The Dictatorship
Here’s how Democrats can build a winning media message
Donald Trump’s victory — after he undertook a podcast blitz during the campaign — has sparked a conversation among Democrats about the need to build a liberal equivalent to the giant conservative media machine that has now expanded to the podcast and streaming sphere. But they’re not going to “create their own Joe Rogan” out of thin air, and Rogan didn’t amass legions of devoted followers by serving as a partisan political mouthpiece in the first place. (He was actually once a Bernie Sanders supporter.)
The history of Democrats trying to grapple with conservative talk radio suggests that a grand strategy for liberal media will have two key prongs: first, a steady stream of Democratic guests on the types of male-focused podcasts that Trump targeted, and second, the creation of well-funded liberal shows that focus on entertainment, not advancing political goals — which is what has made conservative media so potent.
Rogan didn’t amass legions of devoted followers by serving as a partisan political mouthpiece in the first place.
In many ways, Rogan is to podcasts what the late Rush Limbaugh was to talk radio — though their styles and politics differ significantly. Limbaugh rapidly shot to stardom after debuting nationally in 1988. His show was entertaining and engaging. He used parodies, barbed nicknames and hijinks to have fun on the air. He discussed everything from politics to the NFL, and while his conservative values shaped the show, his goal was to entertain, not to get Republicans elected.
The first Democrat to recognize the importance and potential of talk radio was Bill Clinton, who used the medium to great effect during his 1992 campaign. Once he entered office, Clinton built a talk radio outreach operation. Over time, its initiatives included inviting hosts to broadcast from the White House lawn as Clinton tried to sell his health care plan, and a presidential radio blitz before the 1994 midterm elections.
It was those historic elections that clued in the rest of Clinton’s party to the essential nature of engaging talk radio. Republicans captured the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, and many of them credited radio hosts for the victory. The new freshman Republican class even made Limbaugh an honorary member.
After their loss, congressional Democrats quickly constructed talk radio outreach operations. House Democrats hired radio producer Fred Clarke, who set up facilities where hosts could broadcast from the Capitol at key moments, while also supplying them with Democratic guests. Senate Democrats undertook similar efforts.
Yet increasingly over time, the staffers tasked with getting Democrats onto talk radio encountered resistance from members for two reasons: First, many simply had no desire to take part in contentious conversions. They didn’t understand that hosts treated Democrats who appeared on their shows far better than they did those who dodged talk radio. Secondly, because talk radio was not embedded in the liberal culture like it was on the right, many Democrats didn’t grasp its growing importance.
Eventually, as Democrats lost faith in their ability to disseminate a message via commercial talk radio in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they entered into growing conversations around creating a liberal alternative.
These discussions (which went far beyond the political world) led to two key liberal radio initiatives that debuted in 2004: the Air America radio network and Democracy Radio.
These efforts had their successes — Democracy Radio brought popular liberal radio hosts Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller to a national audience, while Air America, though a major flop, served as a launching pad for media stars Rachel Maddow and Marc Maron.
Yet, if the goal was building something with the political and cultural influence and profitability of conservative radio, they came nowhere close.
There was a plethora of reasons for this mediocre record, but two overriding factors plagued these attempts: a lack of funding and hosts who didn’t grasp that good radio required prioritizing putting on a top-notch show, not achieving political goals.
If the goal was building something with the political and cultural influence and profitability of conservative radio, [liberals] came nowhere close.
Air America did bring in entertainers like comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo. Yet they saw their radio programs as fundamentally different from the work that made them famous. Garofalo proclaimed that she wanted to “give voice to the millions of Americans that are left out of national conservation.” Franken’s producer Billy Kimball admitted that they saw themselves as creating liberal talk radio, not an entertainment network, which, “would have been a radically different project.”
This orientation resulted in shows that simply weren’t that engaging, and left Air America General Counsel David Goodfriend screaming at his radio, “Be funny, Al. Be funny, Janeane.”
Air America suffered from mismanagement and a score of other problems during its six years of existence. But like other liberal radio initiatives, it struggled financially.
Most left-leaning groups and organizations didn’t invest heavily in advertising on liberal radio, unlike their counterparts on the right. Further, liberal donors resisted calls to invest in liberal radio initiatives. There were myriad reasons why, including an inability to understand the potential long-term payoff of such an investment — both politically and monetarily — a focus on their own operations and goals, and because many saw talk radio as vacuous and poisonous, antithetical to the civility and good government the donors believed in.
