Republican politicians, fundraisers, and many ordinary voters believe that there is some kind of "left-wing" equivalent to Angertainment, Inc. If Republicans do something, then the Democrats must do the same thing, they say. It is not true.
The professionals who claim that "both sides do it" are being dishonest. The average citizen who things this is wrong.
Asymmetry:
They are simply not the same
The key differences
Right
Dedicated 24/7 cable network (Fox News, Newsmax, OAN)
Dominant AM radio presence nationwide (hundreds of stations)
Integrated digital ecosystem (Breitbart, Daily Wire, etc.)
Multi-billion dollar industry
Left
No equivalent 24/7 anger-based cable network (MSNBC is opinion journalism, not angertainment)
Minimal radio presence (Air America failed)
Scattered digital outlets without integration
Much smaller revenue
Presence at scale matters. Isolated instances are not the same as an industrial system.
Angertainment's Distinguishing Features:
Deliberately avoids verification as cost-saving measure
Profits from anger as primary product (source of engagement)
Multi-revenue diversification** (ads + supplements + books + appearances) creates independence from advertiser accountability
Uses journalism as raw material without investing in reporting
Left-leaning media:
MSNBC, even with opinionated hosts, employs reporters and maintains news division
NPR invests heavily in verification and reporting
No equivalent supplement-selling ecosystem
Remains more dependent on traditional advertising accountability
It's not about bias or passion—it's about the fundamental business model that prioritizes engagement over verification.
The Fox/Dominion Example:
Internal documents proved executives knew claims were false
Continued broadcasting lies to retain audience
Paid $787.5M rather than defend in court
This is the definition of angertainment: knowingly disseminating falsehood for profit
The Dominion case isn't about bias—it's about documented, systematic, knowing deception for profit.
What People Often Cite as "Left-Wing Angertainment"
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Trevor Noah and other late-night comedy shows
Why This Is a False Equivalence
Explicitly comedy, not presented as news
Targets absurdity and hypocrisy, not inciting anger toward enemies
Makes audiences laugh, not enraged
Relatively balanced targets (also mock Democrats, though less frequently)
No systematic verification avoidance for profit
Satire and comedy have different psychological and social effects than anger-based content. Making people laugh at absurdity is not the same as making people furious at enemies.
Right
Integrated ecosystem where radio → TV → digital → social media reinforce each other
Career pipeline from local radio → national syndication → TV → politics
The "Three Ps" (politicians, pundits, pollsters) systematically integrated
Think tank coordination for message testing
Left
Fragmented outlets without systematic integration
No equivalent career pipeline
No systematic message coordination at comparable scale
Angertainment, Inc. has created an industrial ecosystem. It is now just a collection of angry individuals.
Critical Question: "Is it more profitable to tell the truth or to tell the audience what they want to hear?"
For Angertainment: Demonstrated choice to lie for profit (Fox/Dominion)
For Left-leaning Media: No comparable evidence of systematic profit-over-truth choice at industrial scale
Follow the money. The incentive structures are fundamentally different.
Why All of This Matters
1. False equivalence prevents solutions
If "both sides do it," then nothing can be done
Paralysis benefits angertainment industry
2. Empirical accuracy matters
We can't fix problems we misdiagnose
Asymmetric problem requires asymmetric solutions
3. It's about democracy, not partisanship
Any party could be captured by angertainment
Angertainment too control of Republicans because of specific historical/structural factors
Understanding asymmetry helps prevent spread
4. Understanding what angertainment is and giving it a name offers a way forward
We cannot and do not want to ban angertainment
We do want to distinguish angertainment from journalism
We want to correctly label, educate, and contain—not censor.
We want to call angertainment what it is.