Clicks vs. Power: Why Left-Leaning Media Gets Rich But Can't Move Policy
With conservative giants dictating Beltway narratives, progressive outlets rack up likes and dollars but get shut out of the rooms where it happens. A rare media column by me.
WASHINGTON — A fundamental asymmetry defines American political media in 2025: conservative outlets like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and Newsmax have systematically secured direct access to policymakers and translated that proximity into legislative influence, while left-wing digital media operations increasingly resemble engagement-optimized content mills that monetize outrage without moving policy.
The divergence isn’t just philosophical—it’s structural, financial, and ultimately consequential for American governance.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by:
The Infrastructure Advantage
Conservative media has spent decades building what political scientists call an “ideological infrastructure”—a tightly integrated ecosystem connecting think tanks, advocacy organizations, academic centers, and news outlets. This machine doesn’t merely report on policy; it shapes it.
Right-wing outlets operate as nodes within a broader network funded by billionaire donors like Peter Thiel, the Koch network, and others who view media investment as movement-building rather than profit-maximizing.
The numbers tell the story. Right-leaning online shows command nearly 481 million followers across platforms—almost five times the 104 million following left-leaning content. Nine of the top ten online shows lean right, with conservative channels accumulating 65 billion YouTube views compared to 31.5 billion for left-leaning content.
This isn’t accidental. It’s the product of “deliberate, well-funded strategy to colonize the digital media landscape with conservative voices,” supported by sophisticated production values and massive marketing budgets.
While progressive outlets scramble for Patreon donations and merchandise sales, right-wing personalities enjoy backing from billionaire money that allows them to “build sophisticated media operations”.
Peter Thiel’s investment in Rumble has turned the platform into a haven for right-wing content creators, with strategic partnerships positioning it as a hub for disseminating content that circumvents mainstream platform restrictions.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Access Equals Influence
The Trump administration has formalized this advantage through systematic credentialing policies that reward friendly outlets with unprecedented access. When the Pentagon implemented new press restrictions in 2025, mainstream outlets walked out—but conservative media walked in.
Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Newsmax, One America News Network, and The Washington Examiner received Pentagon workspaces previously occupied by The New York Times, NPR, CNN, and other legacy outlets.
The new press corps welcomed Frontlines (run by Turning Point USA), Gateway Pundit, Human Events, RedState, and even MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s streaming service. Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who has Trump’s ear and has influenced firing decisions at the National Security Council, received Pentagon press credentials despite operating outside traditional journalism boundaries.
This access translates directly into policy influence. Documents obtained through FOIA requests reveal that during Trump’s first term, outlets like Fox News and Breitbart didn’t just report on policy—they scripted it. A Treasury Department official directed specific changes to Fox Business Network’s content without disclosing the government’s role.
An EPA press secretary gave Fox News producer Diana Aloi explicit approval on interview lead-in scripts. DHS officials leaked protected immigration information to Fox and Breitbart to promote Trump’s anti-immigrant narratives, potentially violating the Privacy Act of 1974.
Congressional Republicans cite right-wing alternative media directly in their tweets, signaling their identity as “true conservatives” to their base. Breitbart and Newsmax have gained particular traction among Washington policymakers, driving policy conversations on immigration and other conservative priorities.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
The Left’s Engagement Trap
Meanwhile, left-wing media has pursued a fundamentally different model—one optimized for engagement metrics rather than policy access. Operations like Courier Newsroom exemplify this approach.
Backed by $15 million from George Soros’s Fund for Policy Reform and additional funding from Reid Hoffman, Courier operates local news outlets in 11 battleground states that publish Democratic narratives disguised as local journalism.
But Courier’s strategy reveals the limitation: it spent over $12 million on Facebook and Instagram ads and another $9 million supporting Kamala Harris’s unsuccessful presidential campaign. The operation functions as partisan operations masquerading integrated into local news but lacks the institutional access and policy influence of its right-wing counterparts.
The broader digital media landscape on the left has collapsed into a series of engagement-driven failures. BuzzFeed announced another 16% workforce reduction in 2024, sold Complex for one-third of its purchase price, and continues hemorrhaging staff. Vice Media shut down its flagship website and laid off hundreds after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Messenger closed abruptly, and Business Insider slashed 8% of its staff.
These outlets shared a common business model: maximize traffic through clickbait headlines, monetize through advertising, and prioritize engagement over impact. But the deeper problem is structural—these outlets optimized for metrics that don’t translate to policy influence.
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
The Engagement Economy’s False Promise
Research confirms that digital-native outlets are “much more likely to use clickbait” than legacy media, and that clickbait does drive engagement in the form of likes and retweets. But engagement doesn’t equal influence.
