Angertainment: An Overview and a Few Assertions

In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet titled Common Sense. It was an effort on Paine's part to persuade residents of the English Colonies in North America to pursue independence. The pamphlet portrayed the governments of England and other European nations as tyrannies. Common Sense argued that attempts to settle the North American colonists' differences with King George III would be hopeless.

A patriot, a rabble rouser, and ultimately a successful revolutionary, Paine's arguments carried the day. While his accusations against the English monarchy may have been cloaked in hyperbole, they rang true to many of his readers and in some small measure helped shape a new nation.

Today, the people of the United States of America face a new form of tyranny. Powerful forces are being marshaled and unleashed. Democracy—the very idea of people being governed by the will of a majority—is under threat.

The Current Political Landscape

While it is easy to look at the American political landscape and identify the opposing forces, leaders, issues, and other matters that appear, on the surface, to represent this struggle, the reality is more complex. Peering through various media telescopes, listening to debates, and bombarded by advertisements, a concerned citizen can look around, see the battleground, and assume at least a general understanding of the situation.

This concerned citizen will recognize the divisiveness of today’s politics, the lack of civility, and the win-at-all-costs attitudes of political elites. A concerned citizen may also mourn the diminution of our ability to compromise. What is wrong, a citizen may ask, with laying out our positions, discussing them calmly, and meeting somewhere in the middle?

Where is our ability to cooperate? What happened to our ability to agree to disagree and move forward incrementally? Why can’t we test various propositions, measure the results, and move forward with the proposals that show the best results?

For that matter—even if we disagree—why has political rhetoric become so inflamed? Where once stood the loyal opposition, today stand traitors, socialists, and communists accused of attempting to destroy the American way of life. A concerned citizen watches as free and fair election results are rejected, election districts are gerrymandered, new laws granting legislators the power to reject election results are approved, and the ability of voters to get to the polls is restricted.

A concerned citizen is driven to ask, “What the hell is going on?”

The Rise of Angertainment

A powerful new force is at work in America. There are many familiar old reasons for the current state of political incivility. Lobbyists curry favor for their masters. Wealthy people manipulate the system to enrich themselves further. The old wedge issues play on in the background—a political soundtrack with the greatest hits on repeat. The concerned citizen recalls, however, that these things have always been around. What, one wonders, makes these times different?

A profitable new sector of the media industry has come of age: Angertainment.

Anger—specifically political anger—packaged as entertainment content has reached a critical mass. While politicians, thought leaders, think tankers, and political insiders truly want to believe they are running the American political system, they are not. They may have influence at times, but they are not in control. In the United States today, a relatively small group of highly paid people are exercising a powerful influence on the American political system. A reasonable case can be made that these newcomers are actually in charge—they are the ones running the show.

Our Approach

This analysis is not a research paper. We will discuss research and how difficult it is to measure something like anger in a meaningful way, but we will not provide footnotes and references. We will offer thoughts about topics that political scientists could consider pursuing. High among them: How do you measure anger in communication? Can you simply count the number of “angry” words spoken? We don’t think so. Measuring anger as it is currently being packaged is too complicated for that kind of basic analysis to work.

Words are important, but how a word is spoken matters more. Indeed, the way words are spoken can convey anger even if they are not angry words. [Research Opportunity: Measuring Anger in Political Communication.]

Angertainment is a profitable business for corporations and individuals. We will provide some information about revenues in the industry, but it will be up to political scientists, media watchdogs, and stock analysts to zero in on the exact level of profitability in the industry. We present our arguments confident in the assumption that the people involved in this business are making handsome profits.

We will not provide any kind of in-depth analysis of angertainment content. The author is not an angertainment consumer or observer. Our approach to this material is more like the way a nuclear physicist might study radioactive materials—or, possibly more accurately, the way a sanitary engineer studies the effluent flowing into a wastewater treatment plant. Protective gear. Goggles. Small samples.

The Republican Party and Angertainment

We address the political impact of Angertainment as a phenomenon that directly affects the Republican Party. When discussing communications media and Republican (or conservative, or right-wing) outlets and messaging, we will look for a way to differentiate between real-world, intellectually honest news media and the type of content that has morphed into the angertainment industry. The Fox News conundrum provides a telling example: what was once a mixture of real journalism and extreme opinion has evolved into a full-time angertainment delivery machine.

There will be no effort to provide false balance in our analysis. One of the central arguments in this discussion is that there is no Democratic, liberal, or progressive equivalent to Angertainment, Inc. A few readers may react defensively, point at incidents or individuals, and claim they represent the “flip side” of angertainment. However, taking a broad view, the occasional similarities that can be identified are in no way equal to the vast output of the angertainment industry. Coincidentally, they are not nearly as profitable either.

The alternative to angertainment that does exist is comedy. Late night shows generally offer equal opportunity ridicule, although the humor trends more liberal. In 2025, even the mild political humor of late night is being challenged by angertainment creators as being too liberal and unfair. Now, as the business interests of media conglomerates are being threatened by Republican politicians, networks are censoring their late night comedy.

Modern angertainers and their fans, if they should happen to read the views expressed here, will label them “fake news.” That is what they do.

Historical Context and Future Impact

In our analysis, well look at the recent history of the Republican Party and its leaders in the recent past, and examine how they primed the “base” of the Grand Old Party (GOP) to become a perfect angertainment audience. A succession of Republican leaders have stoked the fears of voters who rally to the Republican standard. They routinely described their political adversaries as evil, malevolent, and threatening. As a result of years of conditioning provided by their elected leaders, Republican voters have been primed to accept angertainment messaging unconditionally. They have been groomed—prepared psychologically to accept and even engage in behavior that previous generations of Republicans would have described as unthinkable.

Finally, we will look at the seismic impact Angertainment has had on American politics in the recent past and look toward the future. We will consider the roles that angertainers have played in creating division and consider the opportunities that are available in a democracy for them to advance their personal agendas in pursuit of power and profit. Past is prologue, as one former reality television celebrity has shown. Finally, for readers who hope to preserve democracy, we will suggest a few steps people can take to try to blunt the impact of angertainment in public and private discourse.