Opinion | The Podcast: A Revolt Against Traditional Media

I remember my parents telling me when I was younger about the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan — a condemnable and despicable act, of course. I remember vividly them telling me about the spike in hate, not just of Muslims, but of anyone who resembled Muslim, whether a brown-skinned Hindu, or a lighter-skinned Lebanese Christian, anyone and everyone whose complexion was faintly brown was under attack, a counterattack they probably thought.

But they were deceived, lied to one way or another, deluded, misled. Entrapped in a thought process that Muslims were somehow violent and aggressive (the US more or less killed ~110,000 civilians in Iraq, per AP) when it is explicitly stated in the Quran that killing one person would be treated the same as killing the entirety of mankind. The only issue was that back then…

Traditional media was media, the one and only media. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC — that was it. Only major media conglomerates had a say, everyone else? Well, they believed what the Tell-a-Vision told them: that Muslims were a domestic threat to US sovereignty, and that meant the obvious, apparently… US-own troops had to be deployed to: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the list does in fact go on. Sad. Nonetheless, troops lost their lives, and innocent men, women, and children lost their lives also. But you know who didn't lose their life at that point: the media.

A Revolt Against Traditional Media

Traditional media, such as cable and the press, are still very much alive. Quite evidently, of course. Although, not in the way it used to be. A few months ago now, I remember trying to read an article on the New York Times titled: “Who Is Watching All These Podcasts?” I thought… I am! So I clicked on it and after reading only a few sentences, I couldn't seem to escape a never-ending subscription-based landing page. I thought to myself: traditional media is dying! Why give the New York Times my money when I can just go on YouTube and watch the very same podcasts they are critiquing? Best yet… for free! As a matter of fact, I remember the landing page saying something like: “Support independent journalism” in big beautiful letters, and I thought if the New York Times is independent journalism, then what makes the independent journalists on YouTube? Yeah, I'll support independent journalism, thanks.

I’m not the only one who thinks this way by the way. Traditional cable in the United States has seen a drastic drop in viewership since 2010, to the tune of millions. As already mentioned, the New York Times has now switched to digital subscription-based papers, a strategic move, I must say; however, their print circulation from 2001 to 2024? Down 78%, losing the newspaper around $1.5 billion per year for a total cumulative loss near the $20 billion mark. Crazy! I think traditional media's dying, folks. So who's here to fill its place?

The Podcast

Last year, in the run-up to the US Presidential Election, talk of the town was whether President Trump would appear on the Joe Rogan podcast (JRE) and discuss his proposed platform and agenda to securing the presidential ticket. The latter, of course, he did quite considerably, but what people often forget is how important his eventual appearance on JRE was: 26 million views in its first 24 hours, ~60 million views currently and the third highest viewed podcast in the history of JRE.

While Trump did that, Kamala focused on town halls and scripted cable interviews that no one really paid attention to nor cared for either. Trump was ‘The Podcast’ and Kamala was ‘Traditional Media’. Leading to the obvious: Trump securing the popular vote, all seven swing states, the largest vote in US history, you get the idea. This is no endorsement of Trump, by the way, just a mere comparison of old and new, and how this time, the new didn't just seem to win against the old, but also killed it along the way.