One common explanation for the outcome of the 2024 presidential election is that the far-right's vast social media ecosystem was able to reach more Americans than traditional media, influencing a decisive number of voters in key battleground states. One New York Times reporter decided to put himself in those Americans' shoes for a week and document the results.

In a Friday article for the Times, journalist Stuart A. Thompson — who covers right-wing media — dove head-first into Rumble, which is the preferred video news platform for the extreme right. As Thompson noted, Rumble began as a YouTube alternative that was known for cat videos until the January 6, 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol. Once YouTube banned multiple accounts for their defense of insurrectionists, those content creators migrated their channels and audiences to Rumble.

As part of his research process, Thompson wrote that he watched approximately 47 hours of Rumble content for his report. For one week, Thompson deactivated all of his news apps, filtered out emails from news outlets and newsletters and exclusively watched Rumble content creators like Dan Bongino, Roseanne Barr, Candace Owens, Russell Brand and Clayton Morris, among others.

These are just a few of the most popular Rumble commentators. Other top Rumble contributors include conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and misogynist influencer Andrew Tate. Stew Peters — a former bounty hunter who has roughly 556,000 followers — has praised Adolf Hitler and called for shooting nonprofit workers who help undocumented immigrants.

"Just a few hours into the experiment, it was clear that I was falling into an alternate reality fueled almost entirely by outrage," Thompson wrote, noting that he could feel his worldview and perspectives shift the more he was exposed to far-right narratives.

"When I described to my wife what I was hearing on Rumble, she said I was right to feel uneasy because the world I was immersing myself in sounded genuinely awful," he continued. "Hour by hour, Rumble’s hosts stoked fears about nearly everything: culture wars, transgender Americans and even a potential World War III."

Thompson reported that while he expected blowback from Rumble contributors after his article went live on the Times' site, he was surprised to get public backlash before publication. He recalled one interaction in which Jake Pentland — Roseanne Barr's son, who co-hosts her podcast — posted an email inquiry he sent to X, which resulted in him getting doxxed and brigaded with hate from Rumble viewers.

"Rumble’s chief executive reposted [Pentland's tweet], then Elon Musk reposted that to his more than 200 million followers," Thompson wrote. "My phone number was visible, and apparently seen more than 50 million times on the platform, so I was soon flooded with angry phone calls and texts calling my article (which hadn’t yet been published) a 'hit job' focused on World War III."

After the election, Pew Research found that roughly 37% of Americans under 30 — and approximately 20% of all American adults — get their news from "social media influencers" rather than from traditional news outlets. 63% of those influencers are men, and 77% of those influencers have no background or ties to any news organization. A majority of influencers lean conservative, and 85% of them have a presence on X. 50% of news influencers are active on Instagram, and 44% also have a YouTube presence.

"These Americans also say they get a variety of different types of information, from basic facts and opinions to funny posts and breaking news," Pew reported last month. "When it comes to opinions, most who see them say they are an even mix of opinions they agree and disagree with (61%), but far more say they mostly agree with what they see (30%) than mostly disagree (2%)."

This leads John Stoehr to finding himself open to arguments that he had not been open to.in the past.

For years, I have defended the Democratic Party in various ways, but since Donald Trump’s victory, I haven’t been in the mood. Matter of fact, I find myself open to arguments that I had not been open to.

For instance, the one about how the Biden administration, namely US Attorney General Merrick Garland, should have prosecuted Trump immediately after his attempted overthrow of the US government. I figured Garland’s caution was appropriate, and anyway, I believed there was no way voters would rehire a traitor they had already fired.

I feel different now.

I’m also more open to the argument about how the Democrats must develop and maintain a media ecosystem of their own that’s as strong as the one that gave the GOP a trifecta. It’s not that I didn’t think the Democrats needed one. It’s that I believed that propaganda never made anyone believe anything they didn’t already believe. If you’re a racist, you’re a racist. A white-power podcaster can’t make it so.

But I now see the problem in a more nuanced light.

The problem is that the Democrats don’t have a media ecosystem of their own with which to compete with the Republicans on a level playing field for voters who are not getting, and who are not capable of getting, good information on their own. The Democratic Party trusts, and relies on, the public too much. Facts and history must never be allowed to speak for themselves. The Democrats must speak for them.

So I find myself in a rather new position. I’m no longer in the mood to defend the Democrats (for now, anyway; time will tell), but I’m also not in the mood to criticize them on the old ideological grounds that are familiar to the followers of the Democratic Party’s best-known critics.

I don’t see a point in the class-based critique of people like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. I don’t see a point in the “centrism”-based critique of people like Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton. The Democrats are already a party of the working class. They are already centrist as a result of already being a party of working-class policy.

Anyway, America’s backsliding can’t be solved with policy, as the crisis we face isn’t the result of “big dislocations, like a depression with mass unemployment and the legacy of losing a major war,” as Professor Grossman put it. If it could be solved with policy, it would be solved, as Joe Biden flipped four decades of economic consensus on their head.

No, the backsliding is the result of a lack of good information.

And guts.

So my beef with the Democrats isn’t a matter of ideology. (It’s nothing like what you will find on “Chapo Trap House.”) My beef is a matter of temperament. At issue isn’t “purity,” as Moulton said. It’s courage. Either the Democrats meant it when they said Trump is a menace to democracy and the rule of law – or they didn’t. Either they meant it when they said that now’s the time for choosing – or they didn’t.

Honestly, I’m not sure they meant it.

In response to Trump’s renewed threat to prosecute members of the Congress who investigated his attempted paramilitary takeover of the US government, Adam Schiff, who sat on the panel, and who is now California's junior senator, said: “I don’t think the incoming president should be threatening his political opponents with jail time. That’s not the kind of talk we should hear from a president in a democracy.”

What is this?

Politics or kindergarten?

Schiff went on: “Nor do I think a pardon is necessary for members of the January 6 committee. We are proud of the work we did … It was a fundamental oversight obligation to investigate the first attempt to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power in our history.”

Look, I told you. I have defended the Democrats in various ways for years, especially when they stood up for democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law after Trump’s attempt to overthrow the will of the people. But this is so weak, I can’t defend it. I don’t think anyone can.

Here’s what Schiff could have said:

• Donald Trump is a criminal. It was criminal to lead an insurrection. It’s criminal to threaten jail time for his opponents. Trump is a criminal up and down, and criminals are bad for democracy, especially when they are democratically elected.

• A criminal president is going to corrupt, even more than it already has been, the moral fabric of American society.

• The Democrats, as the party of the rule of law, will do everything in their power to bring criminals to justice.

• The Democrats may lose in the end, but not without a fight.

Schiff could have said any of these things without losing support back home. Instead, we got The Language Police or The Disappointed School Marm, take your pick, who not only failed to show resolve but also validated the allegation that the Democrats are a bunch of pricks.

Jesus God, January 6 was not “the first attempt to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power.” It was a crime. It was treason. But Schiff couched that fact in abstract multisyllabic words, as if euphemism and understatement were the appropriate mode of presidential discourse.

Worse was what the Senate minority leader said afterward.

“He did a great job,” Chuck Schumer said, referring to Adam Schiff’s performance on the J6 committee. “And it will stand for itself.”

No, it won’t. It really won’t. With the rightwing media apparatus, Trump erased facts. With a new administration, he’ll try erasing history. Watch. And he will succeed if the Democrats won’t fight.