Tim Pool Is Not a Victim
Other far right commentators aren't either in this case
Imagine any political commentator on the left creating content secretly funded by the Ukrainian government. Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and practically any commentator on the right would be up in arms. The red meat would be tossed around on X and the swarms of red-pilled Muskovites would battle for the most outrageous takes.
“See, Zelensky is corrupt and trying to control all of us!”
“George Soros must be involved!”
But when Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others get their hands caught in the Russian cookie jar, they’re suddenly the “victims”?
.jpg){kind=link}
Taking money from a shady media company to create specific types of content without performing due diligence on who was funding that company is willfully blind at best and complicit at worst.
As the Justice Department indictment against two RT employees (Russian state-controlled media) indicates, at least one of the arrangements was a monthly fee of $400,000, plus a $100,000 signing bonus and additional performance bonuses in exchange for four weekly videos.
We still don’t know the full details about what Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin agreed to (and in exchange for what). We do know, based on the indictment, that there were some clear content agreements, including blaming the U.S. and Ukraine for a mass shooting at a Moscow music venue. One of these social media commentators said they were “happy to cover it” (their specific identities are masked in the indictment itself).
You can read more in-depth summaries about the allegations and the indictment here and here, but in this essay, I want to focus more on whether we should truly treat Tim Pool and his fellow social media pals as “victims.”
This should also be a reminder to all of us that we cannot completely trust anything we read, watch, or hear on the internet. It’s not always clear who is funding what and for what purpose, whether it’s traditional or independent media.
I repeat: Tim Pool is not a victim
I’m only singling out Tim Pool here because he is the social media personality — of the three we know who took Russian money — that I know best. Pool got his start in independent media during the Occupy Wall Street protests of the early 2010s. He’s always been a populist rabble-rouser, and admittedly, at times I agree with him.
But like many of his peers on the far right, he adjusts his commentary to the political winds. He has no evident principles. Even recent statements that appear to support the U.S. funding of Ukraine have come after intense criticism of Ukraine since the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022.
Pool appears to have even added a Ukrainian flag to his X profile (unclear whether this suddenly appeared after it was made public he took Russian money).
For the sake of argument though, let’s assume Tim Pool and his social media pals were legitimately duped. They had no idea that this guy was fake:
This is who Tim Pool and others were told was funding the media project that was paying them. A few simple Google searches could have revealed that this guy did not exist. It’s an even easier case of due diligence than all the celebrities who advertised for FTX without understanding the chaos going on at that company.
Pool and others didn’t once stop to think:
Why are they offering so much money? $400,000 per month, including a $100,000 signing bonus plus additional bonuses in exchange for four weekly videos is an outrageous amount of money. Even by big podcast and YouTube standards. And guys like Tim Pool are nowhere near the top of the podcast food chain that’s dominated by guys like Joe Rogan.
Why do they want my content to have a specific perspective? Even if it’s clear from the contract that Pool and others had “full editorial control”, Tenet Media (the media company organizing it all) was encouraging specific editorial coverage. They were not paying Pool and others for charity!
Why did they not question the shady source of funds? Eduard Grigorian? Seriously? Some unknown financier who popped out of nowhere is so worried about mainstream media bias that he’s throwing millions at three (and possibly more) far-right commentators. Anyone genuinely concerned about the source of funds would have asked a few more questions.
The combination of money, editorial direction, and shady funding should have sounded major alarm bells. Some will say that it’s always easier to judge these cases in hindsight. And that’s true. If Madoff was giving me 30% annual returns on my portfolio I’d be tempted to deposit my gains without any questions. If the female Steve Jobs told me she had revolutionized blood testing with one prick of the finger, I’d be tempted to invest. But if you’re going to get involved with something or someone, you need to ask questions unless you don’t care about damaging your bank account, criminal record, and overall reputation.
Tim Pool and others may want to frame themselves as victims. They may finally see the light now about how Putin habitually uses Westerners to spread his propaganda. Russians throughout history have infamously done the same. Those Westerners are called “useful idiots.”
But whether Tim Pool was unaware of the true source of funds or whether he was directly complicit is a question of intent. What’s not questionable is the fact he was at a minimum willfully blind. Nobody offers that amount of money without expecting something major in return. Something specific. A clear editorial perspective.
We must question everything in traditional and independent media
Everyone has bias. Some people are paid to promote theirs.
Just as I called out The New York Times for its reckless coverage of the war in Gaza, Tim Pool is reckless (at best) for producing content in exchange for Russian funds laundered through a random media company. Both traditional and independent media have this problem, but I’m skeptical of the latter far more.
Independent media figures like Tim Pool have a brand. Their brand is their name. Their names are associated with a narrative, perspective, and viewpoint.
Ever wonder why a centrist political commentator doesn’t make it big on the internet? Because people want their confirmation biases reinforced. Most won’t admit it, but given the choice between consuming someone they agree with versus someone they generally (or sometimes) don’t, they’ll choose the former far more often than the latter.
Sponsors and advertisers know this too. A Texas coffee company that has a gun on its logo probably won’t be looking to advertise on a left-leaning politics podcast. They’ll go for Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, or Dave Rubin.
The problem this creates is that commentators like Pool get stuck. Once they take money from sponsors with certain expectations, they risk losing the people who fund their livelihood if they have even one opinion that doesn’t fit the standard far-right narrative. It’s an endless feedback loop.
So when a random company like Tenet Media comes along and expects more of the same from Tim Pool, but also promises a fat payday — millions per year from one sponsor! — it’s too good to pass up, even if the funding is shady.
The biggest problem for Tim Pool and his victim argument is that it counters his standard narrative. He and his far-right commentator colleagues are supposed to be some of the best sleuths on the internet. They often argue about how they know what the “deep state” is doing, what conspiracy is at play against the American people, what the war in Ukraine is really about, and on, and on, and on.
But when the Russian crosshairs target Tim Pool as the useful idiot to communicate propaganda to the Western masses, Pool suddenly can’t track down the real intent behind his huge payday? Pool magically lost his sleuthing ability to read the internet tea leaves when they were about him?
Not only should you be cautious to trust independent sources (that don’t have teams of fact-checkers — yes, real journalism still has benefits!) you should also be cautious when believing any narrative those independent sources try to tell you about themselves.
Especially when that narrative is about being victimized for trying to get absurdly rich from shady sources.
Other great reads*:
Following the horrific shooting in Georgia this past week, I found this to be an insightful read in our publication, The Political Prism: Debunking 4 Major Myths of an Assault Weapons Ban by David B. Grinberg
No matter your political ideology, read why Yes, You Should Vote by Isaac Saul
Finally, this piece takes a unique angle on voting for Kamala Harris: The Conservative Case for Kamala by Colby Hess
*Note: I recently sent out the first newsletter for our politics publication, The Political Prism. If you’re interested in writing for us, let me know (we accept and welcome perspectives from across the political spectrum so long as they’re credibly sourced and well-written).