Conor Friedersdorf and I disagree about a few things, but we do
agree that there is
something starkly disconcerting about PJTV's online venture,
something that speaks to an overall problem of conservative
media. Heck, it speaks to a problem in the conservative
"movement."
I punctuate "movement" that way because conservatives have become
less of a movement, and more of a demographic. As I noted in a
piece I wrote for Culture11, there's a strong tendency to market
along ideological lines. For conservatives, the lines are far
more established than, say, liberal lines, where all you have to
do is talk about "fair trade" and "organics" and suddenly you got
yourself the yuppie demographic. Conservatives are easier. All
you have to do is say, "I'm conservative!" and you're in. See
also: Mitt "What socialized healthcare?" Romney.
This isn't a problem for PJTV, particularly Malkin and Reynolds
who are, I can't emphasize this enough, admirable conservatives
with important contributions. What is a problem is that
being conservative is thought to be enough to get by in
a harsh, and competitive, economic environment. I just mentioned
Culture11 -- which had marketed itself as a "conservative Slate"
-- but it's not even in existence anymore. These be hard times,
yo, but especially hard times for a venture to limit itself
ideologically. If you're going to do it, go the non-profit route,
for heaven's sakes.
It's not that such ventures are "anti-intellectual," as has been
the favored tag. It's really just that this approach is
anti-ecumenical. Given that we have our own media structures now,
we've stuck to where we're most comfortable. If conservatives
have any hope of regaining political dominance, it will be by
converting others to our way of thinking, not by preaching to the
choir.