Once the internet blossomed, it offered many more ways for Democrats to reach target audiences. As a result, efforts at building liberal radio and getting Democrats onto talk shows largely faded away.
Now, they might be back, though the medium is different.
The history of these initiatives offers several lessons that should shape what comes next.
By abstaining from these shows, Democrats lose a chance to counter what the audience hears from the hosts and conservative guests.
First, it’s time for Democrats to play in the conservative sandbox. Some, like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who appeared with Rogan, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who regularly goes on Fox News, already do this. Yet too many Democrats see right-of-center media as a propaganda apparatus and find hosts like Rogan offensive. They worry about hostile receptions or confronting a firehose of lies.
And while there is truth to such charges and fears, conservative media — especially if one includes the male-focused podcasts that Trump targeted — has a huge audience. By abstaining from these shows, Democrats lose a chance to counter what the audience hears from the hosts and conservative guests. They also forgo an opportunity to demonstrate to voters that they can shine in hostile interviews and engage with people with whom they disagree.
Further, judging from the mixed ideological leanings of the hosts who interviewed Trump and polling of young votersmany young men in the podcast audience probably have at least some left-leaning political positions or have voted for Democrats in the past. Appearing on their favorite shows would enable Democrats to make a case for why they should return to the fold.
The second pillar of a liberal media strategy is creating appealing left-of-center shows.
Podcasts and streaming programs avoid two issues that hampered liberal radio: a limited number of strong-signaled stations and radio executives committed to “format purity.” When big media companies dabbled in liberal radio early in the 2000s, many placed the shows on weak-signaled stations with small listening radiuses. Additionally, many program directors wouldn’t put liberal and conservative hosts on the same talk station, viewing it as being akin to a station playing both country and classical music. Given that conservative talk radio was established on the best stations and liberal radio was the upstart, this reduced opportunities for liberal talkers.
Yet liberals will squander the potential of this new media if they produce shows driven by political goals. Instead, hosts should focus on creating engaging, authentic, entertaining programs. Their liberal values will still shine through.
Additionally, liberal donors need to buy into these efforts. Podcasting is cheaper to break into than radio, but the current moment calls for providing seed funding for a variety of shows, and then investing seriously in the ones that display promise organically.
This recipe will enable liberals to successfully fight back on the airwaves.
The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination, a spokesperson said late Wednesday, as two retiring Republicans on the panel dug in over President Donald Trump’s personal “anti-weaponization” deal with the government he runs.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s decision to delay the committee vote that had been set for Thursday marks a setback for one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet nominees, at the hands of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a pair of Republicans set to leave the chamber next year.
“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure. Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement,” the committee spokesperson said.
Blanche’s nomination to permanently head the Department of Justice needs the support of either Cornyn or Tillis to make it out of the committee to a vote by the full Senate, assuming all Democrats remain opposed.
“Why don’t you call over the Department of Justice and tell them they have one hour and 50 minutes to get me what I asked for,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday afternoon amid the hardening standoff over his demand that Blanche and the DOJ put in writing a commitment never to pursue the president’s prized “anti-weaponization” fund, and to clarify the terms of Trump’s personal deal with the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis told MS NOW that the conversations were complicated by the need for the Justice Department to get “several parties” to agree on the language of the statement Cornyn and Tillis are seeking.
“What I’ve advised the chair, and I would assume Senator Cornyn said something similar, is that we’re not prepared to vote yes yet,” he added.
“The Department has been in regular communication with Committee members for weeks, and we look forward to continuing to work productively with Senators to address any concerns,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to the decision to postpone the committee vote.
Cornyn was set to meet with Blanche on Wednesday morning, but the meeting was called off after Blanche failed to meet the senator’s demand for written proposals to modify the controversial settlement agreement he brokered between Trump and the IRS. The Republican senator is set to leave Congress when his term ends in January after a bruising May primary loss to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump’s chosen candidate.
“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him,” Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard (Blanche) is going through quite nicely.”
Cornyn made clear to Blanche during his confirmation hearing that he will not get his support until he agrees to reopen and modify the settlement. Due to the committee’s narrow Republican majority, one GOP “no” vote is enough to sink Blanche’s nomination.