Studies show that negative content generates more engagement than positive content across both left- and right-leaning news organizations. The problem for the left is that this engagement trap produces revenue without producing power.
The subscription model that some progressive outlets pursue faces its own limitations. While The New York Times and The Economist have built sustainable subscription businesses by combining engagement metrics with retention strategies, most progressive digital outlets lack the resources and institutional credibility to replicate this success.
Defector, the employee-owned sports site launched by former Deadspin staffers, attracted tens of thousands of subscribers but has “much smaller audience than Deadspin had, reducing its cultural impact”.
One progressive outlet that has achieved financial viability is Zeteo, which amassed over 31,000 paid subscribers and $3 million in annual revenue in just four months. But as media analyst Waleed Shahid notes, “one Zeteo is not enough. We need an entire progressive media ecosystem—not just individual success stories”.
The Feedback Loop of Power
The advantage compounds through a feedback loop that reinforces right-wing dominance. Republican lawmakers use House Judiciary Committee investigations to pressure tech platforms into reducing content moderation, creating an environment where platforms “abandon what they perceived as an inconvenience from the beginning”. State laws in Texas and Florida restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate content, explicitly designed to prevent “unfair silencing of conservatives”.
Meanwhile, the White House has systematically restricted wire service access, giving the administration “sole discretion over who gets to question President Donald Trump”. The new policy lumps three wire services—AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg—with print reporters for just two rotating slots, while Karoline Leavitt “shall retain day-to-day discretion to determine composition of the pool”.
This creates an ecosystem where right-wing outlets don’t just report on policy—they participate in making it. As one analysis of right-wing media’s social media advantage concluded, “content with a right-leaning partisan slant is viewed and shared substantially more than left-leaning content,” giving right-wing media “disproportionate tendency to gain visibility in ideologically diverse social media spaces”.
The Trillion-Dollar Consequence
The practical result of this asymmetry is exactly what the original observation predicted: left-wing outlets “getting rich on clicks by bitching about policies that right wing outlets move by doing the diligence to get full daily news access to powerful people.”
Consider immigration policy, where this dynamic plays out with particular clarity. Breitbart kept up “a steady flow of misleading stories that associated immigration with terrorism, the spread of incurable disease, criminality, and abuse of the welfare system,” making immigration the Republican Party’s main election agenda despite party leadership’s initial resistance.
This coverage directly influenced Trump’s Muslim ban executive order within a week of taking office. Current polling shows 62% of swing-voting independents now back Trump’s immigration enforcement policy, up from 52% in January—a 22-point shift driven largely by Democratic opposition to enforcement.
Left-wing outlets covered these developments extensively, generating engagement and revenue. But they didn’t shape the policy. They reacted to it.
The financial implications are stark. Progressive media funding comes primarily from philanthropic sources—the MacArthur Foundation’s $500 million Press Forward initiative, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss’s nearly half-billion-dollar investment in American left-wing causes. But this funding supports “state-level activism” and “voter registration drives” rather than the institutional access and policy infrastructure that conservative media has built.
Right-wing media, by contrast, operates as integrated movement infrastructure. The Heritage Foundation donated $2 million to Premiere Networks to syndicate Rush Limbaugh’s show. FreedomWorks paid Glenn Beck over $1 million for reading “embedded content” on his Fox News broadcasts, described on tax disclosures as “advertising services”. These investments don’t optimize for engagement metrics—they optimize for ideological influence.
The Path Not Taken
The lesson isn’t that progressive media needs “a Joe Rogan,” as some liberal philanthropists suggest. It’s that the left has fundamentally misunderstood the game. While right-wing outlets treat media as “permanent, expansive, and independent” ideological infrastructure that can “build and represent working class populism,” left-wing outlets have pursued venture capital models that prioritize scalability, traffic, and exit strategies.
“Until progressives recognize this, they will remain trapped in a cycle of reactive, defensive, and ultimately ineffective media engagement,” warns Shahid. “The right has already built its machine. If the left doesn’t catch up, it will keep losing—not just in elections, but in the deeper contest over who defines political reality itself”.
The next decade will likely vindicate this analysis. As long as left-wing media optimizes for engagement metrics while right-wing media optimizes for policy access, the asymmetry will persist. Left-wing outlets may generate millions in subscription revenue and billions in social media impressions. But right-wing outlets will continue shaping trillions of dollars in policy—because they’re in the room where it happens.
If you’ve made it this far, you care. Help me keep pressing the powerful for answers and exposing what they’d rather you never see—subscribe or donate to keep Migrant Insider going.