The latest intra-conservative drama is here, likely to the surprise of the catalyst and Tea Party Patriots whose video has launched a thousand tweets! The video went public at CPAC but remained moot among the conservative Blogosphere until just recently as the devious Ben Howe launched a daunting attack at the trailer and the artistic sensibilities of its creators. If that wasn’t bad enough, he dared post his tripe at none other than…
BUZZFEED!!
DUM DUM DUUUUUUUUUUUM!!!!!!!!!
That’s right. BuzzFeed.
Let that sink in.
Fortunately for all of us the heroic John Nolte intervened, giving a good keyboard lashing to the much deserved, much loathed traitor that is Ben Howe.
Let’s start again and instead of jumping to any rash conclusions, really look at what happened.
The TPP video was played at CPAC frequently and to much applause at each point. The attempts at excitement and ideology are apparent. What exists, however, is of little artistic value as a trailer, an objectively embarrassing conservative ad at best, and sadly, one more example of bad conservative art being made instead of great art created by a conservative. There are important distinctions between these two concepts, which Howe alludes to in his critique. Yet, Nolte takes Howe to task on his criticism and choice of publishing venue.
It was at this point that all hell broke loose. Despite all this, there are in actuality only four points that matter:
1. Why BuzzFeed?
Before one can know why Howe might have chosen BuzzFeed, it’s imperative to have an objective idea of what BuzzFeed is. So for the moment lets take that little ball of emotion-laden reactionary disgust and set it gently in the corner. I promise, it’ll be there when we’re done.
Is BuzzFeed some evil liberal conspiracy with blatant designs on the souls of our children? No.
It IS a brilliantly designed outreach vehicle that specializes in a variety of market demographics. BuzzFeed knows its audience, appeals to and draws them in with copious amounts of link bait, adorable babies and animals so-cute things that young girls (and the occasional grown man secure in his masculinity) can’t help but squeal. It is a very effective tool with long ranges of readers hitting various target audiences; exceptional reach across all political and undecided affiliations and a well crafted Kitten-to-Smear Ratio.
Yes, I said it. Kitten-to-Smear Ratio.
What’s this? Well, like any tool it can be used for a number of purposes. In this case that purpose is to drive in the maximum number of traffic, keep the users clicking on various on-site articles, and present them with the content and ideas you want. To accomplish this, the developers have crafted a very specific Kitten- (all the adorable, fluffy, and irresistible content) to-Smear (all the subtle, politically-biased undertones) ratio. Never underestimate the importance of a daily kitten.
Does this make them effective at subtle propaganda? Yes. Does it make anyone who calls them some hub of condensed political ideology and scheming look crazy? Yes again! Are either of these things horrible and ethically unsound? Well, it depends. Would you consider all the marketing that goes into subtly guiding the masses into buying any particular product over another ethically unsound?
There’s a reason the Democrats won the election, dominate culture, and are able to convince so many with so little. Hint: they absolutely destroy conservatives in marketing.
The dilemma is twofold.
First, many conservatives consider a method like BuzzFeed’s debased. Many think it plays to the shallowness of individuals while manipulating them. These same conservatives expect better and they ideally expect deep debate and consideration. The problem with this is how heavy and dogmatic it sounds and manifests, especially compared to the lightness of BuzzFeed’s branding. BuzzFeed doesn’t hide its appeals to the masses, to materialism, to the things we don’t have to think about but help us kill an hour, relax, and say “aww” at the end of the day.
But….it’s so cute……..
No one goes to BuzzFeed to have their politics challenged or affirmed, they go there for the link bait, and they stay for the link bait. It’s genius.
Second, whether you believe all this to be abhorrent or not, the fact is that branding and marketing strategies of the left, or even those with left-leaning bias are currently, and will continue, to undermine any effort by conservatives. They market and dialogue better. They control the narrative because they’re the only ones any good at it! Who’s going to drive a counter narrative when the right is like a fish out of water when they attempt any creative venture? The Left doesn’t forcibly take the narrative; they’re the only ones competent at even creating one! It will continue this way too while most conservatives choose to talk to their own, critique their own in the safety of what Nolte calls the “”conservative family” and appear too overbearing when they market their brand.
So why would Howe post the article at BuzzFeed? He’s obviously critiquing another conservative venture so posting there is insulting, ridiculous and stains him a traitor!
Or does it?
Give the man some credit for contemplating his decision before acting. He was deliberate. Howe effectively wanted to reach a wider and broader audience in a way that stated, “here is a stereotype for conservative creativity, and I, a conservative too, can give a reasonable critique of it.” He was shattering a stereotype of conservatives in the arts on a site that is a shining beacon for anyone marketing any ideology to a wide and diverse audience. In short: basically the opposite of the stereotypical conservative creative effort. He gave reasonable and well-considered critique, especially in the face of the blatant ridicule prevalent around this video. He even uses the genius marketing strategy of a frequently liberally-biased site for his own purposes and intentions. Nolte seems to miss this in his article, stating that Howe was used by BuzzFeed and has no concept of how diabolic the editors truly are:
“Using Howe’s piece, BuzzFeed is now telling its world of young, hip and cool readers that a RedState editor believes conservatives are incapable of making good movies. (Howe is a conservative who makes short films. You think he’s figured out yet that that headline includes him?)”
“Whether driven by arrogance or naiveté, this is what always happens when conservatives do business with the devil to trash other conservatives. Imagine the excitement over at BuzzFeed headquarters (which is probably in a hollowed-out volcano) as they were handed the imprimatur of a RedState editor to trash the conservative film movement as a whole.”