The senator has asked Blanche to provide proof that the proposed nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established as part of the deal between Trump and the IRS is formally dead, and he has also demanded Blanche narrow the tax audit immunity provisions the settlement afforded to Trump and his family.
Blanche has publicly stated that his department has dropped the fund, but he and the DOJ have dodged requests from Cornyn and a federal judge to put that in writing.
After announcing his meeting with Blanche would not take place Wednesday morning, Cornyn told reporters that changes from Blanche “in a modified release form” would be acceptable, but that “for some reason … they simply refuse to do it,” referring to the DOJ.
Shortly after the meeting was called off, a Justice Department official told MS NOW that the department “provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office.”
Cornyn said that proposal was “not responsive” to his demands because it did not address the tax audit immunity provisions in the settlement, one of his key demands.
In May, Blanche signed an addendum as part of the deal that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from pending IRS tax audits. That agreement, which has been decried by former IRS officials and legal experts as unlawful self-dealing, is being contested in federal court.
Cornyn noted that Blanche testified under oath that he could meet the request during his confirmation hearing.
“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or you know, go along, but they’re mistaken,” Cornyn said when asked why he thinks the DOJ could be slow-walking his request.
Kevin Frey contributed to this report.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived this week for his tour of Washington, he may have had a mission in mind.
Netanyahu needed to overcome his newly diminished stature and waning influence over his once close friend President Donald Trump as both leaders grapple with the unpopularity of a war they started together and is escaping their control.
His meeting at the White House with Trump on Tuesday, which was closed to the press, was the first face-to-face encounter between the two allies since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
Trump gave him a muted welcome and afterwards simply described the meeting as “very good.” “Obviously, many important subjects were discussed,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Rather than an intimate one-on-one setting, the Oval Office was full of top U.S. officials — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Netanyahu continued the full court press on the Trump administration.
Over the course of two days, in addition to seeing Trump and attending Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral at the Capitol, Netanyahu also met separately with Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio, White House and Israeli officials confirmed to MS NOW.
The Israeli prime minister’s slate of meetings with key U.S. national security officials comes at a pivotal moment in the Iran conflict as tensions escalate in the region and Americans increasingly sour on the war. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows 60% of American voters opposing U.S. military action against Iran and 74% against sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Not only does Trump face pressure as Republicans face an uphill battle to retain congressional control in this fall’s midterms, Netanyahu’s fate as prime minister is at stake in Israel’s upcoming September elections – and he can’t afford to lose Trump’s favor.
The talks largely focused on what to do next as Iran continues to menace shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against American bases in the region and launch attacks on Gulf allies.
According to a senior Israeli official who was granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not come to a final decision after discussing three paths forward: get a “good deal” focused on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched material, have no deal and instead continue the blockade and economic pressure, or take escalated military action.
But Netanyahu did not tell Trump what he should do – nor did he express a preference.
The senior Israeli official noted Netanyahu has not ruled out diplomacy – as long as it is coupled with “very strong pressures,” calling the push to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “a contest of will and a contest of force.”
“There are ways of squeezing them and squeezing them and squeezing them and negotiating at the same time,” the official said.
Netanyahu did not present President Trump with new intelligence regarding the underground Iranian nuclear facility Pickaxe Mountain, per the senior Israeli official, noting the U.S. and Israel already are constantly sharing intelligence – and know where Iran’s highly enriched material is. “We don’t think it’s moved, and I think we have a pretty good grasp on that,” the official said.
During their meeting on Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu discussed ways Israel and the U.S. can work together to stop Iran’s nuclear program and get the Strait of Hormuz open to maritime trade, the senior Israeli official said.
The two leaders also discussed a third goal: to continue to undermine the Iranian regime and “possibly create future conditions for a change in that area.” U.S. officials have backed away from pursuing paths that would overthrow the current leadership, but Netanyahu still believes that could happen.
“The chasm that has been created between the people and the regime is not about to be closed,” the senior Israeli official said of Netanyahu’s thinking.
Netanyahu advised Trump in February that Israeli intelligence indicated launching strikes against Iran would lead to the toppling of the Islamic Republic’s regime – and five months later, the slain ayatollah’s son retains power with a close circle of hardliners, calling into question the accuracy of Israel’s intelligence apparatus.
