VOA Has Fallen, but Crazier Denigration of China Is Coming

The recent demise of Voice of America (VOA) is partly due to escalating partisan conflicts and partly an inevitable outcome of the decentralized social media era. In this age, sovereign institutions find that their external propaganda efforts through platforms like VOA are increasingly inefficient, while their domestic ideological influence continues to wane.

In reality, social media has become the new host for VOA’s original functions. The role of ideological agitator or propagandist once played by VOA has not only been replaced but even amplified in the social media era. For example, the MAGA base and right-wing groups are now widely disseminating populist narratives and conspiracy theories—both domestically (e.g., fentanyl-related claims) and internationally through mass media. While these right-wing conspiracy theories serve as tools for external attacks, they are increasingly weaponized as internal cohesion mechanisms. As U.S.-China power dynamics shift, America’s reliance on such domestic brainwashing propaganda will grow. Following Kamala Harris’ electoral defeat, Democratic Party insiders are even contemplating whether to emulate Trump by adopting left-wing populism and conspiracy theories to mobilize voters.

Ironically, MAGA factions occasionally express admiration for China, viewing its stance on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and industrial development as ideologically aligned with their preferences. Vice President J.D. Vance’s rhetoric about “hierarchical love” has been mockingly labeled “Confucianism”. This love-hate dynamic between the MAGA movement and China will likely persist long-term.

Today’s political podcasts are now occupying the niche once held by VOA as the exporter of ideology and “color revolution”. These podcasts thrive in Western societies, particularly in the U.S., most of whom explicitly define their political leanings from the outset to cultivate loyal audiences. They gain traction through extended debates on trending topics, real-time interactions with the audience, and interviews of high-profile guest.
The rise of social media has democratized information creation, further eroding mainstream media’s influence or capability of controlling. YouTube-based political podcasts are now becoming the newest blue-eyed boys. Whether left-leaning or right-leaning, they unabashedly claim positions once held by media giants.
Joe Rogan is among the best representatives. With 40 million followers, he has political influence that surpasses many traditional politicians. During the peak of the 2024 election, both Trump and Harris sought interviews on his show. Eventually Trump secured a three-hour in-depth discussion, and Rogan publicly endorsed him in the campaign’s final days.

Trump returning to power has fully grasped the social media era’s dynamics. To him, institutions like VOA no longer warrant political contestation—discarding these “obsolete Democratic Party relics” is far more efficient. Thus, VOA’s fate was sealed.

Joe Rogan

Advantages of Political Podcasts

Compared with state-directed entities like VOA or even all mainstream media, these podcasts hold two irreplaceable advantages in ideological propagation:

1. Speed: Podcasts react to news and share their viewpoints instantaneously, feeding social media’s insatiable demand for real-time emotional engagement. Audiences crave immediate suggestions and directives from those podcasts. Those who first obtain narrative advantages earliest dominate in framing events.

While mainstream media remain fixated on reporting facts, political podcasts have already begun framing and interpreting these issues, rapidly disseminating their conclusions through social media platforms. Truth and factual accuracy have become secondary concerns—or rather, truth itself is increasingly recognized, to a great extent, as a subjectively constructed concept. After all, ideological agitators prioritize maintaining internal coherence within their idealogical narratives above all else.

What makes this situation worse is that no matter how streamlined mainstream outlets make their production workflows or editorial controls, they remain fundamentally outpaced in the velocity game by these grassroots political podcasts.

2. Empathy: The second advantage lies in empathy. From a metaphysical perspective, the dissemination and agitation of ideology involve transforming individuals into members of specific communities. Empathy serves as the critical bond sustaining these connections. As analyzed in the author’s earlier discussion of Trump and Zelenskyy’s populist performances at the White House, this empathy artificially constructs a pseudo-familial bond among members who might otherwise lack real-world intersections. In simpler terms, it makes people feel, “He’s truly one of us.”

Objectively, political podcasts’ self-defined positioning along the political spectrum naturally attracts audiences with aligned ideological preferences. This pre-screening mechanism lays a solid foundation for building ideologically homogeneous communities. Algorithm-driven echo chambers further reinforce group identity through shared similarities, drastically accelerating the “birds of a feather flock together” phenomenon. If you lean Democratic, you might treat Vaush and Hasan’s words as gospel; if Republican, Rogan and Shapiro’s takes will inevitably resonate more.

Subjectively, political podcasts abandon rigid didacticism in favor of highly colloquial language and casual delivery, fostering an intimate, friend-like rapport with audiences. This approach perfectly capitalizes on the growing anti-establishment sentiment amid the crumbling neoliberal world order. The public no longer wants homogenized analyses or repetitive indoctrination from mainstream media—they crave “authenticity” and “humanity.” This anti-establishment mood was a key factor in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, as Trump’s brash persona—unlike her technocratic demeanor—felt viscerally “real.

Impact of Political Podcasts

While these podcasts may resemble China’s amateur political commentators in form, their influence diverges starkly due to societal differences. U.S. political podcasts wield growing western or even global clout—evidenced by Rogan’s front-row presence at Trump’s inauguration or Hasan’s being invited to Democratic National Conventions.

For China’s political commentators yearning to be opinion leaders, maximal influence still confines them to “cyber strategist” roles. In contrast, U.S. podcasters like Rogan command unprecedented leverage: “If Harris wants an interview, she comes to Texas—I won’t bend to D.C. My show runs three hours and the time is not negotiable, take it or leave it.” This may exemplify the image of China’s political commentators’ idealization of themselves.

Globally, internet penetration erodes the border and physical distance’s capability of preventing instantaneous transmission of information. Two Chinese citizens with opposing views and values might clash violently over a podcast’s take, causing serious antagonism. In this meaning, we probably have to admit how these platforms have surpassed VOA and mainstream media in ideological reach.

Trump himself is the world’s ultimate “podcaster.” His social media barrage directly energizes supporters, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. Meanwhile, legacy media’s persistent paternalism—exemplified by hollow “Fake News” accusations—only accelerates their credibility collapse, driving audiences toward alternative platforms.

In stark contrast, even when traditional media recognize this phenomenon, they cannot suppress their impulse to mold archetypes for public edification. Behind this lies the structural constraints inherent to legacy media institutions. Through repeated cycles of such “educational” efforts, these outlets progressively erode their own credibility, driving more people into the arms of political podcasts. Trump’s “Fake News” mantra has now become deeply entrenched in public consciousness—to the extent that even Democrats have begun adeptly wielding this rhetorical playbook.

Joe Rogan & Donald Trump

The “Patronage Era” and Global Backlash

In the background of Trump’s returning to power and Joe Rogan’s efforts, it appears that MAGA and right-wing factions are dominating public voice, but this may not be the truth. As Trump and Musk amplify right-wing narratives, Democrats and the “Global Enlightenment Coalition” (defenders of progressive liberalism, LGBT rights, and climate activism) fuel demand for opposing podcasts, which becomes a blue ocean.

Right-wing podcasts do have international appeal. Though Trumpist nativists lack ideological export ambitions, their clash with Democratic ideals necessitates holistic engagement—hence pro-Trump voices like Vance endorsing Germany’s AfD or Romania’s far-right candidates. Figures like Andrew Tate also belongs to this category (though he is a British influencer and not necessarily a podcast) .

However, Trump and right-wing factions fundamentally represent a rebellion against the neoliberal order’s globalization. The so-called “Global Enlightenment Coalition” primarily comprises groups across nations that self-identify as “world citizens”—referred to in the framework of “International Hierarchy” as servant leaders (servants, the lowest stratum within the international hierarchy. Western-constructed international hierarchies analogously position discriminated groups—including East Asians—as modern-day servants. Meanwhile, the “servant leaders” seek spiritual “class ascension” through mimicry of and ideological conversion to Western norms.). This group fervently embraces neoliberal globalization, predominantly belongs to the middle or upper classes, and possesses both the demand and financial means to fund political podcasts.

For the Democratic Party’s base and servant leaders, there is now an urgent need for a surge of political podcasts to counter MAGA propaganda and the assertive pushback from nations like China and Russia. This explains why representative podcasts such as The Young Turks and Pod Save America have uniformly condemned Trump’s dismantling of Voice of America.

Members of Pod Save America. (From left) Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Lovett, Jon Favreau, and Tommy Vietor of Crooked Media

On the international front, U.S. podcasters like Vaush criticize Keir Starmer’s abolition of the NHS’s independent bodies and Germany’s AfD party. To them, “Global America” necessitates imposing value judgments on foreign affairs that align with a “progressive American” worldview. If Trump and Musk endorse the AfD, these podcasters vehemently oppose it—particularly on inherently transnational issues like LGBT rights and environmentalism.

These podcasts targeting the “Global Enlightenment Coalition” audience also employ a language style steeped in ideological propaganda—for instance, equating Trump and his political allies to Nazis, a Manichean framing consistent with Voice of America’s Cold War-era “good vs. evil” binaries.
Ideological agitators and propagandists, once centralized within media institutions, have now dispersed into grassroots networks. Pro-Democrat political podcasts are injecting dogma into global echo chambers with unprecedented efficacy. The death of VOA only reinforces their conviction to indoctrinate the world with their ideology. This battle between “Two Americas” has already engulfed the entire globe.

Unlike VOA, which relied on government funding and faced shutdowns without it, these political podcasts—whether motivated by fame or profit—operate self-sufficiently. After all, the global “servant leaders” can foot the bill. Recent examples include YouTube influencers who previously avoided politics suddenly pivoting to China-bashing content, garnering exponentially higher viewership.

From this perspective, has the “Patronage” (funding for propaganda) for the “Global Enlightenment Coalition” dried up? Not at all. Instead of relying on handouts from the U.S. government or institutions like Japan’s Foreign Ministry, the vast global network of “servant leaders” now directly bankrolls a new generation of podcasting influencers. Far from shrinking, this market has expanded boundlessly. With the “patronage” supply remaining inexhaustible, the world has undeniably entered the “Great Patronage Era.”

Regardless, in this irreversible age of social media, the question of what ideological propagation truly signifies demands urgent re-examination by all nations and individuals. Everyone must now grapple for their own answers.

Editor: zylu