top of page

FIX CAPITALISM.
FIX THE AMERICAN DREAM.

Moving from "maximize profit" to optimize profit and the common good

Search

The Conflict Entrepreneurs

Updated: Oct 2

Someone's been stirring the pot . . . and creating a recipe for disaster that's motivated by profit. Meet the conflict entrepreneurs.


Conflict Entrepreneurs: A Definition

The murder of Charlie Kirk has shocked the country. Watching Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, speak about the tragic event on Meet the Press this past week, I heard him mention a phrase I was not familiar with: conflict entrepreneurs. Intrigued, I found the term with a quick Google search, which defined it as "someone who generates a profitable outcome and/or a large following by intentionally pitting people against each other."


There have always been conflict entrepreneurs. Think of Iago in the Shakespearean play, Othello, or Loki from Nordic mythology and the Avengers series. These characters create disharmony and chaos through the clever manipulation of their intended victims. They sow discord, tell half-truths, and are always on the lookout for ways to profit off of people's emotions. While we can find many historical people who have played this role, there is no lack of them in modern times either. Indeed, it seems they are more numerous, and they are clearly better equipped to reach much larger audiences.


Conflict Entrepreneurs in American History

With the advent of radio in the early 20th century, a number of highly successful conflict entrepreneurs emerged, including the notorious John R. Brinkley and Charles Coughlin. Brinkley was a combination of medical quack and talk radio host, while Coughlin promoted fascism, Anti-Semitism, and the supposed victimization of white people. His on-air attacks were manifested in the Christian Front, a paramilitary group founded in response to Coughlin's stated beliefs.


It was partially in response to people like Brinkley and Coughlin, as well as emerging media after WWII, that the Fairness Doctrine was passed by Congress in 1949. This legislation required broadcasters to set aside airtime to discuss issues of public concern, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. The doctrine applied primarily to commercial radio and television stations, which were licensed by the FCC, and it mandated that these outlets operate in the public's interest. Though not perfect in its execution, the Fairness Doctrine attempted to give listeners a fair presentation of the issues.


Modern Talk Warfare

Fast forward to 1987 and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which allowed for the start of modern, polarized talk radio and TV. It is not a coincidence that in 1988, Rush Limbaugh began his first national broadcast. Limbaugh is the generally acknowledged daddy of talk radio and was on the air until 2021. Many of us are familiar with his style; but for those who are not, his shows featured a mix of conservative talking points, political commentary, and unsupported claims.


Limbaugh's broadcasts reached an average daily audience of around 15.5 million listeners. His net worth when he died was around $600 million, proving the huge amount of profit to be found in controversy. Following in his footsteps, a parade of hosts (along with their estimated net worth) such as Sean Hannity ($300 million), Ann Colter ($10 million), Tucker Carlson ($420 million), Glenn Beck ($200 million), Dennis Prager ($20 million), Bill O'Reilly ($75 million), and Laura Ingraham ($40 million) carry on his legacy.


While left-leaning equivalents are harder to find, there are those on both sides who stir up moral outrage on a consistent basis. One example might be Rachel Maddow ($50 million) who, while better researched and more factual than the commentators listed above, still tends to evoke similarly incensed reactions.


These commentators incite their audience with inflammatory language and an "us vs. them" worldview, all while making a tidy profit for themselves. They portray their opponents as existential threats to democracy and the American way of life. While there may be some truth to what they say, half-truths, innuendos, and downright fibs often accompany facts.


One possible way to assess if a commentator is a conflict entrepreneur is to search for them on PolitiFact, a non-profit fact-checking website that rates statements people make on a scale of "True" - "Pants on Fire." For example, 84% of Rush Limbaugh's claims were rated as "Mostly False" - "Pants On Fire." Zero percent were rated "True." You can do your own checking by clicking here.


Tactics of the Conflict Entrepreneurs

According to Dr. Philipp Markolin, there are six main tactics that these commentators use to draw in their audiences while promoting their own pleasure, power, and/or profit:


  1. Just Asking Questions - Shaping conversations by asking bad faith questions that activate doubt or intensify either/or thinking.

  2. Sensationalist Storytellers -Using sensational, intriguing, emotional, or outrageous stories to shape conversations, even when they are baseless, speculative, or plainly false.