But the senior Israeli official said at the time, Netanyahu did not promise the Iranian people would take fate into their own hands following a coordinated attack. Rather, he chose his words carefully and said that an attack could create conditions to “advance the probability or the possibility that that would happen.”
The conditions needed for the Iranian regime to fall, “did not materialize,” the official told MS NOW, adding, “not for lack of insight, but for either operational failure or decisions that were made.”
Despite Netanyahu insisting Israel and the U.S. are on the same page, differences still remain: the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and the Saudi nuclear arrangement did not come up during Wednesday’s White House meeting, according to a second Israeli official granted anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues to spread, with an Iranian drone attacking a U.S. gas storage tanker off the coast of Egypt on Wednesday.
Trump indicated he would not let Iran’s latest action slide, telling reporters on Wednesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran even as he leaves room for diplomatic talks to resume.
“It’s our turn, and we’ll see if we get there with an agreement at some point,” Trump said. “But we’re going to hit them very hard.”
As for what it would take for Israel to join the U.S. strikes, the senior Israeli official said that if Israel is attacked by Iran, “We will respond very, very forcefully and very quickly. And I think Iran would make a great mistake.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
International rage over FIFA’s close ties to President Donald Trump has reached a fever pitch after soccer’s governing body announced a plan to sell a significant stake to an investor group led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.
The president and his family have all but turned the White House into their personal piggy bank. And FIFA — which has its own sordid history of corruption — seems to have made itself a party to Trump’s self-enrichment under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, such as by paying for space inside Trump Tower in New York. (The organization has defended the office rental as a World Cup outpost.)
Soccer is seen by many as a unifying game. But Trump’s incorporation of FIFA into his political dynasty is threatening that idea.
FIFA has announced plans to sell a large minority stake in a new company that will run its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, as part of a plan to triple the amount of development money it dishes out to its 211 member associations.
Under the proposals — which are subject to approval by a majority of those national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council — a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) will take over all commercial operations, while FIFA remains the game’s global governing body and retains a majority stake in FFE.
A press release from FIFA confirmed the plans and said Thrive Eternal, which was launched by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the investment group that would control FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA did not clarify why Thrive Eternal was selected, and Kushner was already dabbling in sports.
But Trump basically has already given son-in-law Jared Kushner carte blanche to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East while simultaneously hatching business plans in the region. (Jared Kushner has denied any conflicts of interest.)
Joshua Kushner reportedly has been a major donor to Democrats. But, predictably, the idea of another Kushner becoming financially entwined with the World Cup — the world’s most popular sporting event — and basically being dropped into a position of global significance isn’t going over well. Several other soccer governing bodies have expressed concerns, including Europe’s UEFA.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said in a statement about The Athletic’s report, adding: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked the plan, writing on X: “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough — now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”
FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!
Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a… https://t.co/knSZibuMea
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 28, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already launched an investigation into the FIFA leader’s relationship with the Trump administration, while dozens of European lawmakers — citing concerns about “potential breaches of political neutrality” — have called for the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate Infantino. This new proposal seems unlikely to assuage those concerns.
But what it does seem likely to do is fuel global anger toward the U.S. — the kind that has been growing since Trump retook office.
And when you consider that, it’s truly remarkable how the same MAGA movement whose members whined for years about politics mixing with sports is now in lockstep with a president who seems dead-set on casting his shadow over every sports event he can.
This post on X basically sums up the foul stench around FIFA’s latest proposal.
Sepp Blatter was Infantino’s predecessor as FIFA president and oversaw the organization amid some of its many scandals. When heof all people, is warning about how Trump and Infantino’s relationship is “deeply damaging” soccer, it’s a sign of how far FIFA has descended into the gutter.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
- Capitol agenda: Republicans hope Trump won’t dominate Dallas
- The House Democrat who’s making AI regulation her No. 1 priority
- Republicans are hoping ‘Trump-a-palooza’ isn’t only about Trump
- Kathy Hochul is trying to hold the center in a disruptive political age
- Gavin Newsom’s first 2028 test: This fall, in Nevada
- Sen. Kennedy rails against AI developers as ‘high IQ stupid people’
- ‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing
- The Norwegian gas plant that could safeguard Europe from Trump
- NATO races to guard against Russian nuclear subs without the US
- Confirmation of measles death gives Pennsylvania governor another chance to call out RFK Jr.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words