About Conservative Media
Summer break is well underway, and as Rachel mentioned while subbing for me last week, I had a life event that has made me more reflective than usual. And so, something a little different this week. I will resume the collection of writing by conservative women next week. Today, I offer a discussion relevant to our purpose.
A few days ago I became excited when I stumbled upon Jeff Jarvis’s article calling for a “responsible, reliable, reasonable conservative media.” I’ve highlighted and commented there and recommend reading the whole thing when you’ve finished reading here. He’s correct that the right will never trust the New York Times et al. He is correct that the Wall Street Journal is not sufficient. I also think he is basically correct about avoiding social issues, but in the past I’ve alluded to conservative women disagreeing far more than outsiders assume — this is one of those disagreements. For the most part, however, he, an outsider of conservative media, saw what conservatives needed and what is required for a revival of cultural discourse in general. It is a rare occurrence and something to get excited about.
For the most part.
The first issue I spotted with his call for 3R conservative media was his claim that the hardest task would be finding enough conservative journalists to staff the organization. In fact, that is the easiest task. Give me 10 minutes and I can produce 100 names without touching any Fox personalities or the well-known milquetoast handful he listed. I already do this daily; it is one of the reasons I created Iron Ladies — to raise the profile of existing female writers on the right as well as talent spot and develop new writers. If I can pull from women and men? Our bench is wide and deep. Not that most people would know that because most of right media is unknown to the general public, which gets to the actual hard part of forming this 3R organization: audience and ultimately funding.
There are multiple versions of this 3R outlet already in existence, yet if they don’t cover social issues, or lately, cover Trump favorably, then they get cold shouldered by vocal and/or funding factions on the right. They don’t get coverage from the left either, unless they can draw hate links, hence the sensational tenor of coverage Jarvis and others have noted hurts conservative news outlets.
Without the sensationalism, we risk being the tree that fell in the forest in which there were no ears to hear. That’s why at dinner parties or church gatherings in the red state of Texas, everyone knows Huffington Post, Slate, and Salon, but if I mention, say, The Daily Signal, I am met with puzzled stares.
A few hours after Jarvis’s article posted, a perfect illustration of the problem presented.
Arc Digital Media is the latest entity trying to be the 3R organization Jarvis called for, and it lives here on Medium. Arc’s editor, Berny Belvedere partnered with Medium to create a series, When Liberalism Stops Being Liberal. Seven long reads of civil, intelligent, debate prompting research published by seven of those right journalists most haven’t heard of (maybe Erick Erickson or Ben Domenech who have each been run in the NYT) posted in the members only section of Medium on Thursday afternoon. (Note: since this is a magazine for gathering conservative women’s voices, Cathy Young wrote the piece on Political Correctness and I wrote the one on Campus Censorship.)
This should be serendipity. Established journalism professor calls for conservative media with gravitas, an example appears and is celebrated. Right? Alas, even the most optimistic of conservative writers give up that wishful thinking quickly in their careers.
In this case, the breakdown starts with the lack of conservatives on Medium. We aren’t used to getting treated well outside of the right web — it’s why the right blogosphere developed in the first place. Conservatives, conservative women in particular, think it is not worth their time to bother signing up for sites that aren’t explicitly conservative. Medium intended to address this gap last year and set up conservative outreach. Then, in the about face in December, it let those outreach folks go. Gains Medium had made in conservative circles almost completely disappeared. People had gotten their hopes up only to be disappointed again. Those of us who stuck around probably gained some reputation as naive rubes.
Thus, when Medium rolled out its membership-by-invitation this spring, there weren’t many conservatives to invite. Membership did not go over well, and so there weren’t many more signing up. In my network Thursday, I’d have been hard pressed to find 20 conservatives with Medium memberships. (Although I note that the series has shifted that a little.) Couple this with the well known fact that in general the left does not even read right, and if they do they aren’t likely to advertise that with recommends or shares, and what will the stats of the Arc series look like compared to other series?
No matter how well-researched, reasoned, and written, it won’t enjoy the cooperative like/share boost from allies who can’t access it. That alone can make the stats look relatively anemic. And with anemic stats, a publication can’t get funding. Without funding they can’t pay editors or writers.
Each site has its own details, but the general story remains the same. If you aren’t partisan, you won’t get paid. Frankly, this is true in the mainstream press, but they don’t have to admit it. Conservative media, as the smaller reactionary, does not have the luxury of hiding from this truth.
Jarvis touched on this, mentioning that he would “accept money from foundations and philanthropists.” Again, I think he’s correct. Conservative media that can anchor “civil, intelligent, well-informed debate for democracy to function” — there is no business model for it. It is a philanthropy. Perhaps it is time we accept that.
UPDATE: My editor at Arc liked this piece so much he asked me for a version to run there. A less newsletter version appears here:
