MAGA Bros Against World War III
Independent media is where regime-change apologia goes to die.
One of the criticisms of alternative media is that podcasters, social media personalities, and influencers who describe themselves as independent-minded often fail to ask tough questions of their guests or push back when greater scrutiny is warranted. Joe Rogan is frequently cited as an example of this: He platforms provocative guests like Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll, and because the format is friendly and informal, he fails to press them when they make dubious or even outrageous claims. That was the thrust of the criticism made by British journalist Douglas Murray, who used his own appearance on Rogan's show as an opportunity to attack the host's failure to properly interrogate people Murray considers to be conspiracy theorists.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
In contrast, mainstream media is characterized by hostile interviews: For example, see every single instance of CNN, CBS, or ABC interviewing a Republican political figure—though to be fair, interviews with Democrats are often contentious as well. Politicians don't really want to be asked tough questions, but journalism is supposed to be adversarial, and the public is best served by interview formats that provoke discomfort. If the traditional mainstream format is entirely replaced by podcasts where people get to say whatever they want and face no pushback whatsoever, it should be obvious that 1) this would be worse for the country, and 2) the politicians would absolutely prefer it.
Yet the current debate over whether the U.S. military should become more involved in Israel's war against Iran is a powerful counterexample and showcases the unique ability of the podcast universe to—in some important cases—cut through the mainstream media's reflexive deference to hawkish national security experts and get to the fundamental question: Do the American people really want another regime-change war in the Middle East?
This dynamic was well-illustrated by Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) on X. The pair of conservative giants engaged in a two-hour exchange on the subject of Iran; it was feisty and intermittently unpleasant—for them at least, it was madly entertaining for viewers—and gave Carlson ample opportunity to expose the hollowness of Cruz's position, which seemed to be that regime-change in Iran would somehow work out better than regime-change in Iraq, Libya, or Syria.
In one particularly revealing moment, Cruz accused Carlson and other critics of the war effort of being "obsessed" with Israel and even insinuated this was due to some vague antisemitic undercurrent. This accusation was remarkable because just moments earlier, Cruz had admitted his own reason for running for office was to be the most pro-Israel U.S. senator in history. Moments later, he confessed that his unwavering support for Israel was due to a biblical passage that emphasizes those who side with Israel will be "blessed"; in response, Carlson sardonically mused on whether the Bible's authors had a specific Israeli government in mind.
It is not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel for the U.S. to think very carefully about whether supporting and aiding military strikes against Iran is in the best interests of Americans. Israel uses American weapons to launch its attacks, and it relies on American technology to protect its own citizens from Iranian counterattacks. Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks from hostile foreign powers and terrorists, but it does not have the right to single-mindedly drag the U.S. into yet another boondoggle in the Middle East, particularly without congressional authorization.
I just introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with @RepRoKhanna to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war.
This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. pic.twitter.com/LuIl59lt45
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 17, 2025
Unfortunately, this is exactly what's happening: In the midst of these attacks, President Donald Trump's negotiations with the Iranians have faltered, and he now seems poised to take the very action he swore off during his campaign. So much for that "no new wars" promise.
Just Asking Questions
Carlson, a Fox News host turned independent media giant, is hardly alone among podcasters in evincing skepticism about doing Israel's bidding in the Middle East. Joe Rogan is perturbed. Theo Von has expressed horror over Israel's campaign in Gaza. Dave Smith says he regrets voting for Trump and even thinks he should be impeached for breaking his promise not to start new wars. And those are just the plausibly right-adjacent podcasters; left-leaning ones, like Cenk Uygur, Mehdi Hasan, and Glenn Greenwald are also speaking up.
Now consider the mainstream media. Admittedly, I have not watched every single second of commentary on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or Fox News this past week, nor have I read every column in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Thus if the following impression is false, I stand ready to apologize. But it certainly does not appear to be the case that legacy media commentary is intensely critical of what's about to take place in the Middle East. This is not particularly surprising—in the run-up to the Iraq War, mainstream media institutions were supportive on balance and frequently provided important justifications for the Bush administration. The New York Times was a particularly egregious offender.
It's a good thing, then, that this time around, there is a healthy alternative media environment where skepticism of military interventionism can flourish. If we were constrained by the narrow range of permissible views within mainstream discourse, it would be much more likely that the voices of regime-change cheerleaders would drown out more sober-minded noninterventionists.
Let's hope Trump is listening to the latter. While it's doubtless true that the MAGA base will back the president no matter what, he should keep in mind that he owes his reelection at least in part to his successful outreach on these very platforms: Joe Rogan, Theo Von, etc. These personalities listen to their viewers, and their viewers—the young males with whom Trump overperformed in the 2024 election—do not want another war.
This Week on Free Media
Check out me and Amber Duke on the now-deleted tweets from Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), Dave Smith turning on Trump, Mike Huckabee's thirst for apocalypse, and more.
Worth Watching
Last weekend, I was at FreedomFest in Palm Springs, California. It was a spectacular time this year: Ross Ulbricht delivered a moving speech on the mistreatment of prisoners.
On my return flight, I watched Joker: Folie à Deux, the musical sequel to the Joaquin Phoenix Joker movie. I liked, but did not love, the original. It's one of those cases where the trailer, while very good, was basically the whole movie. (Honestly, the 25-second teaser trailer is even better!) I appreciated what director Todd Phillips was trying to accomplish, and I quite liked the visuals, settings, and certain adaptations of the Batman story. It just didn't add up to all that much. It seemed like the film wanted desperately to say something profound or even political—but then it just ends.
The sequel was not very good at all and comes across as completely, almost aggressively unnecessary, like they twisted Phillips' arm to force him to do it, and he made this in order to have his revenge. I did enjoy Lady Gaga's portrayal of Harley Quinn. The guy who played Harvey Dent was pretty good, too; I kept waiting for him to lose half of his face, which eventually did happen as a result of just about the most groan-inducing deus ex machina imaginable.
Anyway, I'm calling for a total shutdown on cinematic portrayals of Joker and Harley Quinn for the immediate future. We've seen a lot of these characters lately. Enough is enough.
