Kruiser’s (excellent) Morning Briefing is the exception, because it receives a dedicated daily eblast. But for the most part, all the other columns you see on PJ Media sink or swim via audience reaction from the site and app: If the column is popular, it stays — and if it doesn’t get clicks, it’s quickly replaced by one that does.
‘Cause competition is fierce: On any given day, there could be 20+ original articles. Lots of great, talented writers are constantly uploading content. But only a small percentage ever finish in the top three.
And it’s all decided by you.
Over time, most PJ Media writers develop a feel for the kinds of articles that resonate with you guys. We learn what works and what fails — which articles go viral, and which ones go unclicked and unloved.
Naturally, we prioritize stories that (we think will) get more views.
The weird thing is, we still get it wrong. A lot! Way more often than you probably think.
I’ve actually asked our other writers: We’ve all written articles that we assumed had niche audience appeal, but did ‘em anyway, because we cared about the subject matter — and sometimes, that’s the one that goes straight to #1. For whatever reason, it was super popular.
And we’ve also done the opposite: We’ve all uploaded articles that we’re sure will be a viral sensation — but it turns out, nobody cared.
Last week, my least popular article was “The Greatest Con in Political PR History: The Blood Libel Lie of Israel’s ‘Genocide.’” I thought it was a well-crafted argument that could potentially make a dent in public discourse. But other than a few X posts, it barely made a ripple.
Only nine comments so far. (Sigh.)
My other articles about Israel, the Middle East, foreign policy, and genocide have fared much better. So why did this one flop and the others succeed?
Beats me.
Since writers are babies with sensitive feelings, we usually blame the headline when a story fails. I do it: If a story goes clickless, my first assumption was that the headline failed to solicit enough interest.
“Curses and drat. Another award-winning column from yours truly that was undermined by a lackluster header. What a shame my brilliance was unappreciated!”
Hey, it’s easier to blame the headline than the subject matter — or (gasp!) the article itself.
Because, let’s fact it: Not every article deserves to go viral.
But some do, and it’s a shame when they don’t.
The downside of today’s pay-per-click journalism model is that unethical writers will cast aside their honest judgment and chase views by publishing fan fiction: Instead of writing the truth, they write whatever they think their audience wants to believe.
The Daily Beast does this for liberal audiences. I’ve been on their email list since summer of 2025 and already have over 100 separate emails(!) about Donald Trump and/or leading Republicans being “humiliated,” “owned,” and “destroyed.”
Why did The Daily Beast write it?
Because their audience wanted to read it!
Welcome to the new media age: Never before have audience had more control over their content. Hey, I’m just a writer; you guys are now the editors. Virality or irrelevancy — and truth versus fiction — is all up to you.
Use your power wisely.
PRediction: The paradox of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting is that the more “normal” the alleged assassin, Cole Allen, seems to be, the worse the PR fallout will be for the Democrats. (Which I wrote about on Sunday.)
Presumably, the Democrats will counterprogram by “othering” Mr. Allen as much as possible: He was never REALLY a Democrat. Everyone knew he was a weirdo loner, third-party guy — someone who defied traditional political labels. This has nothing to do with our anti-Trump rhetoric, and everything to do with the unpredictability of the human psyche… and/or something-something-better-gun-laws.
And then, after “othering” him out of the party, the Dems will blame Trump for upsetting a delicate soul like Mr. Allen. They might not come right out and say it, but the implication will be that President Trump’s conduct triggered Allen’s meltdown: It was his fault!
And all those “Trump is Hitler” allegations and “No Kings” nonsense meant nothing.
The Democrats last PR hope will be Allen’s YouTube playlist: If it turns out he listened to, say, Joe Rogan, expect a flood of stories about the manosphere red-pilling gullible kids. They’ll blame influencers before they blame themselves.
But honestly? It’s a VERY tough PR sell. I doubt it’ll work.
The Republican’s PR pitch is easier: Here is another unstable leftist nutjob hellbent on murder. Please stop.
Sometimes, the best PR move is to simply tell the truth.
This is one of those times.
PRojection: Speaking of D.C. reporters… was I the only one who noticed a huge number of ‘em stealing bottles of booze on the way out of the dinner? Like, literally while the cameras were rolling?
[Checks X.] Nope, I guess not:
REPORTS EMERGE OF PRESS REPORTERS STEALING WINE BOTTLES FROM DINNER TABLE AFTER INCIDENT
— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) April 26, 2026
American elites caught on camera stealing wine bottles at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner attended by Donald Trump.
— Telangana Maata (@TelanganaMaata) April 26, 2026
Such behavior is often associated with rural or exceptional cases, but here it is seen among U.S. elites. pic.twitter.com/2GodCZlqG1
Not a great look, scribes.
PRaise: It was also noted how the men of MAGA instantly leaped to protect their women:
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐓𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐍 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏’𝐒 𝐂𝐈𝐑𝐂𝐋𝐄
— M.A. Rothman (@MichaelARothman) April 26, 2026
You can tell everything about a man by how he instinctively responds when it hits the fan. No rehearsal. No time to think. Just reflex.
In this photo from… pic.twitter.com/C4BzcT6mkA
By definition, a tragedy is an awful thing. But sometimes, it also brings out the best in us.
PRedators: Erika Kirk attended the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, too. As you can imagine, the specter of another gun-toting assassin was deeply upsetting for the young widow, and she left the event with tears in her eyes.
And I understand why the media reported on her heightened emotions: Like it or not, she’s newsworthy.
But I wish they hadn’t.
Because, this week, bottom-feeding “influencers” will use it to attack Mrs. Kirk’s character for the umpteenth time. A story like this is tailormade for the “talents” of people like Candace Owens.
Cruelty = clicks.
Get ready for another week of podcasts about Erika Kirk’s “acting.” And how she’s always looking for attention. And how everything about her is fake.
As long as that’s still the winning formula, this ugly smear campaign against Erika Kirk will go on… and on… and on.
