

lol Hey turkey ALL comparing newspapers to online websites is like comparing apples to bolts, face it libs lose in every media bracket they compete with conservatives. face facts.

[SeeJaneRunning]

Remind me again how much the NY Times is losing every day? You have a pathetically biased sample set.

[ihavenobias]

Remind me again how much money the NY Times gets every year from rich left wingers compared to how much the right wing publications (like the Washington Times) get from rich right wingers?

Better luck next time.

[ummeli]

DOWN with the socialist media (Weekly Standard, Washington Times) ! ! !

VIVA the champions of capitalism (Mother Jones, The Nation, NY Times, Utne Reader) ! ! !

Oh, the irony.

[nunzia]

Wouldn't surprise me to learn that 2/3 of those purchases are bulk purchases, by churches.

[claudiam]

I hope this is true. We can use fewer brain washed right wingers out there! claudiatuconaz