Revelations around how some progressives react to certain forms of dialogue are piquing interest. A recent incident involving rising comedian Andrew Schulz implies that, for some, there’s more than just humor which is hard to swallow; inoguous conversation is now being scrutinized too. Schulz invited former President Donald Trump to participate in a comprehensive chat on his critically acclaimed YouTube podcast, Flagrant.
Despite injecting the interview with humor, featuring jokes about Trump’s offspring Barron and discussions on abortion policy, there were also instances that highlighted the gravity of the conversation. Notably, when Trump ventured to proclaim himself as ‘essentially an honest individual’, Schulz humorously responded with incredulity. Likewise, Schulz didn’t hold back when countering Trump’s cynical perspective on the state of America.
This intense discussion became a galvanizing factor for Schulz’s podcast. However, the repercussions for Trump’s campaign were unclear. A notable response came from the Kamala HQ social media handle, which clipped a section from the podcast it deemed unflattering to Trump.
Interestingly, the broader context didn’t mitigate the intensive backlash from certain quarters, upset at Schulz’s decision to provide Trump with a ‘platform’. Schulz was criticised for enabling Trump, arguably the globe’s most recognized individual, to express his views. However, the tide of outrage extended beyond the digital realm, rippling over into Schulz’s offline professional affairs.
Post-release of the Trump interview, Schulz experienced a sudden cancellation from a previously confirmed venue, the Brooklyn Academy of Music. The cancellation, explained as being due to a ‘leadership’ decision that Schulz’s content did not align with the venue’s’values’, immediately followed the airing of the podcast. The Academy denied any relation to the Trump interview, but skepticism around its intent remains prevalent.
Those critical of the cancellation feel that if the real motive was Schulz’s interaction with Trump, it signifies a glaring illustration of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. The Brooklyn Academy of Music, due to host an exhibit in November, underlines the vitality of artistic freedom, even going as far as to bemoan the stifling of provocative art.
This incident aligns with an increasing tendency to penalize independent comedians and entertainers criticized for the perceived ‘platforming’ of the ‘wrong’ voices. Similar campaigns have been seen against HBO’s Bill Maher. Other incidents include efforts to persuade commercials to withdraw backing from channels due to perceived insecure content control.
These occurrences seem to underscore a regrettable attempt at obstructing the open access to mass media. Generations of liberals and progressives have held key positions within establishment news sources, including well-recognized entities like the New York Times and CNN. Their ability to shape the narrative and set the agenda was significantly empowered by this predominant control of large sectors of the information ecosystem.
However, the media landscape has evolved drastically. Development in technology has given prominence to independent podcasts, which now reach audiences far exceeding the viewership of a typical CNN broadcast. Political figures have taken notice, increasingly opting for new media platforms to engage with audiences in election season.
For consumers, the democratization of the media is a boon. It expands their access to a wide array of perspectives and enables the pursuit of more personalized content. However, progressing media contains significant implications for long-standing progresses
This shift has led to alarm among some progressives, viewing it as a cataclysmic change that is dismantling their long-held gatekeeping powers. It has evoked substantial backlash, as they grapple with the reality of decreasing control over the information ecosystem.
Despite the uproar, the transformation of mass media seems irreversible. The ascendancy of podcasts, YouTube channels, and other new media platforms demonstrates the unstoppable rise of democratized information. It suggests a future where media gatekeeping powers will be distributed among a broader group, impacting the way audiences view and digest information.
However, this evolving landscape is also faced with criticism and resistance. Established media influencers and institutions, challenged by the sweeping wave of independent creators, are evidently confronting a significantly altered status quo. As they grapple with this new reality, instances of backlash, criticism and attempts to regain control manifest more prominently.
It portrays a media landscape undergoing a paradigm shift — a transition from traditional media monopoly to a new era of diversified information access. However, the space for dialogue, critical discussion, and possibility for ‘platforming’ different voices appears to be getting limited due to the reactive response to these changes.
It remains essential to remember that open dialogue and varied viewpoints remain the lifeblood of any democracy. The continuing democratization of media, while certainly challenging for the old guard, ultimately presents an opportunity for a truly diversified and richly textured information ecosystem. It’s a tide that’s unlikely to be stemmable, no matter the level of backlash.