  3. Home Sleuthing Amateurs - Attracting an audience by finding and promoting unexplained phenomena or coincidences that seem at odds with official narratives.

  4. Contrarian Experts - Increasing visibility and status by exploiting journalistic norms of balance to present a controversy that counters widely accepted beliefs.

  5. Grandstanding Moralists - Expressing outrage to amplify the emotional power of a message and intensify conflict through polarization.

  6. Toxic Mudslingers - Using character assassination, scapegoating, and blame to discredit opponents.


While all are harmful, these tactics are listed from least to most corrosive. You can find an expanded explanation of these strategies on this excellent YouTube video by Media Education Lab.


It's important to remember that conflict entrepreneurship is not limited to individuals. Certain groups are dedicated to stirring up conflict, and foreign actors (such as Russia and China) can also contribute to disharmony and confusion.


Fueling the Fire

The media's current economic system inspires people to become conflict entrepreneurs. Through these tactics, they can procure book deals, podcasts, broadcast spots, and speaking engagements that are all highly lucrative. By stirring up people's emotions, they send a call to action, which could be to support a cause, buy a product, or join a movement. The heightening of emotion also compels listeners to keep tuning in to a particular program, either from FOMO, because it gives them a sense of belonging, or as a way of protecting themselves from perceived threats.


The effects on our culture have been all too apparent and devastating, with heightened polarization occurring to the point of real concern. Instead of people seeing those with whom they disagree as simply having a different opinion, persons on the opposite side of the political fence are seen more and more as a threat. This viewpoint is blatantly encouraged by the conflict entrepreneurs, whose profit is directly tied to the amount of controversy they can keep stirring up.


Disengagement Is the Key

So how do we fix this alarming situation? The power is actually (and often literally) in the hands of the people. The first step is education, specifically media literacy. In addition to the six signs of conflict entrepreneurship above, keep the following items in mind:


  1. Legislation: Besides the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed the rules surrounding the media. Because of this law, many political radio programs became syndicated and began airing through various national outlets.

  2. Ownership: Not only did the 1996 act allow these programs to go national, it also allowed the power of media companies to be consolidated and run by fewer and fewer businesses over time. For instance, the Salem Media Group owns over 115 radio stations and is the main distributor of conservative talk radio. In addition, these six companies own almost all US media: National Amusements, Disney, Time Warner, Comcast, News Corp, and Sony. You can see their subsidiaries, assets, and CEO salaries here.

  3. Algorithms: You probably already know this, but your choices will set the algorithm for what you see next in your social media feed. In other words, the system will reward whatever choices you make with more of the same to create your personal echo chamber. As the old saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out."

  4. "News" Is Not Always News: Distinguish between factual reporting and commentary. Many programs that have the look of a news broadcast are actually political talk shows.


The bottom line is that conflict entrepreneurship represents the worst kind of capitalism. It is beneficial for only the limited few who create it, while wreaking havoc in people's lives and in our country. The only way we can stop it is by cutting off the fuel to the fire. Don't forget that when something is free, it means that you are the product. It's up to you, then, to stop letting these companies and individuals use you in this way.


Instead, find better ways to spend your time: read a novel, take a walk, or start that project you've been wanting to tackle. When you do hear one of these commentators, ask yourself whether he or she is using any of the tactics listed above to stir the pot for no productive reason. As Russell Moore concludes in his insightful article on this subject, "Conflict entrepreneurs can only succeed where there are conflict customers." Let's covenant here and now to put them out of business.


For further reading: High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out, by Amanda Ripley


ree

Fix Capitalism. Fix the American Dream.


Our vision is to benefit society by transforming capitalism's current core ethic of 'maximize shareholder value' to the better core ethic of 'optimize mutual value.' We achieve our vision by impacting learning, opinion, beliefs, and policy. Institute for Better Capitalism, Inc.




"This book merits close, sustained attention as a compelling move beyond both careless thinking and easy ideology."—Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary


"Better Capitalism is a sincere search for a better world."—Cato Institute


The Institute for Better Capitalism, Inc., is a 501(c)(3). We invite and are grateful for financial partners in this work. We invite you to donate here or contact us for more information. Thanks!



 


Comments

bottom of page