Talk is Cheap: The Podcast Epidemic
Image Description: Cutouts of a hand on a mic, a hand writing with a marker and two sticky notes with dollar signs are on top of a notebook piece of paper.
The modern media landscape is constantly evolving, and streaming and the internet have ushered in a rise in podcasting which is drastically altering people’s media consumption. Podcasting, relatively inexpensive compared to other forms of content creation, is simple, low-risk, and high-reward, opening easy avenues for notoriety and financial gain. As a result, podcasts have emerged as an accessible medium through which practically anyone can share their beliefs, ideas, or passions. In many ways, the opportunity for discussion podcasts provide such a wide range of people is incredibly valuable. Unfortunately, the present social and political ecosystem allows this same opportunity to have devastating impacts in the hands of some, facilitating a tangible rightward shift in both politics and media.
The infamous Andrew Tate is a prime example of this. Through his podcast “Tate Speech,” the former kickboxer built up a platform based on controversial think pieces framed as motivational content pushing young men towards “success.” Underlying his arguments, however, is profound and disturbing misogyny. Tate has described himself as “absolutely a misogynist,” referred to women as “intrinsically lazy,” claimed there is “no such thing as an independent female,” and suggested that women are to blame for their own sexual assault. Support for Tate began to wane in 2023 amidst allegations of sexual assault, rape, and human trafficking, but the wave of hyper-masculine, openly misogynistic podcasting he popularized continues. These “alpha-male,” podcasters push unrealistic female beauty standards, strict traditional gender roles, and the dehumanization of women and minority groups. Subsets of the “manosphere,” a growing collective of online media upholding misogyny and men’s rights while opposing feminism, such podcasts threaten to steer impressionable young people — boys especially — towards intolerance.
As of 2024, 37% of people under 30 look specifically to online influencers for information. Consequently, the demographic which these influencers cater to is the youngest and most susceptible to the ignorant teachings manosphere podcasts preach. The market this relationship provides is not lost on those in power. During last year’s presidential race, the Trump campaign turned specifically toward platforms where hyper-masculine podcasters thrive such as Twitch, Youtube, Instagram, and TikTok. Seeing men under 50 as important potential backers, the president appeared on podcasts with influencers particularly popular with this demographic, including Logan Paul, Elon Musk, Lex Fridman, and Adin Ross. Trump’s appearance on these podcasts allowed him to micro-target young male voters, resulting in over 50% of male voters under thirty handing him their support last November. In a discussion with GBH news, one young man suggests that quarantining due to the COVID-19 pandemic left many young men unmoored. Ultra-masculine podcasts, he says, presented a “style of masculinity” and “inward confidence” which Trump’s team learned to harness for the advancement of their campaign.
The oversaturation of the current podcasting industry has created an ecosystem of sensationalism that further preys upon impressionable listeners. Modern podcasts must compete for listenership with nearly 4 million other shows, and capitalizing off of controversy and cancel culture has become a key strategy in doing so. Supposedly satirical, edgy shows aim to attract viewers through contentious statements intended to spark backlash. Singer Matty Healy, for example, drew attention to “The Adam Friedland Show” last year after mocking rapper Ice Spice’s ethnicity on-air and encouraging the show’s hosts to put on racist accents. Although these comments triggered undeniable outrage towards both Healy and the Friedland Show, they also contributed to unprecedented media attention for both. The attention economy has created a system where all press is good press; every website visit, every twitter mention, every article about a subject of controversy can and will be monetized in the favor of those involved. The capitalist foundations underlying internet media structures have created a system which not only rewards, but encourages harmful rhetoric.
Coupled with the current fraught political climate in which those accused of sexual assault have been rewarded with positions in the Supreme Court and Oval Office, DEI programs have been dismantled, and leading legislators seem to be intent on undermining every form of equity, this sensationalism is especially dangerous. Conservative policy makers are pushing legislation which dismisses minority groups, and the podcast market’s glorification of controversial, insensitive statements hands platforms to those reinforcing this flippancy.
This is not to say that the world of podcasting is devoid of valuable thought. Podcasts have become so widespread exactly because of their versatility as modes of discussion. However, the current attention economy often rewards problematic, exclusionary comments over more thoughtful discourse. Studies of online communication have shown that people are far more likely to share outrageous content, often prioritizing spreading their outrage over avoiding the proliferation of misinformation. Talk is cheap, but controversy pays.
That exaggerated, combative, and controversial discourse is captivating and guaranteed to pull attention amidst the endless outpour of content available online is undeniable, but this sensationalism has had clear effects on American society and politics. Consumption online is dictated by algorithms each user contributes to the creation of, leaving each of us with a responsibility to prioritize meaningful, credible content to avoid the continued proliferation of hostile rhetoric championed by ignorant influencers.
Although many of us are beyond the age where the toxic rhetoric of alpha male podcasters is most influential, the flagrant misinformation and ignorance they encourage cannot be disregarded as long as it is reinforced by discriminatory policy. As with many online industries, consumers are the true commodity of the podcast market. In a cutthroat competition for attention and popularity, podcasting has found a tool in public sympathies, constantly exploiting the values of everyday people in favor of capital gain. This business model has been co-opted by conservative leaders who use the polarization capitalism has fostered in podcasting to facilitate the popularization of increasingly extreme, exclusionary legislation and ideologies. As we navigate the resulting rightward shift in both media and politics, it is vital that we recognize the monetary implications of our consumption. In an ecosystem where all attention, positive and negative, translates directly into monetary gain, it is not enough to consider alone what media we consume. Feeding into this system by rewarding sensationalist tactics with attention allows corporations to monopolize off of our outrage. We must not only recognize the processes which attempt to manipulate our consumption, but contemplate which voices our consumption is truly uplifting.
