Dear Elon Musk,
Having shows with “prominent names” from both political sides on X won’t help bring more users to your site. Washed-up notables like Don Lemon (who you rightfully squeezed) or Shepard Smith will cost you more than you should be paying and will be more of a headache than they are worth.
Names who would attract more users — like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly — already recognize they have the ability to make more money without your help. This being said, you do have options other than those ‘prominent names’ you are looking for.
If all you want is to further create users’ filter bubbles via your aggregators, buy Democracy Now and Blaze Media. Both represent the left and right side of the spectrum (respectively) and both already have the infrastructure to produce biased news shows. This would save you a lot of headaches instead of building from the ground up, and save you money in the long run.
You could also purchase Substack and select a few columns which could service you well. Merging would after all be easy as it would bring significant attention to your articles section on X, a feature which might entice more people to purchase a Pro subscription.
Another alternative is to use AI. You already have the capability via Gork. Witty scripts about news events can quickly be written with AI. Then, pull a Roger Ailes, put a good-looking 22-year-old in front of a camera, and tell her to read. It would certainly catch the eye of the 62% of men who use X. If you’d want to go a less sleazy route, contact Walter Cronkite’s family to use his voice and likeness. The most trusted man in America reading the news once more. What could be better than that? For several ethical reasons, I don’t believe this is the right way to go about things. It’s better if you leave Gork like HAL 9000 so we can better understand the meaning of life.
What I believe you are trying to do with X is break the media. If this is the case, you need people who believe in what you are doing. Breaking Points has a podcast, a decent-sized following, and you might be able to pay Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball more than what they make on Supercast. You could also keep it simple and give columnists with a large following a show, like Brian Cates and Ezra Klein. One is right, one is left. You are representing both sides and call it a day. May I also suggest, you’d need someone who can call the media out on their bulls— (*cough cough*, I do this very well.)
Yup, it totally sucks that you overpaid for X. Mostly because the legal system doesn’t understand the idea or concept of “bots.” The media’s coverage of your purchase and what happened after also hasn’t helped you. I’m sure you remember these headlines:
Bloomberg: December 18, 2022: Musk’s Volatility Is Alienating Twitter’s Top Content Creators
(In the first sentence they call your content policy moves “haphazard.” This is subjective phrasing)
CNN: Oct 10, 2023: Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover marks a chaotic year since the billionaire made X his spot
(The word “chaotic” is sensationalist and should not have been used here)
CBS: Jan 2, 2024: Elon Musk’s X worth 71.5% less than it was when he bought the platform in 2022, Fidelity says
(Well duh, the previous owners weren’t honest about users and bots which is why you walked away from the deal. Not your fault even though this headline makes it seem to be.)
Not only are these headlines misleading and/or sensationalist, they prove many outlets are against you and want to see X fail.
I only started regularly using X again after your purchase because I want to be less filter-bubbled and more cognizant of the madness from both sides of the aisle. I, like many others, put my trust in your algorithms to make my X feed so. In the United States, 48% of your users want the latest news. On average, they spend 35 minutes per day on X. It’s not going to take much to expand users or time on the app. You just need originality.
Part of why I believe most people trusted Cronkite in the first place is because his newscast was only 15 minutes. Every single outlet talks about the same 5-7 topics with talking heads, reporters, etc.
Making a good neutral newscast does not take long. However, it takes an extreme amount of effort and knowledge of what neutrality looks like. Sadly, most people today don’t know what this looks like. So the challenge becomes not just showing neutral news but also educating people on neutral news.
Elon Musk, you have a long road ahead of you. While “prominent names” in the short term may help, in the long haul they will be a detriment to your brand. Be original, be inventive, but most importantly, please don’t be another outlet that features talking heads. We need freedom from the echo chambers and X could be it.
Yours Truly,
Krystina Alarcon Carroll
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a news media columnist and features writer for Barrett Media. She has experience in almost every facet of the industry including: digital and print news; live, streamed, and syndicated TV; documentary and film productions. Her prior employers have included NY1 and Fox News Digital and the Law & Crime Network. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
Chaotic was precisely the right word to use. It’s not because of bot numbers. X’s wounds are self inflicted. Advertisers pulled because they don’t want their brands to appear next to Nazi nonsense and antisemitism or videos of porn and bodies dragged under cars. Linda has no power under Elon. Elon virtue signals about free speech but only if you don’t criticize him (see Scott Galloway and hundreds of others). It’s a troll fest. Richest person in the US, who created wonderful SpaceX has time to troll all day and retweet conspiracies? Chaotic by self infliction is exactly what it is. Social platforms that enjoy Congressional protections are not simple public billboards. If there is an algorithm then they are entertainment companies.