Jon Favreau has a long response for critiques that Crooked sows intra-party division by elevating leftists. I don’t think he’s motivated by money. And I think he wants Democrats to win.
But he’s in denial about the tension between what helps Democrats win and what his audience wants to hear.
Back in July, on a podcast episode titled “The Search for an Exciting Moderate,” Favreau shared that interviews with leftists like Zohran Mamdani get far more attention than interviews with moderates like Cait Conley, even though the latter win majorities. This creates a natural tension for booking guests, but that seemed to ebb into denial when discussing actual policy moderation. Here’s Favreau:
Though, importantly, in all six of the states where they polled, the six Senate states that are pick up opportunities for Democrats, voters were less likely to describe the Democratic candidate as too far left than they were the Democratic Party itself. Do you attribute that to specific moderate positions taken by Mary Peltola, Josh Turek, Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, James Talarico? Because, and I don’t know about all of their positions on everything, but it doesn’t seem like, at least, I know Sherrod’s been around long enough, it doesn’t seem like they have moderated on any of the issues or you might think the Democrats need to moderate on.”
The idea that Mary Peltola had no positions on which she moderated is the type of fact that drives home just how much this has to be denial, and not any sort of intentional profit-seeking. It is an insane thing to say! She was “more conservative than 99% of Democrats” in the House. There are charts!
Her ads are about fighting Biden to build an oil pipeline! She was co-chair of the Blue Dogs! David Hogg famously said “good riddance” to Peltola when she lost because of her stance on guns!
Civility vs “Hate”
Favreau’s post today shows frustration about the concept of audience capture & profitability, and bemoans the uncivil nature of social media compared to the vibe of Crooked’s conference this week:
People debated and disagreed. No one was nasty to each other in person … People at opposite ends of the spectrum were friendly and respectful to each other.
But the same day, Favreau released his post-election interview with the leftist strategist Morris Katz. A clip from the interview went viral, featuring Katz telling Favreau “I hate Josh Shapiro.”
Favreau didn’t follow up on that statement. It was, as Matthew Yglesias noted, weird:
Shapiro, of course, just won the quintessential swing state by twenty points with coattails that drastically change both state-level governing and the state’s delegation to Congress.
Saying “I disagree with Josh Shapiro” obviously doesn’t get as many clicks as “I hate Josh Shapiro.” For a new media business to grow the top of the audience funnel, “hate” is helpful.
Of many laudable traits of Yglesias, a fun one is that he openly shares that people angrily disagreeing with his post-election takes is good for his business!
Favreau seems stuck on this point.
Audience Capture & Profitability
Back to his rebuttal, on how nice it was at Crooked Con:
No one accused anyone of being motivated by audience or profit or donors like they do here (on Twitter) every day.
Of course the audience that paid $250 to go to Crooked Con was not going to complain that the speakers were pandering to them!
Or rue the fact that someone, somewhere may be making money off them. They were happy to pay! It looked like fun and they got what they paid for.
This is easy to comprehend in any non-politics setting. If I showed up at the game watch party for my favorite Red Sox podcast Section 10, then complained their takes were too hard on Cam Schlittler and the statistics were cherry-picked to what I wanted to hear … that’d be weird!!
I’m just there to have fun, hear some interesting stuff that vibes with my baseball worldview, and maybe hear a host-read sponsorship advertisement for weight loss or male pattern baldness with promo code SECTION10.
But if I was betting something important on that podcast’s objectivity and positive impact on the Red Sox … that’d be a problem.
And I’ll be honest, if I kept hearing things I didn’t like then I’d switch to one of the many other Red Sox podcasts out there. Which is what all of new media is afraid of. Because they may end up like Glenn Beck when he told his audience that Donald Trump & conspiracies were actually bad: losing 68% of the audience.
That’s just the reality of the business. Which is not a problem on its own. And Crooked’s founders are so successful that I do doubt it makes a meaningful difference in their own minds.
But denying that reality is a problem.
Faux Factional Diversity
New media has to pull off a trick: say stuff to keep the audience happy AND maintain a veil of objectivity. The audience doesn’t want to hear what it doesn’t like, but it also wants to pretend it’s hearing everything.
Back to Favreau:
Every faction of the Democratic Party was at Crooked Con - moderate and leftist politicians, strategists and policy wonks from Fight Agency and Majority Dems and DSA and Blue Dogs and Bernie Dogs and JStreet and the Bulwark and on and on.
There were seven members of the House on the speaking slate at Crooked Con, plus two candidates who won. Eight of the nine are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The median district represented was won by Kamala Harris by 40 points.
“Addicted like the rest of us”
One of our earliest newsletters was titled “Why does Ron Klain tweet?”
As newcomers to national politics, we were legit boggled that President Biden’s chief of staff - possibly one of the busiest jobs on the planet - still found time to regularly scroll social media and engage with posters.
A commentator at the time noted “the chief of staff to the president is addicted like the rest of us and impacts his thinking. It’s incredibly important …”
Favreau addresses this addiction towards the end of his note:
Will try hard to practice what I preach. May also mute a whole bunch of people who just can’t seem to be constructive. And probably best to take X off my phone again and just use it on desktop.
Back in 2022, I thought it was a big problem that Ron Klain’s brain was shaped by Twitter. And I think its a problem if Favreau can see the addiction to social media feeds, but not the audience capture.
I do not, however, believe profit directly impacts his behavior. I think other progressive media stars are profit-driven - like Jennifer Welch, who yesterday was issuing an apology for assassination jokes after losing sponsors, and Mehdi Hasan, who we wrote about yesterday - but not the Pod Save guys.
Friend(ly critic) of the Pod
At the end of the day, those of us who are critical of progressive media in general, and Pod Save in particular, just need to organize ourselves. Would I like it if Favreau pushed back against Katz?
Sure. But we should have agency and build more rather than try to tear them down.
Amplify leaders like Jamie Ager.
Subscribe to newsletters like Slow Boring and and Jeff Maurer and Central Air with Josh Barro, Ben Dreyfuss and Megan McArdle.
And get ready for a Save the Date to WelcomeFest IV in June. The first three have featured the majority of overperforming House candidates in Trump districts. Better to try building than up than tearing something else down!
The reupholstering of Morris Katz is SOMETHING!
This is measured and well-written. Favreau's denial in the "Search for an Exciting Moderate" podcast was bonkers.
With apologies to dril: the Pod Save boys turn a big dial that says "Progressivism" on it and constantly look back at the audience for approval like a contestant on the price is right.