The problem here is that Nolte can’t comprehend that perhaps everyone who doesn’t lean his way politically is not evil and out to undermine all conservatives. Even further from his thoughts is that the arrangement was mutually beneficial – BuzzFeed got a rare conservative-written piece of ripe link bait and Howe got to present himself as he saw appropriate and to a wider audience than he ever could manage if he’d published in a conservative echo-chamber.
I know, it’s unfathomable! I can’t imagine why it’s such a stretch of the imagination that someone could have well-considered reasoning for posting on BuzzFeed.
If the venue is still upsetting then answer this: what conservative media equivalent could he have used, something comparable to the type and breadth of readers that BuzzFeed boasts? It doesn’t exist. This is the real meat of the discussion, one of the many real issues Howe’s article and actions around it raises. It is a problem and it needs to be discussed, preferably without reactionary emotional responses.
Maybe, just maybe, conservatives want to tap into that young, hip, cool readers and push content their way using a BuzzFeed-like strategy.
The New House Republican Web Strategy: Just Add BuzzFeed
Well look at that.
2. The Critique
However, Howe’s cutthroat and relentless phrasing, his scathing words and snarky approach were certainly uncalled for:
”Drive-In Academy Award Best Actor nomination for guy at 1:25 who says “We need to act!!” but is a very bad actor. Drive-In Academy Award Best Bullshitter nomination for video creator Luke Livingston, who kept a straight face while telling Dave Weigel this video would make teabagging popular with “younger people, people who were in high school when this started.” One star.”
Well no . . . that’s not Howe, it’s one of the less snarky parts of a TPP video review posted on Wonkette!
Back to Howe and his disgusting critique of a fellow conservatives:
“I find it alarming that the creators of the film believe a socialist paradise would work so efficiently, with one character even marveling at “everything they give us.”
“Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the general sentiments expressed in the trailer. I just wish they were expressed in a way that captivated.”
“Right out of the gate, the first thing you’ll notice is that the acting falls short. I don’t necessarily think that’s the actors’ fault, though.”
And:
“Now, the entire reason I’m writing this review can be summed up in my opening: I want a culture shift, and I want conservative artists to be taken seriously. It is my opinion that this Tea Party Patriots film does great damage to such an effort.”
How dare he!
“Instead of pulling people into a story that espouses the underlying tenets of liberty, it slaps them across the face with all of the subtlety of a campaign commercial”
BURN THE WITCH!!
John Nolte wrote, “RedState editor Ben Howe used over 1500 words to brutalize a film trailer.” Well, if so, which part exactly was “brutal”? Howe gives a pretty fair review, honest but spot on while addressing the blatant aesthetic problems in the project. It’s not crazy to calmly critique a public work, especially if it is by groups or individuals one often agrees or affiliates. Critique of messaging or even an ideology should not cause this much uproar. Such a thing is meant to be constructive, to help, to improve and make greater-an concept rooted in conservative values. Telling someone they lack narrative or composition is not cruel or mocking.
Conservatives are big boys and girls, who should be capable of taking critique and recognizing its value when given.
3. Not Everything Is Political
There’s a permeating issue in some conservative methodologies which simply doesn’t exist in the rest of the world: that everything in some way, some how, is political. That post is political. That art is political. That cat over yonder in the litter box is political. It’s also art. Political art. Oh, don’t get me started on tweed blazers. SO political.
It goes on.
Political Horse is Politicly Plotting Something Political
Yet sometimes, things are not about politics, even when they’re about what a political group does. Here, Ben criticizes one video on general aesthetics, comprehension and dimension of narrative, and it’s inability to divorce the creative process from the political ideology. Good art comes first; it is then, what that art expresses, that is given attention. If it happens to be a conservative truth, then that’s great!
However, with everything being political, suddenly Howe is a blood traitor to “the cause,” with his review as evidence of dissent and his choice of venue evidence of his defection to the enemy.
Not everything is political. Heck, sometimes an art critique is just an art critique.
4. Reason Can Prevail
Critique is good. Constructive reviews can make any project better. They help the content creator, someone usually very immersed in their projects, gain an outside perspective, a fresh view of how the work comes across to the target audience. This is not something conservatives can reject or demonize forever, healthy critique and strategic uses of media outlets can be embraced without anyone feeling as if they’ve compromised themselves.
To demand that another conservative conform to our ideas of what is right with regard to small ideas – like making lists of appropriate sites to publish on or restrictive rules on constructive criticism – is ridiculous and against some of the basic core values of conservatism. Aren’t conservatives pro-individual freedoms? Conservatives of various ranges agree on a lot of big issues, but there’s no saying they must agree on the little ones. Two can agree that driving on roads is the most effective means of driving, but they don’t have to agree on what car to drive. People can agree that reaching a broader audience, breaking stereotypes and publishing reasonable articles is a good thing. What conservatives don’t have to do is demonize someone with similar ideology as a traitor simply because he approached those problems in a way many others would not have.
If all stereotypes are based in fact, imagine the effects if more conservatives start engaging creatively to break the even larger stereotype that we are horrid at dialogue? It might not be long before conservatives are considered “good conversationalists.” Soon some of those young, hip, cool people might find out the hidden secret that many conservatives are actually pretty fun, can find joy in the simple things and that in the end, aren’t that different than the rest of humanity.
Enthusiastic joy tends to make anyone approachable
Amazing things happen when people think you’re approachable; they begin to listen and take you seriously.
Heck, conservatives might even get their narrative back.
