You must log in or register to comment.


ziq wrote

If you look at how the corporate media does it, every outlet is either affiliated with one political party or the other (e.g. conservative or 'labour'; aka slightly less conservative).

Directly labelling the outlet e.g. 'Conservative News' would immediately limit its ability to appeal to a broad audience. The vast majority of people consuming the outlet's content are apolitical and don't realize they're being fed a political party's propaganda. Rupert Murdoch's tabloids are designed to appeal to the poor but present these readers with a staunchly pro-rich, anti-poor rhetoric that causes them to actively work against their own interests.

Look at this site. We don't call the site '', we use a very non-descriptive term; ''. Anyone without the background will just assume it's a general link sharing site, when it actually has a sharp anti-authoritarian, libertarian slant to it.

It was probably a mistake to talk so much about the politics behind this site early on, because its limited its audience enormously. If we hadn't so strongly associated it with our politics in interviews and promotion, I think more people would have been willing to use the site, and they would have gradually developed better politics just by being here.

An anarchist media outlet couldn't attain broad appeal if it were presented as an anarchist media outlet i.e. If it's going to attract more than die-hard pre-existing anarchists; it needs to brand itself smartly. for instance duped millions into thinking it was some anti-establishment alternative news source when it's nothing more than the Russian state's propaganda arm. Changing the name from RussiaToday to RT had a lot to do with that success. It's still one of the biggest news sources in the world today, even as it does little more than spoonfeed Russia's foreign policy to its viewers. But since the US's widely publicized attacks on it, fingering it as state propaganda, its lost a lot of its reach.

So my solution:

  1. A free anarchist news outlet staffed by anarchist volunteers, presenting the day's stories with an anarchist slant.

  2. No mention of the word 'anarchism' anywhere on the site. Don't show your hand to people that get skittish when they hear that word.

  3. Detailed guidelines for the writers to follow so you don't end up with a bunch of 'vote for change' (DSA nerds) or 'class is all that matters' ( articles. Ensure the message remains un-tainted. This means trusted editors need to check every article that's submitted and only let it through if the politics are sound.


ziq wrote (edited )

Trying to present anarchy as something that has mass appeal to a mass audience is a lost cause. It just doesn't. There's too much fear in them put there by the multi-billion state propaganda apparatus.

So lie.


gone wrote

Short version of autobiographical story: pick broken people out of the trash the same way you dumpster dive for anything else. Don't talk down to us, answer our questions, recognize our ignorance for what it is and call us out kindly. We can become very loyal.


Ant wrote

I don't think we can

also appealing to the lowest common denominator feels like something politicians do
but I can't articulate my discomfort beyond that

cough That said, Bob Black's Anarchy 101 isn't too bad


ziq wrote

lowest common denominator

I don't think it's fair to call 'broad appeal' the lowest common denominator.

If anarchy is not appealing to a broad audience then anarchist outreach is failing.


Ant wrote (edited )

I don't think it's fair to call 'broad appeal' the lowest common denominator.

I think it's implied - for example, I think it's the problem with CrimethInc.'s To Change Everything

If anarchy is not appealing to a broad audience then anarchist outreach is failing.

maybe then instead of appealing to a singular broad audience it's best suited to appealing to multiple smaller audiences to cover a broad space

I like the "Think Global, Act Local" approach