When your audience owns you

We have a tendency to trap ourselves in our own opinions. And the more tightly we cling to them, the more strongly held, the harder they are to escape.

It’s okay to disagree. It’s okay to be wrong. It’s more than okay to change your mind. But our culture doesn’t make that easy.

This is especially true for political commentators and those in adjacent spaces. For them, their views aren’t just opinions—they’re a product of sorts. Their product. Their livelihood depends on a clearly defined set of beliefs. Their audience, their colleagues, and their sponsors support them precisely because they align with those beliefs.

Imagine trying to change your mind in that environment. The audience pushes back. Revenue dries up. And where do you go from there? The so-called “other side,” whatever it might be, rarely welcomes converts warmly and with open arms—especially not ones who arrive with a complicated mix of views, some of which are palatable to them, and some of which are not.

I suspect many people we label “grifters” didn’t necessarily begin that way. Some genuinely believe what they promote out in the world. But the incentive structure doesn’t reward nuance or intellectual evolution—certainly not a change of heart. It rewards certainty. It rewards consistency. It rewards performance. Not only do they have audience capture to concern themselves with, but also being able to maintain income, ability to work, status, and belonging.

Say someone builds a career as a crusader against a particular institution. For example, a journalist who brands themselves entirely around exposing corruption in one political party—their entire ecosystem begins to depend on that framing. Their audience expects a steady stream of confirmation, as do their peers and financial backers.

But if they later discover corruption is more evenly distributed than they once believed, publicly acknowledging that complicates their brand.

Similarly, if someone builds a career as a promoter of one ideological camp, they grow an audience doesn’t truly look for objective analysis. They follow them for confirmation, reinforcement. Deviation is betrayal.

Same with a wellness influencer who built a massive following around rejecting mainstream medicine. Their “skepticism” ensures their audience and sponsorships remain. But if they happen to find evidence that might contradict their core claim, it all falls apart. The entire house of cards. So they simply do not look.

In each case, nuance dilutes the clarity that helped build their following.

So instead of adjusting course, they either narrow their lens further or stay silent and ignore the inconvenience facts that may offend the system to which they now belong. A system that rewards allegiance and punishes deviation. A system that controls them. A system that has them trapped.

Questioning such a system comes with a cost. One that many are unprepared to pay.

So what’s the solution? Being unpredictable.

The only way to avoid becoming trapped is to build an audience that values independence over conformity. An audience that’s anchored in curiosity. An audience that’s comfortable with disagreement. One that doesn’t require you to hold a fixed worldview, but asks instead that you explain your reasoning honestly and revise it when necessary. An audience grounded in principles, not tribal loyalty. An audience that doesn’t demand bread and circus, outrage, or ideological bloodsport.

And paradoxically, the way to build that audience is to refuse to perform for it.

There’s no need to seek out applause and praise. You don’t give the audience the conclusions they’d like. You simply follow the argument, the little breadcrumbs, wherever they might lead you. Even when it upsets or surprises your supporters. Even when it costs you.

Those who stick with you, are the ones that will keep you free.

If you found this story useful, please consider supporting my work by sharing, becoming a paid subscriber, or making a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee ☕️.