339: Raising Screen Zombies

But before we get into the testimony from the hearing, I'm having some obsessive thoughts about a topic that we recently covered on We're Not Wrong on the episode that aired on May 28th, and I just need to say my little piece about it.

The gist of the story that we were talking about on that other podcast was that it is somehow news in this country that politicians are paying influencers to say nice things about them to their audiences.

Now, this isn't news to me.

I've been offered large amounts of money to air campaign ads, to do hit pieces on politicians, and because of the business model that we run here, I have turned all of that money down.

In case you're unfamiliar, we run on the value for value business model here at Congressional Dish, where I create episodes for you, which are valuable, and you pay me whatever you think is fair.

This way you remain my customer.

You are not the product that I'm selling.

And I've talked a lot about the advertising model because I think it's a choice that is made by a lot of podcasters without really thinking twice about it.

But when a podcaster chooses to make money through ads, essentially what they're doing is they are selling you and your time to companies.

They are also selling the trust that they have built with you.

For some podcasts-I really don't think that there's an ethical problem with that.

So, like, if you're listening to a comedy podcast or a podcast about fishing, and they're selling you different kinds of fishing lines, or if it's a podcast from someone who has written a book, and they use some of their time to tell you about their book, like, there are ways to ethically run ads.

I'm not saying that everyone who runs ads is doing something wrong.

But the problem is, with a show that's meant to inform and which is doing analysis, I do think it's important that you be able to trust that the opinions and the analyses that you're being given are genuine, that they're genuine beliefs of the person that you trust, as opposed to something that you are being told in return for money.

Because an opinion that's being shared with you because it's paid, I believe, is a betrayal of trust, especially if you don't know that they're being paid for it.

And that's where I do think that there's a difference between advertising and what is going on with the politicians who are paying influencers.

Because unlike with advertising, there are no disclosure laws that are requiring these influencers to tell you that they're being paid.

And some of the amounts that these influencers are being paid are eye-popping.

That's what we learned in this article that we talked about on We're Not Wrong, which of course I put in the show notes for you.

But what we learned in this article is that billionaire Tom Steyer, who wants to be the governor of California, he's paid $400,000 to an influencer to shill for him.

That's the kind of money that we're talking about.

And the article had a sentence that I just think sums up what's happening really nicely.

It said, quote, "Many large and medium-sized accounts are effectively small businesses selling the followings they cultivated organically to the highest bidder for paid political speech." Unquote.

And this is why I'm asking you to pay directly for Congressional Dish, because I refuse all money from companies, from politicians, from everyone.

That is how you know for sure that when I give you an analysis of a bill or of a world event, it is because I truly believe what I'm saying and not because I'm being paid to say it to you.

But before we get into the testimony from the hearing, I'm having some obsessive thoughts about a topic that we recently covered on We're Not Wrong on the episode that aired on May 28th, and I just need to say my little piece about it.

The gist of the story that we were talking about on that other podcast was that it is somehow news in this country that politicians are paying influencers to say nice things about them to their audiences.

Now, this isn't news to me.

I've been offered large amounts of money to air campaign ads, to do hit pieces on politicians, and because of the business model that we run here, I have turned all of that money down.

In case you're unfamiliar, we run on the value for value business model here at Congressional Dish, where I create episodes for you, which are valuable, and you pay me whatever you think is fair.

This way you remain my customer.

You are not the product that I'm selling.

And I've talked a lot about the advertising model because I think it's a choice that is made by a lot of podcasters without really thinking twice about it.

But when a podcaster chooses to make money through ads, essentially what they're doing is they are selling you and your time to companies.

They are also selling the trust that they have built with you.

For some podcasts-I really don't think that there's an ethical problem with that.

So, like, if you're listening to a comedy podcast or a podcast about fishing, and they're selling you different kinds of fishing lines, or if it's a podcast from someone who has written a book, and they use some of their time to tell you about their book, like, there are ways to ethically run ads.

I'm not saying that everyone who runs ads is doing something wrong.

But the problem is, with a show that's meant to inform and which is doing analysis, I do think it's important that you be able to trust that the opinions and the analyses that you're being given are genuine, that they're genuine beliefs of the person that you trust, as opposed to something that you are being told in return for money.

Because an opinion that's being shared with you because it's paid, I believe, is a betrayal of trust, especially if you don't know that they're being paid for it.

And that's where I do think that there's a difference between advertising and what is going on with the politicians who are paying influencers.

Because unlike with advertising, there are no disclosure laws that are requiring these influencers to tell you that they're being paid.

And some of the amounts that these influencers are being paid are eye-popping.

That's what we learned in this article that we talked about on We're Not Wrong, which of course I put in the show notes for you.

But what we learned in this article is that billionaire Tom Steyer, who wants to be the governor of California, he's paid $400,000 to an influencer to shill for him.

That's the kind of money that we're talking about.

And the article had a sentence that I just think sums up what's happening really nicely.

It said, quote, "Many large and medium-sized accounts are effectively small businesses selling the followings they cultivated organically to the highest bidder for paid political speech." Unquote.

And this is why I'm asking you to pay directly for Congressional Dish, because I refuse all money from companies, from politicians, from everyone.

That is how you know for sure that when I give you an analysis of a bill or of a world event, it is because I truly believe what I'm saying and not because I'm being paid to say it to you.